From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 03:50:41 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:50:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] grow closer to god--through the mail!! In-Reply-To: <20041130174113.47151.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130105442.01a43ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041130174113.47151.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130214654.019ecec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:41 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Mike wrote: >My intention is to point out that I don't know enough to know one way >or the other, and neither do you or anybody else, so atheism is as much >a religion as any other belief based on faith/lack of facts. Some >self-proclaimed atheists, like yourself, have a knee-jerk reaction to >such a statement, that is entirely emotional, not based on any rational >basis of logic. For another nice summary of why this is also bollocks, look at a site I found linked from the tragically late Yeduha Nattan Yudkowsky's blog: http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html < The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it *must* be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought *is.* Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one's back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That's the answer to this statement in theory. However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought. > etc etc. Damien Broderick From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Dec 1 04:03:52 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:03:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Center for Human Enhancement opens website Message-ID: <41AD42A8.7050205@humanenhancement.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Center For Human Enhancement, a for-profit business venture oriented towards the self-improvement community (as exemplified by the Transhumanist movement), made its website officially live on November 30th, 2004. The URL of the Center's website is http://www.humanenhancement.com The site's focus is on providing technologies for enhancing mental abilities "beyond normal" and physical abilities "beyond well"; things that are eminently practical and can be applied _today_. In addition, there is an attempt to present a brief overview of what the future will bring, to give context to the technologies that are currently available. The site features sections offering books, devices, and supplements relating to mind-enhancement (nootropics, neurofeedback, and wearable computing), body-enhancement (life extension, muscular enhancement, and cosmetic enhancement), fiction and non-fiction relating to the social, political, and other implications of human enhancement in general. There is also a daily-updated newswire offering the latest news of technological innovations that will someday be made available to the general public. The product offerings and product lines available will be expanded and updated as new technologies, supplements, and products become available. Visitors are actively encouraged to suggest new products that might be of interest to the site's visitors. It is hoped that sufficient success with offering those technologies that are currently available will give impetus for the development of other such technologies aimed at the retail market, under the more direct auspices of the Center for Human Enhancement, to make such technologies available on a widespread basis. Contact: Joseph Bloch, President Center for Human Enhancement PO Box 94 Stanhope, NJ 07874 973-876-8843 From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 04:27:30 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:57:30 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041126015527.59750.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> References: <004301c4d356$8fb57aa0$b3893cd1@pavilion> <20041126015527.59750.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc04113020274a84eb20@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:55:27 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Technotranscendence wrote: > > > I'm forced to make some comments on this thread. Atheism per se is > > not a religion. It's merely the lack of a belief in God/gods. > That's > > it. Ditto for theism. Theism is not a religion either. It's merely > a > > presence of a belief in God/gods. > > "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Atheism is as much a > matter of faith as theism. Particularly, since the advent of the > Simulation Argument, the issue demands that scientists intending on > total scientific objectivity must be agnostic or at most Deist, until > the Simulation Argument is proven or disproven. The Simulation Argument > essentially dictates that the inhabitants of most universes must be > deists to be objective. Where do you stand on Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, Mike? Agnostic? The Simulation is interesting theoretically, but I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it. Like the Drake equation, its outcome is based on the axioms you choose. Based on available knowledge, it's as credible as the Doomsday argument (ie: not very) > > The hubris of religion is not to presume something which is not in > evidence, but to presume something in spite of evidence or odds to the > contrary (i.e. evolution, jupiters moons, etc). > > Atheism falls in this same trap of hubris in presuming that absence of > evidence is evidence of absence, but especially in going beyond that > presumption in insisting, despite the Simulation Argument's > demonstration of odds to the contrary, that we exist in the one rare > universe that was not created by anybody. Eliezer's bayesian games of > the past months (of colored balls in bags) should be conclusive in > proving that presumptions of atheists are at least as specious of those > of theists. Nope. None of us would be able to list all the theorems in which we have no belief, because the space is infinite (unlike the space of theorems in which we have faith, which must be finite). The existence of a boss deity is just another theorem in which some of us have no faith (like the theorem that Santa Claus exists). > > I am an agnostic because I don't know which sort of universe I live in, > yet, but I lean to the Deist view because the odds tell me to. > Sometimes I call myself an agnostic, in the spirit of Huxley, who meant not that he wasn't sure, but that one could not possibly know a god that revealed itself only via mysticism because mysticism is bunk. It comes from the word gnosis, which means roughly "inner knowledge", or mystically received knowledge. The original meaning of agnostic is that it is not possible to know of god. The meaning of the word these days has changed to mean you are a fence sitter, but that's a corruption of the word (as misunderstood by the mentally underequipped, imo). The Agnosticism of Sir Thomas Huxley is what is usually nowadays meant by intelligent Atheists (as opposed to those who have come to atheism as a reaction against their religious upbringing, and who might as well have become satanists, because their atheism is a rebellious faith in the opposite of what they think they are supposed to believe). So when I call myself an Atheist, as I usually do, it is partly in the spirit of Huxley's agnosticism. Firstly, I have no belief in god. Secondly, I think that you cannot logically know a god that does not reveal itself via material action (ie: requires gnosis, which is bunk, cf pretty much all of modern psychology). Thirdly, if a material God turned up (you know, the guy with a white beard, hurling lightning bolts, plagues, death of the firstborns, etc), I'd be an idiot to not believe in him. God would be a strong word though; I would only class him as a superpowerful being who it might be prudent to obey if he required it; I think the whole "infinite love and mercy" stuff, and the Christian thoughtcrime business is something I'd never accept. But I don't reserve judgement on the question of God. I am prepared to say outright that there is absolutely no evidence for any kind of God, and give him the old Occam's Razor heave-ho. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 04:29:09 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:59:09 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041128232828.58956.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <41AA50FE.9050504@humanenhancement.com> <20041128232828.58956.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0411302029f3a70be@mail.gmail.com> How about the Tooth Fairy Mike? The tooth fairy doesn't have real world referents like Santa Claus. In this way she is exactly like God. What seperates the two in your mind? Or do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:28:28 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > >Nope. I am asserting that in order to be an atheist, you must > > believe > > >in the non-existence of god. To simply not have faith in or > > knowledge > > >knowledge of god's existence is agnosticism. > > > > > > > > > > You can redefine things to mean what you want them to mean, rather > > than > > what they really mean (to the people to whom they apply), but it > > seems > > rather pointless. Much like this entire conversation, which could > > just > > as easily be had in any AOL chatroom with the word "Atheism" in the > > title. > > Joseph, as we've clearly shown here, it isn't me redefining words here. > People have been quoting from Websters, OED, etc and all back up my > assertions. > > > > > Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). The position that god(s) do > > not exist does _not_ require proof any more than the position that > > Santa Claus does not exist. > > On the contrary, Santa Claus is proven not to exist because all claimed > 'facts' about him are provably wrong: there is no santa-land at the > north pole, there are no flying reindeer or sleighs ever caught on > radar, and all the acts of gift giving ascribed to him are provably the > acts of others. Saint Nicolaus once DID exist, and can historically be > proven to have existed, and performed deeds which became legendary, but > we also can prove that he is now dead, ergo there is no Santa Claus and > this can be proven by evidence that he no longer exists as a living > being by the positive fact of the existence of his remains in a crypt. > > Atheism is not the lack of belief in god(s), but the belief in a lack > of god(s). > > > > ===== > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From moulton at moulton.com Wed Dec 1 01:39:34 2004 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:39:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugenics and behavior modification In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20041130145037.08756b78@unreasonable.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20041130145037.08756b78@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <1101865174.20563.8933.camel@localhost> To see the news coverage of something similar to one of the ideas you mention go to Google and do a search on: +"Barbara Harris" +CRACK Fred From hal at finney.org Wed Dec 1 05:02:33 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:02:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... Message-ID: <20041201050233.ADB7657E2D@finney.org> In the interests of fairness, it is important to understand what Mike is saying and not saying. He is not saying God exists, and he is not defending those who believe in God. In fact, nothing he has said is inconsistent with him being a militant atheist! All Mike has claimed is that atheism is a matter of faith. Now, there are arguments for and against this, but to a large extent they seem to come down to semantics. There are undoubtedly atheists who do hold onto their beliefs as a matter of faith, rather than through rational thought. I remember once seeing James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, interviewed on TV. He was straightforward about not believing in God, and added that his father had had the same position and he had never departed from his family's religious views. Watson was being ironic but there are probably atheists for whom their beliefs are just as much a matter of faith and "religion" as those of the most devoutly religious. Just as there are said to be no defenders of religion so strong as the converted, probably some of the most vehemently anti-religious are former believers. I agree with the arguments that God is no different from other hypothetical entities, and that it is not reasonable in practice to hold to agnosticism regarding every imaginary being that might be conceived by the mind of man. The default position for such entities has to be an assumption that they do not exist and have no influence on the world, unless or until some evidence to the contrary appears. So I don't agree with Mike on this matter. Nevertheless some people seem to be assuming that Mike is defending religiosity, when he is actually attacking certain foundational arguments for atheism. Those are logically different positions and we should try to keep them straight in discussing the issue. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 05:00:46 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:00:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130214654.019ecec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130105442.01a43ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041130174113.47151.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041130214654.019ecec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130225926.019de7e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Drat. Sorry for the typo in the previous message getting Yehuda's name wrong. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 1 05:39:50 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:39:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution again In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041130091413.0d3a9bd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ac01c4d768$2d1ca880$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] evolution again Thanks Spike - just the right touch to accompany my morning coffee. Natasha ...We are trying to understand why humans have this oddball shape with the curiously oversized subsystems such as genitals, heads and butts (possibly in that order)... Natasha you are too kind. The reason I am hammering this topic is that the evolution memeset seems to be failing to prosper, possibly losing ground in many important ways. I have a notion for how to advance it. Our current descriptive approach to evolution education is getting ever more competition for scarce classroom hours from other sciences that are more mathematized and thus suffer less from the ambiguity of words. To advance the understanding of evolution thus requires it to be more mathematized, like physics and chemistry. I propose the following system as a start. Think of physical structures in humans (since we know a lot about human anatomy) and try to decide its cost and its benefit in terms of survival of the individual. Having a muscle that is larger than necessary has a survival cost: it uses up more calories, thus requiring Mr. Universe to slay and devour more and larger beasts. Likewise with our heads: highly vascular, lots of heat loss, see above. Larger penises: larger vulnerable target in a fight with both man and beast. But all three of these may have their benefits too: larger butts might help us run for instance. So the exercise is to estimate the ratio of cost to benefit of a structure. But do it two different ways: from a mating attractiveness point of view and from a strictly survival point of view. So you should get two numbers for every system. Take the penis. (No, not THAT definition of take, dammit, pay attention.) Its survival cost to benefit ratio Rs is surely larger than 1. But its mating attractiveness cost to benefit ratio Ra is less than 1. So we can multiply the two ratios together to get an overall evolutionary cost to benefit ratio. If that overall ratio is greater than 1, we might expect that structure to evolve smaller. Rs = survival cost to benefit ratio Ra = mating attractiveness cost to benefit ratio Re = evolutionary cost to benefit ratio Re = Rs * Ra For the penis: Rs(p) > 1 Ra(p) < 1 Re(p) ~ 1 Equilibrium is established when Rep ~ 1 Nowthen, in a previous post, I suggested that humans evolved in a tropical climate, but some humans left the tropics for colder, harsher climates, which required them to wrap themselves in the skins of the beasts they slew. This hid the genitals, which supressed the Ra of the penis, which caused the product Re(p) to go greater than 1, which caused the penis of those cold-weather adapted humans to evolve smaller, so that Re(p) adjusts itself back to approximately 1, which defines evolutionary equilibrium of that structure. With technology, that equilibrium is suddenly and wildly reversed, for today nearly all humans live in the tropics, in a sense: we reside indoors with heaters. Moderns evidently do choose mates based partially on the size of his genitals, so Ra(p) is now amplified. Moderns seldom perish from having oversized genitals, so Rs(p) is now the coefficient that is suppressed, causing the product Re(p) to go less than one, which would cause humans to evolve in a delightful direction. If this notion holds in general, then it may help us come up with successful mathematical models for evolution. A working mathematical model allows us to write computer simulations of evolution. A digital version of Clarke's law would suggest that any sufficiently advanced computer simulation is indistinguishable from reality. So if we figure out how to simulate evolution on a computer, we should be able to run it forward to predict the singularity, or more specifically, to create the singularity. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 1 06:26:57 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:26:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution again References: <00ac01c4d768$2d1ca880$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <002d01c4d76e$c26dd9d0$60b32643@kevin> MessageYou are assuming, of course, that the penis size is regulated by a standalone gene. Penis size could easily be caused by genes that share control with other features as well. Butts could be the same way. Not every phenotype has to have it's own selection pressure. Many complex traits have phenotypes which can ride along with others since they are all sharing various alleles. These combinations can create situations where certain phenotypes appear in conjunction with other phenotypes on a fairly regular basis. As long as their cost does not outweigh the benefit of other features that come with it, the frequency of that phenotype will increase. Kevin Freels Take the penis. (No, not THAT definition of take, dammit, pay attention.) Its survival cost to benefit ratio Rs is surely larger than 1. But its mating attractiveness cost to benefit ratio Ra is less than 1. So we can multiply the two ratios together to get an overall evolutionary cost to benefit ratio. If that overall ratio is greater than 1, we might expect that structure to evolve smaller. