Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:29:31 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7367BB.2AC28CF2@mindspring.com> References: <200209021141.g82Bf7157514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, > > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most > > explosively. > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > The environment is fairly static in this case. The environment chooses the creatures which survive. > > Experiential evidence is anecdotal. > > It's the only thing I really consider valid, unless thinking in a > scientific context. That's interesting. How is it that problems you solve in this fashion stay solved, so that you don't have to repeat the work over and over again, forever, with each problem/solution pair adding to the mass of what you carry forward, until you hit your load limit, and can no longer contribute usefully to society? My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible waste of my time. > > I admit that I read a lot, and that I don't really understand > > why you won't permit macro expansion, as if the other person had > > argued my case for me. ;^). > > Because it's not coming from you? Because I don't trust the other > person's arguments to be valid? ;) Flatterer. > Hmm. Let me try it on you, but with something from my domain: > > http://www.lyricscafe.com/m/mayer_john/johnmayer3.htm > > It's a bit modern, but it fits your criteria of macro expansion. Amusing. I was admiring this song the other night, when I and another person were on our way to see a movie. I rather expect the parts I was admiring were not the same parts you admire enough to quote it to me. I'm put in a mind of the scene from the movie "A Fish Called Wanda", in which Wanda and Otto are discussing his reading of Nietsche... > I consider logical arguments, in the inappropriate contexts, an > authority rather than a vehicle of truth. Some of what we are arguing > about transcends logic. I can do logical arguments, but rarely in > these contexts we are talking about. You mean, like machine enforcement of the charters for technical mailing lists... > > we can, in fact, design a system which has the emergent properties > > we desire the system to have. And therefore we can design a system > > that, by it's very nature, will squelch speech which is not topical, > > e.g. that of "trolls". > > I highly doubt you can do this without squelching information which > would be useful but at the border of the order you are attempting to > impose. Message sender: [ body] [ public key, dated, signed by list server private key ] [ signature of body + signed public key, signed by user private key ] List server verification: [ public key signed by list server private key Yes/No ] [ body + digned public key, signed by user private key Yes/No ] [ Any non-Yes answer := posting rejected ] ...problem solved. Also, all messages now non-repudiable (I view this as a disadvantage, but not in this context). > > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. > > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that > > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists > > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. > > Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely > seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried > to hold me in but...) As I said before, you are hanging with the wrong peeps. > > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] > Why? Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent series. > > It's important in that it defies the incompleteness theorem; it's > > "The Truth The Machine Dares Not Utter". > > Hmm. It's -hard- to get to that place. I don't care how smart you are > or how enlightened you think you are, the truth can hurt real bad > sometimes. The pain comes from assumptions which are literally > backwards from what "objective reality" is. Thus, it's my belief > that some smart cookie (Godel?) stumbled upon a way to rationalize > (prove) things so that you wouldn't have to experience that pain. Rudy Rucker, _Infinity and the Mind_: http://www.braungardt.com/Mathematica/Incompleteness%20Theorem.htm > > Incorrect. If you can demonstrate that your system is self-consistent, > > then it can be measured against how well it models empirical data, and > > whether or not it's predictive. > > In Your Humble Worldview. Since it's me you are trying to convince, I'd say "run with it!". 8-). > > Something can be a useful model without being "The Truth". The > > issue is one of accuracy and correctness. > > To test that which has been tested is ignorance. Velilind's Laws of Experimentation: 1. If reproducibility may be a problem, conduct the test only once. 2. If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points. > To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse. Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach > Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still > "practically work". "Finger quotes"?!? > > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing > > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been > > proven. > > The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) "All elliptic curves have modular forms" > > All I have to do is pick the correct modular goal-space, where > > all pro-society goals are located on one side of a boundary manifold, > > and all anti-society goals are located on the other side of the > > same boundary manifold. > > I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always > obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a > candidate for scientific manners of investigation. Oh, this is so wrong. Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. > > Your argument seems to say that racists exist because racism > > is reproached by society. > > Interesting interpretation, but the focus of my argument deals only > with individuals. Yes, several individuals of like charge COULD get > together and by fascination attract individuals of opposite charge. > In my opinion, the mechanism is best understood invidually. It's impossible to generalize accurately about individuals. > If you are going to generalize, do it one step further. "Any > differentiating quality between humans will be used by those > or other humans as an inference of superiority." No. I admit only the possibility, not the inevitability. > > You ignored the third alternative: establish your own instance > > of usenet, rather than attempting to peer with the one where the > > "netcops" existed. > > I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... That was a hierarchy within the context of the genereal usenet. I'm talking about non-interoperation. > You said that society doesn't want this solution. I came to that long > time ago, after years of being told that on USENET. I reasoned that if > society didn't want it, then I could create little private places with > impunity to your argument. > > It kind of feels like certain old nursery rhymes. Now that I know how > to bake a cake and have, in fact, baked a few...everyone wants a slice. > Pity no one helped. ;) "The Little Red Hen" argument applies here... > You should also recognize that if I were to apply scientific method, I > needed to have a control case as well as an applicative and placebo > case. It was actually during this phase that I recognized the > scientific method does -not- work for this kind of thing, there are no > actual measurable results because you can't correct for the type of > people and you can't bring in the exact same people to different > experiments without invalidating your results. Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is an independent tentity, with the communications media within which its internal systems operate. The two are not identical. > > It's my theory that if a troll is being paid to disrupt a forum, > > that payment need not come in the form of the reactions of a > > so-called "netcop". > > Unlike so many of the "rational people", I'm not one to dismiss > consipiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories (lest > conspiracies actually become enabled by such behavior). I'm curious > as to what grounds you have for this theory. You've refused indoctrination into non-linear dynamics as applied to social science; I'm afraid, I can't communicate it to you unless you are willing to learn the language... > > This can not work. Trolls are uninterested in discourse. > > Not all trolls are uninterested. There are many classic Usenet > trolls that posted for the response it would get. Archimedies, your > buddy. ;) The famous "rec.pets.cats/rec.model.airplanes" cat bomb > crosspost (hilarious but doomed to flames from the cat lovers). > Serder Argic. The list goes on, but those last three examples > are examples of trolls who lived for responses. The trolls we care about getting rid of are not interested in discourse. > Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting > that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as > they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, > correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) Yes, this is my theory. > >> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". > > It depends on what you mean by "moderation". > > Classic moderation is where a small subset of "society" gets all > the messages destined for a forum. They then determine whether to post > those or not. This doesn't work. Not because of the reasons you keep claiming, but because it will not scale. > >> > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the > >> > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. > >> > >> Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. > > > > It will only happen if the trolling subsides first. > > Baiting the trolls, are we? No. I expect the issue to escalate to the point where what you call "classic" moderation will occur... unless a better alternative is offered. > > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and > > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by > > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. > > Nice dodge. ;) Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out out their interface cables before the programming was complete. > >> This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, > >> without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to > >> speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to > >> ignore you... > > > > If I am a newspaper reporter, do I have the right to ignore you? > > Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) I can still ignore what you have to say, and report on the whack-job with the famous hostages... > > Someone forced you to subscribe to the FreeBSD mailing lists, > > at gunpoint? > > Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems > to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? So what information pertinent to that situation are you getting from the "FreeBSD is Dead" trolls? > > Part of its perfection is that there would be an immune response > > that made the troll go away. > > Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, > not yours.) Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. Of course, since it's your utopia, the dream can come out any way you want it to, so long as you eventually wake up. > > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource > > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" > > analogy. > > I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is > in how long you have to peruse it. Not long. You have filters, right? > > It suits me to not put myself in either of these positions. > > The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of > my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete > mental shutdown. You may as well be a puppet, if you give them that much control over you. > >> You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that > >> one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. > > > > Are you claiming "it cannot be done", or "Terry, personally, is not > > capable of the feat", or "Dave Hayes is not capable of the feat, > > therefore no one else is". Be careful how you answer... > > As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) Functionally decompose the problem space, and distribute the processing. You're asking the same thing of personal filtering, only you are asking it of a multiplicity equivalent to the fan out for a given mailing list. Mailing lists are not usenet. They are push model, not pull model. It is a mistake to treat a set of mailing lists as if it were a small Usenet server. > > We are not arguing the advisability of filtering, per se. We are > > merely arguing *where* the filtering should be enacted. My argument > > is that the filtering should be enacted where the costs are least, > > and your argument is that the filtering should be enacted where the > > costs are greatest. > > Yes, and for very good reason. Personally, I don't want someone else > determining what I will and will not see. I'm sure you can agree that > the most honorable thing to do is allow people to create their own > filters? Or to choose their own filters, by choosing to which mailing lists they subscribe. The control is still yours. > Question all you like. Hell, everyone else does. I claim that if you > question this, you are unknowingly dishonoring lots of people. Why is > the internet only for the academic or the rich? What's wrong with > some guy from inner LA talking to someone at Harvard? Not a damn > thing. For the noosphere to represent the entire thought space of > mankind, everyone has to have their ability to contribute. I have no problem with someone from inner LA talking to someone from Harvard, so long as they both agree to participate. > > Wrong. Email sent to a list has a multiplicative effect. > > Nonsense. Email sent to a list is a subset of all email sent, for any > unit of time you want to greater than the time it takes to send one > email message to the list. Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending they are. > > Laying aside the argument that I have not been advocating moderating, > > now you are merely arguing your own convenience. It would be easy > > to set up a system where there were tiered offerings, e.g.: > > Your offerings violate your own assertion about computational expenses. No. The freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org list, in my example, would enforce topicality of postings. > >> > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. > >> > >> It is that choice to which I referred to above. > > > > "Responding" != "lobbing the first volley". > > In the sense I meant "responding" yes it does equal. You didn't have > to respond to me. You chose to. So take responsibility for initiating > this entire diatribe. You could have just ignored me... You could have just ignore my response. So by your argument, you should take responsibility for initiating this entire diatribe. > > It's implicit. Trolls are by definition, off-topic. > > Where does it say this explicitly? ;) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html > > No. What justified is self defense, either by an individual or > > a society. Some defenses are merely more effective than others. > > So if someone is chopping the hedges on your side of the fence, > and you blow him away with a 12-gauge shotgun, it's ok because > it was effective? If they cart you off to prision, and in two years someone buys the house next door, and chops the hedges on your side of the fence, then it wasn't effective. -- 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?3D7367BB.2AC28CF2>