Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 04:47:27 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209021147.g82BlW157571@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
>> > See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has
>> > only one set of paredo-optimal results.
>>
>> I can infer the validity from my observations, thank you.
>
> Then may I suggest you do so? 8-).
Already disproved by my observations.
>> A better example is focus on what you want to read rather than
>> focusing on what others do not want to read. By your own mechanics,
>> if everyone did this, trolls would not have any effect on the
>> community.
>
> There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the
> contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls.
> If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls.
I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the
keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held
hostage to their choices. Good riddance.
>> You don't appparently even have the desire to know what real "good"
>> is. Hint: it's not the average perception.
> The closest you can come to any ideal is to produce a system whose
> output asymptotically approaches the ideal.
Assuming a numerical space upon which the range of the solution lies,
of course. =P
>> > We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage
>> > deviation from the consensus.
>>
>> I disagree that this is good or has anything to do with real good.
>
> The consensus definition is all that matters,
Actually, it matters the least.
> unless you believe we are being judged against some absolute scale
> by a higher power.
This is a classic religious (and thus, inaccurate) tenet.
Good has a definition which is non-obvious except to a 6 year old.
Except it's not useful to define good or even quest for it.
>> The consensus thinks that getting filthy rich is good. If everyone
>> were filthy rich, there wouldn't be a notion of rich or poor, and
>> the concept would vanish. Then no one would be rich.
>
> Or poor. And that would be good.
Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy.
What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they
all have one too? ;)
>> > Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre.
>>
>> To you, perhaps. Everything must be knowable in your universe. I can
>> live with some things being unknowable.
>
> You lack of curiousity and determination marks you.
There's a misread. I don't lack these things at all. What made you say
this?
>> > A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it.
>>
>> I don't accept it outside of physics or engineering, surprise
>> surprise, but you brought it up therefore it's yours. ;)
>
> You lack of a belief in gravity will not spare you from its effects. 8-).
Actually, it's coupled to survival. If I stop believing in gravity to
the point where it stops working, I'll fly off the planet and die in
space. So I'd better keep beliveing in gravity, eh? ;)
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a virtue
than malnutrition.
-- Alex Comfort
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?200209021147.g82BlW157571>