Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:08:46 -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: <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;) Yes; if you are, you have already lost, since you will lack the ability to communicate it to anyone else. Even if you perceive the numinous, you yourself are not numinous. It's like being a Sony MiniDisc player, with the "one copy only" bit set. 8-). > > The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the > > gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. > > If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that > effectively the same as removing it? You *really* don't know much math, do you? The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not active, then they are not removed. The result is the genetic equivalent of a binary weapon. Actually, genes can "half express". An example of this is the sicle-cell anemia gene, which, if fully expressed, was invariably fatal in the past (these days, if it's caught, we can effectively treat the symptoms, but not correct the flaw that causes them, with a bone marrow transplant -- another example on the order of corrective lenses or exogenous insulin). The interesting part is that if you only have 1/2 the genes for Sicle-Cell anemia, then you are resistant to infection by Malaria. When the Malaria virus invades a cell, rather than reproducing itself (and the virus, spreading it), the cell sicles. Similarly, the genes for Tay-Sachs protect against Tuberculosis, and the genes for Cystic Fibrosis protect against Cholera. > > "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". > > You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road... Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). > > I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and > > "wrong". > > So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they > will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat. I remember this guy named Galileo... [ ... putting rapists in prison and/or killing them ... ] > Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible > reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they > are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more > efficient. This shows a really poor understanding of evolution. Here's a nutshell synthesis, taking your premise: o A mutation occurs, resulting in an individual with a new trait, which can be passed on o The environment votes for or against the reproduction of the individual o If the environment votes "for", then the genes are passed on, and enter the gene pool o If the environment votes "against", then the genese are not passed on, and remain outside the gene pool None of the evolutionary preseeures in for bear on the *parents* of the individual with the mutation, *only* on the success of the mutated individual itself. > > External reality can act to take away our access to any reality, > > external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if > > you dislike it. > > Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter > example. That external reality *does not* does not mean that it *can not*. > > As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to > > forget one thing to remember another. > > Irrelevant to the point, of course. Sure it is. You were claiming a finite resources, with a near bound. I'm arguing that, if not infinite, at least the bound is much farther away than you claim. > They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. Read: The Transparent Society David Brin ISBN: 0-7382-0144-8 > The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills > on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live > within and be unnoticed until time to act. Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. [ ... ] > You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize, > I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant > and obviously wrong. ;) So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? Wasn't someone just saying something about Kurt Goedel the other day?... > > I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you > > can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). > > That would go against rigor. ;) Hardly. We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the model you are proposing. > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > > about four weeks ago. > > This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing. Challenged -- and he won -- in a U.K. court. > > If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas > > will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. > > It's humanity that loses. Apparently not in the opinion of humanity... > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. > > This is false but I won't prove it. ;) Goedel. > > > All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. > > I disagree, and you can't prove that. |) Goedel. > > If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you > > would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since > > an ineffective block is a transparent membrane. > > It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls, > but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why > I get so vehement. As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem we are trying to address. > > It works? > > Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly > have problems you didn't before. You calim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than merely decimating them, they do not rise again. > > and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in > > failure? > > Which ones would those be? Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of Virtue". > >> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a > >> roundabout way of course. > > > > Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an > > attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's > > basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two). > > What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue. You have seen negative reaction to the troll. There has been no positive reaction, other than your own. > >> I do. I want to read those posts. > > > > So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, > > What venue would that be? =P One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. > > What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to > > read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in > > which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO. > > Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those > posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable > as the regular traffic. Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? > However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not > because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect > moderation has on the information flow in the list. My real position is against any sort of trolling, because of the chilling effect trolling has on the information flow in the list. > > Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". > > Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual > definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't). > > If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking > ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings > (e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this > nature with reason and rationality. > > Is this your position as well? Yes, that's my preference. > > Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within > > the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. > > A demonstration is inappropriate. It's the only appropriate response to a threat of "censorship". > My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been > arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like > about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of > information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish > to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is > good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts. The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual security network. That is the point of a mutual security network. Even a loosely connected network will be successful in achieving this goal. > Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso, > their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses > after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does > not involve moderation. Ah. Good. Then you agree with the actions which have already been taken by the list, in this regard. > > before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice > > that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). > > You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I > told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just > because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;) Actually, you said you would stop bantering "if asked"; no need to implicate me specifically in your control function. 8-). > > I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal > > altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not > > have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in > > order to communicate what I meant. > > It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the > original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me, > since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician", > "excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;) It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. > Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and > really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist > efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped > wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.) The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. I don't believe *anyone* has suggested moderation of -hackers or -chat as a means of preventing the troll postings to those venues. > > On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating > > your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society > > on that server, instead. > > I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience" > you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to > your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would > have to interfere by your own definitions. Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of which I am a member. > >> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. > > > > I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a > > license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-). > > Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use > the FreeBSD lists? In the limit... yes. Though your reaction implies inclusionary licensing, rather than exclisionary non-licensing. A social contract grants you a license. A society has a right to terminate that license, if you are in violation of the social contract under whose terms you obtained the license. To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in which a particular audience exists. > Are you sure you don't work for the US Govt? [ checks implant... ] Pretty sure... my black helicopter is just a lease, not a company car... 8-). [ ... changing your mind by changing your mind ... ] > > Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. > > The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to > reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil. It's preconditioned on your willing participation in the society, and a grant of license by you, by virtue of your participation. Participation in society is voluntary. > > Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create > > such a place in the noosphere. > > I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society. > I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you > created it. Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for it to exist in the first place. 8-). > > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and > > they'd be the society being trolled. > > And would your principles apply then? ;) Yes. > >> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't > >> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get > >> an infinite source of email accounts. > > > > "Hotmail". > > Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume > that someday it will go away. Next? ;) <http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Communications_and_Networking/Internet_and_World_Wide_Web/Email_Providers/Free_Email/>; > > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is > > possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their > > nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the > > direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem > > with permitting trolls. > > That is not the definition I was using. > > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, > due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since > new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if > these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And > herein lies the problem with moderation. The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of license. If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue or a different license, then feel free to do so. Both the BSD and Linux communities are members of a larger community which is self-assembled around the issue of an attribute of license: the Open Source or non-Open Source nature of the license. If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue or a different license, then feel free to do so. > > Your point is that I must have faith in my axioms. I will accept > > that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what > > they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them > > by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated. > > Only 8? Amazing. What are they? None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). > > Or not data I want, > > Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the > raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another > man's Data. I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an additional latency barrier. Your way, of having only one single mailing list for all of the Internet, and forcing everyone to filter, is inefficient, both because it's computationally a much more expensive algorithm, and because of the latency that's introduced. > > because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical > > observations? > > Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a > study of them? Oh, yes. Which is why I can speak to motive without difficulty. > >> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate > >> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how > >> they can and cannot speak. > > > > That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications > > medium, > > No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential necessity has yet to be established indisputably. > > That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely > > because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. > > As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion > hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the > internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is > necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you > don't like on the internet. And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. > The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises > it's ugly head. It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. > >> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I > >> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, > >> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than > >> thinking I am a fool. > > > > You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. > > Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;) It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. > > It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established > > social norm of the society in which your posting was made. > > What established social norm? "No Trolls Allowed (or birds)". > > Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not > > share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me > > any reason to accept the ideal as my own. > > I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to > arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real > external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly > understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will > arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that. It's not going to happen. Your ideal is (apparently) not emergent. > >> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something > >>> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... > > > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I > > don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context; > > I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great > > Satan"... 8-). > > "Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names, > but the root of the concept is still the same. ;) Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. > > Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls > > are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If > > nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-). > > You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls > are a member? *shudder* Yes. > Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...) I recommend you learn to type faster. > > I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which > > agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves > > because they felt I was doing an adequate job. > > Remember, on the internet saying anything which relies on the validity > or existence of "all those unspoken supporters" is always considered > false. You do not have to *create* a Schelling point to *recognize* a schelling point. > > Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned. > > That's evolutionary pressure on the tree. |) No, it's not. Reread my initial statements on the operation of the evlutionary process. > Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots? > As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because > humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors. "Why not"? We can start with the fact that you're the one who wants to change society... 8-). > > Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be > > lower than my own), > > Don't presume please. ;) > > > to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that > > matter. > > The ends justify the means? The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the means. That's a very different statement. > > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > > care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > The individuals care, in both cases. I'm sure you'd care a lot > if attending a Christian Church was mandated on Sundays... It doesn't matter to the society if the individual members care or not. If they care enough, they can elect to discontinue their membership the society. This is a trivial operation in the noosphere, much less trivial in physicality -- but still doable. > >> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% > >> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. > >> > >> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are > >> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone > >> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? > > > > That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of > > one of a set of possible solutions to the problem. > > I thought absurda was "ok" in your book? You are not performing a reductio ad absurdum argument, unless you follow the premise to its logical conclusions. In this case, you've pulled a conclusion out of thin air, based on several of your own assumptions (the first being that there is a "master" in the first place; someone who does not exist can neither be "haughty" nor "humble"). -- 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?3D72E44E.CB303FAE>