Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:49:42 -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: <3D6E6CC6.E74052EB@mindspring.com> References: <200208290958.g7T9wa110717@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > You'll have to show me where academic theory says that adversity isn't > an evolutionary pressure. That flys in the face of academic theory, > let alone mine. If you are near sighted and must wear classes, you suffer from adversity. Due to the classes and the recent lack of large feline predators, near-sightedness, while a form of adversity, is not an evolutionary pressure. [ ... ] > > Define what you would consider an acceptable proof. > > Ok. First you must prove to me that the notion of "proof" exists and > is applicable to testing ideas... ;) In other words, you won't define an acceptable proof, for fear of having to face one. [ ... ] > > Mankind's evolutionary state is such that no matter what > > organization or community forms, corruption, inefficiency and > > politics will derail any -real- "good" that said organization can > > do. > > Where did you get "self-assembled" and "cannot be the result of a > conscious design"? The choice of the word "forms". [ ... more Unibomber ... ] > I don't agree nor disagree with his goals or methods. I think his life > is a lesson for those who wish to see it. I am arrogant indeed, > ( perhaps even more so than you ;) ) but I'm not so arrogant as > to think that I really have any say over whet that person should > or should not have done, fought for, or believed. > > Now if I had ever met or talked to the man, I might have offered him > my opinion...but that never happened. ;) There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. [ ... prisons ... ] > Unfortunately governments, in their quest to look all merciful and all > knowing, started calling such places "rehabilitation" centers. In > actuality, I perceive this naming to be more like "re-indoctrination" > centers, but they really function as "isolation" centers. Status update: Moved from 'Bug' to 'Works as designed'. > I could also call them "evolutionary" centers, but you'll violently > disagree again. =) Of course, since removal from the gene pool removes one's potential progeny, and therefore the ability to select *for* the involved genes. If they are anything, they are centers of anti-evolution. [ ... ] > It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or > even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is > that it can understand anything. You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. [ ... ] > There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. Sorry; this is the second time you've implied that you're a phenomenologist. I just can't buy the idea that something has validity independent of its source. There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". [ ... ] > > And it is only you who are looking at the cave mounth, instead > > of at the shadows cast on the back wall of the cave? > > Not only me. Some others can too. Every so often I run into someone > who's glimpsed it. Perhaps they've had too much Nutrasweet; aspratame bonds to the N-Dopamine receptors, and has a tendency to put people off their meds... [ ... ] > >> This is no better than slavery. > > We prefer the term "speed limit". [ rant on speed limits destorying people's judgement ] It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. [ ... amoralism ... ] > > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > > otherwise. > > You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with > -your- morals. ;) No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. [ ... ] > > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons > > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? > > Good question. Tell that to the society that is trying to mold humans > into that image. It's not; you're paranoid. The vast majority of humand have never heard of automata theory, let alone been forcibly indoctrinated against their wills. > > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. > > Why don't you explain this model? It takes a book or two. I've already referenced it. It's a variant on the non-linear Richardson model called "GloboCop". It is quite predictive of super power (i.e. "core team") based systems behaviour in the face of externa threats. [ ... ] > > The alternative to "sociopath" is "terrorist"; I was giving the > > benefit of the doubt. > > I've been talking about misfits, which I believe describes a troll > adequeately. You are not going to get me (or most anyone else) to buy > that a "troll" == "terrorist". What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they can not control? "Naughty"? [ ... ] > Zealous defense of trolls? Har. More evidence that you did not > understand my initial posting, nor do you understand my position. > > Let me make it clear. > > Trolls != bad. Trolls != good. Trolls exist as a result of a > community. Trolls cannot exist outside of a community. Conclusion: > Trolls are irrelevant and not worth any wastage of energy. > > That's what I first said, paraphrased. Let me make my position clear: Trolls can not exist outside the context of an infrastructure which enables them to