Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:08:38 -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: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Ah, time for the nightly Lambert exercise in futility. To wit...]
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> 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.
Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but
this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause
evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim
it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way
to the others' satisfaction, lets move on.
>> 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...
Memes don't normally infect me via mental means.
>> 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...
Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm
working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things
completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived
at my destination.
>> > 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.
Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines
morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines
"the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people
with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent.
>> 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.
How so?
>> >> 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.
I think that the latter arrogance has more honor...the former
is akin to cowardice.
>> >> 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.
Me? No. I'm not a phenomenologist in the classical sense (nor in the
romantic sense). I merely realize "consensual reality" is one of many.
>> 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-).
Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it
ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste
brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and
yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy
the quote points at.
Only on Earth. LOL.
>> > 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..
All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line
even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs.
So your point was...?
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is
inefficient at best.
>> >> > 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.
You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone
either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state.
> [ ... 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".
Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of
"useless rationality" you have.
> [ ... ]
>> 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's the difference? It's the same thing, ultimately. One is just
a fancier name and has less of an import on the feeling of severity.
>> > 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.
I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display
of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually,
and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any
sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers?
>> >> 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?
Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity.
> [ ... ]
>> > [ ... 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? ;^).
That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will
come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but
in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers?
> [ ... 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.
How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain
frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"?
> [ ... 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.
It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little
societies, all different.
> [ ... ]
>> 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.
Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;)
>> > 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!
Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being
effective.
> [ ... 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.
Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception
of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship.
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right?
> [ ... 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.
I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a
roundabout way of course.
>> > 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.
I do. I want to read those posts.
>> 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-).
Oh, I have a choice now? I thought you were a rationalist or
objectivist or something like that?
>> 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.
The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore
both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that
reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about
topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel
it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays
upwards of a penny per message to download it.
>> > 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.
That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are
talking about.
>> 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.
It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality.
>> 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-).
Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want.
>> > 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-).
*slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face*
Wrong. Sometimes I think you favor the notion of "thoughtcrime".
> [ ... ]
>> >> 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.
No such place. Next?
> I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work.
It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of
them. ;)
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't
stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get
an infinite source of email accounts.
> 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").
On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of
moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know.
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can.
You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of
me out there. Gee.
>> Trolls really do communicate data.
>
> Noise is not data.
Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting.
> [ ... ]
>> >> 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 ].
I would have never guessed unless you'd told me.
> 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.
IYHO.
IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate
with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how
they can and cannot speak. The internet is the most likely choice at
this time.
> [ ... ]
>> 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.
At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this
tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act
impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job.
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
You presume I want to sway you. I can assure you I don't have a
wrecking ball in my posession, cause that is what it will take
to sway someone so deeply entrenched in assumption as yourself.
I really don't want to sway you.
Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I
haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token,
I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than
thinking I am a fool.
And I -am- a fool. I'm more of a fool if I think I am swaying you, but
I said that already. ;)
> I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause
> given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof".
I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts
that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you
are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum.
>> > 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".
You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something
to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces...
> [ ... ]
>> > 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.
Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in
how to get rid of them.
It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your
own view. But I can settle for fascinated.
> [ ... ]
>> > 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?
Well, you'd look pretty funny if you were the only one clapping...
> Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd.
WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone"
thing. *chalk*
>> 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.
Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be
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.
You presume that we've been using "education". What passes for that
noun these days is more like "indoctrination"...at least at the
poverty and inner-city school level.
Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings.
Real human beings have good judgement.
> On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100%
> effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic.
And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are
taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone
that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up?
>> >> >> 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-).
--> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <----
;)
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
A would-be disciple came to Nasrudin's hut on the mountain-side. Knowing
that every action of such an enlightened one is significant, the seeker
watched the teacher closely. "Why do you blow on your hands?" "To warm
myself in the cold." Later, Nasrudin poured bowls of hot soup for himself
and the newcomer, and blew on his own. "Why are you doing that, Master?"
"To cool the soup." Unable to trust a man who uses the same process
to arrive at two different results -- hot and cold -- the disciple departed.
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?200208310608.g7V68h128080>