Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:26:06 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200208290126.g7T1QC106932@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from >> >> seeing anything else that might be there. >> > >> > IYHO. 8-). >> >> Actually no. It's observable to yourself if you are willing to do the >> work or open the eyes a bit. I can't do this for you because...well >> that would be a consensus blinding you. ;) > > This is patently false. You can commit to comply with consensus, > while still dissenting. If you are dissenting or complying, you are still acknowledging that consensus still exists and has meaning. If you do neither, consensus stops having meaning, and then you are open to different perceptions. > Civil disobedience isn't the only possible means of protest, and it > not that effective compared to, say, being elected to congress. That's not effective either. Those who think congress really runs America are enjoying a most delicious delusion. >> >> For example, it was one time known by consensus that the correct >> >> viewpoint was that the world was flat... >> > >> > And it was, for all intents and purposes. As a working hypothesis, >> > it's as good an approximation as, say, Newtonian mechanics. >> >> Yet it wasn't exact, and the example holds as to how consensus can >> blind you to the exact truth. > > The exact truth is a Platonic ideal; it's not achievable in the > real world The real world is an Aristotlean ideal; it doesn't exist in the space of exact truth. =P For the simpler minded, John Mayer said it best. >> > It's useful in that it's predictive. That's makes it one up on >> > uncontrolled anarchy. >> >> Anarchy is always perceived as uncontrolled. This stems from a >> commonly held fear-based view of that state, usually reinforced by >> people wanting to make sure you are supportive of whatever government >> is in place. > > In other words "Yes, you are advocating anarchy". Horrors! I have commited the most grevious sin of not speaking against that evil of evils... <echo delay=100ms feedback=0.8>ANARCHY</echo> Actually if you look, I'm not really advocating that. But it's more fun not to look. ;) > That's fine, as long as you realize that the vast majority of humans > *like* predictability, and anything besides that is outside their > comfort zone, and short of insurrection, you are not going to get > the anarchy you want. I don't -want- it. It's there to be, if possible. Anything I want is in the way of what I truly need. But that's another 10 message interchange. >> You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or >> that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it >> best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's >> evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or >> community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any >> -real- "good" that said organization can do. > > So work on human evolution, instead of pissing in people's > campfires because they aren't building fusion powered heaters > fast enough for you. Who's pissing in people's campfires now? Did you even read what I said with intent to understand, or are you just looking for a good time in argument? >> This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level >> of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the >> moment. > Says you and Ted Kaczynski. Who? >> This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) >> be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others >> regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant >> present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, >> e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. > (d) is problematic. For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's violations, just your own. >> Doing any one of these things is difficult even for people we call >> "aware" or "cool" or "respectable". Doing all of them can put the >> person at odds with "consensus" and evoke a palpable state of fear. >> This is why these things are not done commonly. It takes someone >> really in tune with themselves. > Or a sociopath. If you define sociopath as "one who refuses to conform to consensual standards just because they are consensual standards", I'd agree, > You forgot about people who eat people. I always forget them, they aren't real to me. I've never seen one. Even if I had seen one, I wouldn't focus on that one extrema as my shining example of why sociopathy is wrong and you must conform. >> No one's ready for this, yet. Painting it as evil or fearful just >> marks you as someone who isn't there yet or has no reference points to >> it. (That's not a bad thing, either.) The lack of reference points may >> stimulate you to pick this idea apart. I'll point out now that every >> argument you lob against this concept stems directly out of your >> fear...don't ask why, I can't explain it logically. > You seem to believe that I disagree with your psotion because I > don't understand it, If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying what you have been saying, nor presenting the examples you have been presenting. > but in fact I *do* understand it, and while > it has the same seductive logic of true communism, it ignores the > fact that human beings are biological machines, and no matter how > enlightened everyone starts out being, there are bound to be > malfunctions or even bad initial blueprints. My "position", as you call it, takes this into account. You have to be immune (somehow) to the high sigma endpoints of the bell curve or you need to evolve more. > If it's "to each. according to his need", well, then, all that's > really necessary is to manufacture "need". "Need" has to be moved to "want" or even "desire" before what I was talking about can unfold. Put another way, no one will need or want to abuse the system, because it won't occur to them and because there really will be no system to abuse. You dont need a system if everyone is enlightened and aware. >> I'm sorry, I guess you forgot that you have the absolute power to >> control your online input. You can make a troll irrelevant in a number >> of ways: > None of these work to avoid costing me storage space or time to > download, or per packet charges to download, etc.. Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you to store. I'll even give you a SCSI disk (more expensive). Current prices of 36GB scsi disks are $220-$250. We'll use $250 to give you even more leeway. This is just under 7 $/GB. A 4K message works out to costing you .00267 of a cent. Even if this person sent out 100 messages, that's .267 of a cent. I recognize some people are penny pinchers but...come on! ;) >> These are just off the top of my head. I can come up with others if >> you like? ;) > Yes. Come up with one that lets me not download or store the > message in the first place, and takes no ISP resources to filter. Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) > The easiest one I can think of is requiring sender certificates. Sorry. You are acting like one troll is a huge cost. It isn't. Let me assure you in my vast experience with trolls and message group communities, even 100 messages from 10 trolls only hurts the psyche of the community. Storage and transport costs are too cheap to care about what one person can do short of scripting floods. >> >> I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to >> >> tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were >> >> to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be >> >> solv-ed. >> > >> > So, for example, if you don't constantly pound on your skull with >> > a brick, in six months time, the first loose brick you see will, >> > without a doubt, be fatal to you from six yards away? >> >> This example is such a straw man. There's a real difference between a >> brick and a troll. If you doubt me, try both and see which hurts >> more. > > The troll. I can make the brick stop any time I want. I find it hard to believe that you can stop a brick in mid flight to your brain, and yet you can't stop one troll from affecting your world with the flick of a single key. >> > What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a >> > mutual security game. >> >> IYHO. ;) > > Actually, according to complexity theorists: ITHO. ;) > http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/indexResearch.html > http://www-chaos.umd.edu/ > http://cnls.lanl.gov > http://t13.lanl.gov > http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu > http://www.beckman.uiuc.edu > http://www.nbi.dk While these are some excellent academic links, not a one of them has anything even remotely resembling what I was describing. >> Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang >> out. > ??? I hang out in many places, generally preferring the anarchistic to the overly fascist. You seemed to assert you only like fascist places. >> > Because it's not societys job to accomodate the every whim of >> > the sociopathic individual? >> >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? > > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that > behaviour. Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor decry a behavior, don't you think? Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you have to render forth on each behavior you see? >> This is a matter of scope. On a subway, you are pretty much stuck >> there (you can change trains of course) physically. On a mailing list, >> you have this wonderful button on your monitor that makes anything >> anyone says irrelevant...it's called the "off" switch. You don't have >> to be on a mailing list. You don't have to read each and every message >> on said list. > > Or I don't have to hang out on lists with trolls. But your theory > says no matter what list I'm on, trolls will be an emergent part > of the environment, Yes, some lists will rigorously block trolls and others will not. That doesn't mean the trolls don't exist or will not emerge. > and that I should not block their access to the list, merely because > the name of the list is "list with no trolls" or something similar. Let me rephrase what you think I said. -I- think that troll access should not be blocked. -You- can do whatever you want, but I would recommend that you learn to filter trolls out at your brain since it's demonstrably the most efficient way to do so. >> >> > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also >> >> > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would >> >> > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent >> >> > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? >> >> >> >> Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. >> >> > Er, interesting theory... ever heard of Occam's Razor? >> >> I don't shave, I have a beard. ;) > > The simplest theory is that they weren't there until recently, and > all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. I never agreed with Occam's Razor. Sometimes it's not accurate. > Of course, I have a theory on why they have arrived, and what > their actual goals are (they are not the goals or purpose you > state for trolls, in general, because they are not the emergent > environmental trolls you claim are the only possible trolls), Man, are you good at reading things into what I said that aren't there or what? Do I have to forumlate a set of theorems so you can dispute each one separately? > and I could even give them pointers, since they probably have > not bothered to mathematically model the project that they are > attempting to disrupt (they are probably incapable of doing the > necessary math, actually). Ok, so what is your theory? >> >> Perhaps they were biding their time? >> > I guess we will all die of Ebola next Thursday at 17:05 Zulu, >> > since we are all infected, the virus has merely been "biding >> > its time". Sneaky bastard, that Ebola... 