Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:09 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209122015.g8CKFE159747@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > 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? That, or it shows that you will shift your words when it is convienent for you. ;) > It's you who is the phenomenologist. Great. More labels. >> > 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 don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. >> > 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. Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without first making a bunch of your own? ;) > It makes me incredibly tolerant, This is wrong by observation. You aren't tolerant of trolls. A truly incredible tolerant person would be. QED. |) > and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. Oh I doubt that highly. > 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. Everything is arbitrary. =) > 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. I don't pretend to it. I know it, and it's inverse. I use whichever one is appropriate at the time. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything. 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?200209122015.g8CKFE159747>