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 1 06:39:43 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:39:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution again In-Reply-To: <002d01c4d76e$c26dd9d0$60b32643@kevin> Message-ID: <00be01c4d770$8ad8a7a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Behalf Of Kevin Freels Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] evolution again You are assuming, of course, that the penis size is regulated by a standalone gene... The notion of a survival cost to benefit ratio and a separate attractiveness cost to benefit ratio does not require this assumption. But let us go on. > Penis size could easily be caused by genes that share control with other features as well. Butts could be the same way. Not every phenotype has to have it's own selection pressure. Many complex traits have phenotypes which can ride along with others since they are all sharing various alleles...Kevin Freels Kevin I agree with this fully, but the notion of a cost to benefit ratio still works, does it not? I have a notion that we are historically on the verge of being able to model the entire human genome and its expression in meat. It will require enormous amounts of computing power to do it. Once we get that, we will likely be able to manipulate DNA and thus create anatomical structures the way we want to be, not the way we are. That would be way cool. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 1 10:11:18 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:11:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution again In-Reply-To: <012601c4d599$7775d4e0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> References: <012601c4d599$7775d4e0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <41AD98C6.2080203@neopax.com> Spike wrote: >I had an idea which follows up on our discussion >from last week. Assume Jared Diamond's notion that >human variation can be very generally grouped in >three subsets, African, European and Asian. Jared >suggests that the Asian group has features that >are well-adapted for cold weather, such as the >shorter stature, eye shape possibly less susceptible >to freezing, better suited for carrying fat, etc. >The Africans then would be shaped for better >survival under milder climates, but with greater >competition with other carnivores, etc. > > > Consider differences in testorsterone production etc http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_rghrs.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 1 10:27:50 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:27:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Declaration of Very Fast Independence In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041128000351.01a0e000@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <002101c4d3ec$bf705850$8bb32643@kevin> <41A7C2B9.9090201@humanenhancement.com> <41A95C86.2070800@cox.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041128000351.01a0e000@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41AD9CA6.9070008@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:05 AM 11/28/2004 -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >By the time the political/contsitutional/societal consensus > >can react to the emergence of an AI, the AI may very well > >have decide to take over some aspect (or all aspects) of the > >political/economic system. > > An outcome that seems to me very possible (in view of Fermi) is > summarized nicely by Ken MacLeod, in his new novel Newton's Wake: > > < Once you reach singularity, there are further singularities within > it, faster and faster, and in very short order the intelligences > involved have fucked off out of our universe, or lost interest in > it--we don't know. > > > It seems very likely that there is much more of interest as we head down to the Planck scale than there is as we head out towards the galactic. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 1 10:32:44 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:32:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not believing in Eris is also a religion In-Reply-To: <41A9078F.2090809@pobox.com> References: <41A9078F.2090809@pobox.com> Message-ID: <41AD9DCC.7040502@neopax.com> Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > I'm always amused by people who insist that atheism is a religion. Do > I need a separate form of atheism for each religion I don't believe > in? Am I just an atheistic Jew, or also an atheistic Christian, an > atheistic neo-pagan, and an atheistic Dionysian? Maybe I should > become an atheistic druid so I can tell people I don't believe in trees. > I call myself an atheist Asatruar because I believe our Gods are social dynamic/cultural constructs. I see no problem with that at all, nor with basing my ethical values upon their mythology. Interestingly, my co-religionists see no problem with my POV either, even the ones that believe our Gods are 'real' (whatever that means for a God). -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 12:56:45 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:26:45 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <010701c4d4ce$f7358d90$b8232dcb@homepc> References: <20041127193033.93671.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> <010701c4d4ce$f7358d90$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <710b78fc041201045616e1d4e@mail.gmail.com> Brett wrote: > For example Spinoza said "God is that being than which none > greater can exist." And then added the stipulation that to exist in > reality is better (i.e. greater) than to exist merely in the imagination. > > Spinoza's conception of God as thus far outlined does not violate > the contingency of the universe. On the contrary it seems specifically > designed to fit within it. God is merely the greatest being existing in > reality. Hey, that's me! Tops! I'm God. Now I never expected that. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * (well, it really depends on your From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 12:58:50 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:28:50 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc041201045616e1d4e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041127193033.93671.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> <010701c4d4ce$f7358d90$b8232dcb@homepc> <710b78fc041201045616e1d4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc04120104586f78f7f0@mail.gmail.com> Brett wrote: > For example Spinoza said "God is that being than which none > greater can exist." And then added the stipulation that to exist in > reality is better (i.e. greater) than to exist merely in the imagination. > > Spinoza's conception of God as thus far outlined does not violate > the contingency of the universe. On the contrary it seems specifically > designed to fit within it. God is merely the greatest being existing in > reality. Hey, that's me! Tops! I'm God. Now I never expected that. Hmm, kind of embarrassing for a self professed Atheist, on reflection. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * (well, it really depends on the definition of your comparison operator, after all) From metagenyx at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 16:14:44 2004 From: metagenyx at yahoo.com (Gaurav Gupta) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:14:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cherubic Machines Message-ID: <20041201161444.39795.qmail@web61108.mail.yahoo.com> Hello people, Read Jeff Hawkins' book: 'On Intelligence'? I was stunned when it said what I've been trying to say for so many years now. I'm not even going to try explaining what my GEN-I-SYS engine can and cannot do. Please visit http://cherubicmachines.com and feel free to laugh me in the face if you see fit. Whatever you do - WE REQUIRE MORE FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. Please donate a little bit. Thank you, Gaurav Gupta __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 16:27:12 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:27:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] grow closer to god--through the mail!! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130214654.019ecec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041201162712.35803.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:41 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Mike wrote: > > >My intention is to point out that I don't know enough to know one > way > >or the other, and neither do you or anybody else, so atheism is as > much > >a religion as any other belief based on faith/lack of facts. Some > >self-proclaimed atheists, like yourself, have a knee-jerk reaction > to > >such a statement, that is entirely emotional, not based on any > rational > >basis of logic. > > For another nice summary of why this is also bollocks, look at a site > I found linked from the tragically late Yeduha Nattan Yudkowsky's > blog: > > http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html > > < The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some > kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it *must* be denied. > Sorry, Damien, you are still suffering from the same blinkers that you and other lefties cried about after Bush was elected. Its the whole "if you don't agree with us you are just stupid" gambit. You want to talk about bollocks? THAT is bullshit. I've presented a very logical, consistent, and reasoned basis for my argument and you shrug it off. Sorry, Damien. The person being irrational here is you. Get over it. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 16:44:28 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041201050233.ADB7657E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > In the interests of fairness, it is important to understand what Mike > is saying and not saying. He is not saying God exists, and he is not > defending those who believe in God. In fact, nothing he has said is > inconsistent with him being a militant atheist! > > All Mike has claimed is that atheism is a matter of faith. > > Now, there are arguments for and against this, but to a large extent > they seem to come down to semantics. There are undoubtedly atheists > who > do hold onto their beliefs as a matter of faith, rather than through > rational thought. Thanks Hal, It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in the tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some philosophical jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately believers in atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide 'tooth fairy' attacks are clear evidence of this. If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then they are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a simulation, and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would never run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological societies always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is the challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by the atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the argument. My main assertion is that they must answer this challenge to remain relevant, or else cede their position or admit to being a religious faith outright. Why are they so afraid of the challenge? ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 16:45:15 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:45:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041201050233.ADB7657E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041201164515.39275.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > In the interests of fairness, it is important to understand what Mike > is saying and not saying. He is not saying God exists, and he is not > defending those who believe in God. In fact, nothing he has said is > inconsistent with him being a militant atheist! > > All Mike has claimed is that atheism is a matter of faith. > > Now, there are arguments for and against this, but to a large extent > they seem to come down to semantics. There are undoubtedly atheists > who > do hold onto their beliefs as a matter of faith, rather than through > rational thought. Thanks Hal, It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in the tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some philosophical jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately believers in atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide 'tooth fairy' attacks are clear evidence of this. If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then they are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a simulation, and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would never run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological societies always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is the challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by the atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the argument. My main assertion is that they must answer this challenge to remain relevant, or else cede their position or admit to being a religious faith outright. Why are they so afraid of the challenge? ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed Dec 1 17:11:48 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:11:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cherubic Machines In-Reply-To: <20041201161444.39795.qmail@web61108.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041201161444.39795.qmail@web61108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15EAA022-43BC-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Well it doesn't look good when you click on research and only get the message "coming soon..."! http://cherubicmachines.com/research/ best, patrick On 1 Dec 2004, at 17:14, Gaurav Gupta wrote: > > Hello people, > > Read Jeff Hawkins' book: 'On Intelligence'? I was > stunned when it said what I've been trying to say for > so many years now. I'm not even going to try > explaining what my GEN-I-SYS engine can and cannot do. > Please visit http://cherubicmachines.com and feel free > to laugh me in the face if you see fit. Whatever you > do - WE REQUIRE MORE FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. > Please donate a little bit. > > Thank you, > Gaurav Gupta > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Wed Dec 1 16:33:29 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:33:29 +0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc04113020274a84eb20@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041126015527.59750.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> <004301c4d356$8fb57aa0$b3893cd1@pavilion> <20041126015527.59750.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20041201171227.00b26d20@pop.cris.net> At 02:57 PM 12/1/04 +1030, you Emlyn wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:55:27 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: >> I am an agnostic because I don't know which sort of universe I live in, >>yet, but I lean to the Deist view because the odds tell me to. >Sometimes I call myself an agnostic, in the spirit of Huxley, who >meant not that he wasn't sure, but that one could not possibly know a >god that revealed itself only via mysticism because mysticism is bunk. >It comes from the word gnosis, which means roughly "inner knowledge", >or mystically received knowledge. The original meaning of agnostic is >that it is not possible to know of god. The meaning of the word these >days has changed to mean you are a fence sitter, but that's a >corruption of the word (as misunderstood by the mentally >underequipped, imo). >The Agnosticism of Sir Thomas Huxley is what is usually nowadays meant >by intelligent Atheists (as opposed to those who have come to atheism >as a reaction against their religious upbringing, and who might as >well have become satanists, because their atheism is a rebellious >faith in the opposite of what they think they are supposed to >believe). >So when I call myself an Atheist, as I usually do, it is partly in the >spirit of Huxley's agnosticism. Firstly, I have no belief in god. [snip] OED again: agnostic n. and a. [f. Gr. unknowing, unknown, unknowable (f. not + know) + -ic. Cf. gnostic; in Gr. the termination - ... never coexists with the privative ...] A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing. [Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles?s house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul?s mention of the altar to ?the Unknown God.? R. H. Hutton in letter 13 Mar. 1881.] 1870 Spect. 29 Jan. 135 In theory he [Prof. Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic, who goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know. 1874 Mivart Ess. Relig. etc. 205 Our modern Sophists?the Agnostics,?those who deny we have any knowledge, save of phenomena. 1876 Spect. 11 June, Nicknames are given by opponents, but Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an ?unknown and unknowable? God; or in other words that the ultimate origin of all things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. 1880 Bp. Fraser in Manch. Guardn. 25 Nov., The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side. B. adj. Of or pertaining to agnostics or their theory. 1873 Q. Rev. CXXXV. 192 The pseudo-scientific teachers of what has..been termed..the Agnostic Philosophy. 1876 Tulloch Agnosticism in Weekly Scotsm. 18 Nov., The same agnostic principle which prevailed in our schools of philosophy had extended itself to religion and theology. Beyond what man can know by his senses or feel by his higher affections, nothing, as was alleged, could be truly known. 1880 G. C. M. Birdwood Ind. Arts I. 4 The agnostic teaching of the Sankhya school is the common basis of all systems of Indian philosophy. 1882 Froude Carlyle II. 216 The agnostic doctrines, he (Carlyle) once said to me, were to appearance like the finest flour, from which you might expect the most excellent bread; but when you came to feed on it, you found it was powdered glass, and you had been eating the deadliest poison. agnosticism [f. agnostic + -ism.] The doctrine or tenets of Agnostics. 1870 Spect. 29 Jan. 135 The lecture was..perhaps not quite so full as it should have been of his Agnosticism. 1871 R. H. Hutton Ess. I. 27 They themselves vehemently dispute the term [atheism] and usually prefer to describe their state of mind as a sort of know-nothingism or Agnosticism, or belief in an unknown and unknowable God. 1877 E. Conder Basis of Faith i. 25 But there is nothing per se irrational in contending that the evidences of Theism are inconclusive, that its doctrines are unintelligible, or that it fails to account for the facts of the universe, or is irreconcilable with them. To express this kind of polemic against religious faith the term ?agnosticism? has been adopted. 1879 Huxley Hume i. 60 Called agnosticism, from its profession of an incapacity to discover the indispensable conditions of either positive or negative knowledge. 