Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:59:01 -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: <3D7819F5.EB51EDE7@mindspring.com> References: <200209060106.g8616H197913@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > >> 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. I will believe this if you can convince a rationalist that there is no gravity, "ti becomes real for them", and you demonstrate for me a flying rationalist. I guess this is where we get the phrase "flying in the face of reason". 8-). > > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). > > That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely not edge cases, according to the original definition. > > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. > > As you believe, so shall it be. "Hail, hail, fire and snow..." > > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > > system. > > What was nature designed for? It wasn't designed, as far as we know. > > 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. No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite the archives, if your memory has failed you. > > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > > the correct one. > > That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. > >> 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? Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. > > 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". If you want to call that a "blinder" because you need me to appear to be wearing blinders for your philosophy to not dissolve in a puff of logic, I have no problem with you propping up your reality by choposing your perception of me. > >> 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. Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). > >> 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. It does in *professional* practice. 8-). > >> 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? Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). > > 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. ;) That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. 8-). > >> > 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"? For someone who keeps making phenomenological claims, you'd think that you wouldn't care where an idea originated, if thevalidity of the idea isseperate from its source... > >> > 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. Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification of theories, based on empirical observations. > >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly > >> >> impenetrable. ;) [ ... ] > > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building > > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. > > Same thing. "Do as I say, not as I do"? > >> > 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. Then live with the natural consequence of people behaving as if it's not true. [ ... forcing people 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. By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. > > 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. "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. If that's impossible, I'll also accept any predictive working model, as long as we agree to stay away from edge conditions where the model fails to operate predictively. 8-). > > 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. I don't attempt to control what people do and say. I don't have the rights to update the mailing list "blacklists". I am merely stating that trolls can be effectively squelched, because they are not emergent. You are claiming that they can not be, because they are emergent, and propose a "conservation of social energy" model, in which trolls come into existance as part of kind of an equivalent to a "social pair-production" process, where for every contributor, there is an equal and opposite troll. Before I accept your proposition that there is a new conservation law that you've discovered, and which no one else has ever seen before, I'd like to look at the data myself, and to repeat the experiments that have led you to this conclusion and see if I reach the same conclusions. That's eminently fair, I think, since you are the one proposing a change to the established order, which is based on the theory that no such pair production exists, and seems to work pretty well, despite your claim that its nature is flawed. I'm even accepting your premise for the sake of argument, even though my own observations of the ratio of trolls to contributors indicates that no such pair production is occuring, given the self-evident preponderance of contributors. > >> 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 your model is flawed, or you are trying to operate at too high a granularity. > > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. > > No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. -- 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?3D7819F5.EB51EDE7>