<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I love fold and use it all the time, but there's all kinds of loops that have nothing at all to do with lists!
<bk_>
i know the koans, kinners :>
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I think fold is a beautiful construct and it's usually not too hard to read, but... some things just don't map real well to recursion :(
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, that's why you're supposed to abstract stuff well.
<JPL-Justin>
dude
<JPL-Justin>
I don't care how much you abstract
<JPL-Justin>
if someone else needs to read your code
<JPL-Justin>
or a year later you need to, it must be a representation that can be read well
<Riastradh>
...you shouldn't rewrite all your loops by hand.
<Riastradh>
Common patterns are usually _really_ easy to spot; abstract those with higher-order functions and your code becomes that much simpler.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I agree that that helps
<JPL-Justin>
I just think that a lot of processes are inherently linear
<Riastradh>
'Inherently linear?'
<JPL-Justin>
even if they don't really embody state, it's akward
<JPL-Justin>
yes, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to define them recursively
<JPL-Justin>
oh well anyways bk_: the best thing you can do is look for abstract ways to write things, and use your judgements
<JPL-Justin>
I prefer functional when possible, but code should be simple and easy to read, and should not be confusing to others except if you're doing something which has to be confusing
<JPL-Justin>
if the functional version is more confusing than the imperative version, you're either writing it wrong, or it's not something that maps well
smklsmkl has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
<bk_>
yes, probably
<JPL-Justin>
s/linear/sequential/g
<Riastradh>
Large imperative functions tend to be a lot less readable than small combinations of higher-order functions.
smklsmkl has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I agree that a lot of imperative stuff is terrible to read etc
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: However some things don't map very well and, you shouldn't use functional programming for that stuff
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: is there a web page that has the FP best practices on it?
<Riastradh>
Hmm?
<JPL-Justin>
I'm still trying to learn to use monads effectively. I mean I use list combinators all the time, and high order functions where possible
<JPL-Justin>
but I know there has to be more advanced paradigms
<Riastradh>
Do you have an example of something you're having trouble writing functionally?
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: Not at the moment, but I haven't been doing anything I'd really prefer an imperative language for in ocaml lately.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if I think of anything I'll ask you about the best way to do it
<Riastradh>
Well...I can't really be of much assistence.
<JPL-Justin>
not without the info
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: do you think mainstream languages will slowly become more like ocaml?
<Riastradh>
I believe they'll come close enough for programmers who use them to shut up a lot of functional programmers, but not enough to make them pleasant to people really exposed to functional languages.
<JPL-Justin>
Ah I see
<JPL-Justin>
That seems reasonable
<JPL-Justin>
I absolutely love OCAML but unfortunately the language is only part of the total user experience, and for a lot of real-life programming work, having corporate support contracts, specialized APIs etc
<JPL-Justin>
is a big deal :(
<JPL-Justin>
If OCAML, say, the same level of well-tested guaranteed-to-work cross platform APIs that, say, Java does (not that I"m a Java fanboy)
<JPL-Justin>
then I"d want to use it for more projects
<JPL-Justin>
becuase I really like OCaml's style, apart from the object system
<Riastradh>
What's the only way to get that sort of thing?
<JPL-Justin>
$$$
<Riastradh>
Write them! Test them!
<JPL-Justin>
hahahahahaha
<JPL-Justin>
I'm not talking about open source stuff some random guy wrote
<JPL-Justin>
I'm talking about something that can be used in a corporate/government environment
<JPL-Justin>
where "Justin's SQL binding" doesn't go over well
<JPL-Justin>
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of OSS and a lot of OSS that is used widely, like linux, is incredibly reliable
<Riastradh>
Nor am I talking about some random guy's open source toys. There's nothing that prevents a group of dedicated hackers from writing whatever library you need.
<JPL-Justin>
sure there is
<bk_>
imho customers prefer languages for their projects they know or they have at least heard of
<JPL-Justin>
it's called time/money constraints
<bk_>
ymmv
<Riastradh>
And money is not an option. You need such libraries to _begin_ with to get money.
<JPL-Justin>
uh...
<JPL-Justin>
Microsoft is making all their libraries etc available to F#
<JPL-Justin>
because they think it's wroth spending their $$$ on
<bk_>
i don't want microsoft
<JPL-Justin>
I know F# != ocaml but, it's very similar
<Riastradh>
No, because it costs very little to do so compared to how much they have.
<Riastradh>
Microsoft has all the money. They can do whatever the hell they want.
<JPL-Justin>
That's what I"m saying man!
<JPL-Justin>
I'm saying that if you have that much $$$, that stuff gets done
<JPL-Justin>
and the fact that there isn't a lot of money being thrown at OCAML means that the libraries are not being developed
<Riastradh>
Without that much money, you need dedication and coordination. It's not impossible.
<JPL-Justin>
like if IBM said "ocaml is the next big thing"
<JPL-Justin>
we'd have well-tested high quality libraries out the wazoo
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: you're right
<JPL-Justin>
however the problem is that... there's obviously not sufficient motivation, otherwise we'd already have them
<Riastradh>
You're complaining about a bootstrapping problem. OCaml will never be bootstrapped if it's only talk about the problem and not much attempt to actually lift yourself up by your bootstraps; you're just talking about the bootstraps.
<JPL-Justin>
And the issue is that ther'es a lot of ocaml users that are NOT the kind of people you want writing library bindings. For instance, I'm mostly interested in computational physics, and I work at rathe rhigh levels, and haven't done any serious low-level programming (lower than Java) in ages
<JPL-Justin>
so telling me to make my own MPI bindings or something is just silly
<JPL-Justin>
I mean, the answer is that if I want them, tha'ts what I *HAVE* to do, but htat doesn't make it a good option
<Riastradh>
Life isn't always pleasant. The results of having an MPI binding are much more pleasant than complaining about the lack thereof.
<JPL-Justin>
Not really
<JPL-Justin>
Basically I get:
<JPL-Justin>
1. Use a language with excellent MPI support like Fortran or C++
<JPL-Justin>
2. Make my own ocaml bindings, debug and support them while trying to also do 10000 other things
<JPL-Justin>
3. Wait for someone else to make ocaml bindings, and hope they do a better job than I could
<JPL-Justin>
don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely positive that I could totaly write MPI bindings for ocaml, and maybe even do a good job
<Riastradh>
You don't need to completely reimplement MPI; an interface to the C API would be plenty.