8-) 8-O. >> >> You are an interesting person, I must say. Your examples are only >> weakly parallel to the actual issues, yet you are convinced of them >> with the force of a thousand zealots. I see my mirror in you, sir, >> and I am grateful for the chance to observe this. =) > > It's an intentional tit-for-tat. Of course, oh superior one. Tell me what else I should know? =) >> >> That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the >> >> original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing >> >> sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. >> > >> > Well, I think I speak for everyone >> >> -That- is the number one cause of trolling. > > People cutting off people's sentences in the middle in order > to take them out of context? 8-). No, thinking you speak for everyone. >> > when I say that you're always free to find another planet, >> > where you declare what (IYHO) you believe the purpose of the >> > individual to be, and then deport anyone who doesn't agree with >> > you.... >> >> Man, do you miss the point. > > My failure to agree with you is not a failure of you to properly > communicate what you feel is the worth of your thesis, it's a > result of my disagreement with that thesis. I don't think we've reached a point where you -can- agree or disagree. I think you are still not understanding the thesis, and being a subjugate to Occam, you take the simplest road which is to disagree. I also think it will take more than email to communicate the principia of that thesis. I might have to try back in 20 years. >> >> >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. >> >> > The avowed racist and the cannibal? >> >> Them too. >> > No, not them too. The benefits of society do not accrue to those >> > who would destroy it. >> >> Perhaps the cannibal learns to eat prisoners, and the racist goes >> to live among his kind. > > What about your putative "troll" of "the wrong race" who chooses > as his means moving in next door to the racist who is actually > in the process of attempting to "live among his own kind"? Why is it society's job to prevent each from learning their own lesson? Let them fight each other and learn, eh? Neither is trying to destroy "society" per se, they are just trying to destroy each other's race. > What about the putative "troll" whose "moral code" requires that > when he eats people, he only eat people "who stood a sporting > chance at not being eaten, or eating him instead" -- which would > definitely not include the prisoners you are willing to feed to > him. What about him? Eventually, someone he tries to eat will kill him. Of course you can define a situation that supports your position, just like I can define one to support mine. The key debating point is, my position is self directed, yours is others directed. Which is more efficient? I assert self directed self improvement, rather than other's directed jihadic purging, takes the least energy and is more productive in the long run. >> >> > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. >> >> >> >> Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel >> >> it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. >> > >> > What about locking them up, and having no expectations of >> > them, other than that they not escape, and that they will >> > eventually die of natural causes? >> >> Everytime I point to this, you presume that the individual in question >> is some sort of extreme mass murderer. Where we fail to communicate is >> that I am pointing to the misfit, not the murderer. While both are >> nonconformists, there is a difference in degree and manner of their >> non-conformity. > > Reductio ad absurdum: I argue the extreme case because it is > the case that must be addressed in order to set boundary > conditions other than "it doesn't bother me that much, so you > live with it because I live with it". In that case, you should be killing everyone you see that is remotely different from you. After all, at some point they might be sociopathic or at the very least, against you....and you are doing society a favor. Ad absurdum arguments are seductive, but they don't produce workable realities...only absurd ones. > Your continued attempts to address the "what do we do or not do > with minor misfits, once we have built the anarchists utopia" > presumes premises which I'm not willing to accept directly, > merely for the sake of argument Ok. > (actually, you haven't *asked* that your premises be conditionally > accepted that way, you've simply held them forth as something > everyone should just naturally accept). I havent even held them forth as something everyone should just naturally accept. I've expressed my assertions, only you have risen to challenge them. While this is entertaining. it really hasn't changed them or me or you or yours or anyone else. It reminds me of the USENET of old, and that's pretty much the only reason why I continue. ;) > One of these is that "all trolls are only minor misfits", and > another is that "minor misfits should be tolerated in the utopian > anarchy". There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. What is your definition of a "troll that is not a minor misfit"? >> The tiger is the tiger. Do not expect the tiger to act like the >> rabbit. Yet, each animal has his place in the ecosystem. > Pigeons are a non-native species in North and South America. Yes, and as we have changed the environment, new niches appear which are filled by the available displaced lifeforms. ;) >> > Are you arguing that it is *never* right to segregate people >> > from the larger society? >> >> Not really. I'm arguing against this knee-jerk "hang em till they rot" >> attitude that I think I see in you applied to people who's only crime >> is thinking different than the pack. You keep using murderers in your >> examples and I keep using artists. > > I don't want to "hang em till they rot", I just want to block > their postings to a particular set of mailing lists. Hmm. Before you were talking about killing them all and