communicate. > You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any > logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. > It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree > with that. You're wrong, but that's expected, in this case. [ ... ] > It's a USENET thing. If you haven't experienced USENET in the late 80s > early 90s, you can't possibly understand. ...ihnp4!century!terry [ ... ] > > Quit attaching conditions like "and live very long". It implies > > social action, > > I don't always consider self-defense to be a social action. We can agree to disagree, then. [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] Like I said before: emigrate. > > Either your argument is universally valid, or it's not. > > There's that excluded middle you are excluding again. ;) Look up "universal". It's a definitional thing. [ ... ] > > Getting back to the trolls, however, you have yet to articulate a > > downside to them not being there. > > I've articulated it a lot, you have just decided not to see it. Accepting your argument, for the sake of argument, it removes an environmental stressor that acts as a spur to evolution. You still haven't proven, however, that it's a positive stressor, rather than a negative one. I've given examples of how societies react to negative stressors by becoming more totalitarian. Unless your argument is "totalitarian = good" or "I have pixie dust that will make societies magically disappear" or something of a similar nature, and you haven't voiced it for some reason. [ ... ] > > I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to > > it (yet). > > There's hope! Growing slimmer. > > If it happens, you will know by the first example of my advocacy of > > such an idea would be a draft RFC, and a set of patches for > > sendmail, most of the mail clients in -ports, and plugins for > > Outlook, Eudora, and perhaps Netscape. > > I recognize that this would provide some rather serious capability > > for oppression, which could be abused in the future at some point > > in time > > Not "could". "Will". OK. So maybe that's the trolls goal: an oppressive society. Bein in favor of the continued existance of trolls, you must therefore approve of this end state, right? > > But make no mistake: it's quite possible to "change the laws of > > physics" for email transport for the net to squelch trolls, SPAM, > > ...and politically "undesiarble" speech (an unfortunate side effect > > whose cost would have to be excceded by my perception of the cost of > > trolls). > > I can't imagine anything ever exceeding that cost, sorry. My perception of the cost. If it doesn't exceed your perception, well, I guess you won't be writing the code, but that won't stop the code from being written. [ ... ] > > So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? > > Not if it dishonors another, IMEO. Your position is counter species-survival. [ ... ] > > Blocking trolls -- or SPAM -- as a result of the content of the > > postings isn't a social immune response? > > SPAM should be a separate discussion, as I argue SPAM is a result of > the culture's obsession with attention-marketing as the only means of > increasing sales. SPAM is kind of a resonant response of this > obsession, and can never really be immunized as long as the culture is > so greedy. Any response to SPAM is one of those guilty type knee jerk > responses...kind of like when mom catches you with a cookie and you > say "My brother did it, he needs to be spanked". No, SPAM is "Shit Parading As Meat", if we take the original Usenet definition that got it called "SPAM" in the first place, based on the treatment of the luncheon meat as an acronym that expanded to that value by soldiers involved in trench warfare in Europe. As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial advertisements. [ ... ] > I don't see blocking trolls as a social immune response. I see it as > an attempt to squelch "bad ideas and thoughts" by a community, kind of > like book burning or those fools who painted underwear on Goku on the > DragonBall DVDs. A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced to another venue. That's the beauty of the noosphere: you don't destroy information by not permitting it outlet in controlled channels. > > I'm not talking about amortized cost, I'm talking individual cost. > > You can't dismiss it that easily; in Japan, it costs per packet to > > send packets (as one example). > > I can inversely. Consider the case in which normal mail (non-troll, > non-spam, on-topic) is sent at a high rate. Should people be told they > can't post on-topic messages cause it costs a percentage of the list > extra money? No. If the post is on-topic, there was an implied contract in the act of subscription to the list that recipients would willingly accept on-topic postings. The other half of that contract is that the list concommitantly agreed to not propagate off-topic postings when it was possible to avoid. Since all posts by trolls are, by definition of most list charters, off-topic, blocking troll posts is not only reasonable and prudent -- it's the right thing for the list to do, to keep up its end of the bargain. > > Maybe I don't care about the goal, I care about the effect. > > How about you come up with a way to de-fang the