I'm not Ron Jeffries
Phlip
After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
am really Ron Jeffries.
So when the opportunity for yet another heinous and totally
Phlip-style prank to play upon USENET dropped unsought into my lap,
the locals here can, instead, rest assured that I'm perfectly capable
of simulating maturity during one of the few times when it's in the
best interest of a newsgroup:
--> I will not presently write any posts under
the Subject "I'm really Ron Jeffries". <--
Those who doubt that I am Phlip, not Ron, may reduce their misgivings
by searching with http://groups.google.com -> Advanced for my
distinctive street name on news:comp.object around 1997, long before
this newbie upstart Ron Jeffries (if that IS is his real name) ever
posted here.
If I really were Ron, then wasting ~4 years of my career to set this
prank up would almost be as sick as the shit that really does go down
every single day at what's left of news:comp.object.
Now here is a very important tip. Some might think I'm Ron because I
seem to be the only person here who never argues with him. Those who
know Ron know how rare that condition is. But the truth is I have been
mentoring Ron for a while now, and - though I may only rarely agree
with him - I am very often in "alignment" with him. That means either
of us could state the other's general viewpoint on request.
Alignment is more important than arguing.
Note to Ron: If you are, in fact, me, I'l retract this. But I doubt
it.
--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/PhilosophyBrethrenThree
-- DARE to resist drug-war profiteering --
Peter Hansen
>
> eXtremos:
>
> After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
> figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
> am really Ron Jeffries.
Really, I thought we were *all* Ron Jeffries. Wasn't this entire
newsgroup just set up as a big advertisement for Object Mentor?
After all, given the characters that populate this group, the only
rational explanation is that this entire newsgroup, including
this post, is just the creation of a big genetic algorithm which is
attempting to find the most effective way to waste bandwidth.
I think the population is converging on a solution soon...
(Anyone who is not actually one of the genomes in this population
can leave now, since you won't affect the search results at all.)
Phlip
> Really, I thought we were *all* Ron Jeffries. Wasn't this entire
> newsgroup just set up as a big advertisement for Object Mentor?
Oh, I definitely want to go with a consulting firm whose members
>never< participate in online communities.
If you believe all that, then why are you here?
--
Phlip
@objectmentor.com Robert C. Martin
wrote:
>After all, given the characters that populate this group, the only
>rational explanation is that this entire newsgroup, including
>this post, is just the creation of a big genetic algorithm which is
>attempting to find the most effective way to waste bandwidth.
Stars pour forth energy created when ordered hydrogen nuclei fuse into
less ordered helium nuclei. Some meager fraction of that energy is
captured by chlorophyll molecules and used to create ordered glucose
molecules. However nearly all that glucose is converted by plants and
animals, including humans, into less ordered carbon-dioxide, and
water. Humans employ the energy they gain from this reaction to many
purposes, including typing words into newsgroups. Humans were created
by THE genetic algorithm.
Therefore, this post, and all posts, ARE just the creation of a big
genetic algorithm which transforms order into disorder.
Robert C. Martin | "Uncle Bob" | Software Consultants
Object Mentor Inc. | rma...@objectmentor.com | We'll help you get
PO Box 5757 | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | your projects done.
565 Lakeview Pkwy | Fax: (847) 573-1658 | www.objectmentor.com
Suite 135 | | www.XProgramming.com
Vernon Hills, IL, | Training and Mentoring | www.junit.org
60061 | OO, XP, Java, C++, Python|
"One of the great commandments of science is:
'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan
Michael Feathers
"Peter Hansen" <pe...@engcorp.com> wrote:
> Really, I thought we were *all* Ron Jeffries. Wasn't this entire
> newsgroup just set up as a big advertisement for Object Mentor?
Nope. It was actually Martin Fowler's idea. He was tired of having the
full volume of the XP mailing list deluge his mailbox. I just did the
legwork and submitted the RFD. At first there was a lot of discussion about
whether the XP community really needed a usenet group, considering the fact
that the mailing list is there, but it went through. Frankly, I like the
mailing list better. People talk about XP and the din of the asylum is
fainter.
Michael Feathers
www.objectmentor.com
Peter Hansen
Ah, sorry Phlip, but I believe one of us missed the smiley in my post...