letting God sort them out (metaphorically speaking of course). I guess I misunderstood. > On the flip side, you keep portraying sender blocking as if it > were some form of capital punishment, inviting extreme comparisons. It is to me. It's lost information. I learn just as much from the detractors as I do from the supporters. Block the detractors and that's a lot of information lost. >> It's not working. > That's because trolling is not "art", any more than any other > criminal activity is "art". Bah. Did you see the latest troll (message ID 20020828155003.37CC33960@sitemail.everyone.net) towards you? A masterpiece, I tell you! Brilliantly executed to make you seem like the good guy. And trolling about trolls, man that is exquisite. I'm surprised a man of your apparent culture level cannot appreciate this art form. ;) Criminal activity can be art. Ever see some of the graffiti artists in central LA? My god these people are talented with a spray paint can. Some of the stuff is so eye catching, it's hard to drive through the area without risking an accident. I can send you some photos if you don't frequent these kinds of areas. Just because the results and/or actions are illegal doesn't mean they aren't artistic. >> >> I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster >> >> happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster >> >> never happens). >> > >> > You must see some redeeming traits in the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of >> > the world that I don't. >> >> I see genetics, genetic algorithms, and I can kind of percieve the >> grandeur of the unanswered genetic question we are solving. > > "42". Yes, Douglas Adams almost had it right. Still, the real trick is to find the question. >> I recognize that "that one asshole" has to be there or we don't >> search the space of all solutions completely. I also recognize >> we can't know the question, so we shouldn't assume that someone >> doesn't have that answer...whoever or whatever that someone is. > > What is being searched or searched for, and who and where are > the pan-dimensional mice who entered the search terms? We -can't- know. That's how it's set up. >> Before you go there (which you apparently will), I'm not condoning >> murder or rape or any of that. I merely recognize that it is >> impossible for me to control other people, and that real control >> begins with yourself, which has a better chance of success than >> anything else. I don't kill, steal, rape, etc, and that's good enough >> for me. > > I don't think it's possible for individuals to assert any > important amount of control over more than a few people, > either. But it's demonstrably true that society can, and > does, exert such control. Where you seem to differ from me > is that I think it *should*. Society doesn't do a very good job of it, and that is part of the reason I think it shouldn't. The other part is that I think it's dishonorable to control others, I don't care who you are. > I look at this as a design problem, like the TCP protocol requiring > two response packets for a single request packet, with no means of > retransmit, or like gravity. The trolls can't disobey the laws of > physics merely because it suits them to do so; niether should "the > laws of physics of mailing lists" permit such behaviour. Rather > than stepping of the cliff and just hanging there, it would be nice > if, when they steped off the cliff, there were consequences that > were enforced automatically, imparitally, and immediately. Good luck. This is extremely difficult to do without stifling communication from those you want to hear from (who aren't trolls). >> Perhaps I just wish you'd try to see what I'm saying, instead >> of swinging that sword so much. ;) > > I understand that you're claiming trolls are not sociopaths, they > are merely people with the email equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. > Understand me, when I say I won't hire these people to work the > mailing lists, any more than I'd hire myself as a spotter. I dunno, I think a troll would be a perfect moderator. Trolls truly understand the impact of specific communications, more than most people anyway. And you'd have one less troll. |) >> > You're not seriously advocating that script kiddies serve a social >> > good which is not already served by the people who originally >> > discovered the problems, or that those who discover the problems, >> > but exploit rather than disclosing them are somehow beneficial to >> > society? >> >> There you go with that extrema again. Pick your examples carefully and >> you'll always win, right? > > Overgeneralize to include all destructive acts under your umbrella, > without addressing a specific case that could be shot down, and > you'll always lose, right? In picking a specific case such that you can fail to see the general paradigm, who's really losing here? >> Think about it. Without script kiddies and exploiters, how would the >> systems get stronger? > Why would the systems *need* to be stronger, if there weren't > script kiddies and exploiters? Rogue AI programs that get out of hand? ;) > But I'll answer the question: by design, and by disclosure of > weaknesses by a third party. There's no need for a Morris > worm, "Code Red", a Virus, or actual use of an exploit against > a target by hundreds or even thousands of people who could > never write the code themselves in the first place, for the > problem to be disclosed. Merely disclosing the problem to the > right people should be sufficient, and if it isn't, diclosure > to the public at large is. Which creates script kiddies and exploiters and contributes to the wonderous dance of opposites. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< There is a proverb: "The answer to a fool is silence." Observation, however, indicates that almost any other answer will have the same effect in the long run. 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?200208290126.g7T1QC106932>