Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 22:11:07 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <200301020611.h026BC192518@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: >> >> > Again, we are talking about predicting the behaviour of groups, >> >> > e.g.: any "large space of humanity". >> >> >> >> Which begs the question of "why?"... >> > >> > I thought that would be patently obvious: to permit us to design >> > minimally intrusive systems with the emergent properties we are >> > interested in obtaining. >> >> The proof is in the pudding, as they say (for some arbitrary >> value of 'they'). Go do this. If it works, use it. > > We do. You're in a very small minority; the rest of us are not > complaining. 8-). Who's us, and why are relative numbers important to the proof? >> > By understanding the probabalistic behaviour of the group, we can >> > design a system which will have the least overall conflict with the >> > desires of the group. >> >> Still an unfounded assertion, according to scientific worldview. > > That's an incorrect and unsupportable statement of opinion, > given that we have working models of the results of such planning > (as opposed to non-working models). Perhaps in some specific case where a small sample space is representative of the particular audience(s) you are working with, I'd buy this. Over the entire space of humanity? Hardly. >> > I'm more than happy to open it: it's very easy to predict, on >> > the basis of negative inference, based on the modelling of the >> > society in which the acts are expected to occur. The simple >> > definition is: any action against the normative force of the >> > society which you *can* predict will, predictably, be labeled >> > criminal by that society. >> >> The problem is, the group under observation changes as you apply >> 'predictive' methodolgies. > > That's not correct. The "observer effect" you are referring to > in a side-wise way here is derived from the Heisenberg uncertainty > principle's first statement of "observer effect", which is only > applicable at the quantum level (the position and momentum of an > electron can not be simultaneously known to an acuracy greater than > h-bar over 2). It also works with people. People's responses and actions change based on whether they know they are being observed or not. If you doubt this, consider the anonymous posting group, where no identites are revealed. It's historic that such a group brings out a different tone in people; you don't see the same tone when they know they are being watched. >> What you are suggesting will have the predictable and ultimate end >> of legislation which will punish citizens for not being "normal" >> enough or "predictable" enough. > > Yes. So what? I suppose you find the idea objectionable, but it's > well enough known and accepted that we've named it: "California". Um, lol. If you are calling California a land of normal people, you obviously don't live here. ;) >> It also means we lose most of our artists and free thinkers. > > That, also, does not necessarily follow, unless you are a strict > structuralist, and believe in genetic predestiny. Labels. Nothing but labels. >> I don't think you want that. > > That's irrelevent to the discussion, I think. But true regardless, I'd say. >> >> Grim. I don't buy this, of course, but it paints a grim picture. >> > >> > Human societies have always been, in the limit, willing to turn >> > to the use of force in order to achieve their ends. It is the >> > nature of humans to do this. >> >> This is exactly why humans, as a race, have not evolved past the level >> they are at. > > Spilt milk. If you feel strongly enough about it, then sell out > for a short period of time (play by the rules as they are, rather > than as you would prefer them to be), get rich, buy land, and > establish your own little "Helstrom's Hive". I don't suppose you'll ever understand why I consider this irrelevant and useless. >> > And your point in stating that is supposed to be what? >> >> There's two. Your definitions can't possibly be useful. You >> ultimately believe in an objective reality. > > I'm not a nihilist, if that's what you're getting at... Again the labels. The point was, you still have a belief there. You cannot verify objective reality, any methods you use are based in the same thing you are trying to verify. >> >> Therefore all argument with you along this line of reality is >> >> futile. It's like trying to argue me out of wanting to see True >> >> Free Speech everywhere...quite impossible but perhaps entertaining at >> >> times. >> > >> > Anytime someone uses "true" as an adjective, you know they are >> > redefining something... >> >> Well...duh. ;) > > I suppose you've met Richard Stallman and Joy Beech, then? I've met and admire the former, I've no clue on the latter. Your redirection aside, our arguments really are futile. Your a <label you'll agree to having> and I'm a <label I'll agree to having> and we can't see eye to eye. *shrug* Why either of us continue is another matter. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss. 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?200301020611.h026BC192518>