Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:06:46 -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: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> References: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote:
> Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity
> (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal
> of any pressure.
Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than
they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition.
> No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but
> I can't prove that).
By your troll argument, you should at least gve me a chance to
infect you with my memes...
> Where did you get "fear"? Are we miffed? ;)
"Royal we" ? "I don't know, are you?" : "No";
> 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."
I guess you might as well give up, then, since there's no hope...
> > 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?
Of course. Society defines morality.
> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to
> survival in hostile environments. By definition even.
Nature seems to vote against that one.
> >> 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.
Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be
arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents.
> >> 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?
You.
> 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.
No, just catatonic. 8-).
> > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree".
>
> What's this reference now?
Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc..
[ ... ]
> > 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.
And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is.
> >> > 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.
Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you,
and are forced to cooperate.
[ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ]
> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are.
That's a big "whatever".
[ ... ]
> 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.
"Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is
an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to
say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally?
> > 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. ;)
Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole.
[ ... ]
> > 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).
I'll accept a shorter half-life. It's a reasonable approximation
of the desired outcome.
> >> 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.
Can you prove that?
[ ... ]
> > [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ]
> > Like I said before: emigrate.
>
> To where?
I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic;
must I think of everything? ;^).
[ ... and argument is either valid or invalid ... ]
> 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.
No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case,
without using negation of the union of the other two.
[ ... totalitarian societies ... ]
> 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.
You've asserted it, but not proven it. "Look at Russia" is a "this
one totalitarian society was stagnant by this one metric" argument,
and therefore not representative of the class.
[ ... ]
> 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.
And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit
bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either
of us will ever get our way.
> > 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...
You're right. We should block their manipulations!
[ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ]
> > 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. ;)
Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise
here is that it doesn't start out that way.
[ ... ]
> > 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".
Where I come from, it's called social conscience.
[ ... SPAM ... ]
> > 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".
So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters
for this discussion.
> > 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.
Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences;
if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks
gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a
problem.
> Implied contracts are shady. Unless I specifically agree to a
> contract, I expect not to be held to one. Anything else is
> dishonorable.
Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born
into a different society. 8-).
> 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.
It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test.
> > 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 *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we
are talking the equivalent of stone soup.
> 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".
The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context.
> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by
> definition (no strings, remember?).
They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of
the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-).
> > 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*
In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their
neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be
who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your
logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to
exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom,
or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-).
[ ... ]
> >> 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.
"Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose
to create.
I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work.
[ ... ]
> > 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.
The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of
an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism.
Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the
first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't
take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to
establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I
trust Bob").
An escalation of this is "Tom trusts Bob, Bob betrays trust, Bob
is kicked, Tom trusts Phil nee Bob, Phil is kicked, Tom is kicked"
("You ARE the weakest link: Goodbye!").
[ ... ]
> > No faith required.
>
> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain
> things on faith before you learn enough.
Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even
meets the language requirement, at some universities.
> Trolls really do communicate data.
Noise is not data.
[ ... ]
> >> 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.
[ ... ]
> I didn't say "designed" I said "destined". Deliberately.
I'm dyslexic [ I guess that's not "adversity", any more than
near-sightedness, though, since there are coping mechanisms available ].
Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest
destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were
not the case. It is merely a communications medium.
[ ... ]
> In other words, I'm waiting for FreeNet.
Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies,
and exploiters to help you.
[ ... ]
> > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry.
>
> You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I
> reciprocate?
You want to sway me with your arguments, then you accept my
standards of proof. I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's
probably a lost cause given "there is no such thing as an
acceptable proof".
> > So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means
> > it's open season.
>
> Such violence. Is this being an anti-sociopath?
Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic.
"Be All That You Can Be".
[ ... ]
> > 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?
I know a couple of IP addresses, and I have done statistical
linguistics analysis on non-quoted material, along with archival
mailing list logs.
But I wouldn't say I'm angry, merely deeply engaged in mapping the
problem space prior to proposing a solution set which maps everywhere
but where the cancer lies, in order to create an exclusion set.
[ ... ]
> > The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose.
>
> So you presume to speak for everyone else?
Can not a member of an audience applaud for themselves, without
applauding for the rest of the audience? Let's just say that
it's my single vote, out of the crowd.
> 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.
Sometimes rules just have to be enforced, particularly when natural
human judgement is defective.
If education were the answer to all problems, then a lot of the
current social ills we are facing would have ceased to exist
long ago. On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected
individuals is 100% effective in stopping the spread of any
epidemic.
> >> >> Or you, in failing to see new data.
> >> > What new data?
> >> See?
> > No?
>
> That is the problem.
Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to
ensure clarity. 8-).
-- 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?3D6F1986.847DD15B>