Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:21:45 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209011821.g81ILo144411@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: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should >> >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) >> >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do >> >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. >> > >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? >> >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they >> do as a first priority? > > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, on what you are doing for another. > You have to take "OTHERS" into account; it's not about "controlling > them", it's about communication. If you take the tack that you are > "out for yourself", then you lose. Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am talking about. > Understanding the Prisoner's Dilemma, you are half way to > understanding why Objectivisn is not a long term success > strategy, and why you should license your code under a BSD > license, rather than the GPL. 8-). Man, are you implying I'm an objectivist? *shudder* If you wanted to insult me (and I let you), you picked one of the best ways. >> > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive >> > approximation, >> >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. > > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model > that correctly". 8-). I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring semantics. >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do >> more harm than good. > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error > probability. What good is this for measuring "good"? > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone does not know how to approach this correctly. >> > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to >> > using it instead. >> >> It's not -my- responsibility to do -your- duty. ;) > > How did it become my *duty*? It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure 'highest and best good'. > Are you implying a belief in the Social Contract? 8-). I don't really believe anything anymore, even if I happen to use the word in passing conversation. It is either knowable or unknowable.n If knowable, I either know it or I do not. >> >> It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to >> >> demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to >> >> be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. >> > >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve >> > homeostasis. >> >> IYHO. ;) > > Definitionally. Your definition. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< By definition, when you are investigating the unknown, you do not know what you will find or even when you have found it. 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?200209011821.g81ILo144411>