Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:37:58 -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: <200209050838.g858c3190658@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: >> > 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". > > The environment is an actor, in this case. Never is the environment an actor. >> >> 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.... > > Hasn't not worked yet... ;^). Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. >> > 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. > > I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the > charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). I claim that posts which defy classification are INside the charter, unless they are explicitly EXcluded from it. =P > On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to > the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not > transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. Even if I offered one, you would not let it be one. > This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed > fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing > effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". But it doesn't bug me like it bugs you. It's not a problem to me, until it results in moderation, which is a problem in itself. >> >> 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. ;) > > It's still not a religion, Yes it is. > and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. True, yet berating the accusation as an endless repetition will not make it -not- one. >> >> 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? > > One which allows the problem space to be commutatively transformed > into a representation, with no loss of information. You lose information in every representation you make about humanity. So you are doomed. >> 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. > > Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical > mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on > information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory > detail in my modern physics course. You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you do not have false data? > It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical > representations of the situations in question, when stripped > of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. I claim this is just fancy justifia for your not being willing to consider something that contradicts your tenets of reality. Hence, as I see it, you aren't really a critical thinker. It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. >> >> > 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. =) > > I haven't given enough information about the problem space for > you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* > answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. >> >> >> 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"? ;) > > Yes. It does. It provides you enough leeway to claim that what > you said is not what you meant, so that you don't actually ever > have to defend your statements. I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) If I am defending statements, then someone must be attacking. Are you? > It's a technique people use to avoid defending their statements, > particularly when they know they are wrong. Go ahead and consider me wrong then. That way you can ignore me, and never see what I am saying. >> > 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. > > Why not, when human interactions can be repsented by the > mathematics of game theory? Why do I keep thinking I am reading Asimov when I am talking to you? > It's hubris to claim that human behaviour cannot be mathematically > modelled, particularly when you mean "because I can't do it, no one > can do it". No, I don't claim you can't. I don't even claim I can't or can. I'd claim you are using mathematics to obscure the real perceptor in you that predicts human behavior, but then I'm having to "defend" that claim because of course it will be "attacked". This turns around and lends credence to your game-theory perception of human interaction. It's not worth it. I'll just have to wait until some aspect of the real world that you can't model comes up and smacks you over the head. Then I can either a) get ego-gratification by saying "I tried to tell you" or b) say "Moo!". >> > 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. > > That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion > at hand. There's that hand waving again. ;) Hi to you too! *wave* >> > 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. > > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is > therefore empirically falsifiable. Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. >> >> 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. > > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. Like? >> > 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. ;) > > This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. Not exactly. I don't kick people out or ban trolls. I merely make sure the list is not perceivable by the general net.public. That has worked wonders. It's not what I want, but it's a start. >> >> 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. > > IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True > Answer(tm), I don't. That is the only apparent way it will ultimately solve itself. I'm open to other ideas, but not those that involve any explicit moderation. > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them to moderation. >> >> 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. > > Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog > dare you. 8-). You can't force people to grow, except maybe in your mathematical world of game-theory...where people are punished for not adhering to the formula. In fact, forcing them to grow is contrary to "natural law". >> >> 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. ;) > > They do not have me worried. Then why spend so much energy debating and thinking about the problem? Surely you are not one to waste time? >> > 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. > > Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be > solved. 8-). No. =( An entirely new planet will have to be started. >> >> 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? > > A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of > September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, > there is no chance of those responsible achieving their > goals as a result of the action. Those who did it are -dead-. Hello? If they were interviewable you can bet that reporters would be interviewing them. Sufficient, but not necessary. In the example I outlined, if you didn't interview me, someone else would. >> >> 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? > > It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no > redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. That just means they are trying to get people to meet demands that for some reason they don't want everyone to know about. >> >> >> 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. > > So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). No, that's a 'it worked initially but other factors interfered with the experiment, thus any clear observational result from a single cause was lost'. >> >> > 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. > > Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the > big issues. 8-). Why waste time on the irrelevant? =) >> > 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. > > It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's > possible to agree with you. It's more fun to attempt to get you to agree by feel rather than by mind. ;) >> >> > 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. > > Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. I never said it did, and you are confusing transport with the perception of the fora again. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Reporter (n.) - 1. A cat waiting at a mousehole. 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?200209050838.g858c3190658>