| View profile of simul
| 1 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: Preparing the world for clandestine biowarfare |
on: 2005-10-23 22:09:53 |
There have been many epidemics throughout history. And there have been many vectors, from rats, mosquitos, birds and more. But the repeated slaughter of millions of birds in China is a strange phenomenon unique to 21st century global politics.
It occurred to the paranoid part of me that the repeated scares over avian flu could be, possibly, a preparation for biowarfare.
Desensitizing the masses, and preparing a well-known excuse - in case people start dying.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
  
|
| 2 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org |
on: 2005-09-24 10:49:09 |
The word "rational thought" is often misused as well - to mean "accepting the current standard scientific viewpoint".
There is also a superiority complex among so-called "rational" thinkers.
However, irrational thought has its purposes.
Unreasoning faith and irrationality are highly conserved genetic traits. In fact the so-called "god gene" may have been isolated.
Rational thinkers are unwilling to take large risks in order to test hypotheses.
Irrational thinkers may not be aware that their irrational viewpoints are merely nonstandard hypotheses. However, taken as a collective, they test these hypotheses to limits which rational thinkers cannot.
A large portion of SETI foundation is funded by so-called irrationalists who actually believe that aliens have been visiting the earth.
SETI is valid science that is pushing the limits of computation and analysis.
Astrology fueled astronomy.
My guess is that a large part of every legitimate scientific effort was funded and fueled by legions of "irrationalists" who, for better or worse, helped make progress posible.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:46:12
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org
[Blunderov] Hello Colby and thanks for dropping us a line. I take your point
about being closed to currently unthinkable possibilities. I think, though,
that the scientific method, which has always been encouraged by the
luminaries of Virus, takes this into account. A fact is never held to be
anything more than provisionally true and subject to falsification at any
future time.
Shermer, for instance, does not hold, I am reasonably certain, that psychic
power is impossible per se, only that there currently is no adequate reason
to suppose that it is.
A personal instance; not so long ago I was convinced that time travel was a
completely impossible thing and I still am so convinced, only for rather
different reasons than before! Effectively I have come to a different
conclusion in spite of the fact that the affect remains the same. (For now,
that is; I would love to be proved wrong.)
The idea that 'rationality' is a very closed off and impermeable world view
has gained considerable currency. In particular, superstitious persons whose
stock-in-trade is 'proving from the negative' are very fond of fanning these
flames. Important to note though, is that Virians hold dogmatism to be a
sin. Dogmatism (to me) means assimilating a 'truth' to the point where it
goes unquestioned for so long that it becomes 'sacred'. The 'sin' of dogma
is not so much a sin as a stern reminder that 'all good philosophers'
constantly reexamine their assumptions 
IMO: 'impossible' is word best reserved for analytical problems;
'improbable' is better word for questions of fact. Too often, I grant, (and
I have myself sometimes been guilty of this) they are used interchangeably.
Best Regards.
David Lucifer
Sent: 24 September 2005 04:10
<snip>
Colby Thompson writes...
...Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more
effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical
belief alone. I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility
regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. </snip>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 3 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / RE: virus: Give the devil his due? Maybe not. |
on: 2005-09-16 15:20:00 |
What Google Alerts do you have set?
Mine are "transhumanism" and "thermal depolymerization"?
Can we do a virus poll.
I'd be very interested to see the results.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
> Of Blunderov
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:09 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Give the devil his due? Maybe not.
>
> [Blunderov] I was a bit surprised when Bush fired Brown, although he tried
> very hard not to. (IMO this wriggling itself turned out to be a throwing
> of
> good political capital after bad when he had to fire him anyway. It must
> have (?) amplified public perception of suspect judgement.) For GW this
> verged on an admission of guilt, not his habitual style. It sets a
> dangerous
> (for him) precedent, and one from which he may not be able to retreat so
> easily.
>
> <sneaking and pouncing music> And the Plame game has not gone away. My
> Google alerts have shown increased activity of late. Now more than ever,
> the
> constrained firing of Rove would be hugely damaging to GW.
>
> The mango approaches the turbine?
>
> http://www.tuftsdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/14/43279d1ad8a00
>
> "It is clear that Karl Rove has begun to think outside the box in an
> effort
> to prevent the President's approval rating from falling below freezing.
> His
> new strategy appears to be to make Bush seem like a responsible adult.
> Humility and accountability are valued leadership qualities and are to be
> commended. But if Rove is serious about releasing his lame duck back to
> the
> pond of political viability, humility and accountability should be
> extended
> retrospectively to the initial five years of the Bush Administration."
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-
> bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 6 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: The 10 Stupidest Things Pat Robertson Ever Said |
on: 2005-08-27 15:00:23 |
"The large segment of our society that wants to demonize Robertson will get
no fodder from my interview with him, and the large segment of folks who
like him won't find anything in the interview to change their mind, either."