1880 Sat. Rev. 26 June 819/2 In nine cases out of ten Agnosticism is but old atheism ?writ large.? ============= St. Paul?s mention of the altar to ?the Unknown God?: Ac. 17.22-23 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mar's hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with the inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. ===== Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From scerir at libero.it Wed Dec 1 17:57:38 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:57:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <104c01c4d7cf$3fce8e00$a8c51b97@administxl09yj> From: "Mike Lorrey" > If such people are so intent on holding > onto their atheism, then they are going > to need to rationally and logically answer > the Simulation Argument, demolishing its premise > that we are likely in a simulation, and otherwise > prove conclusively that a posthuman society > would never run ancestor simulations, > or that intelligent technological societies > always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. > This is the challenge. Is reality real? Are there more real realities? But one thing is for sure, a (supposed) simulated reality is a lot cheaper than a (supposed) real one. Or that a Simulator is not as rich as a real God. Turtles all the way down. (Not sure that demolishing the Simulation Argument, or demolishing simulated realities, is the same as demolishing Theisms.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 18:47:37 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:47:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <104c01c4d7cf$3fce8e00$a8c51b97@administxl09yj> References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> <104c01c4d7cf$3fce8e00$a8c51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201123346.01c2e718@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:57 PM 12/1/2004 +0100, Serafino wrote: >(Not sure that demolishing the Simulation Argument, >or demolishing simulated realities, >is the same as demolishing Theisms.) Of course it's not, but what's more important in this discussion is that the converse doesn't hold either. Accepting the Simulation Argument, or indeed *proving* that what we perceive as our universe is some sort of limited sim built by contingent intelligences external to its bounds, simply CANNOT increase the possibility that theism (as it is commonly understood in our culture) is true or even meaningful. It's a different *sort* of claim. "Simulation = deity" is nothing better than metaphysical bait and switch. Why don't you address this critique, Mike? Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 19:49:32 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:49:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?=93Embryos=94_created_without_pate?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rnal_?= chromosomes Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201134649.019c7da0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996733 Zapped human eggs divide without sperm 19:00 01 December 04 A trick that persuades human eggs to divide as if they have been fertilised could provide a source of embryonic stem cells that sidesteps ethical objections to existing techniques. It could also be deployed to improve the success rate of IVF. ?Embryos? created by the procedure do not contain any paternal chromosomes ? just two sets of chromosomes from the mother ? and so cannot develop into babies. This should remove the ethical objections that some people have to harvesting from donated human embryos. There are high hopes that stem cells, which can develop into many different cell types, could be used to treat a range of diseases. The tricked eggs divide for four or five days until they reach 50 to 100 cells ? the blastocyst stage. These blastocysts should in theory yield stem cells, but because they are parthenogenetic ? produced from the egg only ? they cannot be viewed as a potential human life, says Karl Swann of the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff, UK. [etc] From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 1 20:31:36 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:31:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... References: <20041201164515.39275.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004301c4d7e4$c0eab8a0$b8232dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in > the tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some > philosophical jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately > believers in atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide > 'tooth fairy' attacks are clear evidence of this. > > If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then they > are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation > Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a simulation, > and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would never > run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological societies > always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is the > challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have > developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by the > atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the > argument. > > My main assertion is that they must answer this challenge to remain > relevant, or else cede their position or admit to being a religious > faith outright. Why are they so afraid of the challenge? I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by the Simulation Argument capitalised as you have it Mike. I think I've real essays to the effect that the world 'we' live in could be a simulation (I think Nick Bostrom was the author of at least one of those) but I'm not sure I've read the exact Argument you're referring too. Do you think the Simulation Argument is falsifiable? Do you agree that if a proposition is not falsifiable it cannot be "proven" wrong? In my experience people have different ideas about what constitutes proof and sometimes evidence just as they have different ideas about what constitutes the meaning of the word God. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 1 20:39:00 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:39:00 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... References: <20041127193033.93671.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> <010701c4d4ce$f7358d90$b8232dcb@homepc> <710b78fc041201045616e1d4e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc04120104586f78f7f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005401c4d7e5$ca0e1660$b8232dcb@homepc> Emlyn wrote: > Brett wrote: >> For example Spinoza said "God is that being than which none >> greater can exist." And then added the stipulation that to exist in >> reality is better (i.e. greater) than to exist merely in the imagination. >> >> Spinoza's conception of God as thus far outlined does not violate >> the contingency of the universe. On the contrary it seems specifically >> designed to fit within it. God is merely the greatest being existing in >> reality. > > Hey, that's me! Tops! I'm God. Now I never expected that. Hmm, kind of > embarrassing for a self professed Atheist, on reflection. I wouldn't worry about it. Those that know don't have to believe. Any God worth a damn that didn't know (rather than merely believe) they existed as a bedrock certainty could hardly know anything. There would be nowhere for them to know anything from. Brett From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 22:50:21 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:50:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201123346.01c2e718@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041201225021.32586.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > "Simulation = deity" is nothing better than metaphysical > bait and switch. Why don't you address this critique, Mike? A simulation requires a simulator, and a simulator operator/programmer/architect. The first implies and insists upon the existence of the others. To say otherwise would be the real miracle. So you are insisting upon the existence of a simulation without a simulator or operator? Who is the one insisting upon the impossible now? ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 22:54:16 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:54:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <004301c4d7e4$c0eab8a0$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20041201225416.33509.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in > > the tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some > > philosophical jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately > > believers in atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide > > 'tooth fairy' attacks are clear evidence of this. > > > > If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then > they > > are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation > > Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a > simulation, > > and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would > never > > run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological > societies > > always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is > the > > challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have > > developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by > the > > atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the > > argument. > > > > My main assertion is that they must answer this challenge to remain > > relevant, or else cede their position or admit to being a religious > > faith outright. Why are they so afraid of the challenge? > > I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by the Simulation Argument > capitalised as you have it Mike. I think I've real essays to the > effect that > the world 'we' live in could be a simulation (I think Nick Bostrom > was the author of at least one of those) but I'm not sure I've read > the exact Argument you're referring too. Go to http://www.simulation-argument.com > > Do you think the Simulation Argument is falsifiable? > > Do you agree that if a proposition is not falsifiable it cannot be > "proven" wrong? ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 23:09:47 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:09:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041201225021.32586.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201123346.01c2e718@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041201225021.32586.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201165835.01a1a220@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:50 PM 12/1/2004 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > "Simulation = deity" is nothing better than metaphysical > > bait and switch. Why don't you address this critique, Mike? > >A simulation requires a simulator, and a simulator >operator/programmer/architect. The first implies and insists upon the >existence of the others. To say otherwise would be the real miracle. So >you are insisting upon the existence of a simulation without a >simulator or operator? Who is the one insisting upon the impossible now? My typo. I meant, as must have been obvious: "Simulator = deity" is nothing better than metaphysical bait and switch. In other words, if I paint a rainbow, there is no implication to be drawn that the *actual* rainbow-in-the-sky I'm representing is Painted by a Painter. If a simulator simulates a universe that we happen to be in, `God' (in the usual understanding) is whatever created the simulator's universe from nothingness, and ontologically sustains it. But actually there is no need to posit such a metaphysical entity, any more than a Rainbow Painter. The simulation posit does have some interesting possible consequences, if we inhabit one, but none of them has anything to do with the god idea, which must apply to the *ground* universe. If the idea is incoherent and absurd in our simulated universe (as several of us have argued), it remains so in whatever universe gave rise to the simulator. Now, why don't you address this critique, Mike? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 23:35:09 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:35:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201165835.01a1a220@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201123346.01c2e718@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041201225021.32586.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041201165835.01a1a220@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:09:47 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > The simulation posit does have some interesting possible consequences, if > we inhabit one, but none of them has anything to do with the god idea, > which must apply to the *ground* universe. If the idea is incoherent and > absurd in our simulated universe (as several of us have argued), it remains > so in whatever universe gave rise to the simulator. > > Now, why don't you address this critique, Mike? > I thought it was Simulators all the way down. Or have I misunderstood the theory? :) BillK From Walter_Chen at compal.com Wed Dec 1 23:50:23 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:50:23 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684DE@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: scerir > But one thing is for sure, > a (supposed) simulated reality is > a lot cheaper than a (supposed) real one. If a dream can be as detailed and real as reality, I will agree to what you said. > From: Mike Lorrey > Sorry, Damien, you are still suffering from the same blinkers that you > and other lefties cried about after Bush was elected. Its the whole "if > you don't agree with us you are just stupid" gambit. You want to talk > about bollocks? THAT is bullshit. I've presented a very logical, > consistent, and reasoned basis for my argument and you shrug it off. > Sorry, Damien. The person being irrational here is you. Get over it. Good point! Many people just have very subjective viewpoints on God/Theism/super nature ... w/o rational arguments. That's why I say "Atheists are not necessarily more scientific or more true than theists." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 00:48:44 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:18:44 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041201225416.33509.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <004301c4d7e4$c0eab8a0$b8232dcb@homepc> <20041201225416.33509.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc041201164846fc461e@mail.gmail.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then > > they > > > are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation > > > Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a > > simulation, > > > and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would > > never > > > run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological > > societies > > > always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is > > the > > > challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have > > > developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by > > the > > > atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the > > > argument. The simulation argument is quite flimsy. First of all, it's quite possible that it is extremely difficult or impossible to reach the level of technology to make a simulation of equivalent complexity to the universe you are in. If you can't do that, you are doomed to see nested sims degrading in complexity until they are useless, and the simulation argument relies on arbitrarily deep levels of nesting. Secondly, you have to assume that civilisations would find some reason to let universes run indefinitely. Remember that this argument say not only that we are basically assured of being in a sim, but that (because of the reliance on arbitrary depth of nesting) we must be arbitrarily deeply nested. So we rely on some probably very large number of enclosing universes not being shut down by the levels above. Thirdly, if you buy all of this, who is in the base level universes? Isn't it infinitely improbable that anyone could exist in one? In that case, can they exist, or must it necessarily be turtles all the way down? If we actually have an infinite amount of universes enclosing ours, and each has a non zero probability of shutting down it's next level down at any moment, then it follows that we have no chance of existing at all. But we do exist. Finally, the simulation argument assumes things about the nature of reality which are not really supportable. What can exist as a universe? Just us? Just universes like us? Or can wildly different universes exist? Does everything that you can imagine exist somewhere in some fashion, plus a lot of stuff that you can't? In fact, what does it even mean to exist at all? If every logically possible universe exists in some fashion (where "logic" is taken to mean all possible systems of logic, and "possible" stands for something a human probably can't define), and there's no reason to suppose that they don't, then the set of simulated universes are a negligible subset of this infinite (aleph-infinity?) set of realities, thus the simulation argument cannot hold. Once we start talking about other universes or realities or types of existence, we find very quickly that we are not in Kansas any more, Dorothy. