Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:53:49 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com>, dever@getaclue.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <3E115B1D.72ED3826@mindspring.com> References: <200212310835.gBV8ZJ179351@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> >> 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. > > > > You mean, of course, that I can't prove it to you, due to your > > willful ignorance of the calculus necessary to the proof. 8-). > > That and mostly because -all- people do not have predicatve behavior > sets. Some do, but not all. Again, we are talking about predicting the behaviour of groups, e.g.: any "large space of humanity". For individuals, like Charles Manson, we have prisons and mental institutions, to deal with the fact that we can't predict that their prior antisocial behaviours will not be repeated. For the most part, society continues to lock someone up when it *can't* predict their behaviour (i.e. during a parole hearing process). > >> > 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! > > > > These mailing lists are completely predictable > > Looking at a sample of the population of the lists, I'd say this > is more true than it is for some equal random sampling of humans. Not really. People who are locked up or dead are very easy to predict, from one moment to the next, and the larger society will (predicatbly) lock up or make dead those people whose behaviour is anti-social. Which leads to the predictability of sociable behaviour by the remainder. > It's the laboratory conditions themselves which prevent the display of > such things. Or that they aren't real? Occam's razor. Lightbulbs work. The Catholic Church had nearly 2000 years to come up with working lightbulbs, using your philosophical approach, and Occam's razor achieved them in less than 200, using mine. > >> > 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? > > > > Does that one contradict reality? > > Define "reality"? That which the behaviour of is not infleunced by beliefs. > > They are perceptual tricks. Almost all visual tricks are based > > on the fundamental wiring of human beings. > > If you want me to come up with a way to duplicate a particular > > trick, then provide a reference for the trick, so that I can > > personally observe its operation. > > Blane levitates on TV. That's about the best I can do, there are > a lot of recorded magic tricks on video and I'm sure these people > perform somewhere. Blane demonstrated the technique behind the trick in his special "Street Magic". Pick something that isn't already publically refuted by the performer himself. 8-). -- 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?3E115B1D.72ED3826>