<JPL-Justin>
but I don't think that the effort I would put inot that would be in any way recouped
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: yes but debugging MPI even when it's working perfectly is very hard, and all it takes is one subtle bug to shut you down
<Riastradh>
The effects of a single person voting are extremely small, too.
fariseo has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: which is why our government officialis listen to lobbyists and campain donors
<Riastradh>
That should not be so, however, and it's the people who accept it who _cause_ it to be so.
<Riastradh>
Suggestion is too powerful, and it tends to have undesirable effects.
<JPL-Justin>
yeah it sucks
<JPL-Justin>
the problem is this
<JPL-Justin>
I have a finite amount of resources to contribute to society and the world in general
<JPL-Justin>
and I believe, based on my skills, etc, that my innovation should not be spent on things like libraries that there are many others who can do much better
<fariseo>
so ocaml is 'type safe'?
<JPL-Justin>
but on what I've been trained in
<JPL-Justin>
yeah :)
<Riastradh>
If everyone says that, the libraries aren't going to happen, and _everyone_ goes home unhappy.
<JPL-Justin>
ocaml is awesome
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I think some people will say "I can't do magnetohydrodynamics, but I know the C ABI like the back of my hand"
cjohnson has quit ["sleep"]
<Riastradh>
Library authoring is unpleasant, but lacking libraries is less pleasant, especially because you end up having to use a _different_language_ because of it.
<Riastradh>
s/especially because/especially if/1
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: IT's my goal that the amount of software I write other than at the highest levels of abstraction will steadily decrease starting in a few years
<JPL-Justin>
until I don't write software other than as a hobby
<JPL-Justin>
and I don't think ocaml will be useful enough to me for anything other than hobbies or small projects unless it gets out of this niche
<JPL-Justin>
which I'd love to see it do
<JPL-Justin>
maybe F# will be done well?
<JPL-Justin>
(BTW I don't like the whole .NET thing that much but it might work out rather well, who knows... mono seems OK)
<Riastradh>
I'm extremely skeptical about the possibility of getting one high-level VM that's interoperable between any arbitrary language.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: it's not meant to do that
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: it's meant to be used by relatively similar languages
<JPL-Justin>
which works fine for 90% of what people need
<JPL-Justin>
and you just... don't use it if it doesn't work :)
<Riastradh>
Yes, which screws the remaining 10% over even more.
<JPL-Justin>
I'm skeptical about somet things about .NET, but dynamic compilation is so much better for modern architectures in terms of possible performance enhancements, and it increases binary compatabilities etc
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: you can still compile to assembly dude, no one's stopping you :)
<JPL-Justin>
and the other 10%, well they can deal with it
<JPL-Justin>
or they go away, it's market forces
<Riastradh>
And the market is oppresive.
bk_ has quit ["I'll be back"]
<Riastradh>
I'm not going to just 'go away' because Microsoft decided to make everyone use .NET for everything.
bk_ has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
Then don't; go away, problem solved :)
<Riastradh>
Huh?
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: democracy is oppressive too
<Riastradh>
Democracy has never been tried.
<Riastradh>
Athens came closest, but with half of the population exempt it didn't really count.
<Smerdyakov>
"Sweet! I got exempt from democracy!"
<Riastradh>
Er, excluded, rather.
<JPL-Justin>
Oh gosh, here comes the "you said aword, which you clearly meant one way, but I'll take the extreme definition anyways" thing
<JPL-Justin>
Democracy, by the single purest definition has never been tried.
<Riastradh>
No, I did choose a bad word.
<JPL-Justin>
Democracy, by the more common definition, certainly has.
<Riastradh>
Please, show me a democratic nation.
<JPL-Justin>
ANyways... any system based on majority rule is oppressive to some degree.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: what source of definition of democracy would you accept?
<Riastradh>
Just show me a nation you consider to be democratic.
<JPL-Justin>
Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
<JPL-Justin>
that's from the MW dictionary
smklsmkl has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
<Riastradh>
That wasn't what I requested, and I'm of the opinion that Webster was a dork, so quoting him won't convince me of anything.
<JPL-Justin>
so, any country that freely elects the decision makers
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: okay do you want OED?
smklsmkl has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if I say a country you'll just say "that's not what I precisely think democracy is in my narrow definition"
<JPL-Justin>
best to start with the definition, and then look at indisputable facts
<JPL-Justin>
later
<Riastradh>
No, I was hoping you'd just say the US so I could ask you to find the word 'democracy' or any word derived from it in the US Constitution.
<JPL-Justin>
isn't "of the people, by the people, for the people" in there?
<JPL-Justin>
which is what democracy is?
<JPL-Justin>
they were being super explicit there, isntead of using a general term, they emphasized the people
<Riastradh>
It explicitly states that it defines a republican form of government.
<JPL-Justin>
once again
<JPL-Justin>
democracy doesn't necessarily exclude republic, only one particular definition of it
<Riastradh>
Democracy, then, is too vague a word to be used meaningfully, just like 'object-oriented.'
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: Not necessarily
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: *MOST PEOPLE* use democracy to mean the definition I gave
<Riastradh>
And the US has a plutocratic government anyways.
<JPL-Justin>
Oxford English Dictionary has the first definition as: Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them
<JPL-Justin>
I believe that the United States is considered a Representative Democracy however I"m no polisci
<JPL-Justin>
But I'd love to see you argue OED :)
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, to the extent that we use the word "democracy" to describe a desirable state of affairs, associating it with the USA makes it near worthless.
<Riastradh>
Even if I'm incorrect about the precise definition of 'democracy,' the US is controlled by the media, not the general people.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I use the definition that I gave earlier. I believe it is applicable to the United States, and maps directly to the general public's meaning of the word as well.
bk_ has left #ocaml []
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: The media only "controls" you if you let them. No one makes you watch CNN.
<JPL-Justin>
I agree that the media has a lot of influence etc, but so do your friends and family.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, no one does make me watch CNN, but most of the US is addicted to it (and Fox, et cetera).
