Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:34:17 -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: <200209060434.g864YM199240@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. >> >> It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are >> >> "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they >> >> are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making >> >> their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. >> > >> > I think you are projecting your own faith. >> >> A tautology, given the above. > > I will believe this if you can convince a rationalist that there is > no gravity, "ti becomes real for them", and you demonstrate for me > a flying rationalist. I almost saw that happen, actually. > I guess this is where we get the phrase "flying in the face of > reason". 8-). Pun-dit. ;) >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). >> >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. > > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely > not edge cases, according to the original definition. This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. >> > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. >> >> As you believe, so shall it be. > > "Hail, hail, fire and snow..." That works too. You can even believe Shatner can act, with that one. ;) >> > 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? >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your >> > friend Tim, and people like them >> >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick of one's finger onto the "next message" key. > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite > the archives, if your memory has failed you. Go for it. >> > 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. >> >> You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you >> >> do not have false data? >> > >> > I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not >> > accept without my own observation. >> >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? > > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first glance? >> > I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts >> > my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. >> >> Ah, so you will accept only datum which you can label as "evidence". >> So your "blinders" are achieved by labelling something as "not-evidence". > > If you want to call that a "blinder" because you need me to > appear to be wearing blinders for your philosophy to not > dissolve in a puff of logic, I have no problem with you > propping up your reality by choposing your perception of me. I don't need you to do anything but be who you are. My "philosophy" is best served by dissolving in a puff of logic. Finally, my reality almost dictates my perception of you. ;) >> >> It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider >> >> science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. >> > >> > I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave >> > consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle >> > the effort. >> >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the >> dismissal. > > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) >> >> There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must >> >> exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. >> > >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. >> >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always >> happen in practice. > > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). So money dictates your reality? >> >> I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about >> >> what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" >> >> there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) >> > >> > Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. >> >> Just where do you find a definitive source on these? Is agreement by >> majority consensus or by consensus of some arbitrary group of >> cognoscenti? > > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). 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. >> > You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner >> > consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". >> > Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class >> > can make the same observations, or come up with their own >> > observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. >> > Thanks. >> >> Wow, even more hand waving, and a tennis ball to boot. ;) > > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. > 8-). Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to comply with your demands. ;) >> >> > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is >> >> > therefore empirically falsifiable. >> >> >> >> Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. >> > >> > The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". >> > 8-). >> >> I thought we were elevating "Terry Lambert, Psychosocial Mathematician"? > > For someone who keeps making phenomenological claims, > you'd think that you wouldn't care where an idea originated, if the > validity of the idea is seperate from its source... You started it. ;) >> >> > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. >> >> >> >> Like? >> > >> > OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. >> >> I don't even work with this branch of math much anymore, other than to >> correlate existing data for which I have data that spans the entire >> space. > > Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification > of theories, based on empirical observations. Honestly, there are so many assumptions you have I don't know where to begin to explain that I dropped those and choose not to think using them as a computational basis. >> >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly >> >> >> impenetrable. ;) > [ ... ] >> > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building >> > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. >> >> Same thing. > > "Do as I say, not as I do"? 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. ;) >> >> > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without >> >> > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation >> >> > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. >> >> >> >> I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of >> >> people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them >> >> to moderation. >> > >> > Prove it. >> >> No. > > Then live with the natural consequence of people behaving as if it's > not true. Already done. > [ ... forcing people to grow is contrary to "natural law" ... ] >> > Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox >> > which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing >> > we want, >> >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to >> do anything. > > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. If they ask for help, show them the next message key. >> > I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, >> > which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but >> > ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you >> > an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are >> > not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, >> > which you have, so far, failed to offer. >> >> The problem is, because of the type of person you are, a) proving >> anything to you is impossible and b) you won't be able to see >> any alternative stratigies. Your mind is made up, and I'm not going >> to waste time proving the contrary to you...to do so might be >> dishonorable. > > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > fits all the facts. These are local maxima. >> > Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? >> > "We demand that ... " >> >> They are doing a class of things kind of like what you are attempting, >> attempting to control what people do and say. This is far easier to do >> if you don't advertise that you are attempting this but go ahead and >> do your actions anyway. > > I don't attempt to control what people do and say. I don't have the > rights to update the mailing list "blacklists". I am merely stating > that trolls can be effectively squelched, because they are not > emergent. You are claiming that they can not be, because they are > emergent, and propose a "conservation of social energy" model, in > which trolls come into existance as part of kind of an equivalent to > a "social pair-production" process, where for every contributor, > there is an equal and opposite troll. Um, no. ;) Those are your words, not mine. >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. >> >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. > > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them not do it. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nasrudin arrived at an all-comers horse race mounted on the slowest of oxen. Everyone laughed, an ox cannot run. "But I have seen it, when it was only a calf, running faster than a horse.", said Nasrudin. "So why should it not run faster, now that it is larger?" 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?200209060434.g864YM199240>