effect, and > > then I can agree with you about trolls being socially > > permissable? > > What "fang"? People let trolls affect them, so they are able to. When > people (even good ones) leave due to trolls, I reckon they aren't so > good after all since a troll can get them to leave. Trolls don't bug > me any. So there's no "fang" for me at all to remove. Maybe you missed the fact that Open Source projects are mutual altruism networks, so "they don't bug me any" is not a sufficient response. [ ... ] > You can't seem to see information content in Trolls. I see a wealth. So enlighten everyone: what information was in the last troll posting? [ ... ] > > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead > > of having some jerk push me. > > Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. > > Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, > so he falls and you don't? =) If you insist on stretching the analogy, yes, by moving the list out from under him. > > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit > > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" > > to act in self defense. > > It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. The optimal strategy for any Nim-like game is modified tit-for-tat with forgiveness. If the troll will not communicate any information in his postings, then you allow a post. If a second post occurs, then you block the posting address. The troll creates another email account on a free server, and posts again. You allow the post. If it happens again, you block the address. Even if the troll absolutely refuses to communicate in the content of the posting, you have transformed the blocked/non-blocked status of the posting account into a covert communications channel, with which you can comment on the social acceptability of the troll's behaviour. [ ... ] > > If social adversity is so good, why overcome it at all, and > > just wallow in it for all eternity? > > We have been, if you haven't noticed. No, we haven't. We've been pursuing the optimim possible strategy to establish a commincations channel, by not blocking initial troll-posts, but blocking a second troll-post, then forgiving and not blocking a third (whether or not the forgiveness is out of our control is, in this case, irrelevent). > > I have to agree with William Tecumpsah Sherman on this one. > > Who? A general who, in the U.S. Civil War, marched through Georgia to the sea, destroying everything in his path (usually burning it to the ground). Like the Romans, who would plow salt into the fields of their enemies, so that food crops would ever grow there again, and feed future enemies, he was an advocate of the doctrine of "total war". RichardH's advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons on religious sites over which wars are fought due to historical significance is an example of the doctrine: destroy the historical significance, and you destroy the first cause for conflict. > >> If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that > >> I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of > >> my life 24/7. > > > > And the change from the current status quo would be... ? > > ...a lot let me tell you. Instead of one message to one small mailing > list per 3-4 hours, I'd be constantly posting mail and news messages > every waking moment. ;) Let us be thankful you only pick the small issues, then... 8-). [ ... ] > >> It takes every kind of people. > > > > No, it doesn't. > > Yes it does. Robert Palmer can't be wrong and sound so good. > > Besides, genetic diversity helps search the solution space for the > answer, whatever it may be. Have to converge on an answer sometime; can't put off the convergence forever. [ ... ] > >> Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for > >> people to do in their copious spare time. > > If a troll can break a 1024 bit key, then we have larger issues > > we need to worry about. 8-). > > There are those who assert this is currently possible. It's likely > to be done if your key was pseudo-random. ;) If it could be done routinely, we'd have bigger problems. [ ... ] > > Why do you believe that they will have any more choice in the > > matter than the people England sent to Australia in the 19th > > century? > > Because I don't consider them criminals. What makes you think that makes any difference to the outcome? [ ... ] > > Science is a process, not a religion. > > Nonsense. It has tenets, commandments, and even a preferred way of > thinking to hand out to it's constituents. No faith required. [ ... why trolls, why now? ... ] > > They are being paid. > > Damn, my black helicopter is still in the shop. I'll just use Bill's. > ;) Acting as if it were true solves the problem just as well as if it were actually true. > >> > Of my model for some Open Source projects? > >> > >> Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? > > > > Not in any predictive sense, no. Mostly, it's just been hand > > waving. > > That tends to happen with the presence of the pungent by-products of > digestion.... Pungent by-products of digestion are not predictive. [ ... ] > > even if you can't identify them, you can identify their effects. > > You -think- you can identify their effects, presuming you have the > referent points to correctly identify the effects that are actually > occuring. You can identify the Schelling points, even without that; they are strange attractors. And you can make accurate predictions based on the results, even if you don't really understand why the math works, and have to make up a story that fits the equations (just like QED). > > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity above a quantum > > level is a popular misconception. > > Suit yourself. I'd rather suit Heisenberg and Schroedinger, thanks. 