('Twas a joke!)
(Oh, and it was I who missed the explicit smiley, you who missed
the implicit one. :-)
William Pietri
> After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
> figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
> am really Ron Jeffries.
As long as we're making this clear, I think I should mention that I'm not
Ron Jeffries, either. Sure, I'm burly, bearded, a published writer, and
fond of XP. But that's where it ends: he lives in Chicago; I only used
to live in Chicago. He goes to taiji class, I go to yoga class. And I've
never even driven a Chrysler, much less worked there. And here's the
clincher: normally reliable witnesses claim to have seen us in the same
place.
Is there anybody here who's not somebody else? We may as well clear all of
this up at once.
William
-----
William Pietri <wil...@scissor.com>
brains for sale - http://www.scissor.com/
Steven Friediman
"William Pietri" <william-n...@scissor.com> wrote in message
news:u4vlmpf...@corp.supernews.com...
> Phlip wrote:
>
> > After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
> > figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
> > am really Ron Jeffries.
>
> As long as we're making this clear, I think I should mention that I'm not
> Ron Jeffries, either. Sure, I'm burly, bearded, a published writer, and
> fond of XP. But that's where it ends: he lives in Chicago; I only used
> to live in Chicago. He goes to taiji class, I go to yoga class. And I've
> never even driven a Chrysler, much less worked there. And here's the
> clincher: normally reliable witnesses claim to have seen us in the same
> place.
Well I guess that makes you one of his cronies.
@objectmentor.com Robert C. Martin
<guillerm...@No.Spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I thought your posting was serious...
No, it was a joke -- but it was based on serious theory. In the end,
all energy liberating reactions, including life, exist because there
is enthalpy that can be transformed into entropy.
>"Robert C. Martin" <rmartin @ objectmentor . com> wrote in message
>news:4rut4uobmepkhk890...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:40:57 -0500, Peter Hansen <pe...@engcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >After all, given the characters that populate this group, the only
>> >rational explanation is that this entire newsgroup, including
>> >this post, is just the creation of a big genetic algorithm which is
>> >attempting to find the most effective way to waste bandwidth.
>>
>> Stars pour forth energy created when ordered hydrogen nuclei fuse into
>> less ordered helium nuclei.
>
>You are implying that the increase of entropy is the reason why energy is
>produced.
I't not quite so causal. Energy cannot be liberated unless entropy in
increased; and an increase in entropy is always associated with the
liberation of energy. The two are tighly coupled. (in my meager
understanding of these things.)
>
>I doubt that helium is les ordered than hydrogen. I think helium is more
>ordered since its nuclei are more complex. Can you elaborate why you think
>the contrary is true?
Four well defined states are reduced to one plus a lot of random
motion. Four individual protons, moving in just the right way at just
the right time devolve into one randomly vibrating helium nucleus, and
some photons moving in random directions. (At least that's how my poor
understanding of thermodynamics sees it.)
Otis Bricker
>
> > After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
> > figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
> > am really Ron Jeffries.
>
> As long as we're making this clear, I think I should mention that I'm not
> Ron Jeffries, either. Sure, I'm burly, bearded, a published writer, and
> fond of XP. But that's where it ends: he lives in Chicago; I only used
> to live in Chicago. He goes to taiji class, I go to yoga class. And I've
> never even driven a Chrysler, much less worked there. And here's the
> clincher: normally reliable witnesses claim to have seen us in the same
> place.
>
> Is there anybody here who's not somebody else? We may as well clear all of
> this up at once.
>
My word! I had no idea that this XP conspiracy had spread so far and
infected so may innocent developers.
I demand to know how many of you are involved in impersonating someone
impersonating Ron Jeffries! The world will be watching for this ugly
truth to immerge.
Otis Bricker
Who thinks he is not Ron Jeffries but is begining to doubts.
Kay Pentecost
> "William Pietri" <william-n...@scissor.com> wrote in message
> news:u4vlmpf...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Phlip wrote:
> >
> > > After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
> > > figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
> > > am really Ron Jeffries.
