Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen <polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909154656.H48089-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> In-Reply-To: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in Now, that's where you're wrong. You CAN"T measure entropy in relative terms. > >> > 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"? Saying "community" brings a whole lot of words INAPPROPRIATE for the Stock Market. > > > > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had > > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What > > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". > > [...examples...] I would like some examples. > > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", Why don't you take the tip of this point, and sit on it. > > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a It's an explicit PHENOMONAN only in that it can be observed; however it's NOT an "agreement". Your comparison is similar to saying, "I am, therefor I drink." It's PROBABLY true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true. > > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. > > Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Thing > is, they are still arbitrary. ;) > "Consentual" reality? I think not, and that is not verisimilar. > >> > As such, it is never arbitrary. > >> > >> Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) > > > > I'm surprised that you can ever get any useful work done; perhaps > > its because of an arbitrary perception of "useful"? ;^). > > Then there's the arbitrary perception of "work". I prefer to call it > "play" myself. ;) > Now we're treading in the waters of Phantasmagoria. Which came first: the chicken or the agg? > >> >> > 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 Webster's dictionary using the word, not me. I used the > > word "professionally". > > By indirection you used the word, since you a) typed it and b) > referred to it to define "professional". > He may have copy and pasted it, gotten someone else to do it. > >> 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. Attem No. > >> pting 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. > > > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). > > It is. > > BTW, since everything is arbitrary, "arbitrary" is meaningless. ;) > > >> 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. > > > > That's an incorrect caracterization of me. > > Of course it is, to you. > > > You fail to grasp that rationalization is antithetical to my world > > view. > First you argue that I am qarbitrary, and now you INSIST that I am part of a class system. > ROFL! From beginning to end this entire diatribe is one big > rationalization. > > >> 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. > > > > Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. > > And you hold the keys to decide what "can" and "cannot be" > proven. Beautiful. ;) > Listen, take your Star Wars philosophy BACK WHERE IT BELONGS. > >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a > >> rational way. =) > > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not > > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, > > You presume I want to convince you. > What, do you think you're Yoda? > > nor is it possible to be truly irrational in a rational way, without > > the flaws in your model being extern LOL. Too much C? > > ally visible to those who do not > > share it. > > The flaws help to convince you that the model is irrational. ;) > > >> > 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? > > > > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". > > I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) > ------ > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > > If, from time to time, you give up expectation...then you > will be able to perceive what it is that you are getting. > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > pls...... i am romania....... 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?20020909154656.H48089-100000>