Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:29:23 -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: <200209090129.g891TS124946@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). >> >> >> >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. >> > >> > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little >> > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely >> > not edge cases, according to the original definition. >> >> This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You >> claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. > > 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. > (never been to Stagni City; I hear they have great seafood, up near > Seattle... ;^)). Yeah, but they serve the same thing each time you go there... ;) > In the limit, your argument boils down to a claim that lack of > atopicality :== stagnation. In the region of interest, however...it does not. >> >> > 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? >> >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your >> >> > friend Tim, and people like them >> >> >> >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. >> > >> > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. >> >> Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick >> of one's finger onto the "next message" key. > > So why didn't this work with you and Tim, if you're convinced of > its value as a success strategy? It worked for me. >> > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls >> > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite >> > the archives, if your memory has failed you. >> >> Go for it. > > Do you honestly want a cite, or are you claiming irrelevance? I claim that this isn't what I suggested, this is what you are inferring from my suggestions. ;) >> >> > 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"? >> >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? >> > >> > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they >> > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. >> >> What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first >> glance? > > Then someone will point out *why* its unsound, This is an assumption. You have no guarantee of this, or that someone will see it. >> >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the >> >> dismissal. >> > >> > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). >> >> You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) > > Personally, I have no interest in resolving the contradictions > which enable me to dismiss your philosophy as "not self-consistant", "Belittle" not "resolve". ;) > 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. >> >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms >> >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. >> >> >> >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification >> >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always >> >> happen in practice. >> > >> > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). >> >> So money dictates your reality? > > 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". >> > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition >> > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). >> >> 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. > Makes it really hard to proselytize... You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. >> > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. >> > 8-). >> >> Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to >> comply with your demands. ;) > > It will, if my demands are a logical XOR of two possible outcomes, > one of which is achievable by force. 8-). You have not yet learned the Jedi mind tricks I see. :) >> 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 >> >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to >> >> do anything. >> > >> > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. >> >> If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to >> force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle >> whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. >> If they ask for help, show them the next message key. > > 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. ;) >> > "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. >> > 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. >> >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. >> >> >> >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. >> > >> > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else >> > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. >> >> I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them >> not do it. > > 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. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "If a man does keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." - Henry David Thoreau 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?200209090129.g891TS124946>