This isn't a compliment. It's a politically neutral comment designed to "not annoy" the wealthy and powerful man who helped promote his book.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 7 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: The 10 Stupidest Things Pat Robertson Ever Said |
on: 2005-08-26 12:11:40 |
You misinterpreted, misread or probably just didn't read what the author of Freakonomics wrote.
He basically said that the 700 club was *very* professionally run. Also he said that he never met Roberts, so he doesn't have an opinion of him one way or another.
He did say that he would recommend John Stewart for president.
I agree.
John's not the sort of person who would want to be president.
I always felt that anyone who want to be president should be denied the job. Since anyone that power-hungry is an inappropriate.
Presidency should be more like a draft.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 8 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / RE: virus: The Democrofascists. |
on: 2005-08-19 11:27:13 |
> (My mother once remarked that any time you hear a person use the phrase
> 'I had no choice', you may be reasonably certain that what they
> really mean is that they didn't like the other one. I'm willing to
> predict that we will hear quite a lot more of this false dichotomising
> in the future. Phooey.)
Most likely what they really mean is that the other choices *required too
much effort*. Laziness (sloth) is a cardinal (and secular) sin, that
swiftly leads to corruption. I'd say it's responsible for much of the
decline of many an empire.
I've had my highs and lows. Each low is triggered by a prior success
leading to a glut and a period of demotivation followed by a search and then
a renewed motivation. In me it's typically not excessive. So far.
This is a typical cycle. If the highs (motivated) are extremely high and
the lows (demotivated) are extremely low, we call it manic-depressive
disorder (in people). In a town we call it "boom and bust".
This cycle also occurs on a country-wide scale, but the consequences can be
devastating.
In some ways, extremes of success should be *avoided* - since they can lead
to longer periods of down-time and a risk of running into a depression
cycle.
The internet boom and bust could have triggered a depression. Some say it
was narrowly avoided. I say we still aren't sure that it hasn't occurred.
Are people as motivated as they once were? Are Americans inspired to be
creative?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 9 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Is your boss a psychopath? |
on: 2005-07-29 17:20:02 |
What's more, the rate at which affluent boss-types breed seems to be reduced. So, not only do we placate them with the baubles afforded by wealth, but we are less likely to see their perticular line of mutation recur.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 10 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: Pfarm.org |
on: 2005-07-26 10:38:09 |
Has anyone heard of these guys?
Some sort of sado-masochist bioengineer artist cult?
Or an elaborate publicity stunt?
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 12 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Zen Anarchists |
on: 2005-07-24 13:04:52 |
What was I training for?
Martial Art: Aikido
Craft: Programming/Hacking
Art: Harmonica/Piano
Game: Counterstrike/Improv/Scrabble
Philosophy: Transhumanism/COV
... to be a "zen warrior"? Or to be a parent?
These arts and crafts and philosophies are challenges that prepared me for the ultimate challenge.
Parenting is an excercise of the body, of art, it is, at once, a craft and a game and a philosophy.
And unlike all of these, it is "everthing in between". Everthing that our categories and explanations can't explain. The better I get.. it gets harder.
I've come to accept that I cannot master parenting - it mastered me.
Every setback is utterly devestating, sometimes reducing me to tears. Every landmark of progress is pure joy.
It's a brutal sport. No matter how hard I try, I wish in my heart that I tried harder.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 13 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Existential risks |
on: 2005-07-17 08:52:07 |
> "Reproduce" rates higher. Now you
> have to survive to reproduce, but
> when
Reproduction is, clearly, a subgoal of survival. We have to reproduce to survive as a species.
But survival goes beyond the species. Survival is *lifes* directive. Not just humanity's.
And that's the deepest level of programming.
Life goes on.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 14 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Existential risks |
on: 2005-07-15 21:40:40 |
We too live in a simple world. "Survival" is our only hard-wired goal.
Individually we have a myriad of complex and intersecting subgoals that arose out of this original programming.
But, from the perspective of someone who lives outside our world, survival may rightly seem to be our *only* goal. All our subgoals look like implementation details.
Maximizing profits is nothing more than "survival" rephrased. And although it may be simple, our finance AI friend, if it were listening in, might be saying to itself, but what about "minimizing risk exposure to oil prices" and "diversifying across sectors". These are more complex goals. But they were derived from the original.
As the complexity of a system increases, it becomes difficult to understand how it was derived from the primary goal. "Why does my finance AI like buying penny stocks in Russia?"
Rest assured, even the most esoteric goals somehow serve the original ... or they die trying.
A "super AI" would attain this programming precisely for the reason we did. It's program is, too, implicity - survive.
So, our super AI and us .... we've got that in common ... the same hard-wired original goals.
As does all life.