> >
> > As long as we're making this clear, I think I should mention that I'm not
> > Ron Jeffries, either. Sure, I'm burly, bearded, a published writer, and
> > fond of XP. But that's where it ends: he lives in Chicago; I only used
> > to live in Chicago. He goes to taiji class, I go to yoga class. And I've
> > never even driven a Chrysler, much less worked there. And here's the
> > clincher: normally reliable witnesses claim to have seen us in the same
> > place.
>
> Well I guess that makes you one of his cronies.
Have you ever been in the same place with someone who was not one of *your* cronies?
Kay
Ron Jeffries
>eXtremos:
>
>After what I now realise was several days of wheedling, I have FINALLY
>figured out that some folks here think I'm posting under an alias and
>am really Ron Jeffries.
I want to apologize to everyone for any confusion that has been caused
by my not being Phlip or Bob Martin or any of the other people that I am
not.
I am, in fact, Ron Jeffries, although I have a father (now deceased) and
a son (a brewer) of the same name. I have never seen either one of them
post here. I'm really quite sure that Dad won't be, and don't expect
young Ron to do so either, unless we turn the discussion to really good
beer.
I myself have neither the time nor the inclination to post under another
name, even if another name would have me.
It is entirely possibly that in my postings I may appear rude, though I
generally try not to be. I may appear arrogant, though I assert that I
merely have a cold appreciation of my own excellence.
And I may from time to time (or for all I know always) be wrong.
I try to be clear and open and honest, and I try to treat other people
as if they are trying to be clear and open and honest.
My postings may source from dundee.net, chartermi.net, earthlink.net, or
sometimes from AOL when I can't get on line any other way. My return
address always refers to my acm address.
I am Ron Jeffries, and you aren't.
Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.
Tim Ottinger
>
> "Robert C. Martin" <rmartin @ objectmentor . com> wrote in message
> news:4rut4uobmepkhk890...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:40:57 -0500, Peter Hansen <pe...@engcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >After all, given the characters that populate this group, the only
>> >rational explanation is that this entire newsgroup, including
>> >this post, is just the creation of a big genetic algorithm which is
>> >attempting to find the most effective way to waste bandwidth.
>>
> I doubt that helium is les ordered than hydrogen. I think helium is more
> ordered since its nuclei are more complex. Can you elaborate why you think
> the contrary is true?
Just thinking out loud, but you know I've always had trouble telling the
difference between complexity and disorder. In fact, I think that XP sort
of groups them in the same corral, prefering simplicity-as-order in code.
I know I can agree with that bit.
Tim
Ron Jeffries
wrote:
>Just thinking out loud, but you know I've always had trouble telling the
>difference between complexity and disorder. In fact, I think that XP sort
>of groups them in the same corral, prefering simplicity-as-order in code.
Interesting observation. To feed the fire, I'd suggest that while it may
be possible that complexity and disorder are completely different
things, our minds surely perceive only disorder when presented something
sufficiently complex.
That's why we do all that abstraction and hierarchical organization
stuff: trying to keep perceived complexity below the threshold where our
brains scream "eeek, complexity!"
@objectmentor.com Robert C. Martin
<ronje...@REMOVEacm.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 05:02:42 GMT, Tim Ottinger <tott...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Just thinking out loud, but you know I've always had trouble telling the
>>difference between complexity and disorder. In fact, I think that XP sort
>>of groups them in the same corral, prefering simplicity-as-order in code.
>
>Interesting observation. To feed the fire, I'd suggest that while it may
>be possible that complexity and disorder are completely different
>things, our minds surely perceive only disorder when presented something
>sufficiently complex.
I think we can define a complex system as one that has many components
in many states. This is also a reasonable definition of a disordered
system.
>That's why we do all that abstraction and hierarchical organization
>stuff: trying to keep perceived complexity below the threshold where our
>brains scream "eeek, complexity!"
Yeah. By creating abstractions we reduce the number of components and
states
John A. Byerly
news:7B147FF4AC48E980.4EADB7D7...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 05:02:42 GMT, Tim Ottinger <tott...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just thinking out loud, but you know I've always had trouble telling the
> >difference between complexity and disorder. In fact, I think that XP sort
> >of groups them in the same corral, prefering simplicity-as-order in code.
>
> Interesting observation. To feed the fire, I'd suggest that while it may
> be possible that complexity and disorder are completely different
> things, our minds surely perceive only disorder when presented something
> sufficiently complex.
