Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:38:10 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <200212311138.gBVBcF181183@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ CC's stripped out of courtesy, it's the Terry and Dave show, live on your mailing list! Script ideas anyone? ] Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > 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". Which begs the question of "why?"... > 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). This is not exactly true, it locks them up when someone exhibits a behavior they have declared "wrong". To attempt to analogize unpredictability to criminality opens up a can of worms I dont think you want opened. No matter how much you rationalize, people are irrational. They are chaotic. Could you have predicted Jim Jones? >> >> > 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. Grim. I don't buy this, of course, but it paints a grim picture. >> It's the laboratory conditions themselves which prevent the display of >> such things. > Or that they aren't real? You still have not truly defined "real". >> >> > 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. You cannot possibly perceive that which you have defined. You have also questioned the existence of this previously. This is contradictory. Try again. >> > 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". He did? Gee, I'm sorry I missed that. I took a still of the video and couldn't figure it out. > Pick something that isn't already publically refuted by the > performer himself. 8-) No. All that does is give you incentive to find a refutation, which you will given the true nature of the universe. What you cannot see is your own belief in non-belief, and this belief blinds you to the very mechanism of belief operating in you. You won't accept what you would actually have to do to observe this mechanism in action in yourself. Therefore all argument with you along this line of reality is futile. It's like trying to argue me out of wanting to see True Free Speech everywhere...quite impossible but perhaps entertaining at times. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you ever reach total enlightenment while you're drinking a beer, I bet it makes beer shoot out your nose. 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?200212311138.gBVBcF181183>