And just we have learned that a thriving ecosystem is important to our survival - a super AI will realize that it's survival intimately depends on it's relationship with us.
Sure, we sometimes try to kill off viruses and bacteria, but we are still cognizant of the fact that our life depends on their existence. We would never wipe all of them out. Bacteria play a crucial role in maintaining an environment suitable for life.
And so, too, humanity will *probably* continue to play a crucial role in maintaining an environment suitable for sustaining the complex AI's that emerge.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 15 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Existential risks |
on: 2005-07-15 17:00:35 |
rhinoceros wrote:
> David Lucifer wrote:
>
>> Another argument is if something that is super-intelligent does
>> something that we think is unfriendly, then it must have a good reason
>> for doing so (pretty much by definition) and we should probably defer
>> to its greater wisdom. In other words, if we know enough to tell that
>> it is making a mistake then we must be more intelligent than it. Agree
>> or disagree?
>
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Disagree. A superior intelligence may have different goals from me. I
> can aknowledge its superior problem-solving ability when I see it, but I
> don't know what problem it is trying to solve to my detriment. Nobody
> has to submit. There are non-zero-sum games and there are also
> zero-sum-games.
The most complex AI's in the finance industry *are* self aware, in that
their existence and actions influence market data that are it's input.
Most of them have clusters of networks specifically dedicated to
predicitons based on actions that result from predictions ad-nauseum.
This could be considered their "conciousness". (Probably isn't much
different than ours).
And, so, are they out to serve themselves? Of course they are ... they
are out to maximize profits and thereby justify their own existence and
the accumulation of resources that will result in their improvement and
expansion. But the fact that they are interested in their own survival
is a byproduct of their engineering.
People are the same way. We exist to exist. Our goals and desires are
all byproducts of our original evolutionary programming. Do we go crazy
and start killing each other? Occasionally, yes. But even including
devatating wars, the percentage of people dying at the hands of each
other versus dying in other ways has *gone down* as technology has
improved. I can't see why this trend should suddenly shift.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 16 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Existential risks |
on: 2005-07-15 11:57:54 |
Z Moser wrote:
> So, what your saying is "kill em all" so that we can free up our
> intelligence for more worthy concerns?
Hmm. Basically, I'm saying "go ahead and develop as much AI as you
want". Because if it's really intelligent, then it will be friendly.
Interesting aside that came out of a conversation about this issue:
It's generally accepted that in a hierarchical society, people tends to
rise to their level of incompetence. This is the nature of having a
hierarchy and having people who try to rise in it.
But, by embracing technology, we increase the level of incompetence to
which each individual can rise.
A collapse of a highly technology-enabled individual has greater impact
on his society than the collapse of one who is not so enabled.
In other words, technology creates a higher co-dependence and requires
higher levels of cooperation and altuism.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 17 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Who owns ideas? |
on: 2005-07-14 16:08:02 |
> Gibson may not mind, but we should
> really ask the author, Neal
> Stephenson.
Ack! I always get them mixed up. Well, if I knew Neal's address, I'd ask, and include a link to the original article by Ginson.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 18 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / RE: virus: Existential risks |
on: 2005-07-14 06:40:20 |
This statement: "Brute-forced AI is not likely to be Friendly AI" points to
a misunderstanding of what intelligence is.
Suppose there is a problem for which there seems to be a solution that
involves violence. (Like, someone with a gun is running around shooting
people and you choose to kill the murderer). For any such problem, there is
also a creative, nonviolent solution.
The violent solution (kill him) requires less intelligence than the creative
solution. Violent solutions are "one solution". Creative solutions are a
broad range. They can range from capturing and curing the ailing mind of
the perpetrator, to simply convincing him to stop, to developing a "personal
shield" that renders his gun harmless, to leaving the area and establishing
a new home far away from crazy people with guns. The number of creative
solutions is endless. The violent solution is always the same ... kill him.
No matter how difficult it is to kill someone or some entity, it requires
less intelligence and creativity than other solutions which do not involve
killing. This is true for germs, people, food, etc.
High levels of intelligence and creativity were developed as humans
organized into larger and larger nonviolent societies.
My premise is that intelligence is *equivalent* to nonviolence and has
evolved out of higher levels of nonviolence. Animals are intelligent to the
extent that they communicate and cooperate. Humans are intelligent
*because* they communicate and cooperate.
Violent solutions to problems are, de-facto, noncreative solutions. Any
highly-intelligent AI is way better off co-opting us and putting us to work
building and creating - working as its arms and hands. A stupid AI would
try to kill us, and waste time and resources and possibly put its own
survival at risk.
Of course, if it is discovered that an AI was secretly "in charge" of a lot
of things, humans would inevitably try to paint it in a negative light and
go to war with it and its' agencies.