You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see complexity,
but in no way do I see disorder.
And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body was
poorly designed.
JAB
--
--------------------------------------------------------
John A. Byerly
Engineered Software Solutions, Ltd.
http://www.ess-quality.com
Phlip
> You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see complexity,
> but in no way do I see disorder.
>
> And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body was
> poorly designed.
I regret to inform the newsgroup that this post has overwhelmed
personal resolutions to exercise more restraint when presented with
such fresh meat.
<pause to build tension>
The mammalian body plan is the end result (from our point of view on
the Material Plane) of many iterations of Emergent Design and testing
within constraints. And it's copiously documented, after-the-fact.
<cleansing breath>
It's over; I feel much better now.
--
Phlip
Richard MacDonald
>
> And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body was
> poorly designed.
>
walked on all fours.
William Pietri
>> Interesting observation. To feed the fire, I'd suggest that while it may
>> be possible that complexity and disorder are completely different
>> things, our minds surely perceive only disorder when presented something
>> sufficiently complex.
>
> You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see complexity,
> but in no way do I see disorder.
Actually, one of the most interesting questions these days turns on this
issue. The vast majority of our DNA appears to be unused. Is that disorder?
Or unappreciated complexity? Last I looked into this, the consensus seemed
to lean towards disorder but this is still up in the air.
Similar issues crop up in the immune system and in cancer and cancer
supression mechanisms. The body itself often can't tell order from
disorder, although it has a lot of clever tricks that work well enough to
get by, at least long enough for you to have and raise kids.
> And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body was
> poorly designed.
I'm that nitwit, so I'll try to make the reason I said that a little
clearer.
The human body is, overall, pretty well designed. But there are three sets
of exceptions that I've noticed:
One set comes from the fact that our "acceptance tests" have shifted
rapidly, much more rapidly than evolution can cope with. Note, for example,
things like hemorrhoids, varicose veins, and knee problems. In our
evolutionary shift to walking upright, there were many structures adapted
to previous conditions that now don't work that well. And most major
environmental changes have their own set of maladaptive traits, from
difficult births to RSI.
The second set comes from the fact that evolution is a hill-climbing
algorithm that takes very small steps. Once you get to a local maximum,
it's hard to get off that hill to get to a higher one. So you end up with a
lot of things that were good ways to start but may not be good ways to
finish. Take, for example, the blind spot:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
Every human being (and I think every vertebrate) has a little area in each
eyeball where they can't see. It comes from the way the optic nerve
projects into the eyeball rather than running beneath it.This is a swell
example of bad evolutionary design; some other creatures with eyes evolved
them separately, and don't have this problem.
Especially weird is that they blind spot is fiendishly hard to notice
because your brain edits it out under most circumstances. Which certainly
reminds me of software hack jobs I've seen in the past.
The third set has to do with what I think of as the body's equivalent of
"spaghetti code". Evolution only optimizes things that have a pretty
immediate external effect. Internal systems can get fiendishly tangled, as
doctors have known for decades and geneticists are now discovering anew.
Everything is interconnected higglety-pigglety, and one thing often has
several different, semi-conflicting roles. Why? Because evolution does no
refactoring; it never looks at a system and says, "Gosh, this is messy; let
me clean it up so that future changes are easier."
If you spend some time playing with evolutionary algorithms, you'll soon
see how this works. Evolution will often produce solutions that humans
would never think of and it will get them to be pretty good peformers, but
dependence on chance and hill-climing means that a good engineer can often
take the output of evolution and improve it quite a bit, both by
optimization and by refactoring to remove evolutionary roadblocks and
historical detritus.
Tom Plunket
> The mammalian body plan is the end result (from our point of view
> on the Material Plane) of many iterations of Emergent Design and
> testing within constraints. And it's copiously documented,
> after-the-fact.
I would submit, however, that there are many systems that are
still poorly understood. Despite the fact that there are volumes
of documentation on many of the systems, the system-as-a-whole is
still functions without us knowing what makes it go.
However, this is an interesting analogy- if nature can
successfully do emergent design, why can't we? After all, the
evolution of software isn't bound by the propogation of genes, so
it's obvious on its face that software can evolve considerably
faster than biology.