<JPL-Justin>
You don't say they "control" your vote, even though you value their opinions etc.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, it's not the traditional meaning of the word, and it's not the meaning progressively minded people have in mind.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: by choice
<JPL-Justin>
I agree that the media exercises a lot of influence, and as long as we allow them to have influence they will wield power, however the influence is rather limited... you can only lie so much etc without other media coming after you
<Smerdyakov>
When I say "democracy," I mean a quality of a system where real choices are made by consensus or voting among the citizenry.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: clearly your definition is not what the word is considered to mean by language experts
<Smerdyakov>
Certainly, choosing the president of the United States from between two rich male WASP's is _not_ a real choice.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: did someone stop you from voting in the primaries?
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, whom else was there to vote for who had a chance in the primaries?
<Smerdyakov>
What you don't seem to realize is how little the "laws that are on the book" mean for the real nature of a society.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: you don't have a right for the person you want to choose to be popular. But you have a right to vote for them.
<Smerdyakov>
The fact is that the active social culture in the USA discourages getting involved in real decision making.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: democracy is about the majority, and if the main candidates don't represent you, it's probably because you're not the majority
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, that's correct, but most of the US doesn't think so.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: the sytem is not designed to reflect you or me or anyone in particular, ti's designed to reflect the majority
<Riastradh>
The presidential elections are terrible sources of evidence that I'm not among the majority.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: and that's what we get
<Riastradh>
It's obvious that it's only the candidates who have a sufficiently large amount of money get any attention.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if 90+% of people vote for two candidates that you would not vote for
<JPL-Justin>
you are not in the majority
<Riastradh>
It's _not_ obvious that voting for whom you like works.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: it works if the majority does it
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, and also consider that _HALF_ of the country doesn't vote in presidential elections.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: right, so if your candidate is sog reat, have him get that half to vote for him
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, you are making some bad assumptions about social organization.
<Riastradh>
It's not going to happen if that half has the opinion that their vote doesn't count.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, there is no need to have "leaders" at all.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I"m not saying democracy works at all etc
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, it is a flaw in the system that there is any need to choose a president.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I'm not even saying that our government is any good
<JPL-Justin>
I'm just saying, it *IS* a democracy
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, you're arguing for democracy that isn't democracy.
<Smerdyakov>
It's a "democracy" with a certain meaning of that word that doesn't interest me.
<Riastradh>
Rather...
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: how can you think your definition is better than those of language experts? do you have some political science degree I don't know about?
<Riastradh>
You're arguing that the US is a good example of democracy, and your evidence is from superficial details such as whom the media decides on to 'lead.'
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I think it's better because it's closer to the original definition.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if you were 35+ years (not sure how old you are) and a citizen, and lets say 80% of the population voted for you to be president? Could you become president?
<Riastradh>
The conservative definition of 'democracy' (and by 'conservative' I mean the conservative meaning of conservative) is much more useful than the newer, overly general one.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, I don't know.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, the meaning of "democracy" that you were using was purposely created by people in power in the USA as a _propaganda_tool_.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: what do you mean? you think someone would assisinate you to stop?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: uh... yes our government controls the oxford english dictionary!
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, I mean that I don't know whether or not I'd be able to handle the responsibilities of a president well.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I don't see any reason to acknowledge it, even if people in power at dictionary companies (who belong to the same crowds to "create" the definition) go along with it.
<Riastradh>
The OED is slipping, too, by the way.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I didn't say "government." I said "people in power."
<Riastradh>
'Bling bling' or something has apparently been added to it lately.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: well don't expect other people to acknowlege YOUR definition then dude
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if the word is being used as part of the language, it's part of the language
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, I just did.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, why? Because it was created by a philosopher with a revolutionary new idea for a social organization principle?
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: as Smerdyakov would say, "a sample size of one"
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, I know plenty of other people who agree with me as well.
<Riastradh>
...on the definition of 'democracy,' that is.
<JPL-Justin>
anyways... as far as I see it, "democracy" is a way of having goverment that doesn't quite suck as much as other forms of government, because it amkes it too hard for a candidate to do things that people don't like
<JPL-Justin>
for instance, I think if Bush signed a bill that required you donate your firstborn child to science, I think people would have a problem with that
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, to underscore my previous point: The meaning of "democracy" that you use was created PRECISELY to allow you to have conversations like this.
<JPL-Justin>
whereas in a dictatorship, he'd just make people with problems "dissapear"
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: uh... so it's a conspiracy?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, namely, the goal of the people responsible was to promote a new definition for a word that people had come to cherish.
<Riastradh>
A democracy isn't if it's controlled by a media owned by the rich upper class.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, so, almost "overnight," people were now willing to defend their right to make a few small decisions a year as to which people would control their lives, as opposed to being truly involved in planning their societies.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, yes, a conspiracy.
<Riastradh>
The Federalist party was pretty conspiratorial, and not nice at all.
<Riastradh>
That was the party responsible for sleazing its way into getting the US Constitution signed, and it was quite sleaze.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: okay well... use your votes or whatever to stop the conspiracy etc
<Riastradh>
Have you heard of the Alien & Sedition acts of the early 1800s?
<Smerdyakov>
Now, when we even _try_ to recommend social structures that deserve the original title "democratic," we have to spend _hours_ explaining what we really mean to you.
<JPL-Justin>
Yes I've heard of sedition acts etc
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: instead you can just say "direct democracy" or "pure democracy"
<JPL-Justin>
I think that gets the point across pretty well
<Smerdyakov>
In effect, people eager to protect their privileged positions have shadowed the definition of an idea that could be used to remove their special privilege.
<JPL-Justin>
anywyas, I"m with Jefferson on the idea that direct democracy is a Bad Thing
<Smerdyakov>
So the average person has no direct route to knowledge of that idea
<Riastradh>
You support indirect democracy, then, i.e. what you're saying is the current US government?
<JPL-Justin>
well I'm not a big fan of it, but I' haven't heard of anything better that would actaully work given the human condition, IMHO
<JPL-Justin>
The problem is that... the world is a complex place and the idea that everyone can do their 40 hours a week, raise their kids, observe religious services or have an active lifestyle
<Smerdyakov>
40 hours a week is way too much.
<JPL-Justin>
and kieep track of all of the important issues to the point where they can make godo decisions about what beneifts 275 million people the best
<JPL-Justin>
is totally rediculous
<Smerdyakov>
The fact that you accept 40 hours as a reasonable amount of time to work for someone else is the result of another hard-earned victory of the elites.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: or maybe I'm not doing it for someone else???
