Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:02:18 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
>> Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but
>> this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause
>> evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim
>> it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way
>> to the others' satisfaction, lets move on.
>
> All evolutionary pressure is, by definition, focussed on exclusion
> from the set of reproductive elements. You keep implying that it
> is a positive, rather than a negative feedback loop. It's you who
> are arguing with the majority of evolutionary scientists.
Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;)
> The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the
> gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed.
If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that
effectively the same as removing it?
>> Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm
>> working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things
>> completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived
>> at my destination.
>
> "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller".
You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road...
>> > Of course. Society defines morality.
>>
>> Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines
>> morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines
>> "the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people
>> with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent.
>
> I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and
> "wrong".
So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they
will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat.
>> >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to
>> >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even.
>> >
>> > Nature seems to vote against that one.
>>
>> How so?
>
> By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in
> forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from
> the gene pool.
Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible
reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they
are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more
efficient.
It could also be that is evolving the skill of verbal manipulation
such that the opposite gender is mentally hypnotized into
reproduction. Such trances have been known to last 4-5 years, which
would explain the statistica peak in divorces at that length of
relationship.
>> Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it
>> ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste
>> brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and
>> yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy
>> the quote points at.
>
> External reality can act to take away our access to any reality,
> external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if
> you dislike it.
Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter
example.
> As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to
> forget one thing to remember another.
Irrelevant to the point, of course.
>> > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc..
>>
>> All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line
>> even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>> So your point was...?
>
> Society has power over its members, even if they refuse to
> acknowledge that fact intellectually, they must acknowledge it
> physically.
They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power.
>> > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is.
>>
>> You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is
>> inefficient at best.
>
> You only need to catch enough of them to keep their numbers under
> the multiplicative threshold necessary for them to displace the
> current society.
The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills
on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live
within and be unnoticed until time to act.
>> You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone
>> either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state.
>
> Coerced cooperation is still cooperation.
From society's viewpoint maybe. Not from the individual's.
>> > [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens
... ]
>> >> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are.
>> >
>> > That's a big "whatever".
>>
>> Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of
>> "useless rationality" you have.
>
> Hardly.
Awww. ;)
> It's merely not worth the effeort to drag an admission out
> of you, since it serves no larger purpose to perform the work. If
> you were in fact paranoid, as you claim, then you you would be able
> to rationalize any argument against your inherently paranoid nature,
> and there would be no possibility of accomodation.
You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize,
I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant
and obviously wrong. ;)
>> >> Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness.
>> >
>> > Can you prove that?
>>
>> Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity.
>
> I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you
> can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^).
That would go against rigor. ;)
>> > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic;
>> > must I think of everything? ;^).
>>
>> That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will
>> come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but
>> in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers?
>
> First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig
> in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported
> about four weeks ago.
This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing.
> Second, finding a location where you can be free of lawyers is
> *your* problem, not mine.
Sorry. It's everyone's problem. If you disagree with this, I'll
litigate. ;)
> If Mars will work, then by all means, go there. If the reason it
> won't work in a few hundred years is the encroachment of Earth's
> society, then there's always force of arms (I hear there are large
> Illudium Q-36 deposits in the polar regions... ;^)).
That was a 'space modulator'. ;)
> If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas
> will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose.
It's humanity that loses.
>> > No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case,
>> > without using negation of the union of the other two.
>>
>> How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain
>> frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"?
>
> Since all arguments take place in a frame of reference, this is
> tautological.
Therefore, it is true. ;)
> [ ... totalitarian societies eventually stagnate ... ]
>> > You've asserted it, but not proven it.
>>
>> It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little
>> societies, all different.
>
> If it's not provable, then it's not true.
This is false but I won't prove it. ;)
> All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable.
I disagree, and you can't prove that. |)
>> > And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit
>> > bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either
>> > of us will ever get our way.
>>
>> Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;)
>
> Luckily for me, I suppose, that I do not live in a society of
> trolls.
Don't you? I suppose we could talk about superposition of societies
on the internet...
>> > You're right. We should block their manipulations!
>>
>> Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being
>> effective.
>
> If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you
> would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since
> an ineffective block is a transparent membrane.
It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls,
but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why
I get so vehement.
> [ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ]
>> >> I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;)
>> >
>> > Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise
>> > here is that it doesn't start out that way.
>>
>> Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception
>> of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship.
>
> The problem is N-P incomplete. Implement you code and prove me
> wrong.
