From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13: 7: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A188437B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2BA43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oUoB-0002F8-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:06:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CFF1F.7DE767FC@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:05:51 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > 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...] > > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", > > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a > > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. > > Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Of course you do... it avoids you having to accept a consensual definition. 8-). > Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and that's really the only useful place to measure them, since measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. > >> This won't work for your case. > > > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). > > It is. How is that possible, if you were able to predict it? > >> 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. ;) I thought you'd like that. > >> 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. You're still talking, aren't you? > > 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? ;) Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message