Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:06:12 -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: <200209060106.g8616H197913@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The environment is an actor, in this case. >> >> Never is the environment an actor. > > I dare you to live in a mobile home in "Tornado Alley". 8-). I live in California, thank you, and I'm not leaving anytime soon. ;) >> 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. > > I think you are projecting your own faith. A tautology, given the above. >> >> 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 > > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. >> > 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. > > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. As you believe, so shall it be. > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > system. What was nature designed for? >> > 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. > > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your > friend Tim, and people like them Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > (if we are picking teams, and you pick "trolls" for your side, that > leaves me with the last guy tanding as a defacto pick). I can assure you my first picks would be people who have demonstrated tolerance and sense in handling mailing list traffic. >> >> Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) >> > >> > It's still not a religion, >> >> Yes it is. > > If *you* treat it as such, then maybe it is, *for you*. Yes, and since you are ultimately a figment of my imagination, it is for you too. |) >> > 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. > > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > the correct one. That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. >> >> 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? > > I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not > accept without my own observation. But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? >> > 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. > > I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts > my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. Ah, so you will accept only datum which you can label as "evidence". So your "blinders" are achieved by labelling something as "not-evidence". >> 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. > I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave > consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle > the effort. I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the dismissal. >> >> 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. > > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always happen in practice. >> 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. ;) > > Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. Just where do you find a definitive source on these? Is agreement by majority consensus or by consensus of some arbitrary group of cognoscenti? >> 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. > > Don't hold your breath. 8-). I won't, the universe is slow but inexorable. ;) >> >> 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* > > You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner > consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". > Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class > can make the same observations, or come up with their own > observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. > Thanks. Wow, even more hand waving, and a tennis ball to boot. ;) >> >> 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. > > The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". > 8-). I thought we were elevating "Terry Lambert, Psychosocial Mathematician"? >> >> 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? > > OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. I don't even work with this branch of math much anymore, other than to correlate existing data for which I have data that spans the entire space. >> >> > 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. > > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. Same thing. >> >> 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. > > How about killing all trolls? That would work. Eventually, > people would be afraid to troll. That won't work because you won't find anyone dishonorable enough to do that for free. >> > 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. > > Prove it. No. >> >> 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". > > Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox > which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing > we want, That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to do anything. >> > 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? > > I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, > which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but > ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you > an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are > not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, > which you have, so far, failed to offer. The problem is, because of the type of person you are, a) proving anything to you is impossible and b) you won't be able to see any alternative stratigies. Your mind is made up, and I'm not going to waste time proving the contrary to you...to do so might be dishonorable. >> > 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. > > Have at it... I'm not in charge of that department. ;) >> >> 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. > > No, they aren't. The instruments are dead, but the hands that > wielded them are very much alive. Assuming there were hands in the first plcae. >> >> 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. > > Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? > "We demand that ... " They are doing a class of things kind of like what you are attempting, attempting to control what people do and say. This is far easier to do if you don't advertise that you are attempting this but go ahead and do your actions anyway. >> >> > 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'. > > Clearly, you need to control the number of variables in your > experiments in the future, such that they do not exceed the > number of equations in the system. You can't always control variables where humans are concerned. >> > Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the >> > big issues. 8-). >> >> Why waste time on the irrelevant? =) > > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. >> >> 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. ;) > > It's not going to happen, particularly when I have data that > contradicts you. Even if you didn't, it wouldn't happen ... ;) >> > 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. > > Perception is irrelevant. Gravity does not, contrary to the > Roadrunner cartoons, only effect people who look down and notice > they are standing in mid-air. You've never been a toon, have you? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. 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?200209060106.g8616H197913>