Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:09:35 -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: <200209050609.g8569e189500@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. >> >> It's not able to choose. The creatures are either able to adapt or >> they are not. > > The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the > necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they > are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the > genes which express as those characteristics. That explanation makes more sense than "the environment chooses". >> 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. > > All scientific problems are by definition solvable using the > scientific method. If they aren't, then they are not scientific > problems, they are some other class of problems. Ah, correctness by definition. I get it. ;) >> > 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? > > The method works anyway. > >> What if the problem mutates? > > Then you reanalyze it. > >> What if your classification was in error? > > Then you start over. All the while believing that your methodology must work for any problem.... >> I bet I feel about this methodology what you feel about mine. ;) > Unlikely... 8-). I'm not so sure this is entirely unlikely or even a little unlikely... ;) >> > 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. > > As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem > with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion > elsewhere. The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy classification except for trivial cases. > [ ... signed, timed, signature keys ... ] >> 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. > > I'm also forcing that verifiable identity to obtain a limited > time permission in order to post -- a lease -- which must be > renewed to permit continued posting. > > This permits a feedback mechanism -- whatever mechanism the > list membership consensually decides is appropriate -- to be > used to enforce against continued abuse of the list. You are > a SPAM'mer, and your identity loses posting rights. You are a > troll, and your identity loses posting rights. Etc.. This extends to "we don't like you, your identity loses posting rights". >> >> > 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. > > People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the > walk. Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) >> >> > [ ... 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. > > I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a > valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. What standards of "valid" are you using here? > Your assumption about what happens when you sample something whose > frequency is higher than the sample rate being similar to what > happens when you set V > C in a Lorentz transformation is incorrect, > because there is not equal symmetry around the centerpoint. It's not exact, but similar. The same kinds of things happen. More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been around. >> > 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? > > What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your > process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls > on the file to permit it to be read by your program? Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges and exit with an error message to that effect. =) >> >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still >> >> "practically work". >> > "Finger quotes"?!? >> >> Eh? > > The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' > says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. "Does it"? ;) >> >> > 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? > > I never said you could. I responded to your statement: > > | You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have > | the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. > > If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular > space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all > the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the > other. > > Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. What works in the mathematical domain may not translate properly to the domain of mailing lists and human interaction. > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects > of life". I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot be handled thus. >> >> 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. > > Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, > so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive > models. 8-). What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. >> > 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. > > I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is > hard are two different things. Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe the phenomena. >> >> 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. > > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly impenetrable. ;) >> 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. > > Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse > to exhibit it. If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether they did. >> 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. ;) > > I resemble that remark... ;^). We all do. ;) >> > Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a >> > control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is >> > an independent entity, 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. > > That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to > be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. > You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take > that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally > instead. Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the only way out is to wait for people to grow up. >> >> 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. > > Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are > very different things. But they have you worried, oh he who's reality is expressible as a mathematically consistent and well-defined space. ;) >> > 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. > > It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from > propagating. And then you'll discover they have a necessary component to a survival trait we need. >> >> 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. > > Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; > how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" > (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? >> >> 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. > > I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've > posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each > subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? Why is this important? >> >> 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. > > So it worked with Tim, did it? For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. >> >> > 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. > > Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, > even when you, a dedicated person, can not? I don't expect them to keep up even if trolls were wiped from the face of the plannet. "Keeping up" is a larger issue than trolls, so much larger that trolls (even a group of determined ones) are largely irrelevant to the big picture. >> >> 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. > > That's exactly what a pupet in your position would say. 8-) 8-). Yes, so you can't tell that I'm not. But I can. ;) >> >> 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. > > Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the > content of the charter are. Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have posts that are on the edge. >> > 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. > > Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. Not for high traffic lists. Freebsd-hackers feels like a 1987ish usenet group. >> > 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. ;) > > I merely posted a thought about your thought; there was no attack. Ok "you pounced on that thought"... ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone asked. "Because I am a Fool" came the reply. "Well," the someone asked "Why don't you then fill other people's bags with your own wheat?" "Then," came the answer, "I would be more of a fool." 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?200209050609.g8569e189500>