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: If I didn't feel like doing my job, I certainly don't need the money.
<JPL-Justin>
anywyas... anarchism is something I don't think I'll ever be convinced could possibly work, at least not wit the kind of humans we have around today
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, congrats. You're in the privileged .00001% of the world. :P
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, do you know what anarchism is?
bk_ has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: not really... it's just I don't take much money to live. Just give me food and somewhere to stay. I could work 5 hours a week to pay for that or less
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: my job is because I think it's benefitting me to spend my time doing this
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: why don't you save me the time and tell me how you are using the world
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, most people do not have jobs that pay enough to work 5 hours a week and afford that.
<JPL-Justin>
archy = govenrment. an = without
<JPL-Justin>
so the word, according to roots means "without govenrment"
<Smerdyakov>
Yes, but there is more core philosophy associated with it.
<JPL-Justin>
So I'm assuming you mean to not have a government
<JPL-Justin>
okay
<Smerdyakov>
Just like other political philosophies take general words and associate them with specific details.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: are you kidding? most people can live just fine on 1/4th of what they make
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: they just won't own a house, or a car, etc
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: or have TV or phone etc
<Smerdyakov>
Well, let's see.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: food and somewhere to sleep, that's not that expensive. You're paying for a single room, a few pieces of clothing (handmade amish clothing, for instance, lasts many years and they have maybe 3 pairs of clothing)
<Smerdyakov>
I don't think I can live on 1/4 of what I make.
<Smerdyakov>
In Berkeley, at least. :)
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: My one friend spent a year with the amish and they live on hardly any money
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: you do'nt have to live in berkely :)
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: it's called Wyoming :)
<Smerdyakov>
Yeah, but if I want to get this degree I do. :D
m[kel[ has joined #ocaml
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, are you suggesting that we all move to remote areas where we can live for free as hermits?
<JPL-Justin>
that's true, but that's not necessary to live. but it's good you'r egetting a degree :)
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: I'm saying that anyone who says that you HAVE to work 40 hours a week is obviously being very narrow
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: there's nothing stopping people from going and setting up their little hippy communities somewhere cheap and living off 5 hours a week of labor. You won't live well, but yo'ull live free from "the man" or whatgever
<JPL-Justin>
I"m just saying that our standard of livign is WAY TOO HIGH to be considreed "necessary"
smklsmkl has quit [Connection timed out]
<JPL-Justin>
it's so much higher than the rest of the world etc... we DO NOT *NEED* it this high. Maybe it's a good/nice thing but... you need food, shelter, water, saftey and maybe some medical stuff and cheap clothing. You do not need to work 40 hours a week to have that
<JPL-Justin>
besides if Smerdyakov is allowed to say we should be abolish government, I'm allowed to tell you to go live with hippies :-P
* JPL-Justin
starts reading that FAQ
<Riastradh>
Well, given that I am already something of a hippie...
<_jpl_>
wow
<_jpl_>
sorry I missed all this
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, before you say what you think I'm saying, read at least the first few sections of that FAQ. :P
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: okay in the US
<_jpl_>
You'd have had one more anarchist critiquing the privative condition known popularly as "democracy"
<JPL-Justin>
oops sorry
<JPL-Justin>
disregard that
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: And greetings from another Berkeley dweller.
<Riastradh>
I'm not an anarchist, _jpl_, if you're referring to me as one of them.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: you go to berkely so you are OK with living with hippies right? ;)
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, ah, I didn't know.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, affiliated with UCB?
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: no, wasn't trying to give you a label. I don't even like to label myself thusly.
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: No, just a resident.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: There are far fewer hippies at UC Berkeley than is commonly thought.
<JPL-Justin>
I'm being silly man
<_jpl_>
Especially in recent years.
<JPL-Justin>
ther'es more at COrnell where I go actually, well in Ithaca at least
<JPL-Justin>
It's the Hippy Capital of the east coast
<JPL-Justin>
There's not many hippies around Pasadena, at least where I am though so I'm safe
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: And pro-plutocracy, apparently. :)
<Riastradh>
Anti-hippie? Why?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: What makes you think I'm against thinking?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I was just letting you know.
<JPL-Justin>
I dislike what I percieve hippies to be about
<JPL-Justin>
that's the truth
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, we've all been raised not to think about most aspects of our lives, though, so we're all anti-thinking to various degrees without realizing it.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: Uh... I do'nt know about you but the crappy administration etc I had at my schools taught me to question authority, always
<JPL-Justin>
becuase authority is most likely stupider than I, at least at a local level :)
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, well, after reading that FAQ, let me know if you still feel you started it with a reasonable appreciation of which aspects of society you take for granted.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, what schools were those?
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Where does that put winner-take-all republican systems in your esteem, then?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I'll read through it, if nothing else because it will make good party conversations
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I know that, for me, reading about anarchism completely changed the way I think about society.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: high school, elementary school
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, uh, how specific.
<JPL-Justin>
Well Cornell drives me nuts sometimes too
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, it showed me the amazing array of deplorable practices I took for granted as necessary and helpful.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: Karns City Junior Senior High school
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: Sugarcreek Elementary School of Sugarcreek, PA
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: unless you are familiar with them, they probably don't mean much to you, other than that they are public
<JPL-Justin>
They were run by morons and I learned at an early age that people in charge generally don't know what the hell they are doing, and to not accept what others tell you as true just because they are authority
<Smerdyakov>
But did you (and do you now) believe that all reasonable societies have "leaders" with power over others?
<gl>
heya all.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: it depends on how you define "reasonable" and "society"
<JPL-Justin>
But as far as I know, yes they seem to have leaders
<gl>
humpf, 4:43 am
<gl>
well, good night
* gl
&
<Smerdyakov>
OK. Then see if your mind changes after An Anarchist FAQ. :)
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: are you saying there's somewhere that's archistic?
<_jpl_>
No, that's not the point.
<Smerdyakov>
Sure. The central doctrine of anarchism is lack of hierarchical power structures.
<Riastradh>
There are lots of places that are archistic...
<Smerdyakov>
Having "leaders" with power instead of responsibility created hierarchical power structures.
<_jpl_>
oh, he said "archistic".
<Riastradh>
(if 'archistic' is even a word...)
<JPL-Justin>
I meant to say "anarchistic"
<JPL-Justin>
sorry geez
* Riastradh
berates JPL-Justin irrationally.
