Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:51:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7BFEBC.1EF52CD6@mindspring.com> References: <200209090129.g891TS124946@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > > 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. Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling point to be predictive. > >> >> > 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? I don't. You are trying to generalized my statement, effectively changing "the system" into "all systems". If you want to generalize, you can do so, but the burden of proof is on you, not me, if you choose to do that. > >> >> > 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"? not subject to change or fluctuation. Antonym: Arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> > > 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. No assumption necessary. > > 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". Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able to act in a professional manner? > >> 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. If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I can pretend... > > Makes it really hard to proselytize... > > You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. Or that of the individual nut-job... > >> 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 Request denied. 8-). > > 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. ;) "LA LA LA!" <presses key> "I CAN'T READ YOU!" > >> > "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. I am aware my respect is involved. > >> > 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. The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits all the facts". > > 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. ;) Or it's a subtle commentary on your argumentative style... -- Terry 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?3D7BFEBC.1EF52CD6>