Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:04:25 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <3E120659.3D60EB30@mindspring.com> References: <200212312041.gBVKfr183480@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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-). > > 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). > > 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). The idea of "observer effect" is nonsense, above the quantum level, and has no place in determining the outcome of macro events which are not themselves quantum-coupled (e.g. as in Schroedinger's Cat). Even in a rapidly changing gestalt, the predictive window is still large enough to make the predictive processes useful. I will agree that this can't be easily applied to individual behaviour (though administering an MMPI to someone is a start on being able to do just that), but the point is one of utility: in the limit, it really doesn't matter where the math comes from, so long as it works. > 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". > This means that the gene pool loses diversity, and we eventually > die as a race. No and no. First, there is no loss of diversity in the gene pool as a result of external pressure; the genes involve merely become recessive. In fact, without somatic engineering, it's impossible to remove even harmful recessive genes from the gene pool. Second, death as a race is irrelevent: death as a species is much more relevent. Assuming you misspoke, rather than assuming you are a racist of some kind, death as a species does not logically follow as a natural result of a reduction in genetic diversity, or we would all be dead for the lack of it already. > 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. > I don't think you want that. That's irrelevent to the discussion, I think. > >> No matter how much you rationalize, people are irrational. They are > >> chaotic. Could you have predicted Jim Jones? > > Yes. Not the specific individual who would fill the role, but > > certainly the effect of a strange attractor of that shape. > > Could you have predicted the time, place, and emergence of such an > attractor? The time, yes. The place, no, or rather, only generally (can I divide the world into octets for the purpose?). > >> 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". > > 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... > >> You have also questioned the existence of this previously. > > > > Actually, I've questioned your formulation of it, because I did > > not agreee with the denotations that you wanted it to have. I > > did not agree with your preferences for human nature, vs. the > > facts. > > Who's facts? Yours. The ones you lament have prevented the evolution "past the level they are at", above. > >> 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? -- 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?3E120659.3D60EB30>