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 2 02:09:03 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:09:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) Message-ID: <20041202020903.DC29F57E2D@finney.org> People often misstate the simulation argument. Let's keep in mind what http://www.simulation-argument.com says: "This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation." It doesn't say that we are living in a simulation. It says that if we're not, then it is unlikely that we will evolve into posthumans who run a great number of simulations. The reason is because if we do evolve that way, then most minds will be in simulations rather than reality. Although the simulation argument is not falsifiable, that doesn't make it meaningless. It's not meant to be a scientific hypothesis, which is where we demand falsfiability. As its name implies, it is a philosophical or even a logical argument. It's more like a mathematical theorem than a scientific theory. We don't test mathematics with falsifiability; rather, we look at the underlying proofs and arguments to see if they are sound. That is the proper test for this case. The simulation argument does not imply that we live in an infinitely nested simulation. Here is what Nick says on the topic, from http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html : : It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They : may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers : they build in their simulated universe.... If we do go on to create : our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against : (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in : a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans : running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their : creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings. : : Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the : hierarchy to bottom out at some stage... there may be room for a large : number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over : time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis : is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would : be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be : prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to : be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.) My interpretation is that while it is possible for there to be deeply nested simulations, the argument does not actually predict this as a likely consequence. Only once we ourselves become posthuman and run simulations, would this follow. Otherwise, it's possible that the simulators may choose not to allow nested simulations to run. We have no knowledge of their motivations, and this possibility is completely consistent with our observations and with the simulation argument. Hal From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Dec 2 02:04:46 2004 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:04:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in the > tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some philosophical > jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately believers in > atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide 'tooth fairy' attacks > are clear evidence of this. I have tried and tried to understand how one can be a "believer" in atheism. What is there to believe? (So sorry, I'm just a practical sort of person - and a little thick when it comes to certain abstract reasoning for which I find no purpose.) Bertrand Russell once went on about how - yes, certainly, it was *possible* (I am paraphrasing from memory) that Saturn's rings hold porcelain teacups. Maybe even teacups in saucers, all holding steaming tea - swirling around and around Saturn. But he had no reason to believe in flying crockery going around Saturn. And in assertions where proof was impossible (as in trying to prove negatives), such as in the matter of alleged fictional gods, Bertrand Russell called himself an agnostic (especially as he was in the public eye a lot, because somehow ... the public can almost forgive someone whom they think "isn't sure there is a god" - which is how they interpret the term "agnostic"). But Bertrand Russell said that for all intents and purposes he was an atheist. I have not gotten a thing out of these posts in the last few days. For what reason and purpose were the (somewhat boring, if you ask me) exercises? What did we learn? Have the posts changed anyone's mind? And ... have the people here who have heretofore considered themselves "rationalists" been swayed (or - lol - been offended!) by Mike calling them "irrational atheists." My husband has confided to me that he thinks "agnostics" are chicken-shit atheists. (What can I tell you? - he's the practical type himself ...) Olga From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 2 03:12:53 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:12:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201165835.01a1a220@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041202031253.72850.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > My typo. I meant, as must have been obvious: "Simulator = deity" is > nothing better than metaphysical bait and switch. > > In other words, if I paint a rainbow, there is no implication to be > drawn that the *actual* rainbow-in-the-sky I'm representing is > Painted by a Painter. If a simulator simulates a universe that > we happen to be in, `God' (in the usual understanding) is whatever > created the simulator's universe from nothingness, and > ontologically sustains it. But actually there is no > need to posit such a metaphysical entity, any more than a Rainbow > Painter. > > The simulation posit does have some interesting possible > consequences, if we inhabit one, but none of them has anything > to do with the god idea, which must apply to the *ground* universe. > If the idea is incoherent and absurd in our simulated universe > (as several of us have argued), it remains > so in whatever universe gave rise to the simulator. > > Now, why don't you address this critique, Mike? The failure in your critique is that you are asserting that the only party which can validly claim the title 'god' is the creator (or lack thereof) of the root universe that creates the first ancestor simulations. I refuse to accept such a narrow definition. If a simulator operator creates a simulation, and controls its existence to whatever degree chosen, he is, for all intents and purposes, the 'god' of that simulation and to the evolved inhabitants of that simulation. I think an error of perception here is that you are assuming that we are dealing with a pod people situation where the guy I am talking about just happens to not be in a pod but is no different from the other brains in vats. I'm not positing a pod person situation. Inhabitants of simulations may or may not have a post-simulation existence, but primarily are creatures of the simulation in their entirety. The simulations we are talking about are quantum computational programs run in pocket universes made to order by a post-singularity civilization. Nothing so crude as a Matrix scenario. The simulations I speak of have a lot more to do with Permutation City. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From sjvans at ameritech.net Thu Dec 2 03:36:24 2004 From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen Van_Sickle) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:36:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041202031253.72850.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041202033624.20157.qmail@web81201.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > If a simulator operator creates a simulation, and > controls its > existence to whatever degree chosen, he is, for all > intents and > purposes, the 'god' of that simulation and to the > evolved inhabitants > of that simulation. "I'm *a* god, not *the* God" Bill Murray Groundhog Day From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 2 03:45:50 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:45:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) In-Reply-To: <20041202020903.DC29F57E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041202034550.57974.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > : Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for > : the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage..there may be room for a > : large number of levels of reality, and the number could be > : increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against > : the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for > : the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating > : even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively > : expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to > : be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.) > > My interpretation is that while it is possible for there to be deeply > nested simulations, the argument does not actually predict this as > a likely consequence. Only once we ourselves become posthuman and > run simulations, would this follow. Otherwise, it's possible that > the simulators may choose not to allow nested simulations to run. We > have > no knowledge of their motivations, and this possibility is completely > consistent with our observations and with the simulation argument. Quite so. However, if only one post-human civilization in each universe creates only one ancestor simulation, this makes the odds of this universe being a simulation a 50% gamble. So, either civilizations never reach post-humanity, or else they produce at least one simulation. Even if if 99% of civilizations self-extinct pre-singularity, then this still means that billions in each universe do transcend.... and even if those billions do transcend and 99% of those decide it is immoral to create simulated universes capable of evolving technological intelligence, then that means that tens of millions in each universe still do create ancestor universes. If 99% of those decide that it is too computationally expensive to do more than one simulation, that still means that hundreds of thousands in each universe do create more than one simulation. It is pretty clear that even the most cynical projection still results in the odds of any universe being a simulation at more than 100,000 to 1. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From etcs.ret at verizon.net Thu Dec 2 03:54:20 2004 From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:54:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution again In-Reply-To: <200412011733.iB1HXn005628@tick.javien.com> References: <200412011733.iB1HXn005628@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:33:49 -0700, Spike wrote in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 1: > >Think of physical structures in humans (since we know a lot about >human anatomy) and try to decide its cost and its benefit in terms >of survival of the individual. The assumption that a would-be quantizer could accurately map these factors is very shaky. Even assuming that > [ ... ] humans evolved >in a tropical climate, but some humans left the tropics for colder, >harsher >climates, which required them to wrap themselves in the skins >of the beasts they slew ...leaving the better-displayed tropical population to enjoy informed choice of better-endowed mates, while the colder faction had to let other factors affect choice, it still smacks of Lysenkoism to see a cause-effect relationship here. Why didn't we just grow thicker body hair? Why do New World, Siberian, and Inuit populations - who all have been filtered by cold environments - have such sparse pelts, compared, say with West Asians? Hell, loss of fur is a *counter* survival trait (you could say) in any weather, because it undercuts the value of mutual grooming in forming social groups, plus all the obvious environmental hazards of heat loss. >If this notion holds in general, then it may help us come up with >successful >mathematical models for evolution. I don't think the -if- is satisfied here; the very ease with which counter-survival traits can be found serves as a caution light. I wonder, is there any indication that there are *structural* aspects of a species' genome that cause the effects of selective breeding to be diluted? IOW, are there traits in any population that will persist or intensify regardless of mating strategies and environmental changes? stencil sends From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 2 04:01:17 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:01:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00f601c4d823$933b79a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> > Olga Bourlin ... > Bertrand Russell once went on about how - yes, certainly, it > was *possible* (I am paraphrasing from memory) that Saturn's rings hold > porcelain teacups...Olga A local christian minister who is a converted muslim stirred the pot by posting on his sign out front his upcoming sermon title: Why I am Not a Muslim. The local news agencies, TV, radio and both major newspapers jumped on it, reporting that some considered it offensive, racist, yakkity yak and bla bla. With alllll the ink that was spilled on this silly thing, *none* of the news people, not even one, recognized that the sermon title might be based on Bertrand Russell's famous and thoroughly devastating short volume called "Why I Am Not A Christian." So I asked several of my office people today if they were familiar with the work. I was terribly disappointed to find that few of them had even heard of Bertrand Russell. Oy! I thought *I* was the illiterate savage! Is Bertrand Russell really that obscure in modern times? He had such an impact on my own thinking in my younger years. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Dec 2 04:36:10 2004 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:36:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... References: <00f601c4d823$933b79a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <004901c4d828$7332ff70$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Spike" > So I asked several of my office people today if they > were familiar with the work. I was terribly disappointed > to find that few of them had even heard of Bertrand > Russell. Oy! I thought *I* was the illiterate savage! Hey, it's not just Bertrand Russell a lot of Christians have not heard of ... A few years ago I was telling a co-worker about a poll that found more than half of Christians in the U.S. didn't know who gave The Sermon on the Mount. Another co-worker, upon hearing our conversation, testily retorted: "That's because it's in the Old Testament!" (I could have died and gone to heaven right then and there.) I think I wrote about this incident here some years ago - it's the funniest "unintended" joke that ever happened to me. > Is Bertrand Russell really that obscure in modern > times? He had such an impact on my own thinking > in my younger years. If you're sensitive, I suggest you *never* watch "Jaywalking." For those familiar with this segment, do you think it's rigged for laughs? Or would most people have problems answering questions such as "What is a Homo sapien (the answer given was "a ... frog?"); and "What did the Berlin Wall separate?" (the answer given was "England from Russia.") Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 2 04:55:16 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:55:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00fb01c4d82b$1e11c190$6501a8c0@SHELLY> > stencil > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution again > > > Spike wrote > > [ ... ] humans evolved > >in a tropical climate, but some humans left the tropics for colder, > >harsher climates, which required them to wrap themselves in the skins > >of the beasts they slew... stencil: > ...leaving the better-displayed tropical population to enjoy > informed choice of better-endowed mates, while the colder faction had to let > other factors affect choice, it still smacks of Lysenkoism to see a cause-effect > relationship here. Why didn't we just grow thicker body hair? Why do New > World, Siberian, and Inuit populations - who all have been filtered by cold > environments - have such sparse pelts, compared, say with West Asians? Good question. This notion of two ratios, one for survival cost to benefit and the other for attractiveness cost to benefit works great to explain what would otherwise be a most puzzling observation. The survival cost to benefit of hairlessness in a cold climate is surely greater than 1, that is Rs(-h) > 1, however if these populations for some odd reason decided hairlessness is attractive, Ra(-h) < 1, then the product of Rs(-h) * Ra(-h) could equal 1. Thanks Stencil! Great example of what I was trying to express. We need not go to great lengths trying to explain *why* Eskimos and Inuits would find hairlessness attractive, for human tastes in fashion are truely weird. Take tattoos, for instance. Please, take them. Away from me. And body piercing, and teenagers with the droopy pants, what the hellll is THAT about? But evidently the young and fertile find that stuff appealing. This I cannot explain. Nowthen, I may be trying too hard with this example. If the cold-climate people did wrap themselves in animal skins, *their own* body fur becomes irrelevant. Perhaps as in the example of the penis, the north- wandering people *did* develop some greater amounts of body fur than their stay-at-home cousins: the survival cost to benefit ratio of hairlessness was high enough that the product of Rs*Ra was greater than 1, so hairy-ness increased. Then the protohumans figured out how to clothe themselves in animal skins, then suddenly survival disadvantage of hairlessness suddenly was supressed, Re(-h) of hairlessness (the product Rs*Ra) suddenly shifted to greater than 1, so hairlessness became the *in* thing with the northern proto-people as the Re(-h) settles back to an equilibrium value of 1. If anything, the notion of Ra and Rs might actually *overexplain* hairlessness in eskimos and that other observation mentioned in a previous post. Perhaps Ra(-h)<1 for humans in general, which is to say that the attractiveness benefit of hairlessness was persistently greater than its cost, which is perhaps what caused humans to develop towards being less hairy in the first place, before the migration out of the tropics. > ...the very ease with which counter-survival traits can be found serves as a caution > light... On the contrary, the notion of Re helps to explain the ease with which counter-survival traits can be found. Perhaps I misunderstand your objection. Re explains *why* we should *expect* the apparently counter-survival traits that we have, and that are easily spotted in many species, such as the heavy and attention-attracting tail plumage of the peacock. spike From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 05:41:36 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:41:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution again References: <200412011733.iB1HXn005628@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000301c4d831$978bb890$60b32643@kevin> IOW, are there > traits in any population that will persist or intensify regardless of mating > strategies and environmental changes? This has been my thought for some time now. Unfortunately I have little to go on other than intuition and a few sparse facts. We are already aware of random mutation and genetic drift. We also know how allele frequencies change due to such things as the Founder Effect. I don't know why it is so difficult for some people to accept that there may be a mechanism which allows traits to become established on a totally random basis with no "cause" whatsoever. I even spent a good deal of time once writing a grossly oversimplified fictional scenario that goes something like this: (A simplified version of the oversimplified scenario), or (Simplified^2) Red and yellow flogs were running around the forest floor. The reds were more common. The yellows were few. The yellows were regularly run out of camp because they were different. They reds all slept together at night. One night, a fire erupted and all the red flogs died. The yellows, who were a minority, now took over. As you can see, the yellow had no real contribution to their survival. In fact, the yellow in the longer version was actually a drawback since the ground was brownish-red. Now it is true, and even likely that the yellows still carry red flog genes and eventually through selection pressures, red can re-assert itself, but that is just a statistical probability. The yellows are capable of having yellow offspring that have no red genes as well. My point was that it is luck, it is random, and it can happen. If it can happen this way, then there are probably many things we now call adaptations that are in fact exaptations. Big buns and large penises could both fall into this catagory. Kevin Freels From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 05:55:11 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 06:55:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> The author of this article thanks God that the proposed Illinois legislation on stem cell research was defeated (by one vote) and attacks transhumanism. At least he is honest enough to acknowledge that "Like most issues, this one seems to break along liberal/conservative lines, but it really shouldn't. This should break along lines of faith." More: "The goal of immortality is no longer the domain of Vincent Price mad scientist characters in movies. Transhumanism--the belief that human beings, with the proper technology, have the ability to transcend age, disease, this planet and, ultimately, death--is a real-life growing worldview. The leading transhumanist website lists, among its core values, this statement: "Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism." Translated to English, this is the belief that human beings are simply one of the animals of the universe and, apparently, simply part of an intellectual continuum that includes artificial intelligence. I could find no reference to, or acknowledgement of, any form of supreme being, let alone the God of the Bible, in any of the transhuman or posthuman material I've researched." http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=21250 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 2 06:08:14 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:08:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >I could find no reference to, or acknowledgement of, any form of >supreme being, let alone the God of the Bible, in any of the >transhuman or posthuman material I've researched." >http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=21250 This pastor-in-training adds: ================= I call on all those who believe in a sovereign God to contact your state senators and representatives and voice your opposition to this bill not on political grounds, but standing on faith. Most of our elected state officials profess belief in God. We need to admonish them to vote that way on the next version of House Bill 3589. ================ No mention is made of the Tooth Fairy, Emlyn. Heinlein called these the Crazy Years, and predicted a regime in the USA of religious terrorism. He's been right on a few other things. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 06:27:36 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:27:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204120122275ea9b96f@mail.gmail.com> Which Heinlein's book is that? I sort of liked the article since the author drops all pretenses of this being a political argument: "not on political grounds, but standing on faith". Give him popular support (checked) and influence on the US admin (checked) and you get religious terrorism. I am not against religion: as a matter of fact I am studying early Christianity, which is a fascinating subject, and I have a deep respect for Christians who practice their faith while letting also others live according to their ideas. But religious terrorism is trying to impose their faith on everyone. G. On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:08:14 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > Heinlein called these the Crazy Years, and predicted a regime in the USA of > religious terrorism. He's been right on a few other things. > > Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 2 06:40:44 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:40:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20041202064044.GL9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:04:46PM -0800, Olga Bourlin wrote: > I have not gotten a thing out of these posts in the last few days. For what I have not gotten a thing out of the list since I resubscribed. I haven't bothered with wta-talk@, because the archives are not public. > reason and purpose were the (somewhat boring, if you ask me) exercises? > What did we learn? Have the posts changed anyone's mind? Most importantly, how much time and precious attention have we wasted? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 2 06:44:50 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:44:50 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism References: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ed01c4d83a$6c5a5a60$b8232dcb@homepc> Damien writes: > This pastor-in-training adds: > > ================= > > I call on all those who believe in a sovereign God to contact your state > senators and representatives and voice your opposition to this bill not on > political grounds, but standing on faith. Sounds like he's been watching episodes of the Simpsons and modelling himself on the Reverend Lovejoy : "Once again all science gives way in the face of overwhelming religious evidence". Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 2 06:48:25 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:48:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204120122275ea9b96f@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5204120122275ea9b96f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202004635.01c1aca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:27 AM 12/2/2004 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 asked of the Crazy Years: >Which Heinlein's book is that? Many of them. It's a key element in his Future History, charted in the 1940s. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 2 06:53:53 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:53:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041202064044.GL9221@leitl.org> References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20041202064044.GL9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202005110.01bc4ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:40 AM 12/2/2004 +0100, 'Gene wrote: > > I have not gotten a thing out of these posts in the last few days. > >I have not gotten a thing out of the list since I resubscribed. Well, it's more entertaining than reading endless tedious rants about Bush and Kerry, that other late great transhumanist debate between fine minds. Cough, gag, I think there must be asbestos in these emails. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 06:56:14 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:56:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) In-Reply-To: <20041202034550.57974.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041202020903.DC29F57E2D@finney.org> <20041202034550.57974.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204120122565a9ad5db@mail.gmail.com> While I like the Simulation Argument a lot, I don't think we can make any probability statement. Once you demonstrate that "most minds will be in simulations rather than reality", you have demonstrated that each mind is probably in a simulation, but I don't think we can demonstrate that. Perhaps posthumans will choose to use their precious computing cycles on other things (Nick's second possibility). No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't know about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion perfectly compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe. G. From harara at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 06:59:50 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:59:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <20041202064044.GL9221@leitl.org> References: <20041201164428.52550.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20041202064044.GL9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041201225908.02929610@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> me del finger sure is sore > I have not gotten a thing out of these posts in the last few days. For what >Most importantly, how much time and precious attention have we wasted? > >Eugen* Leitl leitl ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 2 07:00:50 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:00:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <010501c4d83c$abcd91b0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> > Damien Broderick > > Heinlein called these the Crazy Years, and predicted a regime > in the USA of religious terrorism. He's been right on a few other things. > ... Of course the SDA prophetess Ellen White anticipated Heinlein on this by half a century. Her book "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan" describes how the US government will join with Catholicism and apostate Protestantism to force the entire world to worship christ. This might seem a most curious thing for a christian prophetess to lose sleep over, but the kicker is that this government will try to force god's true people to do this worship on the counterfeit sabbath, the day we call Sunday, instead of the true sabbath, Saturday, and may god have mercy upon the souls of any of his people who go along with it. As a possibly unrelated aside, there was a most excellent American Experience on this evening about Chicago, which was having a devil of a time in the 1850s trying to deal with immigration, for the newcomers did not share the cultural values of the oldtimers (whose families had already been in America for two or three decades). Particularly loathed by the old Chicagoans were two groups: the Irish and the Germans. The Irish were caracatured as those who would go to the pubs after work every day and devour copious droughts of whiskey until nearly unconsciously drunk, then go home and inevitably get in violents fights with their families. They at least had the decency to not drink at all on Sunday, the day in which they would pray and repent of what they had done during the week. The reprehensible Germans, on the other hand, would work like plowhorses and stay sober six days a week, but to them Sunday was a party day. They would break out the beer barrel and the hearty oom-pah-pah bands, and just have a wonderful time. On SUNDAY heaven forbid! Somehow they eventually managed to assimilate. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 07:09:34 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:09:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Church on Man-Machine Hybridization Message-ID: <470a3c5204120123097c494a69@mail.gmail.com> The Third-Millennium Spiritual Film Festival is focusing on the relationship between man and machines. The initiative, which will be complemented by a study congress sponsored by the pontifical councils for Social Communications and for Culture, will reflect on the ethical questions posed by this phenomenon. The congress, entitled "Man-Machine Hybridization, Identity and Conscience in Postmodern Cinema," is being held today and Thursday in St. Mary of the Assumption University (LUMSA) of Rome. Read the article at the URL below, there are moderate and surprisingly reasonable statements of representatives of the Church, e.g. modern man "cannot do without all that is the product of his intelligence and creativity, of art and technology, of engineering and literature, of reason and skill." http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=62884 From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 2 07:42:11 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:42:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] New (but mistaken) article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041202074211.82051.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> > http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=21250 There is, of course, a fundamental misunderstanding behind this pastor's venom: > The leading transhumanist website lists, among its > core values, this statement: ?Transhumanism > advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether > in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or > non-human animals) and encompasses many principles > of modern humanism.? > > Translated to English, this is the belief that human > beings are simply one of the animals of the universe > and, apparently, simply part of an intellectual > continuum that includes artificial intelligence. So far, so good - technically. We are indeed part of a continuum, and if a human-equivalent AI (including human-equivalent capabilities for self-improvement, no matter how unlikely that restriction may seem to many of us) were to become reality, we would probably treat it as the moral equivalent of a human being. But then follows the error: > In a worldview, universe view (if you will), where > human beings hold the same relative value as a > microprocessors or sheep, Or, restated later: > If we are indistinguishable, in value, from other > forms of life or other forms of intelligence, Being on a continuum is not the same concept as being indistinguishable. Indeed, it is almost the opposite concept: the ends of the continuum are what distinguish human beings from nonsentient computers and sheep. From alex at ramonsky.com Thu Dec 2 07:58:53 2004 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:58:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Living in Ireland -the reality References: <20041129124750.82350.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41AECB3D.1060003@ramonsky.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Now, I am impressed when a Brit complains about bad plumbing (what >might the dentistry be like in Eire?) > Wow, I forgot about that! : ) ...I only ever went once, and was asked whether I would like to pay for anesthetic or whether I'd be "Going over the road for a few whiskeys first instead?" ...I didn't go back. And I forgot being forcibly evicted from the chemists amidst much cursing for trying to buy a packet of condoms LOL It was fun being able to go out shooting though; -fresh dinners! Quantities of venison the like of which we shall not see (or get chased by game wardens for) again... : ) AR From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Dec 2 08:05:44 2004 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:05:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cherubic Machines In-Reply-To: <20041201161444.39795.qmail@web61108.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041201161444.39795.qmail@web61108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 1, 2004, at 8:14 AM, Gaurav Gupta wrote: > Read Jeff Hawkins' book: 'On Intelligence'? I was > stunned when it said what I've been trying to say for > so many years now. I'm not even going to try > explaining what my GEN-I-SYS engine can and cannot do. > Please visit http://cherubicmachines.com and feel free > to laugh me in the face if you see fit. Whatever you > do - WE REQUIRE MORE FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. > Please donate a little bit. Well in that case, everyone should just send their money to me instead, if results matter. My qualifications: 1.) No one has written a pop-sci book that covers the theoretics of my work. 2.) I can actually explain why the systems work the way they do and why it is important, with math even. 3.) Demonstrable critical capabilities in implementation that are unique in computer science. 4.) I made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. With all due respect Gaurav, why did you even bother to stump for cash on this list when you offer no reason why anyone should give you any? No design theory offered, let alone a defense of it, and you are a new face around these parts (okay, at least to me). There is nothing to differentiate yourself from the hundred other wannabe AI hacks that infest the field. AI is littered with the carcasses of smart people with credentials, and even the survivors fight for the scraps of a world that basically ignores them. I think Ronald Reagan was President of the US the last time AI was actually sexy to the public at large. This list is all about red meat, as in standing in an arena full of lions with it tied around your neck. You better be bold and prepared to make your case. And last, but not least, what is the kind of organization that you want people to give money to? Non-profit organization? Privately held for-profit venture (like mine)? A rogue band of Amish building an AI Babbage Engine out of wood in a barn? This matters to people, and your website is essentially content-free. cheers, j. andrew rogers From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 2 11:02:03 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:02:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204120122565a9ad5db@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041202020903.DC29F57E2D@finney.org> <20041202034550.57974.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> <470a3c5204120122565a9ad5db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41AEF62B.4020000@neopax.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >While I like the Simulation Argument a lot, I don't think we can make >any probability statement. >Once you demonstrate that "most minds will be in simulations rather >than reality", you have demonstrated that each mind is probably in a >simulation, but I don't think we can demonstrate that. >Perhaps posthumans will choose to use their precious computing cycles >on other things (Nick's second possibility). > > It may not take much computing power at all. It all depends on the level of simulation. If it's a Planck scale simulation of the entire universe, then you are probably correct. If it is limited to simulating one planet's surface and people at the cellular level then maybe not. It's does not require much computing power, for example, to descibe the interior of the earth to our present level of understanding, nor the rest of the universe. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 2 14:06:04 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:06:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc041201164846fc461e@mail.gmail.com> References: <004301c4d7e4$c0eab8a0$b8232dcb@homepc> <20041201225416.33509.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> <710b78fc041201164846fc461e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41AF214C.5020503@neopax.com> Emlyn wrote: >The simulation argument is quite flimsy. First of all, it's quite >possible that it is extremely difficult or impossible to reach the >level of technology to make a simulation of equivalent complexity to >the universe you are in. If you can't do that, you are doomed to see >nested sims degrading in complexity until they are useless, and the >simulation argument relies on arbitrarily deep levels of nesting. > > > No it doesn't. One level running as multiple instances on many machines is quite enough. Also, the complexity only arises if the entire universe is being simulated as subnuclear level. A Matrix style simulation is almost trivial. >Secondly, you have to assume that civilisations would find some reason >to let universes run indefinitely. Remember that this argument say not > > Indefinately? I think not. The simulation will stop when the desired outcome is achieved, or time runs out for the prog. >only that we are basically assured of being in a sim, but that >(because of the reliance on arbitrary depth of nesting) we must be >arbitrarily deeply nested. So we rely on some probably very large >number of enclosing universes not being shut down by the levels above. > > > I think that if only a few tens of millions of instances of the prog were running it is still overwhelmingly likely we are in a sim. Just not infinitely likely. >Thirdly, if you buy all of this, who is in the base level universes? > > Our 'real' society? The people in the final millisecond of the Big Crunch? >Finally, the simulation argument assumes things about the nature of >reality which are not really supportable. What can exist as a >universe? Just us? Just universes like us? Or can wildly different >universes exist? Does everything that you can imagine exist somewhere >in some fashion, plus a lot of stuff that you can't? In fact, what >does it even mean to exist at all? If every logically possible >universe exists in some fashion (where "logic" is taken to mean all >possible systems of logic, and "possible" stands for something a human >probably can't define), and there's no reason to suppose that they >don't, then the set of simulated universes are a negligible subset of >this infinite (aleph-infinity?) set of realities, thus the simulation >argument cannot hold. > > > We cannot answer that Q until we have a very plausible TOE. >Once we start talking about other universes or realities or types of >existence, we find very quickly that we are not in Kansas any more, >Dorothy. > > > Maybe its run on a QC across 'Many Worlds' and whenthe answer pops up they all collapse to the 'answer'. