From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Dec 30 18:46: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EB437B401 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350EB43EB2 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:46:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBV2c0177895; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:38:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200212310238.gBV2c0177895@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Brad Knowles , Harry Tabak , dever@getaclue.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:37:55 -0800 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Why don't we start with your response to my other message, >> > about systems engineering and emergent a complex behaviours >> > that result from simple rule sets? >> >> Because the assumptions you call "systems engineering" and "emergent >> behaviors" may not apply when dealing with a large space of humanity. > > Sure they do. LOL. You can't prove that assertion, you don't have the means. > Human behaviour, at least relative to groups, is both quantifiable > and predictable. I disagree, and here we meet the classic Lambert/Hayes impasse. Welcome back! >> > Are you arguing by omission that it's impossible to design >> > such a system? If so, how do you address my example of the >> > inability of people to deny the existance of gravity and >> > inertia? >> >> Your analogy is arbitrary. People -do- deny the existence of both >> those forces. Whether they are "right" or not depends on the circle >> of people they are addressing. I certainly wouldn't address a PhD in >> physics with this denial, I might address a group of new age >> "spiritual" people that way. > > Yet a falling anvil from the top of the building will not respect > their beliefs. You'd be surprised. I've seen instances with my own eyes where the laws of physics haven't held. I know I take great risk saying this, because this is akin to telling a Christian that Jesus was just another man...but that's my experience. > Beliefs that contradict reality are unconvincing to reality Even the belief that there is one and only one objective reality which everyone shares whether they want to or not? > You can't argue with the laws of physics (well, you can... but you > will always lose; gotta love the laws of physics...). When you can explain the magic of David Copperfield or David Blane, I'll listen to this argument. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "He who angers you conquers you." --Elizabeth Kenny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message