<Riastradh>
*berate*berate*
* JPL-Justin
looked up anarkistic
* JPL-Justin
punches Riastradh with a lead ballon sandwich
<JPL-Justin>
I have been avenged!
* Riastradh
<FNORD>s, unharmed.
<JPL-Justin>
oh
<JPL-Justin>
:(
* Riastradh
goes back to what he was doing before this silly debate of which nothing particularly euseful came.
<Riastradh>
Useful, even.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: you should know I"m a big fan of heirchy so... probably won't be an anarchist any time soon
<Riastradh>
Hierarchy.
* Riastradh
has been wasting _FAR_ too much time on IRC in the past couple weeks...
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, OK. That doesn't justify your position, of course.
<Riastradh>
I like graph structures more than strict tree structures.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Ever thought about how much energy is wasted in hierarchical organizations? Energy which could be used for all kinds of other productive purposes?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I cannot justify my position any more than you can. Every position is either irrational, or goes back to fundamental assumptions that are unprovable. Just like math etc
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: of course I have. hwoever I don't think the heirchy wastes nearly as much as the implementation of it does
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, yeah, but with math, those assumptions are known to be true, whereas you're just Wrong!
* Riastradh
ducks.
* JPL-Justin
agrees with Riastradh, thus making him wrong
<JPL-Justin>
:-P
<Riastradh>
Damn.
<_jpl_>
All knowledge is based on assumptions.
<JPL-Justin>
I know
<Riastradh>
Humanity sucks.
<JPL-Justin>
So Smerdyakov saying I'm unjustified in being a fan of heirchies, despite not knowing why I am a fan, is not necessarily meaningful
<JPL-Justin>
tha'ts why I'm a fan of authority
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, but we can often convince each other to the extent that we agree on something.
<JPL-Justin>
IU think that humanity sucks so much that communism type things suck, even though in theory they should be awesome
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I'm saying that you haven't convince me of anything.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: that's true. and I"m still forming my opinions on the wrodl
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I haven't tried to convince you anarchy is bad
<JPL-Justin>
obviously I won't try to do that until I understand it better
<Smerdyakov>
It's preferable to use "anarchism" to describe this.
<JPL-Justin>
because frankly it's something I don't think a lot about. I mean, I've read books where they had it and thought "like that would ever work" but
<Smerdyakov>
"Anarchy" has less association with a particular historical philosophy.
smklsmkl has joined #ocaml
<Riastradh>
Pure communism would lead to an uninteresting society. But it seems like it should be pretty easy for humans to just get along...
<_jpl_>
The assumptions behind our knowledge of things end up limiting the possibilities we see in everyday situations and in learning new things.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: okay, I didn't see that distinciton. Noted
<Riastradh>
(_should_)
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: getting along isn't our nature dude
<JPL-Justin>
we like to beat each other :)
<JPL-Justin>
well, at least we do when we're pissed off
<Smerdyakov>
Not when life is sufficiently easy.
<JPL-Justin>
the human survival instinct is so powerful
<Riastradh>
_jpl_, does that imply that presumptuous people who make different presumptions see more of the world?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I agree that maybe when working is no longer neessary, and resources are limitless, something like this anarchy might work
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: Could you phrase that question better?
<Riastradh>
_jpl_, no.
m[kel[ has quit [Connection timed out]
<Riastradh>
You have to assume I did and answer it in a new way.
<JPL-Justin>
the problem though is that there are individuals that really just enjoy being "bad" to others
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: The question doesn't seem to be complete to me. "...who make different presumptions.." Different from what?
<JPL-Justin>
There are people who enjoy killing or abusing or frightening etc...
<Smerdyakov>
I don't think such individuals emerge in a society where children are raised properly.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: that assumes that the adults start out OK to begin with!
<Riastradh>
_jpl_, never mind...it was a joke that sort of fizzled out as I typed it.
<_jpl_>
k
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, it doesn't assume anything. It's a statement that stands alone.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, right, bootstrapping problem! As the American Pharmeceuticals Society, we say: why not just use the stairs?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, what you said is about concrete ways of getting to that point from where we are today.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: to be raised properly, your parents cannot be that kind of person
<JPL-Justin>
which you are syaing results from them being raised properly
<JPL-Justin>
I'm saying it's a bootstrapping thing, even if the statement is true
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, well, not necessarily.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, yes, but you seem to be using a common logical fallacy.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, A => B does not mean B => A
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: well let me weaken what I said
<Riastradh>
Otherwise society would gradually move lower & lower and nothing would ever improve.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: no....
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: what I'm saying is that... unless you have some other method of removing that kind of "badness" then it has to already be removed for it to be removed in the next generation
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, sure, we have to come up with other methods to implement this.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: You don't think it's possible to remove the problem gradually? It seems to me that it would have to be done that way.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I'd say that short of mind control or personality alteration, or raising a society by machine
<JPL-Justin>
it's probably not going to happen
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, however, I don't think there has been any reason in this conversation to assume we are not allowed to talk about hypothetical social situations, as opposed to concrete suggestions for today
<JPL-Justin>
JPL-Justin: that's true
<JPL-Justin>
wait
<JPL-Justin>
hehehe
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: yeah it might be something you can do gradually, provided you have some way of ensuring that it naturally goes away
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: well I agree that in theory, things like what you suggest work beautifully
<Riastradh>
Humanity needs a reset button.
<_jpl_>
One of the steps is to raise awareness within the general population of the fact that they are under the control of a small number of elites who actually run society, regardless of what they're told almost daily about how "free" they are.
<kinners>
Riastradh: maybe it just needs a better spam filter :)
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I'm OK with that elitism. I think most people are incapable of self-government, because they are not intelleigent or informed enough, unless we can reduce the complexity and difficulty of living
<JPL-Justin>
most pepole need to be given direction externally etc.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: You were correct when you said earlier that we cannot be controlled if we don't allow it. If people simply knew that, it would go a long way toward a solution.
<JPL-Justin>
kinners: I agree... hope it doesn't block me :)
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Why do you think that people can't think for themselves?
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, yet the elite class isn't interested in governing the rest anyways; they're interested in their own money.
<Smerdyakov>
I'm _not_ OK with elitism, and here's why:
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: What if I said that about you and made all your decisions for you?