I sure hope I don't have to.
>> >> > Your position is counter species-survival.
>> >>
>> >> So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to
>> >> interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from,
>> >> this is called "being nosy".
>> >
>> > Where I come from, it's called social conscience.
>>
>> Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right?
>
> It works?
Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly
have problems you didn't before.
> and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in
> failure?
Which ones would those be?
> [ ... Is trolling SPAM? ... ]
>> > So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters
>> > for this discussion.
>>
>> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a
>> roundabout way of course.
>
> Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an
> attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's
> basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two).
What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue.
>> >> > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings
>> >> > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced
>> >> > to another venue.
>> >>
>> >> This destroys the future postings in that venue.
>> >
>> > Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences;
>> > if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks
>> > gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a
>> > problem.
>>
>> I do. I want to read those posts.
>
> So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted,
What venue would that be? =P
> What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to
> read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in
> which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO.
Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those
posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable
as the regular traffic.
However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not
because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect
moderation has on the information flow in the list.
>> > Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born
>> > into a different society. 8-).
>>
>> Oh, I have a choice now?
>> I thought you were a rationalist or objectivist or something like
>> that?
>
> Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist".
Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual
definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't).
If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking
ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings
(e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this
nature with reason and rationality.
Is this your position as well?
> The ability to read Ayn Rand, IMO, should require a license, which
> you obtain by proving your ability to distinguish charactratures
> from reality. 8-).
ROFL! Well said, actually.
>> > It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test.
>>
>> The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore
>> both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that
>> reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about
>> topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel
>> it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays
>> upwards of a penny per message to download it.
>
> I can agree with that, no problem.
>
> Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within
> the list charter by any stretch of the imagination.
A demonstration is inappropriate.
My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been
arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like
about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of
information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish
to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is
good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts.
Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso,
their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses
after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does
not involve moderation.
> before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice
> that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat).
You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I
told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just
because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;)
>> > A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we
>> > are talking the equivalent of stone soup.
>>
>> That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are
>> talking about.
>
> I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal
> altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not
> have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in
> order to communicate what I meant.
It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the
original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me,
since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician",
"excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;)
>> >> If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to
>> >> do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift
>> >> to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions
>> >> and expectations...e.g. "No trolls".
>> > The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context.
>>
>> It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality.
>
> The context is mutuality. You sound like Joy Beech, leader of
> "The Citizens For True Freedom" (as opposed to the "false freedom"
> that all the rest of us seem to be up for...).
Well, he's right. I daresay we all have "false freedom", no matter how
much we wish to believe we have real freedom, irrespective of country.
> If you are going to insist on "Real Altruism",
I don't insist on that in any context.
> then I'm going to have to deny a desire to participate in your
> proposed society, and oppose your attempts to change the societies
> in which I already participate into your proposed society.
Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and
really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist
efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped
wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.)
> On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating
> your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society
> on that server, instead.
I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience"
you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to
your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would
have to interfere by your own definitions.
>> >> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by
>> >> definition (no strings, remember?).
>> >
>> > They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of
>> > the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-).
>>
>> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want.
>
> I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a
> license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-).
Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use
the FreeBSD lists?
Are you sure you don't work for the US Govt?
>> > In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their
>> > neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be
>> > who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your
>> > logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to
>> > exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom,
>> > or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-).
>>
>> *slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face*
> Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism.
The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to
reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil.
>> > "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose
>> > to create.
>>
>> No such place. Next?
>
> Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create
> such a place in the noosphere.
I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society.
I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you
created it.
>> > I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work.
>>
>> It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of
>> them. ;)
>
> If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and
> they'd be the society being trolled.
And would your principles apply then? ;)
>> > The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of
>> > an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism.
>>
>> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't
>> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get
>> an infinite source of email accounts.
>
> "Hotmail".
Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume
that someday it will go away. Next? ;)
>> > Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the
>> > first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't
>> > take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to
>> > establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I
>> > trust Bob").
>>
>> On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of
>> moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know.
>
> A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is
> possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their
> nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the
> direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem
> with permitting trolls.
That is not the definition I was using.
A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible,
due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since
new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if
these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And
herein lies the problem with moderation.
;)
>> >> > No faith required.
>> >>
>> >> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain
>> >> things on faith before you learn enough.
>> >
>> > Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even
>> > meets the language requirement, at some universities.
>>
>> Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can.
