Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:21:29 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D72E749.B309BC63@mindspring.com> References: <200209011821.g81ILo144411@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone > >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? > >> > >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? > >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they > >> do as a first priority? > > > > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. > > It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, > on what you are doing for another. See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has only one set of paredo-optimal results. > Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about > your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on > how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am > talking about. What else am I to conclude from a selfish focus on one's self, with no worry about what others do? I can, for example, focus on feeding myself, while others starve. > >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous > >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. > > > > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model > > that correctly". 8-). > > I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that > correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring > semantics. Sure I do. The avearge perception of "good". Any given society can vote on its meaning, and take the consensus decision as being normative. > >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any > >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do > >> more harm than good. > > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) > > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that > > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error > > probability. > > What good is this for measuring "good"? We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage deviation from the consensus. What we're interested in now is in arriving at a maximization function. > > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is > > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. > > By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what > is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone > does not know how to approach this correctly. Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. > It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure > 'highest and best good'. See above. > >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve > >> > homeostasis. > >> > >> IYHO. ;) > > > > Definitionally. > > Your definition. ;) A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D72E749.B309BC63>