From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 13:15:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF1937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6875343E6E for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CKFE159747; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122015.g8CKFE159747@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:09 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. >> >> I thought "observation" was an inaccurate methodology in the Terry >> Lambert mindview? > > This shows the inaccuracy of your model of me, doesn't it? That, or it shows that you will shift your words when it is convienent for you. ;) > It's you who is the phenomenologist. Great. More labels. >> > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. >> > AKA "life". >> >> I bet you can't prove that life is an increase in order. Any >> poor urban area is disproof by observation. ;) > > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. >> > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person >> > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis >> > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in >> > the past, by people arguing rationally. >> >> ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as >> axioms. ;) > > Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without first making a bunch of your own? ;) > It makes me incredibly tolerant, This is wrong by observation. You aren't tolerant of trolls. A truly incredible tolerant person would be. QED. |) > and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. Oh I doubt that highly. > If my axioms are a subset of yours, then there's nothing about > them that any person can successfully call arbitrary, without > calling their own arbitrary. Everything is arbitrary. =) > Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand > the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal > rules. I don't pretend to it. I know it, and it's inverse. I use whichever one is appropriate at the time. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message