Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:24:46 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209020624.g826Ol149516@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone >> >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? >> >> >> >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? >> >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they >> >> do as a first priority? >> > >> > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. >> >> It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, >> on what you are doing for another. > > See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has > only one set of paredo-optimal results. I can infer the validity from my observations, thank you. >> Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about >> your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on >> how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am >> talking about. > > What else am I to conclude from a selfish focus on one's self, > with no worry about what others do? I can, for example, focus > on feeding myself, while others starve. A better example is focus on what you want to read rather than focusing on what others do not want to read. By your own mechanics, if everyone did this, trolls would not have any effect on the community. >> >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous >> >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. >> > >> > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model >> > that correctly". 8-). >> >> I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that >> correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring >> semantics. > > Sure I do. The avearge perception of "good". Any given society > can vote on its meaning, and take the consensus decision as being > normative. You don't appparently even have the desire to know what real "good" is. Hint: it's not the average perception. >> >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any >> >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do >> >> more harm than good. >> > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) >> > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that >> > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error >> > probability. >> >> What good is this for measuring "good"? > > We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage > deviation from the consensus. I disagree that this is good or has anything to do with real good. The consensus thinks that getting filthy rich is good. If everyone were filthy rich, there wouldn't be a notion of rich or poor, and the concept would vanish. Then no one would be rich. >> > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is >> > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. >> >> By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what >> is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone >> does not know how to approach this correctly. > > Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. To you, perhaps. Everything must be knowable in your universe. I can live with some things being unknowable. >> It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure >> 'highest and best good'. > > See above. Heh, nice and mathematical. Keep trying, though. Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? (Know the rebuttal is coming, I do.) >> >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve >> >> > homeostasis. >> >> >> >> IYHO. ;) >> > >> > Definitionally. >> >> Your definition. ;) > > A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. I don't accept it outside of physics or engineering, surprise surprise, but you brought it up therefore it's yours. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you want to shoot for the moon, aim for the sun 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?200209020624.g826Ol149516>