This also suggests that while the documentation is incomplete, we
can still fix those systems which are well-documented. This
presumes proper couplitive and cohesive states, however.
-tom!
John Roth
I'd claim that it wasn't designed at all; like Topsy, it "jest growed."
We see the kinds of patterns that our brain is wired to see,
whether or not they were produced the way we would produce
them.
> I'm that nitwit, so I'll try to make the reason I said that a little
> clearer.
>
> The human body is, overall, pretty well designed. But there are three
sets
> of exceptions that I've noticed:
>
>
> One set comes from the fact that our "acceptance tests" have shifted
> rapidly, much more rapidly than evolution can cope with. Note, for
example,
> things like hemorrhoids, varicose veins, and knee problems. In our
> evolutionary shift to walking upright, there were many structures
adapted
> to previous conditions that now don't work that well. And most major
> environmental changes have their own set of maladaptive traits, from
> difficult births to RSI.
Those are commonly cited issues, but IMO, they have nothing
to do with walking upright. They have everything to do with
abusing our bodies by not maintaing the correct posture and not
getting enough excercise of the proper types.
> The second set comes from the fact that evolution is a hill-climbing
> algorithm that takes very small steps. Once you get to a local
maximum,
> it's hard to get off that hill to get to a higher one. So you end up
with a
> lot of things that were good ways to start but may not be good ways to
> finish. Take, for example, the blind spot:
>
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
>
> Every human being (and I think every vertebrate) has a little area in
each
> eyeball where they can't see. It comes from the way the optic nerve
> projects into the eyeball rather than running beneath it. This is a
swell
> example of bad evolutionary design; some other creatures with eyes
evolved
> them separately, and don't have this problem.
>
> Especially weird is that they blind spot is fiendishly hard to notice
> because your brain edits it out under most circumstances. Which
certainly
> reminds me of software hack jobs I've seen in the past.
Excellent example.
> The third set has to do with what I think of as the body's equivalent
of
> "spaghetti code". Evolution only optimizes things that have a pretty
> immediate external effect. Internal systems can get fiendishly
tangled, as
> doctors have known for decades and geneticists are now discovering
anew.
> Everything is interconnected higglety-pigglety, and one thing often
has
> several different, semi-conflicting roles. Why? Because evolution does
no
> refactoring; it never looks at a system and says, "Gosh, this is
messy; let
> me clean it up so that future changes are easier."
This is, to me, the single best arguement against the creationists. God
would not do that bad a job. At least, not any God that I would trust
with my afterlife.
> If you spend some time playing with evolutionary algorithms, you'll
soon
> see how this works. Evolution will often produce solutions that humans
> would never think of and it will get them to be pretty good peformers,
but
> dependence on chance and hill-climing means that a good engineer can
often
> take the output of evolution and improve it quite a bit, both by
> optimization and by refactoring to remove evolutionary roadblocks and
> historical detritus.
Sometimes amazingly good performance. The field seems to have lots
of examples where evolutionary algorithms have produced truely startling
results, purely as a result of a not quite random walk exploration of
the design space.
> William
John Roth
Ron Jeffries
<jbyerly@ess-quality_remove.com> wrote:
>You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see complexity,
>but in no way do I see disorder.
Please explain the layout of the capillaries and of the neurons of the
brain. Please explain the structure of fingerprints and ears. Please
explain the stucture of the color patterns in the colored part of the
eye. Please explain the layout of the hairs on the back of my hand, or
the ones growing out of my ears.
I feel sure that those things probably come about due to some ordering
principle. But can we see the order?
John Roth
"Tom Plunket" <to...@fancy.org> wrote in message
news:8oc35ukp6319l56p4...@4ax.com...
> Phlip wrote:
>
> > The mammalian body plan is the end result (from our point of view
> > on the Material Plane) of many iterations of Emergent Design and
> > testing within constraints. And it's copiously documented,
> > after-the-fact.
>
> I would submit, however, that there are many systems that are
> still poorly understood. Despite the fact that there are volumes
> of documentation on many of the systems, the system-as-a-whole is
> still functions without us knowing what makes it go.
>
> However, this is an interesting analogy- if nature can
> successfully do emergent design, why can't we? After all, the
> evolution of software isn't bound by the propogation of genes, so
> it's obvious on its face that software can evolve considerably
> faster than biology.