"Calling all brainwashed Christians and Muslims - Technology is evil and
those who build it are Satanists... go kill them."
Frighteningly this is a foreseeable future.
We really need to upgrade humanity's dominant philosophy set soon.
- Erik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf Of David Lucifer
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:07 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: Existential risks
>
>
> Here's a succinct argument for how and why developing Friendly AI is
> going to save the world. Do you agree with the Singularitarian
> argument?
>
> > I don't understand why the development of molecular nanotechnology
> > will mean the inevitable destruction of all things everywhere (on
> > earth, at least), or why the development of smarter-than-human
> > intelligence will somehow avoid this disaster.
> >
> > Could someone explain this to me? Be gentle, I'm not a
> > full fledged singulatarian yet (still slowly climbing
> > the shock ladder).
>
> Because by far the simplest and most commercially attractive
> application of molecular nanotechnology is computers so ridiculously
> powerful that not even
> AI researchers could fail to create AI upon them. Brute-forced AI is not
> likely to be Friendly AI. Hence the end of the world.
>
> Grey goo or even military nanotechnology is probably just a
> distraction from this much simpler, commercially attractive, and
> technologically available extinction scenario.
>
> Developing AI first won't necessarily avoid exactly the same
> catastrophe. Developing Friendly AI first presumably would.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2005 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;th
> read
> id=32872>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-
> bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 19 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / RE: virus: Who owns ideas? |
on: 2005-07-14 06:28:35 |
Years ago, a good friend of mine scanned and lovingly corrected the entirety
of the Cryptonomicon (excellent book, I highly recommend). He was the first
to publish it via Gnutella/Kazaa (where his copy has survived ever since).
Do you think Gibson would mind that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf Of Blunderov
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:09 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Who owns ideas?
>
> [Blunderov] The information wants to be free. I hope nobody,
> especially William Gibson, minds if I post the entire piece.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 20 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution? |
on: 2005-06-18 14:08:06 |
> According to the author, the man of
> the present has all the options open.
> The man of the future seems to have
> more limited options; less places to go,
> less things to opt for. How much is
> "less"? A plausible answer is "none".
Althought I agree that "none" is a very reasonable answer, I like the picture of a haggard time traveler, constantly staring at his PDA and rushing from one appointment to the next.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 22 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: No disproof for my God |
on: 2005-06-15 11:50:47 |
> So if god is imaginary he is outside the universe after all 
Certainly if God is defined as "the whole Universe", then it not
imaginary. Unless you believe the Universe is imaginary, in which case,
God help you
> Simul, is sentience a property of your proposed god redefinition? What about omnipotence?
First, I'd like to point out that mine is not a "redefinition". It's a
scientific interpretation of existing literature on the subject.
You can answer the questions yourself by rephrasing the question.
1. Is the Universe all powerful?
First, we must define "powerful". I assume you mean "having the
capacity to move or alter things". A powerful speaker moves people, via
emotional or inspirational movement, but still an alteration. A
powerful bomb moves matter around a lot - the more powerful, the more it
can move.
I will approach this several ways:
A powerful God can move mountains. The Earth, of course, moves
mountains on a regular basis. An even more powerful God can move
stars. The Earth doesn't move stars. God as "the Universe" can move
anything. Nothing besides God can do this. Thus a definition of God,
since God is all powerful, must be at least at the magnitude of the
Universe. And since the Universe is everything, then God must, again,
be the Universe.
Another way of defining power is "energy". Since God as "the Universe"
contains all matter and energy, then God is "all powerful" literally
(like one big Energizer battery).
Bear in mind that this is a property of "the Universe". It exists
independently of whether you believe in God or not. If there was
something that was more powerful, then it would exist outside the
universe. But since the definition of the Universe is *everything*,
that thing *cannot exist*.
The Universe is all-powerful by definition. God is all-powerful by
definition. There cannot be two all-powerful things, thus *God must be
the Universe*. They must be equivalent.
2. Is Sentience a property of the Universe?
In my opinion, we cannot possibly know whether God (the Universe) is
sentient. It's too big for us to know. Is it possible to know whether
a collective that you are a member of is sentient? Do our neurons know
that we are sentient?
It may be useful to *imagine* that the Universe is sentient and see if
that creates predictions. Then we could test those predictions to learn
more about the Universe.
Personally, I don't include imaginary things in my definition of the
Universe.
If it were *consistently useful* to imagine the Universe as sentient and
base decisions on predictions derived from that viewpoint, I might give
sentience some credence.
Certainly there's nothing explicitly wrong with believing in a sentient
Universe.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 23 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: No disproof for my God |
on: 2005-06-15 10:55:21 |
> [Iolo quoting Hermit]
>
> The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and
> imaginary which have existence or potential existence.