>> You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of
>> me out there. Gee.
>
> Your point is that I must have fait in my axioms. I will accept
> that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what
> they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them
> by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated.
Only 8? Amazing. What are they?
>> >> Trolls really do communicate data.
>> >
>> > Noise is not data.
>>
>> Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting.
>
> Or not data I want,
Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the
raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another
man's Data.
> because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical
> observations?
Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a
study of them?
>> > Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest
>> > destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were
>> > not the case. It is merely a communications medium.
>>
>> IYHO.
>>
>> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate
>> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how
>> they can and cannot speak.
>
> That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications
> medium,
No, that's a use that I observe is necessary.
> That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely
> because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind.
As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion
hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the
internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is
necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you
don't like on the internet.
>> The internet is the most likely choice at this time.
>
> Perhaps it is. That's irrelevent to the issue of trolls on a
> particular set of mailing lists, since you can freely create your
> own mailing lists and realize your vision.
The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises
it's ugly head.
>> > Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies,
>> > and exploiters to help you.
>>
>> At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this
>> tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act
>> impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job.
>
> For heaven's sake, don't let *me* keep you!
Why not? It's my choice of excuse. ;)
>> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I
>> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token,
>> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than
>> thinking I am a fool.
>
> You were the one who posted in favor of trolls.
Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;)
> It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established
> social norm of the society in which your posting was made.
What established social norm?
>> > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause
>> > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof".
>>
>> I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts
>> that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you
>> are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum.
>
> The forum is FreeBSD-chat, and we are talking about FreeBSD mailing
> lists and the policies thereof. It's topical to the forum, and
> anything that is topical to a forum is not incorrect.
Like I said, I don't think that this is the correct forum.
> As for swaying me, you need only work logically from mutually
> accepted first principles.
I don't think swaying you is appropriate. Besides, what would I do
with my email time? ;)
> Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not
> share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me
> any reason to accept the ideal as my own.
I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to
arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real
external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly
understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will
arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that.
> As long as you continue to argue from a premise of an as yet
> unjustified goal state, you will probably find it difficult to find
> anyone to agree with you who did not arrive at the same ideal on
> their own.
Granted, and happily accepted. ;)
>> > Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic.
>> > "Be All That You Can Be".
>>
>> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something
>>> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces...
>
> Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I
> don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context;
> I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great
> Satan"... 8-).
"Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names,
but the root of the concept is still the same. ;)
>> Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in
>> how to get rid of them.
>>
>> It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your
>> own view. But I can settle for fascinated.
>
> Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls
> are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If
> nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-).
You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls
are a member? *shudder*
Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...)
;)
>> > Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd.
>>
>> WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone"
>> thing. *chalk*
>
> I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which
> agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves
> because they felt I was doing an adequate job.
Remember, on the internet saying anything which relies on the validity
or existence of "all those unspoken supporters" is always considered
false.
> You were the one who insisted on converting an "us" into "the royal
> Us". If I had intended it that way, I would have capitalized it.
> 8-).
I don't think you consciously intended it that way. I think it came
out in the wash...so to speak. Social conscience, remember?
>> Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be
>> defective.
>
> Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned.
That's evolutionary pressure on the tree. |)
>> Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings.
>> Real human beings have good judgement.
>
> Robots are just as good a mechanism for the solution of social
> ills. A person robotically avoiding proscribed behaviours that
> are detrimental to the larger society has the same effect as a
> "real human being" who avoids the behaviours, not because they
> are proscribed, because of their knowledge that the behaviours
> would be detrimental.
Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots?
As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because
humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors.
> Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be
> lower than my own),
Don't presume please. ;)
> to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that
> matter.
The ends justify the means?
> A society no more cares for its individual members than you
> care for the individual cells which make up your body.
The individuals care, in both cases. I'm sure you'd care a lot
if attending a Christian Church was mandated on Sundays...
>> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100%
>> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic.
>>
>> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are
>> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone
>> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up?
>
> That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of
> one of a set of possible solutions to the problem.
I thought absurda was "ok" in your book?
>> > Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to
>> > ensure clarity. 8-).
>>
>> --> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <----
>
> --> I don't BELIEVE you because you refuse to offer proof! <--
--> How can I talk, much less prove anything, to a sleeping man? <---
=)
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
A thing is true only when and where it holds true. Something
is true in accordance with its context. No context means no
truth...in the sense in which human thought understands it.
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?200209011802.g81I2N144217>