Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:05:51 -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:  <3D7CFF1F.7DE767FC@mindspring.com>
References:  <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote:
> > 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".

Of course you do... it avoids you having to accept a consensual
definition.  8-).

> Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;)

Perhaps individually.  On average, though, they are not, and
that's really the only useful place to measure them, since
measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary.


> >> This won't work for your case.
> >
> > Thanks!  I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY...  8-).
> 
> It is.

How is that possible, if you were able to predict it?


> >> 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. ;)

I thought you'd like that.


> >> 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.

You're still talking, aren't you?


> > 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? ;)

Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship.

-- 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?3D7CFF1F.7DE767FC>