Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:32:57 -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: <3D7C0859.D56B2F7C@mindspring.com> References: <200209090202.g89226125430@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > > 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. > > What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling > point? What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling point. > I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance > away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or > provide testable evidence? Nature is not a valid counter example in the domain of designed systems. Foo, you are nothing but a charleton! > Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is > arbitrary. Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... > >> > 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? > > Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a > source of livelihood or as a career". > > (Hmm, a sloop.) There's you're problem. You are using definition 2 instead of the primary definition. Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession. > > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I > > can pretend... > > See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) I'm willing to give my opponents life for the truth... ;^). > >> > 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!" > > Ah! That "<presses key>" adds an action to your original presentation. > In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just <press the key> > and get more effective results. |) Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? > >> >> > 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". > > That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. -- 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?3D7C0859.D56B2F7C>