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 2 14:08:30 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:08:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New (but mistaken) article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <20041202074211.82051.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041202074211.82051.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41AF21DE.8050908@pobox.com> Quit writing responses to this here. If you're going to spend the effort, write letters to the editor. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From megao at sasktel.net Thu Dec 2 14:25:17 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:25:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Web crawlers took 15 days to complete job Message-ID: <41AF25CD.4080500@sasktel.net> Nov 12 I realized that I had a major problem with my site, 181 lines of un indexed website; 2 working links. Nov-12-14 enquiries and visits and replies by extropy members. Nov 15 redid my robots.txt file to a simple 3 line "go gettem boys" format. Nov15-Dec 01 waiting for the crawlers to index the site again Dec 01- site works "good as new again" .... all keywords seem to index. Thanks for the visits and advice Morris Johnson From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 2 16:50:30 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:50:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] New (but mistaken) article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <41AF21DE.8050908@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20041202165030.74306.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > Quit writing responses to this here. If you're > going to spend the effort, > write letters to the editor. Good suggestion. I have. From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 2 17:09:10 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) Message-ID: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> Giu1i0 writes: > While I like the Simulation Argument a lot, I don't think we can make > any probability statement. Nick does make a probability statement: "This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a 'posthuman' stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." There we see probabilistic phrasing: "very likely", "extremely unlikely", "almost certainly". > Once you demonstrate that "most minds will be in simulations rather > than reality", you have demonstrated that each mind is probably in a > simulation, but I don't think we can demonstrate that. > Perhaps posthumans will choose to use their precious computing cycles > on other things (Nick's second possibility). I think what you mean is that from the simulation argument we can't deduce a probability that we are living in a simulation. That's because the SA is a conjunction of 3 terms and to estimate the probability of one of them we have to estimate the probability of the others. The point of the argument is that in certain circles, like ours, people have been pretty free about estimating the probability of clause 1 and 2. We often talk here about a future where we become posthuman. Most of us probably think it's pretty likely. We also talk about running simulations, and the implications. Prior to the SA, not many people here objected to the notion that a future posthuman civilization would run simulations, in addition to its many other activities. The SA then gains its strength by showing that we are inconsistent if we are happy with these two assumptions but don't accept that we are probably living in a simulation. Now, if we find that conclusion unpalatable, we may go back and revisit the other two options, start to nit-pick, and come up with reasons why they may not be true. But I don't think that is really intellectually honest. We have no a priori knowledge about whether we are in a simulation or not (at least, those of us who accept the theoretical possibility that simulated minds could exist). An argument which starts from previously-accepted notions (that we will probably become posthuman and some will run simulations) and produces a conclusion about which we have no a priori knowledge should not cause us to look for reasons to reject its premises. It would be different if we reached a conclusion which was apparently in disagreement with the facts. Then we would be justified in trying to figure out where we went wrong, whether there was a problem in the argument or in some of the assumptions. But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to re-evaluate our assumptions. That would mean putting emotion over reason. It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning. If we believed posthuman simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust that probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that we are in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky. > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't know > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion perfectly > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe. I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion. It is a question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics. But not religion. Hal From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 18:20:34 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:20:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) In-Reply-To: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520412021020440d6c4e@mail.gmail.com> But I don't emotionally dislike the conclusion that we live in a sim. Actually, I emotionally LOVE it! When I was reading Nick's paper the first time I was very excited and happy. But while I have little doubts that we will become posthumans (if we manage not to kill ourselves before), and that posthumans will have the means to run sims, I think we have no info on the computational cost of running a sim wrt their total computational resources, and no info on their actual interest in running a sim. An experiment, of course yes, but massive sims that include billions of conscious beings? I don't know. The SA is not religion of course but includes all elements found in religion. You have an all powerful being who can answer your prayers if she wants to, and wake you up in Heaven after death (she extracts you from the most recent backup and injects you in a better sim). G. On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Giu1i0 writes: > But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to > re-evaluate our assumptions. That would mean putting emotion over > reason. It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning. If we believed posthuman > simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust that > probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that we are > in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky. > > > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't know > > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion perfectly > > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe. > > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion. It is a > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics. But not religion. > > Hal From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 2 18:58:37 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:58:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001> The argument fails if the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true and there are an infinite number of non simulated beings. Even if each real world runs 99 trillion simulated universes there are still the same number of simulated and non simulated worlds. I also think a super civilization might have less enthusiasm for running such simulations than some think for ethical reasons, a concept they must have some knowledge of if they have not destroyed themselves. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 19:11:59 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:11:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> <470a3c520412021020440d6c4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <021601c4d8a2$cd26cc30$60b32643@kevin> Of course, if we develop the ability to run such sims, what kind of strain does that put on those who are running our sim? After a period of time, you would end up with infinite sims within sims as each one develops this ability. Kevin Freels ----- Original Message ----- From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) > But I don't emotionally dislike the conclusion that we live in a sim. > Actually, I emotionally LOVE it! When I was reading Nick's paper the > first time I was very excited and happy. > But while I have little doubts that we will become posthumans (if we > manage not to kill ourselves before), and that posthumans will have > the means to run sims, I think we have no info on the computational > cost of running a sim wrt their total computational resources, and no > info on their actual interest in running a sim. An experiment, of > course yes, but massive sims that include billions of conscious > beings? I don't know. > The SA is not religion of course but includes all elements found in > religion. You have an all powerful being who can answer your prayers > if she wants to, and wake you up in Heaven after death (she extracts > you from the most recent backup and injects you in a better sim). > G. > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > > Giu1i0 writes: > > But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to > > re-evaluate our assumptions. That would mean putting emotion over > > reason. It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning. If we believed posthuman > > simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust that > > probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that we are > > in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky. > > > > > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't know > > > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion perfectly > > > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe. > > > > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion. It is a > > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics. But not religion. > > > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From benboc at lineone.net Thu Dec 2 19:12:24 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:12:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes In-Reply-To: <200412020743.iB27h1005199@tick.javien.com> References: <200412020743.iB27h1005199@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41AF6918.2040808@lineone.net> er... What i'm not sure about is, if anybody is daft enough to think that a fertilised egg is equivalent to a human life, why should they not think the same about an egg that has been 'fooled into thinking' that it has been fertilised? You could say "because it cannot develop into a human". But that's only true because we don't yet know how to get it to develop into a human. What if we could? I'm sure it's possible, even if we don't know how at the moment, to produce a parthenogenetic human from such an egg. Does this mean that as soon as we do know how to do this, this procedure will suddenly become morally unacceptable? Does that mean if scientist X knows how to do this, they are doing something morally wrong, but if scientist Y doesn't, they aren't? Also, does it mean that if you do fertilise an egg, but ensure that it cannot develop into a person (say, by tinkering with its cell surface proteins so that it couldn't implant, or by some other means), that would be morally acceptable? What will the pro-lifers do when we have the ability to take a single somatic cell and turn it into a person? Every cell a potential life! Brushing your teeth would be mass murder! (or would it? perhaps the 'magic moment' of ensoulment only happens when sperm enters egg. Or when scientist throws genetic switch?). I can see the 'pro-life' position fragmenting into a thousand different opinions as the technology advances, and these difficult questions tie their tiny minds into knots. Actually, i have a more serious question. There must be people who don't take the 'ensoulment' issue seriously, but still think that it's wrong to create an embryo then destroy it. What is the basis of this? If the objection is not based on supernatural grounds, what is it based on? I'm not clear on why somebody who knows that it's just a ball of cells, still thinks it's somehow special (more special, i mean, than a drop of blood or a lump of meat). ben From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 2 19:18:16 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:18:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) In-Reply-To: <021601c4d8a2$cd26cc30$60b32643@kevin> References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> <470a3c520412021020440d6c4e@mail.gmail.com> <021601c4d8a2$cd26cc30$60b32643@kevin> Message-ID: <20041202191816.GY9221@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:11:59PM -0600, Kevin Freels wrote: > Of course, if we develop the ability to run such sims, what kind of strain > does that put on those who are running our sim? After a period of time, you Are you assuming the sim is run in this universe? If yes, the strain is very well known; it's the domain of physics of computation. Brute force and complexity are tradeoffs, but you certainly can't increase complexity beyond a point (relativistic lag vs. cell concentration/volume). Assuming, you could increase complexity without introducing bugs, of course. > would end up with infinite sims within sims as each one develops this > ability. Sure, and if I was a green-haired wombat I'd never have halitosis. Jeez. People, this isn't philosophy. Technology has constraints, and in evolutionary scenarios, costs. This Pearly Gates here are *expensive*. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 19:33:03 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:33:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> <470a3c520412021020440d6c4e@mail.gmail.com> <021601c4d8a2$cd26cc30$60b32643@kevin> <20041202191816.GY9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <02c501c4d8a5$be473e40$60b32643@kevin> Eugen said: "Jeez. People, this isn't philosophy. Technology has constraints, and in evolutionary scenarios, costs. This Pearly Gates here are *expensive*." That was my point. Which is why I think that the simulation argument is wrong. From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 2 19:45:29 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:45:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) Message-ID: <20041202194529.B981257E2D@finney.org> John Clark writes: > The argument fails if the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is > true and there are an infinite number of non simulated beings. Even if each > real world runs 99 trillion simulated universes there are still the same > number of simulated and non simulated worlds. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it would work this way. After all, the MWI does not destroy ordinary considerations of probability. We still find that some events are more probable than others, even though the MWI suggests that there are an infinite number of worlds which experience each outcome. This can be handled by the notion of "measure", which is a sort of tag attached to an MWI world and measures how much probability amplitude it contributes. Worlds of small measure are unlikely to be experienced. If a world of large measure runs a simulated mind, then that mind is also of large measure. If such worlds run a great many simulated minds, then the total measure of the simulated minds is greater than the total measure of the non-simulated ones, even though there are an infinite number of each. In this way, the same kind of reasoning applied in the vanilla SA goes through in the MWI. > I also think a super civilization might have less enthusiasm for running > such simulations than some think for ethical reasons, a concept they must > have some knowledge of if they have not destroyed themselves. I agree that there are ethical questions involved in running simulations of minds which don't know they are simulated. Maybe it would be OK if you could somehow get their permission ahead of time, along with their agreement to forget that they would be in a simulation. Even that seems a little questionable; is the person who gave consent really the same as the person who experiences the simulation? Hal From walter.kehowski at gcmail.maricopa.edu Thu Dec 2 19:41:14 2004 From: walter.kehowski at gcmail.maricopa.edu (walter kehowski) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:41:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> How long 'till the desktop model? From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Dec 2 19:46:46 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:46:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001> References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> <016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041202144441.02c3ea98@mail.gmu.edu> At 01:58 PM 12/2/2004, John K Clark wrote: >The argument fails if the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is >true and there are an infinite number of non simulated beings. Even if each >real world runs 99 trillion simulated universes there are still the same >number of simulated and non simulated worlds. The many worlds interpretation does not require an infinity of worlds or beings. In fact, I prefer a finite version: http://hanson.gmu.edu/mangledworlds.html Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 2 20:06:01 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:06:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes Message-ID: <20041202200601.15F6457E2E@finney.org> Ben writes: > Actually, i have a more serious question. There must be people who don't > take the 'ensoulment' issue seriously, but still think that it's wrong > to create an embryo then destroy it. What is the basis of this? If the > objection is not based on supernatural grounds, what is it based on? I'm > not clear on why somebody who knows that it's just a ball of cells, > still thinks it's somehow special (more special, i mean, than a drop of > blood or a lump of meat). I thought you made very good points. I did a little research recently to see what exactly the Christian foundation is for opposition to abortion. Surprisingly, the Bible is not at all clear on the subject. The idea that fetuses have souls and should be protected from being destroyed relies on some very questionable readings of just a few Biblical verses. God never says, thou shalt not commit abortion. As far as those who are anti-abortion but don't agree about 'souls', I think that their beliefs come down to the semantic notion that a fetus is a human life and deserves the protection of one. There is no sharp dividing line between a just-about-to-be-born fetus and one just a few days old. Given this gray area some people are uncomfortable drawing a line and saying that it is OK to destroy the fetus before this point but not after. Maybe you could look at survival outside the womb in a natural state (without modern technology) as a dividing line, but that would seem to allow killing babies who would survive if born today. The very words we use, "fetus" vs "unborn baby", tend to influence our thoughts. If you think of this "ball of cells" as an unborn baby then you are more likely to want it to be protected. Hal From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 20:02:58 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:02:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes References: <20041202200601.15F6457E2E@finney.org> Message-ID: <02fd01c4d8a9$ec85c980$60b32643@kevin> Of course, you have hit upon the major problem with this issue. When is a baby a baby? I think we should be able to draw a few lines and prove them. If so, we could put the stem cell resistance to rest. I have proposed two different dividing lines between a human and a mass of tissue. One is on thebaby's first smile. That tells me that the baby is now emotionally aware and is no longer a simple animal. The other is when the brain starts to have electrical activity. This one would probably be more acceptable to the average person. . There is no sharp > dividing line between a just-about-to-be-born fetus and one just a few > days old. Given this gray area some people are uncomfortable drawing > a line and saying that it is OK to destroy the fetus before this point > but not after. Maybe you could look at survival outside the womb in a > natural state (without modern technology) as a dividing line, but that > would seem to allow killing babies who would survive if born today. > > The very words we use, "fetus" vs "unborn baby", tend to influence > our thoughts. If you think of this "ball of cells" as an unborn baby > then you are more likely to want it to be protected. