From: Alienthe@hotmail.com   
      
   I have been known to complicate issues but this time someone   
   beat me to it...   
      
   Kevin Calder wrote:   
      
   > In message , alias   
   >  writes   
   >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:10:03 +0000, Kevin Calder wrote:   
   >>> In message , alias   
   >>>  writes   
   >>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:42:42 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>> Fair enough, I can imagine that there could exist an advanced society (I   
   >>> can think of any 'naturally' occurring peaceful configurations) which   
   >>> has been peaceful for so long that lack of necessity has caused the   
   >>> notions of 'peace' and 'conflict' to drop out of usage and common   
   >>> memory.   
   >   
   >>> This unlikely example is, however, as close as I can get to imagining a   
   >>> peaceful society which has no understanding of conflict.   
   >   
   >> what about an extremely simple one?  not a tribal gig (people seem to   
   >> start thinking spears and war chants whenever u use the word tribal)   
   >> but a   
   >> nice smallish agrarian society..   
      
      
   Tribal? Like Usenet News in other words?   
      
   >> not sure.. but i'm thinking it would be pretty peaceful.   
      
      
   Ummm...   
      
   > Provided it had abundant, easily accessible resources I suppose.  I   
   > don't think that human's fight needlessly, its just that there is some   
   > disagreement about what each individual "needs".  I'd like to think that   
   > if life was easy enough that there wasn't really much to fight about   
   > then we would become pretty peaceful.  I think we'd need to be pretty   
   > intellectually sophisticated for this though, so that we could discern   
   > anti-social emotion and behave in a socially responsible manner.   
      
      
   [snip]   
      
   > Does anyone think that if we lived in some kind of Eden that we'd all be   
   > well behaved?   
      
      
   The hypothesis that a struggle was necessary for the early   
   civilisations did seem to imply that a quiet life of abundance   
   would lead to a more vegetative state. It is very tempting   
   to point to the Neutopians here.   
      
   >>>>  this is similar   
   >>>> to saying that an understanding of mass is needed for gravity.   
      
      
   This is a good example of the apparent blindingly obvious   
   holding back development towards a deeper understanding.   
   The word gravity comes from the  word for heavy so people,   
   even today, are happy to explain gravity by saying that   
   heavy things are heavy because they are heavy, and are like   
   gravitating down. Adding that down is defined by gravitation   
   and the locical loops get really tangled.   
      
   Separating cause and effect etc. (mass and gravity) makes it   
   clear that one is the cause of the other (specifically a   
   gravitational field causing a force on a mass) as opposed to   
   a messy loop of definitions. Then Galileo (and later an   
   astronaut) dropped hammers and feathers, Newton dropped   
   just an apple and everyone concluded that gravitational   
   and inertial mass are the same.   
      
   Then we got quantum mechanics and everything is a mess of   
   questions again: unseen trees in the forests no longer make   
   a sound when falling while on handed clapping is routinely   
   performed in any self respecing quantum mechanical workshop.   
   Understanding is one thing but just observation is what   
   collapses the wave function and renders potentials into   
   reality. Question still is: who observes the observers and   
   whose reality is it? Even worse: just hypothesising   
   something can bring it into reality (insert obligatory   
   intellectual reference to liberating the status from the   
   rock.)   
      
   >>>>  brute   
   >>>> facts simply *exist* independant of ur opinion of them.  get used to   
   >>>> it..   
   >>>> its not changing any time soon.   
      
      
   In the quantum mechanical world even an opinion counts; the   
   change from Newtonian laws might or might not have taken place   
   when quantum effects was imagined/expected/determined. Seriously.   
      
   >>> Well, 'brute probabilities' more like.  And even they are arguably   
   >>> mediated by your 'opinions'.  There can be no unmediated contact with   
   >>> objective reality.  Get used to it.  Its not changing any time soon.  ;)   
      
      
   ...to the extent there is an objective reality.   
      
   >> i have been working very hard on not going where u just did.  heh .. not   
   >> that i mind.. its just.. well we'll get lost very quickly.   
      
      
   Too late; we just bought an express ticket and put   
   you on the train.   
      
   > lol   
   >   
   > People are pretty quick to cry "there be dragons!" when you start   
   > thinking in these sorts of directions, but I don't think that the peril   
   > is real.  The only things that you lose are stuff like absolute   
   > certainty and blind faith.  IMHO functional assumptions are better   
   > anyway, especially as they are easier to remodel when you need to   
   > assimilate new information.   
      
      
   Also a clear taxonomy helps clearing out the fluff.   
      
   > I walk around all day assuming that I am not going to suddenly fall   
   > through the surface of the earth, but I'm not hung up on the fact that I   
   > can never absolutely *know* that this isn't going to happen.  In fact   
   > quantum mechanics tells me that there is a particular probability that   
   > this will in fact happen if I were to stand in the same spot for some   
   > huge amount of time, even if I and, and the spot I am standing on are   
   > perfectly persevered for the duration.  I don't think that we have the   
   > tools for doing the sums right now, but I would hazard a guess that the   
   > probability isn't worryingly high in the short term :)   
      
      
   I am not sure you would even have to stand still, the   
   statistical fluke could already have a velocity matching yours.   
   The QM probability depends on the height of the energy barrier,   
   sounds like a text book example of tunneling probability. Atom   
   for atom the chance is measurable (ammonia flipping etc.) but   
   for a measurable part of you, well I wouldn't worry about it.   
      
   >>> Arguments about definitions should IMHO be a prerequisite of any   
   >>> argument!  If argument's about definitions are to be lumped in with   
   >>> 'nonsense' then who's infallible definitions are we all to agree with?   
   >>> Yours?  Websters?   
   >   
   >> bah! i hate semantic debate..   
   >   
   >   
   > May you be eternally confused!   
   >   
   >> its for pussies.  theres 2 uses for it..   
   >   
   >   
   >> 1. to actually clarify what people are talking about and create a useful   
   >> framework for discussion   
   >> 2. to nitpick unimportant details and save face.   
      
      
   Nitpicking is part of what keeps this place alive, surely?   
      
   >> its #2 really that ticks me off.   .. then again.. my dorm days are long   
   >> behind me and i have always been a terrible student.   
   >   
   >   
   > Who gets to decide which details are unimportant?  Are you so infallible   
   > that you will never mistakenly asses the importance of particular detail?   
   >   
   > But, yes, I take your point.  You just have to be a bit careful with it   
   > IMHO.   
   >   
   >>> And if you don't get your definitions straight (sneaking past deferance   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)