Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:40:15 -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: <200209041140.g84BeK182877@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > 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. It's not able to choose. The creatures are either able to adapt or they are not. >> > 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? Huh? I don't "solve problems" in this fashion. My life is not defined as "one problem after another". Most of the problems I solve are scientific in nature, but not even all of those are handlable by the methodology you describe. > 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. Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? What if the problem mutates? What if your classification was in error? I bet I feel about this methodology what you feel about mine. ;) >> > 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. Oh, not intended as flattery. It's more to the point about what we are mostly debating. If I was engaged in a mathematical debate about the validity of the denotation "NP-complete", I can see the references and words. I am, however, engaged in debating more on philosophic grounds (for lack of a better classification), and in these matters I don't accept what others say as a valid representation of your position. All people are unique. Any classification you do on a unique individual lowers your accuracy of estimation of said individual. >> 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. Actually your notion of "what a real world is" sparked my association. The song itself is very well written, and the artist has a track record of good songwriting. It's not Pat Metheny, but it will do. If he can escape the identity fixation of fame, we might see more of this. >> 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... Yes, that would be a contender. A machine restricting discourse has a nauseous taste to it. >> > 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. Nope. All you are doing here is forcing the users to have a "verifiable" identity. As most everything is, this is quite probably hackable, subject to identity theft from careless users, etc. > Also, all messages now non-repudiable (I view this as a > disadvantage, but not in this context). Why 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. Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since I was born. >> > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] >> Why? > Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent > series. See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your classifications. >> > 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-). Again, I'm not deluded into thinking I can convince. So I'll just "blip" over it. ;) > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. > -- Steinbach How do you know you can handle it before you get it? >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still >> "practically work". > "Finger quotes"?!? Eh? >> > 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" So? How does this imply that you can orthogonalize -all- aspects of life? >> > 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. We have arrived at another fundamental disagreement then. > Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but > statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee things about the evidence. That being said, there are certain human foibles that you can see in most people like clockwork. These could resemble statistical observations, but they are best understood by watching individual examples and then applying that experiential knowledge to further observation. >> 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. The truth is actually somewhere in between. >> > 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. The entire point wasn't to make my own sandbox and see who would play in it. This was a very common straw man. It's irrelevant to the drive I had at the time to express common sense and teach people (by the action of not moderating) to -freaking- press the "delete" or "next messsage" key when you don't like what someone posted. What is so damn -hard- about that? Why can't people just do this? Moving the finger takes very little caloric energy, less energy than continuing to read and get worked up. Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. This is all just more evidence that Earth is really a comedic stage for the amusement of whatever cosmic being(s) are out there watching. ;) >> 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. Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. >> 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. They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, they've managed to win the first round. >> >> 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". That is the first step to wisdom. |) >> > 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. So a superposition of reasons then. I claim classic moderation chills speech. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise, rationally or experientially. >> >> > 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. Hopefully there are enough mature people on the FreeBSD lists that this will not happen. >> > "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. Some people didn't trust the code and that's why they yanked. Our "society" is not perfect, and I daresay far from it. People like this guy are a reaction to it, which has been increasing in past years. >> >> 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... And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. >> > 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? Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. >> > 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. It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. > 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. I'm still trying to wake up out of the current dream, thank you. That's the dream you wake up to every morning, to clarify. "We dream, yet we are awake. The truth I know they cannot take." -Flora Purim >> > 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? Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. >> > 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. Them? Nope. This is my control over me. Deprogramming my mind and letting who I really am surface. >> >> 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. I'm not asking anything. I'm implying that unless it's done this way, it's not honorable. People should determine what they want to read. The converse is just as multiplicative; you have to sit there and make presumptions about what N people want to read. As N grows large, you are bound to make decisions that a portion of N would disagree with. This is what stagnates a list, since you have to LCD the presumptions to get "the most people" happy. >> > 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. The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the same thing, just on different scales. >> >> > 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. I merely posted a thought. You attacked that thought. That started the diatribe. Stop weasling, you must have known I wouldn't just back off. ;) >> > 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. Interesting dodge. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< To the ignorant, a pearl seems a mere stone. 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?200209041140.g84BeK182877>