<Smerdyakov>
We benefit enormously from the creative efforts of other people.
<JPL-Justin>
I guess the main problem I have with things like this, communism, etc, is that I"m cynical about mankind. I believe that we have a certain set of survival mechanisms and that things like the prisoner's dilemma, lack of intelligence and forsight, etc, prevent people from mkaing this world a great place to be in
<_jpl_>
Indeed, we would be nothing without other people.
<Smerdyakov>
Pick out your favorite artist of any type, and imagine how much worse your life would be if he had been born into an underclass and died before creating the works that changed your life.
<Smerdyakov>
We have such underclasses in the USA.
<Smerdyakov>
The people in them are not chosen by any rational method.
<kinners>
how about Wagner? now there's a dilema...
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: It's equally probable that someone else better would have been born into it instead
<Smerdyakov>
They are there as the direct result of the millennia-long reorganization of resources conquered by the most successful barbarians at the dawn of history.
<Smerdyakov>
And, from the other angle, you have morons like GWB in privileged positions while more worthy folk spend their lives as little better than slaves.
<JPL-Justin>
well I"m no GWB fan, even though I"m rediculously conservative
<Riastradh>
Smerdyakov, I dunno, I'd rather have those hard workers from the underclasses as my slave than Bush...
<Smerdyakov>
I think it's worth each of our whiles to do our best to give everyone a chance, because you never know how anyone could enrich your life.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: If your idea on elites running society actually had any criteria for selection of those elites, e.g. by intelligence, wisdom, virtue, etc. that would be one thing. But as things are, there is no such selection, as Smerdyakov points out.
<Smerdyakov>
Plus, there's less danger of the people you help oppress deciding to kill you.
<Smerdyakov>
This will quite probably be the real reason for lasting social change in the USA, if it happens soon.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I don't know if it really makes much difference... I'm not sure how much better societies this large and complex can be run with such finite resources
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I believe that we have a rather stable form of government and that makes up for a lot of how badly it operates... at least you can count on it being around for a while
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: BTW, Plato put forth such an idea, with *very* specific selection criteria for the leaders of society.
<JPL-Justin>
I'm not saying that there even exists a set of criteria that defines what the "best" leaders would be
<Riastradh>
We have a rather stable government only because it's been homogenized.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Actually, I would question this idea that the US government is stable.
<Riastradh>
...if it even is stable, yeah.
<_jpl_>
It's destroying the planet.
<JPL-Justin>
but I know the average person from my high sschool was too dumb to do anything other than drive their tractor or figure out what flavor of gum to buy
<_jpl_>
And hence it will destroy itself in the process.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: 225 years, it's decently stable. civil war was a bit unstable I suppose but that's a bit of an anomoly
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, we've only recently hit a technological singularity that is having vast social effects.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: You don't think that with a *real* education and opportunities those people would not have turned out so "dumb"?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I think you should withhold your claims of US gov't stability until at least 50 years after the Internet became popular with the general public.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I thought the singularity was the point past which you cannot make predictions?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: or are you not talking about the singularity.org stuff etc
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, that's why Smerdyakov is telling you to wait until at least fifty years from now.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I am thinking about the general word "singularity," not a particular theory of one.
<_jpl_>
The current education system selects for obedience, nothing more.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: no, I don't think so. I think intelligence is something that can be encouraged, but not given. I know that I managed to have a rotten education but still come out of it with my own ideas about things and learning on my own.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, I certainly don't agree.
<JPL-Justin>
There's nothing stopping omeone who's "dumb" from thinking about things on their own, but they choose not to
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, that would make it very surprising how smart people in top graduate programs are.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, education isn't the only factor to consider.
<JPL-Justin>
at least that's my experience, that people who are average or less intellgience tend not to spend much time thinking about things
<JPL-Justin>
and it's not the education's fault, it's t heir own damn fault
<Riastradh>
The rest of society in general is a pretty big factor, you know.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: tha'ts true, but it's up to you
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Not everyone is as likely to question or to think independently, but that does not mean they don't have the potential when given real educational opportunities.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: ultimately you decide whtether or not you want to think for yourself. no one can get inside your thoughts and force you to not think abou thtings
<Riastradh>
Do you think my living reflects the rest of society, JPL-Justin?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, you are not realizing how much you take for granted.
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: Not really. You can be intelligent and obedient and do very well in the current educational system.
<JPL-Justin>
I do'nt think anyone here in this room is anything but in the top x%
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, we have an ENORMOUS inherited body of advice and knowledge on how to think about the world.
<Riastradh>
How do you define 'the top x%?'
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, it comes to us from millennia of experience, and we need to be taught it.
<JPL-Justin>
I think ther'es a small number for x
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, with bad education, there is no hope.
<JPL-Justin>
intelligence wise
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, you said "selects for obedience and nothing more."
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, that doesn't answer my question.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I had a crappy education yet I got into a decent school, because I worked my ass off on my own time
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: If you are not obedient you do not progress in the system.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: A lot of very intelligent people throughout history had almost no education and did just fine
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, thus, if people involved tend to be intelligent, you would say this has to do with random chance?
m[kel[ has joined #ocaml
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I don't mean just "formal school education."
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I know people smarter than myself that didn't even graduate high school and were very successful and know a lot, it's called research, instead of being spoonfed everything
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, most of it comes from the examples set by your peers.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: okay then, no one is stopping you from looking up calculus on the web, as most people have internet
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, why would someone look something up if he hasn't learned to value it?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: in the US most people have access to things like public libraries etc... you can easily learn everything you'd learn in high school starting at google
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: I'm saying that if one works hard doing what he/she is told, he will progress through the system.
smklsmkl has quit [Connection timed out]
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, why would someone try to learn that stuff if he hadn't learned that it was valuable to learn it?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: So you're saying the answer is to indoctrinate our youth with your percieved value of knowlege?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, yes
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: That's very important, yes.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, without intelligence, he will not progress to graduate school at a prestigious program in his area.
<JPL-Justin>
I think it's better to show people how it's valuable to you, rather than to tell them it should be valuable to them. Show them how it's useful, and let them decide if they should value it
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, right. This is included in what I mean by "education." (Notice I explicitly mentioned the examples of peers as the main method)
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: There are many not-so-prestigious programs. I'm not saying that idiots will necessarily get PhDs, but then again, there are a lot of idiots with PhDs.