Cost, pure and simple. If we could do as many separate
variations on a system as nature seems to, then we could do the
same thing. Of course, we'd also be bored out of our minds,
because the process is completely mindless.
One ezperiment that one could try would be to write the
acceptance test suite, and then turn a genetic algorithm loose
on the 'Hello World' program, and see how long it would
take to get a system that passed all of those tests.
> -tom!
John Roth
Tim Ottinger
> Phlip wrote:
>> The mammalian body plan is the end result (from our point of view
>> on the Material Plane) of many iterations of Emergent Design and
>> testing within constraints. And it's copiously documented,
>> after-the-fact.
[...]
> However, this is an interesting analogy- if nature can
> successfully do emergent design, why can't we? After all, the
> evolution of software isn't bound by the propogation of genes, so
> it's obvious on its face that software can evolve considerably
> faster than biology.
Strangely enough, it takes us full circle. Alan Kay's original idea when he
coined the term "object-oriented" was of a biological model, the way that
organic systems are build by collaborating cells. Cells are specialized,
and communicate through messaging to other cells, and the collaboration
builds complex behaviors.
Well, Mr. Kay must have known a thing or two. Actually, I seem to recall
(however poorly) that his background was bio, so this analogy was not too
surprising to the fellow.
So there you go: organic programming through refactoring. If it's also
low-fat, then maybe it will start a major trend.
Tim
Tim Ottinger
Nor Guido van Rossum.
Nor Dijkstra.
Darn it.
Keith Ray
Tim Ottinger <tott...@home.com> wrote:
I am Ron Jeffries, but not in this lifetime.
John Roth
"Tim Ottinger" <tott...@home.com> wrote in message
news:zSq48.6143$gW4.4...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> Tom Plunket wrote:
>
> > Phlip wrote:
> >> The mammalian body plan is the end result (from our point of view
> >> on the Material Plane) of many iterations of Emergent Design and
> >> testing within constraints. And it's copiously documented,
> >> after-the-fact.
>
> [...]
>
>
> > However, this is an interesting analogy- if nature can
> > successfully do emergent design, why can't we? After all, the
> > evolution of software isn't bound by the propogation of genes, so
> > it's obvious on its face that software can evolve considerably
> > faster than biology.
>
> Strangely enough, it takes us full circle. Alan Kay's original idea
when he
> coined the term "object-oriented" was of a biological model, the way
that
> organic systems are build by collaborating cells. Cells are
specialized,
> and communicate through messaging to other cells, and the
collaboration
> builds complex behaviors.
Which is why we still have the rather wierd terminology of "sending
a message." That only makes sense if each object instance is a
separately
executing thread.
Steve Merrick
news:8oc35ukp6319l56p4...@4ax.com...
> ...if nature can successfully do emergent design, why can't we?
One reason, I think, is that those reductionist habits we've inherited
from generations of scientists can wreak havoc with emergent systems.
The (emergent) behaviour exhibited by the whole can disappear when we
chop it up to examine its component parts... :-(
Interesting as I find emergence, it's deviating from the topic, so I
suggest we leave it here, or start a new topic if anyone thinks
emergence is sufficiently intimate with XP. :-)
Back on topic, then: Like many of you, I'm not Ron either. And I
strongly suspect he isn't me. Proof of the latter is left as an exercise
for the student. :-)
--
Steve Merrick
"Who cares, wins"
Ron Jeffries
<Steve....@Marconi.com> wrote:
>Back on topic, then: Like many of you, I'm not Ron either. And I
>strongly suspect he isn't me. Proof of the latter is left as an exercise
>for the student. :-)
Oh, it's the old "IS is commutative" fallacy, you can't fool me.
John A. Byerly
> >> Interesting observation. To feed the fire, I'd suggest that while it
may
> >> be possible that complexity and disorder are completely different
> >> things, our minds surely perceive only disorder when presented
something
> >> sufficiently complex.
> >
> > You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see
complexity,
> > but in no way do I see disorder.
>
> Actually, one of the most interesting questions these days turns on this
> issue. The vast majority of our DNA appears to be unused. Is that
disorder?
