On 25 Sep 2010, at 18:06, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 9/25/2010 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Umm, I had no idea that this would be so difficult to understand! I am claiming that if there does not exist a means to determine a difference then no difference can be said to exist. This is just a restatement of the principle of identity of indiscernibles. If the totality of all that exists is such that it does not exclude any possibility then it is infinite and as such would have that property of infinities, namely that any proper subset of that infinity is isomorphic with the infinity itself. This is equivalent to saying that an infinity is such that is cannot distinguish itself as a whole from any "part" of itself. To distinguish objects from each other there must be some form of deviation and/or weakening from this isomorphism relationship.

This is wrong. Proper subsets of infinite sets may well be finite, {1,2} is a proper subset of the integers.

Perhaps Stephen meant infinite subset, in which case it is correct for N or any enumerable set (N is isomorphe (in bijection) with all its infinite proper and improper subsets). But still incorrect in general. N is an infinite proper subset of R. All infinite set injects properly in bigger sets; by Cantor theorem. People are usually more intrigued by improper subset. That {1, 2} is included in {1, 2, 3} is normal, but that {1, 2, 3} is included in {1, 2, 3} astonished the beginners. Of course A is included in B means just that x in A implies x in B.

I guess everyone know the "argument" that cannabis is a gateway drug. I goes like that: 90 % of the heroine user have begun with Cannabis. Of course it is non valid. 100% of the heroin users have begun with water. This does not imply that water is a gateway product to heroin. To evaluate if cannabis leads to heroin, you have to count the proportion of heroin user in the cannabis smoker population; not to count the number of cannabis smoker among the heroin user. This error is a confusion between A included in B and B included in A, or between (x in A -> x in B) with (x in B -> x in A).. That error is widespread and is due to local associative reasoning (itself due to Darwinian selection). Logical validity distinguish the relevant association, making some emotional association irrelevant, despite natural predisposition. You can be sure that innocent people have been condemned to the death penalty due to that error.

Paul Valery said that in life the only choice you have is the choice between logic and war. He said: ask for proof, and if you don't get them understand that some people are doing a war against you. Proof, said Valery, is elementary politeness. I think logic is a tool for preventing manipulation indeed. But alas logic is not well taught nor even applied in the human affair. It is a false secret that nobody has found any evidence that cannabis is toxic or addictive so they insist: it is gateway drug, and parents can blame cannabis for leading their children to heroin, but it is a mistake, an error, a confusion between p -> q and q -> p. I am paid for giving bad notes to students, but in the health politics it is done all the time, since more than a century. By doing such error you can manipulate people for fearing or hating anything, and do the war to anyone, just use emotional association.

Actually when you do the correct statistics, despite illegality there is no evidence at all that cannabis lead to other drug, on the contrary it seems to prevent it slightly (and would be more so if legalized probably). The whole prohibition stuff is a complete hoax. Prohibition of a drug literally creates a huge non taxed black market. Prohibitionism does not protect the children, it makes them the main target of that unregulated market. It creates the drug problem. It leads also to misinformation. If all the drug were legalized and taxed with respect to their damage cost, people would quickly understand what are the real dangerous drug, and I bet many would be astonished. Democracy did not prevent brain washing. Cannabis and salvia divinorum are about infinitely less dangerous than aspirin or caffeine. The hardest drug today are alcohol and tobacco, mainly.

I'm optimist. The prohibition of drug policy will crash down like Berlin wall. Too much lies accumulate. OK, apology for my rambling. It is not completely unrelated to löbianity though, if you consider "good" as being a löbian virtue. No one can decide for you what is good or bad for you, in the world of ideally self-referential correct machines. It is natural respect by modesty of the ever known first person. Löbianity would imply a form of libertarianity 'for the others', like it implies already a form of universal dissidence fo one self (as I explained once in a post to John). Machine's theology might be very *practically* deeply antireductionist. Consciousness is the possibility of waking up.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to