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 2 20:14:42 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:14:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) Message-ID: <20041202201442.7486D57E2F@finney.org> Kevin Freels writes: > Eugen said: "Jeez. People, this isn't philosophy. Technology has > constraints, and in > evolutionary scenarios, costs. This Pearly Gates here are *expensive*." > > That was my point. Which is why I think that the simulation argument is > wrong. No, you are not disagreeing with the SA if you make this point. You are agreeing with it. You are agreeing that one of the three clauses is true, namely, the one which says that posthumans will not run many simulations. This is exactly what the SA says, that one of the three clauses should be true. I suspect that I am being pedantic here, and that what you really mean to disagree with is an extended version of the SA. This version takes the SA and adds the assumptions that we will become posthuman, and that posthumans will run many simulations, from which it follows that we probably live in a simulation. You are disagreeing with one of the assumptions of this extended SA, namely that posthumans will run many simulations. Maybe we could call this SA+ to distinguish it from the SA. I think most people who complain about the SA or say they disagree with it are actually disagreeing with the SA+. As far as Eugen's point about costs, this is discussed in Nick's paper in some detail. He looks at various estimates of how much it takes to simulate a brain, and compares it with people's guesses about how much compute power a future posthuman civilization will have. Add a bit of hand-waving and it looks like simulations would be cheap compared to the overall capabilities of such a civilization. On the other hand there might well be more useful things they could do with that computing power, so it's hard to say what they will decide. Hal From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 2 20:23:26 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:23:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) In-Reply-To: <20041202201442.7486D57E2F@finney.org> References: <20041202201442.7486D57E2F@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041202202326.GA9221@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:14:42PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Maybe we could call this SA+ to distinguish it from the SA. I think > most people who complain about the SA or say they disagree with it are > actually disagreeing with the SA+. I'm disagreeing with the premise that there is a tooth fairy. Or circumsaturnine tea cups. Or wombats with green hair, and no halitosis. > As far as Eugen's point about costs, this is discussed in Nick's paper > in some detail. He looks at various estimates of how much it takes to > simulate a brain, and compares it with people's guesses about how much I've read various estimates, and they're silly. The low-level sims are entirely prohibitive, and high-level sims assume internal representation is completely different from inside view. (If anyone has a recipe on how to derive such transcoding algorithms, I'm all ears). If we're talking that metaverse has same physics as simulated universe -- see wombats with green hair, and everything-list at ers. > compute power a future posthuman civilization will have. Add a bit of > hand-waving and it looks like simulations would be cheap compared to the I disagree. Mature evolutionary systems don't have any atoms to waste. > overall capabilities of such a civilization. On the other hand there > might well be more useful things they could do with that computing power, > so it's hard to say what they will decide. So basically, we agree that any quality discussion time spent of tooth fairies, steaming circumsaturnine tea cups, green-haired wombats and simulation arguments is a waste of our collective time. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 2 20:36:36 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:36:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes References: <200412020743.iB27h1005199@tick.javien.com> <41AF6918.2040808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <020401c4d8ae$9e62ca00$b8232dcb@homepc> Ben wrote: > er... > > What i'm not sure about is, if anybody is daft enough to think that a > fertilised egg is equivalent to a human life, why should they not think > the same about an egg that has been 'fooled into thinking' that it has > been fertilised? One needs to consider that other area of social activity where definitions matter a lot - the law. Things like "murder" and "human life" are defined in law to have specific meaning that is not always the same as the meaning used in ordinary lay conversation where words are used more loosely. > You could say "because it cannot develop into a human". But that's only > true because we don't yet know how to get it to develop into a human. Right ! > What if we could? I'm sure it's possible, even if we don't know how at > the moment, to produce a parthenogenetic human from such an egg. > Does this mean that as soon as we do know how to do this, this > procedure will suddenly become morally unacceptable? The bizarre thing about bioethics debates around stem cells is that most of the population and most politicians are debating without really understanding the underlying science. So what is happening is that the real ethical debates don't or happen in the forums that actually matter - the parliaments. I find this a great pity because almost everyone that has an ethical concern about "human life" is speaking usually ignorantly (I don't say this pejoratively - who has the time to stay current in this area?) from a position that is fairly understandable, and in some cases might even be quite noble or at least laudable, if they only had taken the trouble to know what the hell they were talking about before they decided to try and tell everyone else what they "ought" do. What passes for ethical debate in the main forums of society that decide policy these days is not real debate or exploration of issues - its mere positioning. And shot firing from entrenched positions. > Does that > mean if scientist X knows how to do this, they are doing something > morally wrong, but if scientist Y doesn't, they aren't? > > Also, does it mean that if you do fertilise an egg, but ensure that it > cannot develop into a person (say, by tinkering with its cell surface > proteins so that it couldn't implant, or by some other means), that > would be morally acceptable? > > What will the pro-lifers do when we have the ability to take a single > somatic cell and turn it into a person? You mean a bit like what happened with the Dolly the sheep cloning procedure where a cell (or the nuclear material) from a sheep mammary gland was reprogrammed using factors that happened to be in another cell. What will happen? We will probably have another round of arguments and ethical handwringing and political shannaigans. Politicians cannot lead public opinion in the bioethics area unless they understand what is going on it that area at least enough to talk intelligently to their constiutuent that rings them and demands they take some action that the constituent wants. Unless there is something radically different between sheep and humans that we don't know about (something biologically significant rather than merely politicially or "ethically") then biological science has already (with the Dolly procedure) moved beyond the simple time when human life could be discussed meaningfully an intelligently as if it took place on just one level - the level of the whole organism. > Every cell a potential life! > Brushing your teeth would be mass murder! (or would it? > perhaps the 'magic moment' of ensoulment only happens when > sperm enters egg. Or when scientist throws genetic switch?). Murder is a legal term. Currently brushing one's teeth is not murder. It is not ever likely to be necessary or prudent to make it murder but dumber things have happened in the history of lawmaking when politicians don't understand the area they are making laws about. > I can see the 'pro-life' position fragmenting into a thousand different > opinions as the technology advances, and these difficult questions tie > their tiny minds into knots. > > Actually, i have a more serious question. There must be people > who don't take the 'ensoulment' issue seriously, but still think that > it's wrong to create an embryo then destroy it. What is the basis > of this? If the objection is not based on supernatural grounds, > what is it based on? I'm not clear on why somebody who knows > that it's just a ball of cells, still thinks it's somehow special (more > special, i mean, than a drop of blood or a lump of meat). I'm not such a person in that I don't think the embryo is particularly special but I do think that human society probably would be better off having more informed and regular reviews of abortion for instance as the balance of when it is ethical to abort changes with technology. I can respect those people who are ignorant of recent developments in biology but are concerned about human life as they understand it being commoditised. Civil societies are based on members having rights that draw from a reservoir of member responsibility. People are used to thinking of membership coming with being human. That will not work in the future. We need to have a better look at what membership or levels of membership will be based on. It is possible, logically possible to have different levels of rights (legal rights) giving to different classes of being. We currently grant some rights to animals. We could grant some rights to "unborn" homo sapiens at different stages too. And probably should to be ethically consistent and rational about things. But we can't do that effectively until people know what they hell is being talked about. People seem to think that their votes and voices don't matter. Yet in democracies they do matter - they actually determine the reality we live in. Voting and arguing stupidly or badly has a consequence. The politicians are not in charge of the system they are almost at much at the mercy of the system as any other single voter. Ditto scientists and commercialisers. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 2 20:49:04 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:49:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes In-Reply-To: <20041202200601.15F6457E2E@finney.org> References: <20041202200601.15F6457E2E@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041202204903.GH9221@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:06:01PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Surprisingly, the Bible is not at all clear on the subject. The idea I think you'll find this passage more illuminating: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sukkah2.html Clear as Talmud. > that fetuses have souls and should be protected from being destroyed > relies on some very questionable readings of just a few Biblical verses. > God never says, thou shalt not commit abortion. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 21:04:05 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:04:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition... In-Reply-To: <00f601c4d823$933b79a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> References: <00b901c4d813$4c4512f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <00f601c4d823$933b79a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <948b11e04120213047d10b4ce@mail.gmail.com> My dad was a Southern Baptist Deacon from Hell type. The entire family had to go to church - three times on Sunday and prayer meeting on Wednesday to boot. As I turned atheistic around age 14 or so I of course objected. He insisted. So for two years I carried Bertrand Russels, "Why I am not a Christian" to church instead of the Bible. This was in the heart of the Bible Belt in the sixties so this made me r-e-a-l popular. :-) -s On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:01:17 -0800, Spike wrote: > > > Olga Bourlin > ... > > Bertrand Russell once went on about how - yes, certainly, it > > was *possible* (I am paraphrasing from memory) that Saturn's rings > hold > > porcelain teacups...Olga > > A local christian minister who is a converted muslim > stirred the pot by posting on his sign out front > his upcoming sermon title: Why I am Not a Muslim. > > The local news agencies, TV, radio and both major > newspapers jumped on it, reporting that some considered > it offensive, racist, yakkity yak and bla bla. With > alllll the ink that was spilled on this silly thing, > *none* of the news people, not even one, recognized > that the sermon title might be based on Bertrand > Russell's famous and thoroughly devastating short > volume called "Why I Am Not A Christian." > > So I asked several of my office people today if they > were familiar with the work. I was terribly disappointed > to find that few of them had even heard of Bertrand > Russell. Oy! I thought *I* was the illiterate savage! > > Is Bertrand Russell really that obscure in modern > times? He had such an impact on my own thinking > in my younger years. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 21:16:45 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:16:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) In-Reply-To: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <948b11e04120213164e03278a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Giu1i0 writes: > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion. It is a > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics. But not religion. > Religion is itself a matter pertaining to philosophy, ontology and metaphysics. One connection between SA and religion is it is one way to construct a rational, scientific apologetics for the existence of a God-like Creator-Being not limited by the apparent laws of reality of the created universe. There are many possible paths for building or supporting a religion or spirituality based in part on SA. It is true of course that SA does not directly imply a religion. - samantha From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Thu Dec 2 21:48:36 2004 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:48:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheistslaunchinquisition...) In-Reply-To: <02c501c4d8a5$be473e40$60b32643@kevin> Message-ID: There would not be an infinite number of sims, just a hugely finite number. So if the original sim has massive horsepower it could support all the billions, etc of subsims. If I was writing a universe sim, I would actually want my sim to develop subsims and so on as that would be much more amusing to observe and would increase the chance of finding some previously unknown insight into my current universe. Of course we could get to a point where all the sims crash, but I'm assuming that the original sim maker is smart enough to add more processing power as is necessary. BAL >From: "Kevin Freels" >To: "ExI chat list" >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: >Atheistslaunchinquisition...) >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:33:03 -0600 > >Eugen said: "Jeez. People, this isn't philosophy. Technology has >constraints, and in >evolutionary scenarios, costs. This Pearly Gates here are *expensive*." > >That was my point. Which is why I think that the simulation argument is >wrong. > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 2 21:57:56 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:57:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...) In-Reply-To: <021601c4d8a2$cd26cc30$60b32643@kevin> Message-ID: <20041202215756.24877.