From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5: 3:11 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 7ECFD37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE0143E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:03:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pSgU-0006Dz-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:02:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D808234.43E0DC6B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:01:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209120412.g8C4CM153202@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: > > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. > > I thought "observation" was an inaccurate methodology in the Terry > Lambert mindview? This shows the inaccuracy of your model of me, doesn't it? It's you who is the phenomenologist. > > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. > > AKA "life". > > I bet you can't prove that life is an increase in order. Any > poor urban area is disproof by observation. ;) Life is a local increase in order, by definition. > > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person > > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis > > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in > > the past, by people arguing rationally. > > ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as > axioms. ;) Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. It makes me incredibly tolerant, and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. If my axioms are a subset of yours, then there's nothing about them that any person can successfully call arbitrary, without calling their own arbitrary. The good thing about the word "arbitrary" is that it has to be defined in context. Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal rules. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message