Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:38:20 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in >> > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. >> >> So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why >> couldn't you just say "community"? > > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". > [...examples...] > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) >> > As such, it is never arbitrary. >> >> Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) > > I'm surprised that you can ever get any useful work done; perhaps > its because of an arbitrary perception of "useful"? ;^). Then there's the arbitrary perception of "work". I prefer to call it "play" myself. ;) >> >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or >> >> > ethical standards of a profession. >> >> >> >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. >> > >> > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. >> >> Yes you did, it's in your quote above. > > That's Webster's dictionary using the word, not me. I used the > word "professionally". By indirection you used the word, since you a) typed it and b) referred to it to define "professional". >> With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that >> "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that >> allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually >> doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point >> out that I think these two things are different. Attempting to impose >> ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being >> unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and >> most people would just agree to disagree after they had been >> presented. >> >> This won't work for your case. > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). It is. BTW, since everything is arbitrary, "arbitrary" is meaningless. ;) >> That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to >> develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this >> space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are >> so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to >> argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist >> classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who >> refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you >> are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human >> mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize >> anything if you try hard enough. > > That's an incorrect caracterization of me. Of course it is, to you. > You fail to grasp that rationalization is antithetical to my world > view. ROFL! From beginning to end this entire diatribe is one big rationalization. >> A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely >> tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what >> it cannot understand. > > Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. And you hold the keys to decide what "can" and "cannot be" proven. Beautiful. ;) >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a >> rational way. =) > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, You presume I want to convince you. > nor is it possible to be truly irrational in a rational way, without > the flaws in your model being externally visible to those who do not > share it. The flaws help to convince you that the model is irrational. ;) >> > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". >> >> Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with >> experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how >> come you can't do this with trolls? > > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If, from time to time, you give up expectation...then you will be able to perceive what it is that you are getting. 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?200209091938.g89JcP133606>