I definitely don't include imaginary things in my definition of the
Universe/God. Perhaps I should? I can't see why.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 24 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: No disproof for my God |
on: 2005-06-10 14:43:09 |
You forget, however, that the entire known Universe *was* the earth. So to imagine an entity that birthed the earth was nothing more than imagining an entity *at least larger* the size of the entire known universe.
How is this not pantheism?
Each imagining of God seems to merely expand our universe.
Likewise, to imagine a modern God that was capable of creating the Big Bang is nothing more than imagining a pantheistic God that is bigger than the known universe as opposed to a pantheistic God that is the same size as the known universe.
So the dispute is not over whether or not pantheism is the view. It's the "size of the pantheistic God" that's at question.
And physicists still don't agree on the multiverse concept.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:43:49
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: No disproof for my God
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 10 June 2005 08:00
<snip>
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity
consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate
objective observer)</snip>
[Blunderov] Sounds like pantheism which is probably a more generally
palatable flavour of atheism than for instance Satanism. Kinder to the
kinder (somebody stop me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic
<snip>
Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is
All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an
all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God
are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea
that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all
that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the
theological principle of 'God'. The term "pantheist" - of which the word
"pantheism" is a variation - was purportedly first used by Irish writer
John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist.
</snip>
(It took a while but I think I get 'ultimate objective observer' now. A
set that only contains itself as a member but is not empty? Intriguing.)
I think that the argument that the pantheistic idea of god is the root
of all other ideas about god is harder to make. It seems to me that homo
ferox has always been very much predisposed to creation myths. The idea
that order is a function of existence is not intuitive to us.
To ancient eyes it must have seemed that birth was a 'coming in to
being' of something from nothing and was so ubiquitous as to be the
obvious underlying principle of the whole cosmos. This fallacy of
composition became an arch meme in deep antiquity and its longevity is
testament to its strength.* Pantheism is a pretty good try at hacking it
but will only latch where doubt already exists IMO.
Best Regards.
* I did a google search for the string <church of> and obtained
something like 54 million results. I bet almost all of them offer some
account of 'creation'.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 25 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: No disproof for my God |
on: 2005-06-10 14:18:04 |
> (It took a while but I think I get
> 'ultimate objective observer' now. A
> set that only contains itself as a
> member but is not empty? Intriguing.)
My input is limited. I cannot possibly be completely objective, since my perspective is limited by my limited self.
The universe takes as it's input everything that happens. It's perspective, as an entity, is entirely objective, ultimately rational and, in all instances, entirely "correct". Why? Because it's output is what occurs, precisely and without error.
It is what is.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 26 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: No disproof for my God |
on: 2005-06-10 02:00:23 |
My definition of God cannot be disproven as the correct use and is the "true" meaning that was intended by all philosophers since the beginning of it's appearance. (Nor can it be proven)
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate objective observer)
If someone offers an incarnation-proposal, for example, that Jesus is an incarnation of God, I can simply affirm that Yes, since God is everything, then Jesus was certainly an incarnation. No disproof by incarnation in any form.
Someone denied my definition by insisting that early man's conception of God was of a physical deity residing in some nebulous, but actual, space.
I simply counter-propose that this was merely a metaphorical expression of their early insight into my definition.
In fact, *any proposal* that someone offers that might claim to deny my definition has an equal and noncontradictory counter-proposal.
This is fundamental rhetoric.
Of course, the fact that my defnition cannot be disproven doesn not make it correct. On the contrary, *all* surviving definitions of God are non-disprovable. ( IMHO, my definition is superior - but of course I think so)
Rather than worry ourselves (as COV) over foolish disproof or denial, we are much better off crafting our own non-disprovable definition that suits our worldview and meets our philisophical goals.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 27 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: God's work |
on: 2005-06-10 01:35:59 |
Rhino, that's all every damn pulpit-poundng-politician has ever done for the last zillion years - hijack the word God and use it to screw people.
I propose we take it back and return it to a pure and useful form. Put some philisophical force behind the word.
I strongly believe that a universal meta-entity was what these mystics were envisioning on their mushroom trips anyway. A fundamental interconnectedness of things that appears intelligent and which science attempts to understand.
God is the universe we live in. God is the ultimate meta-concept. He is both a meaningless abstraction and yet the contemplation of Him can give your life meaning. Everyone's undertanding of God, as a meta-entity, is personal and can be seen, quite arbitrarily, as entirely correct or incorrect by others.
Personally, I opose anthropomorphism. But why rule this out? Who is to say that this universal meta entity has no eyes? Perhaps mankind *is* God's eye. . Or God's brain?
Choose your metaphor wisely.
I prefer to remain in the abstract.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 29 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: God's work |
on: 2005-06-08 12:47:34 |
> And how does one know what way the
> word God was intended to be used? Is
> that written down somewhere? Did
> someone invented the word and laid
> out it's proper usage?