<JPL-Justin>
I think that 99.99999....% of all possible information in the universe is useless details. Knowlege is only useful in context, as it can enlighten you or solve problems. Thus there's no extrinsic value, and the intrinsic value hsould be based on their own opinions, not yours shoved down their throats
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, all it takes is one counterexample to show that "the educations sytem only selects for obedience" is false.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: so you're saying that peer pressure is the best way to indocrinate our young into spending their time acquiring knowlege rather than doing other things?
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I don't agree, and I think you don't realize how much of what you believe and take to be universally true is in fact in your head for the arbitrary reason that your parents, friends, etc., believed it.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I'm sure all of it is
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: I overstated the point. I think you understand what I was trying to say.
<Smerdyakov>
Peer pressure is the best way to convince people to behave appropriately.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I'm sure it's all because I was exposed to ideas as a kid etc. That doesn't mean i do'nt believe it.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I was exposed to all kinds of other stufff, from friends and parents that I do NOT agree with. Clearly there's some element of choice. And if there is no choice in what I believe, then it doesn't matter I can't do anything about it :)
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: We are already indoctrinated, it's just that we're taught to believe that material possessions are more important than knowledge, etc.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: peer pressure is the best way to convince people to behave like the group
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: peer pressure often makes people behave in appropriately. it's called a high school cafeteria.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, and if the group behaves appropriately, then this does what we want.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: yes, and that's quite a big stipulation
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: there's a lot of mob instincts that are clearly not merelyl learned behaviors
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: The point is that given a much better educational environment and a society which values *far* more than money and power, people would be raised with an entirely different set of values.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I agree that that's true, however I'm not sure I"Ll ever be convinced that that situation is stable except in the best psosible circumstances
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: They would see all sorts of possibilities that they would not otherwise, and would be far more likely to develop in a more balanced and positive way.
<Riastradh>
JPL-Justin, weren't you just talking about the stable US government a few minutes ago?
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: What if we started with media democracy?
<JPL-Justin>
yes it's stable because it's very pragmatic
<JPL-Justin>
I'm saying that things like the US government, which completely sucks, is also very stable
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: If by "pragmatic" you mean "based on greed"...
<JPL-Justin>
I mean "allowing for human nature"
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: What is human nature?
<JPL-Justin>
based on survival insticts
<bk_>
mixing functional and imperative is shit
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: What does the OED say? :)
* JPL-Justin
looks it up
<Riastradh>
Human nature is what's wrong with society.
<_jpl_>
Don't bother.
<JPL-Justin>
oh here it is: Human Nature - the tendency of Justin Wick to be right, and Anarchism to suck
<JPL-Justin>
wait no that's not it
anyone has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
hehehe
<JPL-Justin>
j/k
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Why are you so sure that such a thing exists?
<JPL-Justin>
No, I believe that human nature is to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of yourself and your mate/kids. I believe that part of survival is not pissing off the rest of society too much.
<_jpl_>
(because you've been told that it is so, over and over)
<JPL-Justin>
prove it
<JPL-Justin>
can you possibly prove what I'm thinking, or why I"m thinking it?
<Riastradh>
Go solipism!
<JPL-Justin>
If I tell you a million times that the sky is green, does that suddenly make you think it?
<Riastradh>
Why don't you try it?
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: You might want to read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid" for a different take on the survival instinct.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: because I might have something better to do
<Riastradh>
The sky is green...
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: it's a matter of balance
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: anyways I detest people telling me why I believe something. you can't don't even know me for goodness sakes
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: That's a ridiculous argument.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: You're raised in a certain setting, yes?
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: also you don't eveh know if I'm being truthful when I make the statement that I actually believe what I"m saying!
<anyone>
I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure you are not a robot.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I was raised in a setting
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: according to quantum physics it wasn't 100% certain
<JPL-Justin>
:-P
Deknos has joined #ocaml
<_jpl_>
As we mature and learn about the world, we are constantly absorbing information and ideas and turning them into knowledge.
<Deknos>
re
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I suppose that's fair enough
<_jpl_>
If you are constantly exposed to ideas like this concept of "human nature", especially during your formative years, it's quite likely that you'll absorb that concept without even questioning it much.
<JPL-Justin>
that sounds like a probabilisitc statement, not a certainty
<Deknos>
when i program in imperative style, and i have a if clause, how could i achieve, that two parameters are changed in this if clause?
<_jpl_>
That's not the same as you coming up to me now and saying "the sky is green" over and over.
<Deknos>
normaly i use i:=!i-1;
<Deknos>
and j:=!j-1;
<anyone>
Yes you can do that.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: do you believe that human beings have free will?
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: I believe that human being *are* free will.
<anyone>
You can also enclose the two statements in a pair of parentheses.
<Deknos>
but it seems, that the interpreter don't like if foo then i:=!i-1; j:=!j-1;
<Deknos>
after this, i have the else clause
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: then I can choose to think for myself, and no amount of outside influece can make that for me
<Deknos>
and he complains about that
<gl>
if foo then (decr i; decr j) else ( ... )
<anyone>
I would try parentheses.
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Not true at all.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: and the fact that I can choose it means that you cannot state that I haven't
* JPL-Justin
listens intently to how you can have free will, but somehow not make choices
<anyone>
Note also that "begin" and "end" are parentheses. They may look nicer.
<gl>
if you do not like parentheses, you can use begin/end instead.
<anyone>
if foo then begin decr i; decr j end else ... <--- still complains?
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: it could easily be true, but if it were, the end result is I"m not responsible for anything I do
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: and you're not responsible for your lack of not holding me responsible
<Riastradh>
That would suck.
<JPL-Justin>
yeah
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Free will is still based on all the assumptions one has absorbed. You will simply not see various things as possibilities and therefore not choose them.
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: if that's the case, then nothing you can do can change the fact that you'll do everything, therefore choice is not helpful. but if you DO have meanignful choice, you should use it to make things better
<Deknos>
yes, he does
<JPL-Justin>
therefore when making choices, you should only consider non-helpless situations
<anyone>
Not many people here know what constitutes scientific evidence.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: that's a very good argument, however your original statement assumes that I've never considered other possibilities
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: Remind me which was my original statement?
