From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 20:55:21 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 9583837B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF9C43E4A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:55:13 -0700 (PDT) (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 g893oV125883; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:50:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090350.g893oV125883@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:50:26 -0700 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: >> > Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, >> > since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling >> > point to be predictive. >> >> What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling >> point? > > What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling > point. It's arbitrary that you've found them to share one. >> I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance >> away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or >> provide testable evidence? > > Nature is not a valid counter example in the domain of designed > systems. More of that hand-waving again. Are you sure you aren't on a parade float? ( See, if you get to define "valid", then we are discussing your worldview, not any agreed-upon reality. ;) ) > Foo, you are nothing but a charleton! Quite a compliment coming from the stodgiest "must define everything" type person. "Good heavens Miss Yakomoto, you're beautiful!" >> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is >> arbitrary. > > Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... Everything is arbitrary. ;) >> >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> >> source of livelihood or as a career". >> > >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> source of livelihood or as a career". >> >> (Hmm, a sloop.) > > There's you're problem. You are using definition 2 instead of the > primary definition. > > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or > ethical standards of a profession. Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. >> > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I >> > can pretend... >> >> See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) > > I'm willing to give my opponents life for the truth... ;^). That's not yours to give, but I'll bet you'll find some argument to justify that. ;) >> >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the >> >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. >> >> >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am >> >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your >> >> keyboard. ;) >> > >> > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" >> >> Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. >> In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just >> and get more effective results. |) > > Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? It is, however you added . >> >> >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which >> >> >> > fits all the facts. >> >> >> >> >> >> These are local maxima. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less >> >> > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? >> >> >> >> The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured >> >> effectiveness. >> > >> > The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits >> > all the facts". >> >> That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". > > Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. It's an irrelevant and arbitrary modifier. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "If there is intellegent life in outer space, then they are undoubtedly using Earth as their insane asylum." -Mark Twain To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message