There are many written texts and historical accounts of God. The modern definition I have provided for God fits most of the available historical texts and also provides a framework for future discussion.
Anyone who agrees with this would also agree that, for example, the Christian funamentalist use of the word is, as said, wrong.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 31 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: God's work |
on: 2005-06-02 17:25:06 |
> The issue I have with the word God is
> that it means something very
> different than just a bunch of
> philosophical inquiries and I do not want
> to be associated or confused with
> people like that.
Many people are just using the word God in the *wrong* way. In the way it was not originally intended.
They use it to subvert people's will and inspiration and to bilk them out of cash.
If we were to use it correctly, we'd be considered "purists". As a result, we'd likely be persecuted. (Purists and scientists and logicians often are)
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 32 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: God's work |
on: 2005-06-02 12:40:03 |
There's no reason to call it God anymore.
But many people still do. And if you plan on having a dialogue with them, you ought to know how to speak their language.
It's important to understand that the foundations of religion are nothing more than solid philisophical inquiry.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard van Schip <gerard@vanschip.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:01:31
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: God's work
But why call it God?
This reminds me of that ludicrous docu I downloaded the other day. What
the bleep do we know, more info here: http://www.whatthebleep.com/
I like some of the ideas brought forward in this docu and the whole meme
thing has a strong presence but then they go all the way and claim that
we are all gods and can make our own day.
Nice try, no cigar, at least not from me.
Gerard
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 33 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: God's work |
on: 2005-05-31 21:29:34 |
Concept:
I think this is what the early prophets and philosophers were talking about all along. They just had a different language for it.
God is the great mystery, the unknown, the universal entity.
To explore the unknown is to inquire into God.
To walk with God is to walk in mystery.
To work with God is to work with the unknown.
Science is the task of investigating the mysteries of the universe. Scientists work with God.
The language of science, mathematics, is the language of the universe. It is God's language.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 34 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Meme Replication = copywrite infringement? |
on: 2005-05-20 22:30:25 |
> Well, especially if you know the
> meme and its potentials better
> than anybody else, and it
> replicates freely and well, then
> your own value in exploiting such
> a situation increases.
Precisely. For example, I leave my used science magazines in cafes. I encourage others to do so as well. Why? Because I thrive in a rapidly technologically advancing world.
> Your reward and attribution
> continue despite your claims of
> altruism.
Altruism? When I try to spread love, peace and generosity, I do so entirely out my own selfish motivation to have a nice world to live in.
> I personally wouldn't do away
> with copyright notices
For songs, maybe.
But pholosophies? Irc logs?
Things like COV should go GNU sharalike content license. Encourage others to copy freely, no atturibution. The memes are more important than any silly notions of control over them.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 35 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Pain management memes? |
on: 2005-05-20 21:39:28 |
Engaging in a group awareness excecises, like improv training, or possibly transcendental meditation, can release endorphins and suppress pain.
With enough practice, a person can sustain the effects outside of the group.
My chiropractor can sometimes cure headaches and sinus pressure where decongestants and anti-inflammatories have failed.
If it's legal in your area, marijuana is a great pain reliever.
Don't use opiates or addictive things like codine. They suck
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 37 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Happy Birthday, Lucifer! |
on: 2005-04-18 09:35:40 |
Man, has it been that long?
Having a kid completely screws with your temporal lobes. Plus your memory is reconfigured.
It's pretty dramatic.
Obvious things are how you can't remeber how small and helpless they were when they were born.
But there are other changes. Probably for a good reason. Possibly due to sleep pattern changes.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 38 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: Progress |
on: 2005-04-15 18:45:31 |
Walking is nothing more than learning to fall forward and then catch yourself repeatedly and ever more gracefully.
But, physically that's what's going on. Lean, fall, catch.
Perhaps a similar thing can be said about making progress in other areas of life.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 39 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: [Fwd: Re: Church of Virus] |
on: 2005-04-15 08:20:24 |
I think they work very well together.
By using words like Lucifer, we seemingly confirm the relevance of Western religious beliefs.
But by refusing to back down when confronted with theistic terminology, we cause a disconnect between expectation and reality.
Expectation is that someone who uses a lucifer.com email address has a childish and denial-based understanding of (theology/memetics). The expectation is that. Ridicule would be our first line of defense.
When the reality is a sophisticated and complex philosophy, replete with virtues that do not require a mystical understanding of God,but rather a scientific definition, the converted will no longer be able to rely on their terminology as a defence system.
Normally, when confronted with a religious person's, “Do you believe in God?”, I would respond predictably by retreating from the conversation or saying “No”. Either response would leave the person I was speaking to in a state of righteousness.