8-). [ ... ] > >> That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. > > > > Rather than finding like-minded people and acting in concert, > > you would prefer to rage against the wind? > > Not only would I prefer it, it's my way. I am my Don Quixote, Lord of > La Mancha.... ;) Said Yertle the Turtle. 8-). > > [ ... on racially motivated discord ... ] > >> > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? > >> > >> Basically. > > > > That's appalling. > > I'm glad you approve. I have no choice, but I bet you can't determine > why. Because it derives from your first principles, obviously. [ ... ] > > The point is still valid, even if you choose to talk around it: > > why is there a "right" to the forum of mailing lists, but not to > > access to national media networks? > > I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the > national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in > the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. No, the Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war and maintain some semblance of function, as a communications medium for military command and control. It *happens* to have other uses to which it can be turned, but it wa not *designed* with those other uses in mind. > > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, > > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability > > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of > > closure. > > I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, > somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying > "censor the morons". Feel free to put up a server for this purpose; it's not the responsibility of everyone who puts up a server that can be used for a particular purpose to permit such use. [ ... ] > For every general principle, it is possible to construct a specific > example which doesn't work with that principle (even this one). > > I'd say your logical validity is in question. Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. What's the exception to gravity? [ ... ] > >> I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. > > > > Mad at *what*? Take *what*? > > Mad at being excluded or not heard, and he's not gonna take not being > heard anymore. So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means it's open season. > Oh come on. You know this is a straw man. No list is going to "redress > grievances" for a troll. Assuming there *are* grievences, other than "my employer wants your society disassembled for spare parts", you are probably correct. The answer, in the Open Source arena, is "then fork the project and create ``TrollBSD'', or rename it to something else, so that it's less obvious". > > I think that I have to believe the troll is rational, and as such, > > the desire is not for a reddres of grievances, but for the effects > > on the society. > > So, Mr. Academia, how do you propose to test this theory? Are you > going to offer the troll(s) amnesty? ;) No. The troll merely need fork the project and start his own distribution of FreeBSD. All of the tools for doing this are available at no cost, or low cost, if they want to dictate their own terms. This assumes that you are correct, and that there are grievances at issue, and that the troll is not being paid to try and disrupt the project, rather than simply venting frustration at unaddressed grievances. [ ... ] > > No, you just defended an instance as art, on the premise that > > other instances could be art: "it is a fish; all trout are fish; > > it's probably a trout". > > I did no such thing. I was refuting your statement that "criminal acts > cannot be art". I said they can be, and provided an example. What more > is needed? An accurate quote of what I actually said, which was not "criminal acts cannot be art". Other than this quote, I have not used the phrase "criminal acts" since 22 Sep 2001. [ ... ] > >> Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun > >> doing your superior dance. > > > > It's not a question of being supercillious, it's a question of > > asking "and ... ?" and you not having an answer that would make > > us accept everything that came before. > > Us? Who's us? Is this the royal "we" I am seeing? "Oh Sir Lambert, > your lance is showing...". Not supercilious my gluteus maximus. The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose. > > How do you enforce a "Do Not Enter" sign? > > You don't. You explain why. You let the person looking at the sign > choose. I prefer enforcement. It permits people to make simplifying assumptions which would be erroneous, were the sign not enforced. [ ... ] > >> Or you, in failing to see new data. > > What new data? > > See? No? -- 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?3D6E6CC6.E74052EB>