> Or unappreciated complexity? Last I looked into this, the consensus seemed
> to lean towards disorder but this is still up in the air.
Of course, we know all there is to know about the human body. Therefore,
when we encounter something we don't understand, it must not have any use.
Pretty arrogant.
> Similar issues crop up in the immune system and in cancer and cancer
> supression mechanisms. The body itself often can't tell order from
> disorder, although it has a lot of clever tricks that work well enough to
> get by, at least long enough for you to have and raise kids.
>
> > And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body
was
> > poorly designed.
>
> I'm that nitwit, so I'll try to make the reason I said that a little
> clearer.
>
> The human body is, overall, pretty well designed. But there are three sets
> of exceptions that I've noticed:
The human body is, overall, very well designed. It has been corrupted over
the years, but the original design was perfect.
> One set comes from the fact that our "acceptance tests" have shifted
> rapidly, much more rapidly than evolution can cope with. Note, for
example,
> things like hemorrhoids, varicose veins, and knee problems. In our
> evolutionary shift to walking upright, there were many structures adapted
> to previous conditions that now don't work that well. And most major
> environmental changes have their own set of maladaptive traits, from
> difficult births to RSI.
That is, if you buy the nonesense that we evolved from some lower species.
I agree that evolution has taken place, but there is no way that we weren't
humans at the start.
> The second set comes from the fact that evolution is a hill-climbing
> algorithm that takes very small steps. Once you get to a local maximum,
> it's hard to get off that hill to get to a higher one. So you end up with
a
> lot of things that were good ways to start but may not be good ways to
> finish. Take, for example, the blind spot:
>
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
>
> Every human being (and I think every vertebrate) has a little area in each
> eyeball where they can't see. It comes from the way the optic nerve
> projects into the eyeball rather than running beneath it.This is a swell
> example of bad evolutionary design; some other creatures with eyes evolved
> them separately, and don't have this problem.
First of all, that was a pretty interesting web site!
Second, I have never seen a cyclops. Consequently, there is no reason that
such a blind spot should adversely affect a human. Other animals with eyes
that do not have this blind spot must need the full field of vision. For
instance, those lizards whose eyes move independently.
I would be interested to know how well those creatures with no blind spots
can see. I mean, do they have as good depth perception as humans do? Do
they see the same range of colors we do? Do they see as well in the night,
day, grey weather, in glares, etc.? The point is, the Lord gave us the eyes
we have because they were the best thing for us. He gave other creatures
the eyes they have because it was the best thing for them.
> Especially weird is that they blind spot is fiendishly hard to notice
> because your brain edits it out under most circumstances. Which certainly
> reminds me of software hack jobs I've seen in the past.
Your attitude is disappointing. The brain was designed to overcome a
"deficiency" in the optical component. The best example I can give you is
some software optimization you have to do to overcome a deficiency in speed.
Software engineers and programmers do this all the time. I would hardly
call it a hack job.
> The third set has to do with what I think of as the body's equivalent of
> "spaghetti code". Evolution only optimizes things that have a pretty
> immediate external effect. Internal systems can get fiendishly tangled, as
> doctors have known for decades and geneticists are now discovering anew.
> Everything is interconnected higglety-pigglety, and one thing often has
> several different, semi-conflicting roles. Why? Because evolution does no
> refactoring; it never looks at a system and says, "Gosh, this is messy;
let
> me clean it up so that future changes are easier."
The human body is not in any need of refactoring. It was designed
perfectly, corrupted in the Garden of Eden, and got worse over the years.
What it needs is restoration.
> If you spend some time playing with evolutionary algorithms, you'll soon
> see how this works. Evolution will often produce solutions that humans
> would never think of and it will get them to be pretty good peformers, but
> dependence on chance and hill-climing means that a good engineer can often
> take the output of evolution and improve it quite a bit, both by
> optimization and by refactoring to remove evolutionary roadblocks and
> historical detritus.
When God created humans, he created us perfect. No death, no disease. When
Satan introduced himself to Eve, both death and disease were introduced into
the human race. We have been paying for it ever since.
There are two things that continue to astound me: One is the fact that same
people who are willing to believe this fantastic fiction of a whole system
of life evolving from single cells (or whatever, you choose your seed)
reject the possibility that someone who knows quite a bit more than they do
actually created the thing. The other is the unbelievable arrogance of
scientists who think that they have a complete understanding of anything,
let alone something so complex as the human body.
