Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:02:01 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209090202.g89226125430@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication >> > into stagnicity" >> >> I also claim that you can't, but I'm unwilling to provide examples. >> Your also assert that you can predict the behavior of any arbitrary >> group of humanity, and I think this is similarly naive. > > Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, > since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling > point to be predictive. What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling point? >> >> >> > 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 it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? >> > >> > That it exists without apparent design? >> >> You claim "the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct >> system". Given that nature is a system and given that you can't >> yet know who designed it, how can you assume it is correct? > > I don't. You are trying to generalized my statement, effectively > changing "the system" into "all systems". If you want to generalize, > you can do so, but the burden of proof is on you, not me, if you > choose to do that. Man, I wish I could tap dance like that. ;) I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or provide testable evidence? >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is >> >> arbitrary. >> > >> > It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. >> >> What do you mean by "fixed"? > > not subject to change or fluctuation. > > Antonym: Arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference > or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of > something <an arbitrary standard> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is arbitrary. >> > since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As >> > external observers, we can't fix your world view without your >> > cooperation. >> >> You assume it is broken. > > No assumption necessary. Yes there is. You have to first assume that you in fact have my worlview (rather than what limited glimpes you get from my communications). >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> source of livelihood or as a career". > > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > to act in a professional manner? Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career". (Hmm, a sloop.) >> >> Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very >> >> many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work >> >> to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is >> >> really thinking. >> > >> > That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? >> >> There's also a problem for people who take refuge in mobs...er the >> majority viewpoint. As an obvious counterexample, this means you >> have to consider Britney Spears a good musician. > > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I > can pretend... See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) >> > Makes it really hard to proselytize... >> >> You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. > > Or that of the individual nut-job... The only place you can approach the Truth is from the individual point away from the mob. >> >> Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to >> >> comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. >> >> All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) >> > >> > You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in >> > order to be able to comment... >> >> That's not a demand, it's a request. =P > > Request denied. 8-). Yer not the authority. =P >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your >> keyboard. ;) > > "LA LA LA!" <presses key> "I CAN'T READ YOU!" Ah! That "<presses key>" adds an action to your original presentation. In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just <press the key> and get more effective results. |) >> >> > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. >> >> >> >> Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. >> > >> > No. Merely use techniques which I respect. >> >> Still, your respect is involved and not your awareness. > > I am aware my respect is involved. But apparently not aware that your respect is required. >> >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which >> >> > fits all the facts. >> >> >> >> These are local maxima. >> > >> > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less >> > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? >> >> The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured >> effectiveness. > > The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits > all the facts". That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". >> > You've communicated your preference. What now? >> >> What, indeed? I find it interesting that our banter has produced a >> -real- religious debate as a child. I think this is indicative of >> the unagreeability of our respective positions. ;) > > Or it's a subtle commentary on your argumentative style... Or it's a subtle commentary on YOUR argumentative style... =) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time. 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?200209090202.g89226125430>