But now, I'm free to say, “I have an understanding of God - but it may not be the same as yours”
-----Original Message-----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:14:09
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: [Fwd: Re: Church of Virus]
[simul]
It makes sense to use a biohazard symbol and the word virus and lucifer.
Because anyone who believes in the power of these totems (false idols) is a fool and should not be a member of COV.
[rhinoceros]
Heh, I do believe in the power of totems, including football team banner flags.
But I still wonder how well our totems will match with the scientifically reframed hijacked Pantheistic terminology for penetrating the converted.
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on Church of Virus BBS.
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid=32184>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 40 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / virus: Time |
on: 2005-04-13 17:08:01 |
I'm selling my business, starting a new one, getting kicked out of my apartment. I'm a new dad, late filing taxes, and my wife has tendonitis.
I literally didn't have time to shit this afternoon.
So, why did I make time to post this message?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 41 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: [Fwd: Re: Church of Virus] |
on: 2005-04-13 10:44:31 |
It makes sense to use a biohazard symbol and the word virus and lucifer.
Because anyone who believes in the power of these totems (false idols) is a fool and should not be a member of COV.
Althought I'd agree about the BBS link.
------Original Message------
From: David McFadzean
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
To: Church of Virus
ReplyTo: Church of Virus
Sent: Apr 9, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: virus: [Fwd: Re: Church of Virus]
Paul-Andre Panon wrote:
> David McFadzean wrote:
>
>> The CoV has a wiki and we are using the churchofvirus.org domain now
>> instead of lucifer.com.
>
>
> OK. I'm afraid that I have yet to find it. Even the BBS itself is not
> obvious since it's not part of the menu on the home page but is only
> set somewhat apart from the other menu links on secondary pages. The
> abbreviation 'BBS' also is probably only really well known to a very
> narrow segment of the population exposed to computing in the 1980's
> and early 1990's. Perhaps that's intentional, but it seems to me
> somewhat counterproductive, since it limits the communication and
> exposure of the CoV's memeplex. Forum seems to be a more commonly
> accepted term in the (much larger) web community.
>
>> People that are offended by "lucifer" wouldn't care about a serious
>> religion anyway.
>
>
> I'm afraid I tend to disagree. To a certain extent, the advertising
> portion of marketing is an early form of memetic engineering.
> Advertising doesn't usually go out of its way to associate itself with
> negative images in its potential market. And yet it appears that's
> exactly what you're doing with use of the biohazard symbol, and the
> words virus and lucifer (which have negative connotations in
> well-educated populations and people brought up in a Judeo-Christian
> religion).
>
> Or to put it another way, while the presentation of the web site is
> visually very sl
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 42 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Papal thoughts... |
on: 2005-04-13 10:08:59 |
This is, of course, what I was trying to do with my definition of God as the “ultimate objective observer”, an “entity consisting of the entire universe, known and unknown”.
It allows us to hijack religious terminology and reframe religious inquiry as scientific.
The end result allows someone who normally scoffs at religion to be memetically competitive and more effectively penetrate the converted.
But that didn't go over well on this list. Most of the members were too afraid of being misinterpreted or thought it would backfire.
I say “fear is the mind-killer” (Frank Herbert) ...
Let's try it. If it fails, COV can always go back to merely mocking religion, rather than hijacking it... that's easy and lots of people do it.
-----Original Message-----
From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:58:03
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Papal thoughts...
WHOA WHOA WHOA!
On Apr 11, 2005, at 1:08 AM, Dr Sebby wrote:
> ...in conjuction with the pope's endorsement of evolution, one must
> recognize that the REST of the sentence is, "...as a clever mechanism
> and system thought up and created by GOD!!!". so it really isn't much
> of an endorsement. more like an attempt to hijack it in order to make
> his snake oil a bit easier to swallow.
>
>
Let's embrace this the other way! Whoa, Dr. Sebby! Right here is
where memes get blended. The word is 'syncretic' - to bring two
things together with an eye towards resolving their apparent
differences.
If that's the snake oil it takes to spread that meme, let's start
pushing it EVERYWHERE. That's hijacking! They hijack us, and we
hijack them. META GOES BOTH WAYS.
By the way, on that 9-11 reframe, I started working on it. (ACTION,
MOTHERFUCKERS!)
Someone I know is tracking down the creators of the 9-11 Film Festival
- we have a friend in common for conduit, and we'll see if he will
open-source the films. Then we can start dumping copies all over,
layered in with other messages.
If we go try to infiltrate a conversation, we could all use quotes from
www.911truth.org - a goal is to have a greater sense of references - to
let other people do the work of gathering the information, and then USE
that information to find new points of application.
:-b
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 43 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: If I hear you through a technological medium, am I listening to you - |
on: 2005-04-07 15:35:38 |
Ah. See now, I would disagree that taking 100% accountability, as you describe below, is somehow virtuous.