BTW, if the human body is so flawed, why are scientists bothering with
cloning it?
John A. Byerly
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:34:33 -0500, "John A. Byerly"
> <jbyerly@ess-quality_remove.com> wrote:
>
> >You mean, _your_ mind. When I consider the human body, I see complexity,
> >but in no way do I see disorder.
>
> Please explain the layout of the capillaries and of the neurons of the
> brain. Please explain the structure of fingerprints and ears. Please
> explain the stucture of the color patterns in the colored part of the
> eye. Please explain the layout of the hairs on the back of my hand, or
> the ones growing out of my ears.
>
> I feel sure that those things probably come about due to some ordering
> principle. But can we see the order?
Just because _I_ can't explain it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a good
reason for being so. I think it would be pretty arrogant to assume
otherwise.
John A. Byerly
news:zdh48.1244$6z6.50...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
_I_ didn't decend from something that walks on all fours. _I_ decended from
Adam.
Not really on topic, though.
Oh, and my back is just fine, thank you.
Richard MacDonald
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:zdh48.1244$6z6.50...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > "John A. Byerly" <jbyerly@ess-quality_remove.com> wrote in message
> news:u532iek...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > And I disagree completely with the nitwit that claimed the human body
> was
> > > poorly designed.
> > >
> > How is your bad back :-? Comes from being descended from something that
> > walked on all fours.
>
> _I_ didn't decend from something that walks on all fours. _I_ decended from
> Adam.
>
> Not really on topic, though.
>
> Oh, and my back is just fine, thank you.
Glad to hear that. My back is fine too.
But it is funny how so many other people have back problems, don't you think :-?
John A. Byerly
Is the reason many are balding due to altitude?
Steve Merrick
Much as I might enjoy the blood and gore of an evolution vs. creationism
free-for-all, I'm convinced this isn't the place for it.
William Pietri
> When God created humans, he created us perfect. No death, no disease.
> When Satan introduced himself to Eve, both death and disease were
> introduced into the human race. We have been paying for it ever since.
>
> There are two things that continue to astound me: One is the fact that
> same people who are willing to believe this fantastic fiction of a whole
> system of life evolving from single cells (or whatever, you choose your
> seed) reject the possibility that someone who knows quite a bit more than
> they do actually created the thing.
Uh... I think this is one of those topics where it's better that we agree
to disagree; neither one of is is likely to convince the other, and the
topic is pretty well outside the charter of the group.
But if you find evolution implausible, it's not surprising to me that you
find XP implausible, too; they share certain essential similarities.
> The other is the unbelievable
> arrogance of scientists who think that they have a complete understanding
> of anything, let alone something so complex as the human body.
Most of the scientists I know are pretty humble, actually. I don't think
you'll find many top researchers who think they know it all.
> BTW, if the human body is so flawed, why are scientists bothering with
> cloning it?
Sentimental reasons, I presume. And it's certainly cheaper than
implementing it from scratch.
William
John A. Byerly
> John A. Byerly wrote:
>
> > When God created humans, he created us perfect. No death, no disease.
> > When Satan introduced himself to Eve, both death and disease were
> > introduced into the human race. We have been paying for it ever since.
> >
> > There are two things that continue to astound me: One is the fact that
> > same people who are willing to believe this fantastic fiction of a whole
> > system of life evolving from single cells (or whatever, you choose your
> > seed) reject the possibility that someone who knows quite a bit more
than
> > they do actually created the thing.
>
> Uh... I think this is one of those topics where it's better that we agree
> to disagree; neither one of is is likely to convince the other, and the
> topic is pretty well outside the charter of the group.
That's fine. Heaven knows, this newsgroup should never have to endure an
off-topic discussion like those that persist in comp.object.
> But if you find evolution implausible, it's not surprising to me that you
> find XP implausible, too; they share certain essential similarities.
I don't disagree with evolution. I disagree that we evolved from
non-humans. I didn't realize that XP suggests that programmers evolve from
janitors, doctors, or athletes. I disagree with this. I do think that bad
programmers can evolve into better programmers, however. I just don't think
that XP fosters this.