RE: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

Joe E. Dees (
Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:11:03 -0500

From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	RE: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to:

> <I see nothing that indicates that your definition is accepted.
> The internal logic of the post argues for the interpretation which I
> suggest.
There is no logic internal to your thick skull, Buttster!
> <Please quote sources rather than making unsubstantiated statements...
> Though you assume that I must defer to an accepted authority to
> substantiate my arguments, I do not follow that truth is merely
> something based on a string of authorities (SOMEONE must work out the
> logic of a thing).
But it obviously ain;t gonna be you; you lack the cognitive prerequisites to piss in a gallon milk jug.
> <<... that are prima facia you redefining words on the fly such that
> your meaning is "private", i.e. unshared and worthless.
> I also disagree that there CAN BE a "private" argument (*private* worlds
> suggest the "you can't get there from here" paradox); as well, I
> disagree that what is "unshared" is thereby "worthless" (a falsehood
> which is shared is still a falsehood and a truth does not need to be
> agreed upon to be true).
No, your sick and twisted solipsistic dementia has driven you to assert, contend, and, I suppose, even genuinely believe that the Universe is exactly how you say it is even when your "positions" (and that is being generous with the language) contradict themselves and each other, are filled with convoluted nugatory claptrap and set a new standard for meaninglessness.
> <Where do you imagine that your supposed pre-selection facility
> originated? As it stands, this is an unsupported hypothesis. A poor one,
> as it pre-supposes that the supposed "pre-selector agent" was
> "pre-selected" which leads directly into the "first cause" fallacy.
> That a thing might be caused to happen is not a "fallacy"... you are
> misinterpreting *logic* (reasoning which is founded on a principle of
> "non-contradiction"-- an idea which suggests a unified [non-divided]
> source)... you are refuting logic using your bias AGAINST anything which
> suggests order: Do you think that order might be derived from a) that
> which does not exist (is not prime)? or b) that which is not caused to
> happen (Is arbitrary? Is without logical effect?).
You cannot answer or refute his logical point, therefore you retreat into your passive-agressive little puritanical prison, from where you shout that since something refutes your point and cannot be disproven, to so destroy your remote semblance of an argument must be 'evil' and against the Great God without friends, sanity, sex or employment, the Illustrious Buttster.
> Still, you ALMOST asked a non-pointed question ("What is a
> "pre-selector?). I answered this below... but will expand upon my
> answer.
You possess a pointed skull, and have no capacity to understand or answer anything.
> <<This *pre-selection* criteria [follows from a simple logical
> assumption. It is assumed that material reality seeks an optimum
> arrangement. This ideal organization (ex. water flows, IDEALLY, to the
> sea) materializes as a pattern of events (ex. river systems are formed
> to accomplish this in ever increasing levels of efficiency). This
> ability to form an ever-evolving, increasingly efficient and consistent
> pattern... ] suggests a meta-physical environment (one which includes
> non-local survival strategies), a post-chance selection pattern (a
> pattern which has the potential ordering to NOT be negated through
> competition to an 50/ 50 chance for survival), and a logical action (a
> necessary effect which REPLICATES successful patterns-- showing
> "intent"... as contrasted from the idea of mutation).
Here the mindless bot repeats his previous inanities.
> <Why should a "preselection criteria" suggest a "meta-physical
> environment" to you?
> If one assumes a PATTERN of optimum efficiency and consistency, this is
> one-and-the-same as assuming an abstract *selection criteria*: Support
> for such assumptions will always be "non-local* (ex. water in an
> upstream lake does not prove the "water flows to the ocean" theory...
> the "proof" is in the ocean. Such proof must be found in the "meta"
> environment).
You are the ludicrous ass making all the ridiculous assumptions around here.
> <Would a filter acting as a "pre-selection criteria" (e.g. two rocks in
> a stream bed selecting the maximum size of flotsam that could appear
> downstream) imply a "meta-physical environment"... Why does
> "pre-selection" imply "post-selection"?
> Yes, this is a good example. The selection criteria ("two rocks") only
> "pre" selects assuming a meta-environment (which is forever
> "downstream") and the *post-selection* event (a particular type of
> "flotsam" arriving at any point) may only be definable, as such,
> according to the established (pre) selection criteria.
Meds, Buttster; NOW!
> Because of this, "pre" and "post" would appear to be context dependent
> on how "now" is defined. This confusion may be resolved using the
> rationale provided by the proposed optimum pattern-- perhaps a "proto-
> meme". The *proto-meme* may be thought of as a true (non-context
> dependent) "preselection- criteria"... OR it may be described by a
> physical law (or standard) according to which continued filtering (in
> this case) might work toward a prime effect (clean water... and whether
> affirmed by human or divine agents, or not... BTW).
Divine agents, hmmm? Maybe it's to late even for meds, and you're ready for Basketweaving 101 and the rubber room. Have you considered a healthy dose of nonsense-negating electroshock therapy?
> In this way, "here-and-now" is seen as a spatial-temporal "event-action"
> (as if the water has already arrived downstream in a FILTERED form). It
> is only according to such patterned-events that we might justify the
> perception whereby rocks are FILTERS and flotsam is FILTERED-OUT.
If you filtered the garbage from your posts, there would be nothing left of them.
> <... To have a difference, you need to refer to two things...
> To have a difference requires only one "thing" and/or an action.
> Difference is a property of space and time (here is different from
> there, now is different from then): Space and time are concepts which
> are inseparable from the properties of existence (height, width, length)
> and action, or being (now, then, again, yet...).
Relativity, Buttster; you're neglecting the frame of reference from which the perspective upon an object issues (that's your second thing). You forget yourself. If only we could...
> ps. I do not have the time or energy to think for you. You may have to
> dispose of your tendency to doubt and explore some of the ideas my posts
> outline-- for yourself.*
You don't possess the brains to think for yourself, and prove this simple fact anew with every worthless post.
> *Failing to think for yourself, NO amount of explaining can convince you
> of something which you choose to doubt... I suggest you internalize a
> standard for ACCEPTANCE, instead of doubt, and use this to discern
> variations of "truth" (as opposed to pursuing arguments which maintain
> your skepticism-- which only "proves" falsities).
In other words, Be-Leeve, Infidel, in the raving rants of the lunatic Holy Man, Buttster, for knowledge and evidence and logic may not with him tread.
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO:
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: