George Levy wrote

> [...]
>I guess I was talking mostly about the fanatics and the misled people.
>One could also argue that these people do not have a rigorous scientific
>upbringing and are very much driven by their emotions. 
>Therefore, they
>may be classified as illogical.

I think emotion are logical. I mean emotions have (meta)logical reasons
and (meta)logical explanations. Of course they are lived from 1-point of
view and are not (scientifically, G) communicable. 


> They definitely are not schizos and do
>not suffer from poor self esteem.


Mmmh... I am not sure but imo the fanatics suffer generally from poor
self-esteem. So poor that probably they cannot recognize it for such.
(so that they communication could belong to the arrogant type []<>t)
(of course some are fanatics because their parents are, and then
they learn at school that "the other" does not really exist, and they 
developpe all the appearence of over self-esteem, but lives really
with some terrible poor self-esteem of type [][]f.


>I have been using "first person and third person" to accomodate the
>vocabulary used in this list. However, there is definitely something
>wrong with these concepts. All perceptions have to be first person. 
>
>When the frame of reference are very close to each other "first person
>and third person perceptions are identical. 
>
>When the frames of reference are too dissimilar as in QS, there is no
>objective reality, and therefore, there is no "third person." 
>
>In either case the concept of "third person" is useless. So why use
>"first person?"
>
>This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
>approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
>perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
>Relativity does not use "first person" and "third person."


Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation
of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled
scientifically. 
And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that
the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable 
objective set.


>the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]<>t) == Fanatics
>the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People
>with terribly poor self esteem
>the "mad machine" == illogical people   ([]f)
>the "the wrong machine" = Misled people   ([]f)
>the "dreaming machine" = Schizophrenics   ([]f)


Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []<>t, but the arrogant one 
also.
You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which 
intentionaly
mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who 
lies to their people conducts their people to a 
catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special 
military
information).
(G* proves []f -> f, unlike  G which does NOT proves []f -> f).

So let us add in our search of "evil" definition the misinformation,
and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK?

Bruno

Reply via email to