Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:27:10 -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: <200209090927.g899RF129594@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling >> >> point? >> > >> > What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling >> > point. >> >> It's arbitrary that you've found them to share one. > > Are you maybe unaware of what people mean when they say "Schelling > point"? I know I am unaware of what -you- mean when -you- say this. ;) > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why couldn't you just say "community"? > As such, it is never arbitrary. Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) >> >> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is >> >> arbitrary. >> > >> > Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... >> >> Everything is arbitrary. ;) > > Almost nothing is arbitrary; it actually takes a great amount of > skill to be arbitrary, and even the skilled often fail at the > attempt. Gee we do real good at opposing each other. Isn't that arbitrary? ;) >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or >> > ethical standards of a profession. >> >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. > > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. Yes you did, it's in your quote above. >> That's not yours to give, but I'll bet you'll find some argument to >> justify that. ;) > > "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to > the death your right to die in a fire of suspicious origin..." With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point out that I think these two things are different. Attempting to impose ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and most people would just agree to disagree after they had been presented. This won't work for your case. That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize anything if you try hard enough. A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what it cannot understand. Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a rational way. =) >> >> >> > 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. |) >> > >> > Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? >> >> It is, however you added <presses key>. > > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how come you can't do this with trolls? >> >> That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". >> > >> > Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. >> >> It's an irrelevant and arbitrary modifier. > > It's not arbitrary. Everything is arbitrary. Ommm. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It's easier to agree to do better tomorrow than to do your best today. 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?200209090927.g899RF129594>