Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:15:50 -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: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > 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. Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal of any pressure. Try again. ;) > [ ... ] >> > 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. No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but I can't prove that). Where did you get "fear"? Are we miffed? ;) > [ ... ] >> > 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". Ah. I believe you misinterpreted that word and the meaning. Perhaps I should be more rigorous in this case: "For all communities with a non-null set of elements belonging to the set of all of mankind, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- 'good' that said organization can do." > [ ... 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. > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? >> 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. The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > [ ... ] >> 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. You claim to understand this too ya know. > [ ... ] >> 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. Who? > I just can't buy the idea that something has validity independent of > its source. Of course not, you've apparently missed the entire point of Zen. You don't have to be a phenomenologist to handle the things that happen internally at a higher priority than the external stuff. > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". What's this reference now? > [ ... ] >> > 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; You go right on believing that. > aspratame bonds to the N-Dopamine receptors, So that's why that stuff makes me sick. > [ ... ] >> >> 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. Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, 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. I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > [ ... ] >> > 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. It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. > The vast majority of humand have never heard of automata theory, let > alone been forcibly indoctrinated against their wills. Maybe not "forcibly" but surely "constantly". I take it you haven't been to very many normal human parties, and seen it when someone turns on the TV. The first domino's commercial you see has people calling for pizza. Ding, slobber. What do politicians do when they want to get elected? The most effective way is to mount a hate campaign against the other candidate. You going to tell me this is not indoctrination? Ding, slobber. > [ ... ] >> > 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"? "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > [ ... ] >> 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. Yes they can, their half-life is shorter in the face of fascist moderation, but they will still appear (briefly). >> 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. Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. > [ ... ] >> 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 UUCP != USENET. UUCP enabled USENET, however. > [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] > Like I said before: emigrate. To where? >> > 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. Who needs to? You present a binary alternative. You fail to see a third alternative which is neither of the previous two. That's the excluded middle thing which -you- brought up in the first place. > [ ... ] >> > 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. I've asserted such societies eventually stagnate for lack of new and/or challenging input, and stop growing usefully. Look at Russia, if you want an example. > Unless your argument is "totalitarian = good" or "I have pixie dust > that will make societies magically disappear" Oh, I put that stuff away. It makes things too easy. ;) > [ ... ] >> > I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to >> > it (yet). >> >> There's hope! > > Growing slimmer. But still existent. Look, I could accuse you of being a weak troll, with your harumphy sort of academic dismissive nature. As I see it, your type is responsible for the lack of respect I have for academia, yet I don't discount all of academia just because I can't stand your type. I think you should give some trolls a similar break. >> > 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. This makes sense. They drive some people to want oppression, even though it's bad for them. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves be manipulated by them... > Bein in favor of the continued existance of trolls, you must > therefore approve of this end state, right? No, I do not. But remember, the end state means no trolls. >> > 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. I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) > [ ... ] >> > So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? >> >> Not if it dishonors another, IMEO. > > Your position is counter species-survival. So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, this is called "being nosy". > [ ... ] >> > 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. I've never heard the acronym spelled out, but the rest is consistent. > As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial > advertisements. The consensual definition would disagree with this. When I ask most people what spam is, they respond with "those damn adverts in my mail box". > [ ... ] >> 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. This destroys the future postings in that venue. >> > 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. Implied contracts are shady. Unless I specifically agree to a contract, I expect not to be held to one. Anything else is dishonorable. My point in this example was to consider relative cost. One troll posting messages, verses 100 people posting messages, means the relative cost of the troll is far under the cost of propagating the list. It costs more to each list user if 100 people post on topic, and we know some list readers aren't interested in -all- the topics. If you block trolls simply because of cost, you also must block weakly-popular topics to be fair, and now we are moderating by utility. >> > 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. A real gift is given with no strings. None. It's not given, then taken away because "someone posted wrong". It's given freely and openly with zero conditions. A fake gift (aka "a sacrifice") is given with strings. It's given with conditions and expectations attached, and woe be unto those who break those conditions or fail to meet those expectations. If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by definition (no strings, remember?). > [ ... ] >> 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? For one, where this mindset exists on the net, that you might learn from it what not to think. Then again, some people may need to be racists...so this will teach them what TO think. *shrug* > [ ... ] >> > 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. Sorry. You can only move yourself, not everyone else...or the analogy to what I was communicating falls apart. >> > 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. Life and communication is not really modellable as a Nim like game. > 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. Interesting. I actually like this idea. At least the troll can communicate every -other- message. The problem next becomes how to ensure that the troll has a near-infinte supply of email adresses. > 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. Er, no. *I* can't comment, only the list maintainer can comment, which means it's the maintainer's comment and NOT the consensus of everyone on the list. > [ ... ] >> > 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. Referring to day-to-day life I am. >> >> 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-). I'm sure the royal you would be most thankful if I never picked an issue. |) > [ ... ] >> >> 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. It may take eons. > [ ... ] >> >> 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. Careful what you postulate. > [ ... ] >> > 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? Stupidity. ;) > [ ... ] >> > 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. Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain things on faith before you learn enough. For example, when introduced to variables and equations in algebra, you have to take it on faith that the operations used in the equations are defined over the domain and range of the values and variable in the equations. How do you teach differentials and integrals? You take it on faith that something is integrable over some domain and you learn to integrate it anyway. > [ ... 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. Trolls really do communicate data. >> >> > 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. They are if you eat certain foods. > [ ... ] >> > 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. Presuming that entire barrel of assumptions is true, of course. >> > 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-). To each his or her idols. Oh wait, these are "figures of science" not "religious idols". ;) > [ ... ] >> >> 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-). As he listened to the constant drone of "I will NOT eat green eggs and ham". ;) >> > [ ... 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. Trust me (or don't), I don't work that way. > [ ... ] >> > 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. I didn't say "designed" I said "destined". Deliberately. >> > 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. I've done this before, I'll not do it again until I can be assured that no fasicts will be able to delete ANY communications on it. In other words, I'm waiting for FreeNet. > [ ... ] >> 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. You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I reciprocate? > What's the exception to gravity? People are afraid they might fly off the planet, so they accept it. ;) > [ ... ] >> >> 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. Such violence. Is this being an anti-sociopath? >> 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". You know more than you are telling about these trolls. Is that where your anger at them comes from? > [ ... ] >> >> 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. So you presume to speak for everyone else? >> > 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. Sometimes rules just have to be broken. Enforcement prevents the development of natural human judgement as to when to break rules. Explanation assists this development, and eventually... one does not need rules. > [ ... ] >> >> Or you, in failing to see new data. >> > What new data? >> See? > No? That is the problem. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught. 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?200208300515.g7U5Ft118955>