Allowing oneself to be held accountable (by others) to one's stated commitments *is* a virtue.
“Retaining 100% accountability” means that you do all your own accounting. This seems virtuous (self punishement, self reward), but it is inherently unsustainable.
Any complex real entity, system, etc. which is not held externally accountable will eventual self-corrupt.
If such an entity fails to achieve or fulfill goals, all it has to do is internalize a new goalset that justifies its current behavior and reaccount according to the new goalset. Or, failing that, it could issue self-punishment, but any such punishments would soon become habits... pathalogically so.
------Original Message------
From: global_hijack
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
To: Church of Virus
ReplyTo: Church of Virus
Sent: Apr 3, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: virus: If I hear you through a technological medium, am I listening to you -
The Level 3'ers use language slightly differently. For them, '100%
accountability' is the exact same thing as the virian 'taking
responsibility'
Here's a fun joke: go over to Level-3@yahoogroups.com and try to
convince them that the way they use '100% accountability' is 'wrong' -
you will ignite the most HILARIOUS conversations.
I think an operative phrase might be '100% accountability _to_myself_ -
when they say that, they mean that we don't allow ourselves to place
blame or let other people take account _of_us_ - 100% of ourselves is
held to ourselves.
By the way - the same strategy that you here interpreted as '100%
accountability', the SuperBrodie writ as 'teeing up', and wondered what
my reason was - it is slightly more devious than merely accountability
- it is meant to bring the person listening to examine their own
reaction, which gives them 'centipede feet' in regards to it.
:-b
On Apr 3, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>> Excellent strategy! That's 100%
>> accountability.
>
> IMHO, that's “taking responsibility” (a virian virtue).
>
> Accountability is a bit different. Taking account is the process of
> keeping track of stated commitments and fulfillments, not necessarily
> your own, in order to facilitate integrity (that the commitments be
> fulfilled).
>
> Someone who is accountable is a person who is willing to have their
> commitments tracked by others.
>
> Accountability is the extent to whi
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 46 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: If I hear you through a technological medium, am I listening to you - |
on: 2005-04-04 09:17:52 |
> build one and take over the entire
>. planet, all arm in arm together
> . (peanut butter! {that means - I'll
>. stop there before I go on too
> long})
Funny, my wife and I use “wheat grass” or “chlorophyll” instead of peanut butter to mean “out of context word to interrupt meme spew”.
Food words cut to the physical as opposed to the semantic.
Food, in general, interrupts memetic flow.
Nearly all cults request that people don't eat during services or lectures.
And every major religion has a period of fasting.
Being without food makes a person more memetically receptive.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 47 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: If I hear you through a technological medium, am I listening to you - |
on: 2005-04-03 17:15:14 |
> Excellent strategy! That's 100%
> accountability.
IMHO, that's “taking responsibility” (a virian virtue).
Accountability is a bit different. Taking account is the process of keeping track of stated commitments and fulfillments, not necessarily your own, in order to facilitate integrity (that the commitments be fulfilled).
Someone who is accountable is a person who is willing to have their commitments tracked by others.
Accountability is the extent to which someone is accountable.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eva-Lise Carlstrom <evalise@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:04:22
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: If I hear you through a technological medium, am I listening to you -
--- deadletterb <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> About that note - I am learning to be pre-emptive on
> certain topics. My main strategy these days is to
> acknowledge right up front that, if there is a
> communication error, it must be mine.
Excellent strategy! That's 100% accountability.
--Eva
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 48 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / RE: virus: Just now |
on: 2005-03-25 05:14:36 |
Listening is definitely an art rarely practiced.
> I'm listening.
>
> Walter
>
>
>
> Jake Sapiens wrote:
>
> >Just now, I wondered whether anybody ever really listens to anybody else.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 49 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful. |
on: 2005-03-22 13:47:07 |
I'm referring to the “tools” which we use. Do we use them or do they use us? To what extent is our evolution, our society, our world shaped by our tools?
People who fail to maintain their PC's, who don't understand technology are becoming obsolete.
Meanwhile, people are more poorly fed and poorly educated. The generation being born today looks like it will be the first generation to have a lower lifespan.
Technology, on the other hand, is being rapily upgraded and improved.
Who's in charge?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
| 50 |
Mailing List / Virus 2005 / Re: virus: Re:Wealth and social justice |
on: 2005-03-22 13:42:56 |
> Let's measure wealth as the
> amount of time an individual can
> satisfy their stated wants
> without having to take further
> action at increasing their
> resource pool
That would make breasfeeding babies the most wealthy - since they don't have to work and they get everything they want.
The job I do is fun, and I consider it better than any packaged entertainment. I have to do it in order to maintain my life. But usually I don't consider time spent on it as decreasing my wealth. (Unless I have a crappy day)
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
View profile of simul |