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I have challenged just about everythign I've ever been told, it's my gut reaction to do so. and then if I can't find enough fault, I might acept it
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: But my point is that you will necessarily only see a certain set of things as possible, even while you are questioning something and choosing another way.
smklsmkl has joined #ocaml
<JPL-Justin>
<_jpl_> JPL-Justin: Why are you so sure that such a thing exists?
<JPL-Justin>
<_jpl_> (because you've been told that it is so, over and over)
<anyone>
Wouldn't it be nice if IRC were line-numbered.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: throughout this entire argument, I consider everything that anyone in this room says to be possible, as I respect everyone I"ve talked to so far in here
m[kel[ has quit [Connection timed out]
<Deknos>
anyone, what do you want to mean? i'm sorry, english's not my mothertongue
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I analyze it and form an opinion on it, and I happen to disagree with it. the reaosn I do'nt believe the same thing as you is because I choose not to
<anyone>
"Referring back to line 4293834, I still disagree... " :)
<JPL-Justin>
anyone: yeah great idea
<JPL-Justin>
anyone: are you anyone I know?
<anyone>
No.
* JPL-Justin
was just making a bad joke
<_jpl_>
Ah, yes. No, it doesn't assume that you've never considered other possibilities. But by being exposed to thinking about the world in a certain way, it is far more likely that you'll choose to believe in human nature even if you are consciously questioning the idea.
<JPL-Justin>
that's not what you said though
<JPL-Justin>
you sidn't say it was "likely" that I thought that way, but you said it with certainty
<JPL-Justin>
you said "thing X because of thing Y" which is a statement not allowing for any significant uncertainty
<JPL-Justin>
And I"m saying that there is quite a bit.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_ I believe that you are coirrect to say that I'm more likely to agree with what I"m exposed to, but I also believe ultimately i'ts still my choice
<_jpl_>
Let me ask you this. Have you studied philosophy to any significant degree?
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: not a lot... my dad has a degree in it... I took a decision theory class and an ethics class, but I tend to dislike philosophy
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: I've been exposed to a lot of christian and atheist/agnostic philosophies during my life however, but I'm sure you probably took more classes on it than I
<_jpl_>
Getting anywhere close to this question involves a good bit of hard work, especially in understanding a great deal of philosophy. It's unlikely that many people will go to that extent to validate their belief in such a concept.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, what's your highest level of education?
<_jpl_>
As something that is fairly fundamental to a lot of western thought, it's something that seems completely reasonable taken on its face.
<JPL-Justin>
_jpl_: the main reason I haven't taken a ton of philosphy classes is that I don't think philosophy can really answer these questions, only give you some things to think about, and I have enough thigns to think about already :)
<JPL-Justin>
well speaking of things to think about, I have a hell of a lot of work to do before I go home tonight, so I should get back
<Riastradh>
Only the best philosophers have anything useful to say, but they're too weird for usual society to consider.
<JPL-Justin>
but good talking to you two, and I"ll read that FAQ and um think for myself
<_jpl_>
Good evening.
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: Indeed.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, what's your highest level of education?
<_jpl_>
Smerdyakov: Your point?
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: high school
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, it's unrelated to the conversation.
<Riastradh>
I've vaguely considered the idea of traveling to Tibet or India or somewhere like that and avoiding Western society at all.
<Smerdyakov>
_jpl_, just curious about the first person I've ever met on freenode who lives in Berkeley but is not affiliated with UCB.
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: I have a smester left before I get my bachelors degree, but it's almost exclusively liberal arts classes left, I only have one phyusics class left for my physics degree
<_jpl_>
It's not something I'd really like to talk about.
<Smerdyakov>
JPL-Justin, I was asking _jpl_, who is different from you. :P
<JPL-Justin>
Riastradh: that might seriously be a good idea, if you aren't happy with the situation (and I don't blame you if you aren't)
<JPL-Justin>
Smerdyakov: oops I read that right
<Riastradh>
But it's too hot in India. I can't stand anything that goes above 80 degrees.
<JPL-Justin>
and then read something else on another page
<JPL-Justin>
and then read back
<JPL-Justin>
wrong
<JPL-Justin>
damn guy stealing my acronym ;)
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: You could live up north in the foothills of the Himalayas.
<Riastradh>
Maybe I could have a T1 line there so I could stay in this channel, and #scheme too.
<Smerdyakov>
and #lilosex
<_jpl_>
JPL-Justin: My initials are "jpl", so I've had them for a long time. :)
<JPL-Justin>
that's what I supsected
<JPL-Justin>
mine is just given to me by the Man
<JPL-Justin>
I have to use this /nick because it's what i Have to use in /#maestro that I admin
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: You'd have a hard time avoiding Western culture in India these days, however.
<Riastradh>
_jpl_, nah, India's a big place, even if there are a lot of people there.
<Riastradh>
I didn't mean the cities or anything.
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: Well, you wouldn't find anything like a T1 outside of a city...
<Riastradh>
If I really _liked_ Western culture, I'd stay in the cities, because I could live like a prince there.
<_jpl_>
Or much running water, or sanitation systems, etc.
<anyone>
Live in Darjeeling so you can send me Darjeeling tea every once in a while!
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: If Kashmir weren't in such turmoil, Shrinagar might be a nice option.
<Riastradh>
On the note of rejecting Western civilization as it runs rampant all over the earth today, I'm not sure if I want Bush to go to Mars or _I_ want to go to Mars...
<_jpl_>
Riastradh: It would be better for us all if *he* went.
<_jpl_>
And took all his buddies with him.
<Riastradh>
I think somewhere between India and Tibet would be best, so I'm not too close to the Westernized India, but so I'm also not too close to China's frobnication of Tibet.
<_jpl_>
Nepal, then?
<Riastradh>
Somewhere 'round there.
<_jpl_>
It's exactly between India and Tibet.
<anyone>
Antarctica is also not too close to anywhere in particular. Hell, the scientists living there are all nice people.
<Riastradh>
Antarctica is just going to become one big Western research institute.
<Riastradh>
If I end up doing this, I'm going to blame you guys when questioned for urging me on, 'k?
<_jpl_>
Ever heard of Leh?
<Riastradh>
Nope.
<_jpl_>
It's in the far far north of India.
JPL-Justin is now known as JPL-Justin-away
<Riastradh>
It sounds vaguely familiar but I don't know anything at all about it and I don't think I've ever heard of it before.