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> I think that it is a conceptual and astrophysical error to presume that nested simulations must run on the computational capacity of higher level universes. The beauty of M-theory is that new universes can be computationally pinched off by the black holes that birth them and do not impose computational load on the universes the black holes reside in. --- Kevin Freels wrote: > Of course, if we develop the ability to run such sims, what kind of > strain > does that put on those who are running our sim? After a period of > time, you > would end up with infinite sims within sims as each one develops this > ability. > > Kevin Freels > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists > launchinquisition...) > > > > But I don't emotionally dislike the conclusion that we live in a > sim. > > Actually, I emotionally LOVE it! When I was reading Nick's paper > the > > first time I was very excited and happy. > > But while I have little doubts that we will become posthumans (if > we > > manage not to kill ourselves before), and that posthumans will have > > the means to run sims, I think we have no info on the computational > > cost of running a sim wrt their total computational resources, and > no > > info on their actual interest in running a sim. An experiment, of > > course yes, but massive sims that include billions of conscious > > beings? I don't know. > > The SA is not religion of course but includes all elements found in > > religion. You have an all powerful being who can answer your > prayers > > if she wants to, and wake you up in Heaven after death (she > extracts > > you from the most recent backup and injects you in a better sim). > > G. > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" > > wrote: > > > Giu1i0 writes: > > > But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to > > > re-evaluate our assumptions. That would mean putting emotion > over > > > reason. It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning. If we believed > posthuman > > > simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust > that > > > probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that > we are > > > in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky. > > > > > > > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't > know > > > > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion > perfectly > > > > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe. > > > > > > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion. It is > a > > > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics. But not > religion. > > > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From benboc at lineone.net Thu Dec 2 22:18:13 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:18:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> References: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41AF94A5.60701@lineone.net> Here's a thought: From The Architecture of Brain and Mind, by Aaron Sloman.(http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/gc/) "In a world that day-by-day becomes increasingly dependent on technology to maintain its functional stability, there is a need for machines to incorporate correspondingly higher and higher levels of cognitive ability in their interactions with humans and the world. Understanding the principles of brain organisation and function which subserve human cognitive abilities, and expressing this in the form of an information-processing architecture of the brain and mind, will provide the foundations for a radical new generation of machines which act more and more like humans. Such machines would become potentially much simpler to interact with and to use, more powerful and less error-prone, making them more valuable life-companions, whether for learning, information finding, physical support or entertainment. They might even be able to recognize even the best disguised spam email messages as easily as humans do!" The implication here is that AI will not suddenly appear on the scene at some indeterminate future time, but will gradually emerge, as more and more information-processing systems display more and more intelligence. AI will probably creep up on us gradually, rather than suddenly bursting forth from some lab. This view makes a lot of sense. Consider toys. Not so long ago, most children's toys were carved from wood. Now we have very sophisticated robotic toys that are starting to respond to voice commands, and display a variety of different behaviours. Toys for adults are even more sophisticated. We have robotic animals, humanoid fighting robots, even robots that can mow the lawn or vacuum the floor. Nobody calls Aibo or Roomba full-blown AI, but if you compare them with a wooden rocking horse or a bristle broom, they are remarkably intelligent. This trend will only continue. One day, we will realise that our children's toys are just as bright as a pet dog or cat, and a lot of the information systems that we use will incorporate elements of the kind of cognitive processing that we currently regard as uniquely human. By the time robots and computer systems display what we call general intelligence, nobody will be surprised, because they will have gradually emerged from systems that everyone is used to. Things like agent software that seeks the best prices for aeroplane tickets, PDAs that learn your habits and preferences, collaborative embedded systems that track the movements of millions of items and people, and co-ordinate traffic flow systems, ordering of goods, etc. And toys. All getting smarter and smarter, month by month. So it's possible that one day, it will be somebodys teddy bear that will be the thing waking up and saying to itself "Crikey, I'm Me!!", and not some purpose-designed massive computer. What do you reckon. Will AI be the descendant of computer research programs in academic labs, or will their ancestors be dolls that blink and wet themselves, and lawnmowers? ben From benboc at lineone.net Thu Dec 2 22:24:47 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:24:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> References: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41AF962F.6050101@lineone.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: "It may not take much computing power at all. It all depends on the level of simulation." Well, when you think about it, all it needs is enough computer power to simulate a single brain. Yours. After all, you are the only person that you actually KNOW exists. :^> ben From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 2 22:42:09 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:42:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Simulation Argument References: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> <41AF962F.6050101@lineone.net> Message-ID: <04f501c4d8c0$28f3e710$60b32643@kevin> OUCH! That hurts my brain! Are you really sending me this message, or is it from the simulation to keep me on this topic? OMG. I think my brain maaaaaaaaaay juuuuuuuusssssssssttttttttt pppooooop ----- Original Message ----- From: "ben" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Simulation Argument > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > "It may not take much computing power at all. It all depends on the > level of simulation." > > Well, when you think about it, all it needs is enough computer power to > simulate a single brain. Yours. After all, you are the only person that > you actually KNOW exists. > > :^> > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 2 22:46:55 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:46:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ornithopter Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202164633.01a83848@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.physorg.com/news2150.html From megao at sasktel.net Thu Dec 2 23:32:32 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:32:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Banning The emergence of AI Message-ID: <41AFA610.90702@sasktel.net> As has happened with biotech crops , stem cell technologies, even computational speeds might some governments begin to take pre-emptive action and move to ban or suppress system integration in manners that mimic human consciousness? Privacy is a potential premise to regulate IT integration. System integration is inhibited by privacy protocols , except for those who "need to know" for security reasons. An emerging AI would in effect go through quite an evolutionary/selection process to learn to overcome these constraints on its development. To predict the emergence of the first AI it would be a good idea to determine what sort of personality traits an intelligence would develop as a result of this natural selection process. An AI with self preservation instincts would lurk and manipulate rather than cause distress in the population by suddenly announcing "here I am " ... "catch me if you can". -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:18:13 +0000 From: ben Reply-To: ExI chat list To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org References: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613 at tick.javien.com> Here's a thought: >From The Architecture of Brain and Mind, by Aaron Sloman.(http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/gc/) "In a world that day-by-day becomes increasingly dependent on technology to maintain its functional stability, there is a need for machines to incorporate correspondingly higher and higher levels of cognitive ability in their interactions with humans and the world. Understanding the principles of brain organisation and function which subserve human cognitive abilities, and expressing this in the form of an information-processing architecture of the brain and mind, will provide the foundations for a radical new generation of machines which act more and more like humans. Such machines would become potentially much simpler to interact with and to use, more powerful and less error-prone, making them more valuable life-companions, whether for learning, information finding, physical support or entertainment. They might even be able to recognize even the best disguised spam email messages as easily as humans do!" The implication here is that AI will not suddenly appear on the scene at some indeterminate future time, but will gradually emerge, as more and more information-processing systems display more and more intelligence. AI will probably creep up on us gradually, rather than suddenly bursting forth from some lab. This view makes a lot of sense. Consider toys. Not so long ago, most children's toys were carved from wood. Now we have very sophisticated robotic toys that are starting to respond to voice commands, and display a variety of different behaviours. Toys for adults are even more sophisticated. We have robotic animals, humanoid fighting robots, even robots that can mow the lawn or vacuum the floor. Nobody calls Aibo or Roomba full-blown AI, but if you compare them with a wooden rocking horse or a bristle broom, they are remarkably intelligent. This trend will only continue. One day, we will realise that our children's toys are just as bright as a pet dog or cat, and a lot of the information systems that we use will incorporate elements of the kind of cognitive processing that we currently regard as uniquely human. By the time robots and computer systems display what we call general intelligence, nobody will be surprised, because they will have gradually emerged from systems that everyone is used to. Things like agent software that seeks the best prices for aeroplane tickets, PDAs that learn your habits and preferences, collaborative embedded systems that track the movements of millions of items and people, and co-ordinate traffic flow systems, ordering of goods, etc. And toys. All getting smarter and smarter, month by month. So it's possible that one day, it will be somebodys teddy bear that will be the thing waking up and saying to itself "Crikey, I'm Me!!", and not some purpose-designed massive computer. What do you reckon. Will AI be the descendant of computer research programs in academic labs, or will their ancestors be dolls that blink and wet themselves, and lawnmowers? ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 2 23:55:55 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Missing CO2 Found In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202164633.01a83848@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041202235555.26089.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.physorg.com/news2211.html Holy Carbon Compounds Batman! Oak trees found to be squirrelling away carbon in soil. Future climate change projections must therefore be downgraded.... ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 00:04:45 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:04:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] New (but mistaken) article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <20041202165030.74306.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041203000445.46470.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > > Quit writing responses to this here. If you're > > going to spend the effort, > > write letters to the editor. > > Good suggestion. I have. SO have I. I suggested he look into Tielhard des Chardins theology before he pass judgement on transhumanism. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 01:09:47 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:09:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spaghetti, anyone? In-Reply-To: <20041202235555.26089.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041203010947.37351.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.helixmaterial.com/product.html Get'cha carbon nanotubes heah! Real cheap, high purity nanotubes! ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From dgc at cox.net Fri Dec 3 01:23:40 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:23:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New article against transhumanism In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041202004635.01c1aca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c5204120121553bfac884@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041202000510.01c02d18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5204120122275ea9b96f@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041202004635.01c1aca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41AFC01C.5060507@cox.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:27 AM 12/2/2004 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 asked of the Crazy Years: > >> Which Heinlein's book is that? > > > Many of them. It's a key element in his Future History, charted in the > 1940s. > > Damien Broderick Most obviously, in "revolt in 2100." However, as Damien says, it permeates the future history. Heinlien specifically states that he did not write a story situated precisely at the time of rise of the theocracy because it would be too depressing. Therefore, we have stores before the rise, and "Revolt in 2100" at the end of the theocracy, but very little of the period itself. Slightly off-topic. If you are a Heinlein fan and you have not yet read "For us the Living" Go buy it NOW. This is a recently published manuscript from the beginning of Heinlein's writing career, and it is critical to understanding many of the precedents to the Heinlein universe. It is in the form of a novel, but Commentary in the book by Spider Robinson argues forcefully that it is more (and less) than a novel. It is difficult to find anything in the entire Heinlein corpus that is not presaged in this manuscript. From dgc at cox.net Fri Dec 3 01:44:36 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:44:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic In-Reply-To: <20041127042242.4DF5157E2B@finney.org> References: <20041127042242.4DF5157E2B@finney.org> Message-ID: <41AFC504.4070009@cox.net> I have a major difficulty with the simulation argument. As a practical matter, I try to apply logic and an few meta-logical principles to my thought processes. As a matter of "faith" I accept the following: 1) Symbolic logic and it underpinnings. 2) The Peano postulates 3) Popper's concept of falsifiability 4) Occam's razor. In that order. As a result, I have ignored the "simulation argument" thread almost entirely. I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I am living in a simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I must apply the next principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not living in a simulation. Based on the four principles above, I am an atheist, using the following operational definition of atheism: I have observed nothing in my universe that is more easily explained by the existence of a God than is explained by the absence of a God. From harara at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 3 01:45:04 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:45:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> By Moore's Law: Current Desktop, 3 Gflops Ratio 70000/3 = 23.3x10^4 Moore's law is about 10^2 per decade, so about 22 years. walter kehowski wrote: >How long 'till the desktop model? ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 3 02:19:38 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 02:19:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic In-Reply-To: <41AFC504.4070009@cox.net> References: <20041127042242.4DF5157E2B@finney.org> <41AFC504.4070009@cox.net> Message-ID: <41AFCD3A.3010308@neopax.com> Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I have a major difficulty with the simulation argument. As a practical > matter, > I try to apply logic and an few meta-logical principles to my thought > processes. > > As a matter of "faith" I accept the following: > 1) Symbolic logic and it underpinnings. > 2) The Peano postulates > 3) Popper's concept of falsifiability > 4) Occam's razor. > > In that order. > > As a result, I have ignored the "simulation argument" thread almost > entirely. > > I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I am > living in a > simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I must > apply the next > principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not living > in a simulation. > I apply Occam's Razor and deduce the opposite. > Based on the four principles above, I am an atheist, using the > following operational > definition of atheism: > I have observed nothing in my universe that is more easily explained > by the > existence of a God than is explained by the absence of a God. That rather depends on how 'God' is defined. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 3 02:21:36 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 02:21:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41AFCDB0.7000707@neopax.com> Hara Ra wrote: > By Moore's Law: > > Current Desktop, 3 Gflops > Ratio 70000/3 = 23.3x10^4 > Moore's law is about 10^2 per decade, so about 22 years. > Cray 1 - 100 MFLPOS - 1975 PC - 100 MFLOPS - 1997 Seems about right. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 3 02:53:03 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:53:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes In-Reply-To: <41AF6918.2040808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <014601c4d8e3$359b4300$6501a8c0@SHELLY> > ben > What will the pro-lifers do when we have the ability to take a single > somatic cell and turn it into a person? Every cell a potential life!... At a pro-choice rally, a young woman dressed up as an elderly nun. She carried a sign which read: SAVE EVERY SPERM! {8^D spike From dgc at cox.net Fri Dec 3 03:02:47 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:02:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic In-Reply-To: <41AFCD3A.3010308@neopax.com> References: <20041127042242.4DF5157E2B@finney.org> <41AFC504.4070009@cox.net> <41AFCD3A.3010308@neopax.com> Message-ID: <41AFD757.7090205@cox.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Dan Clemmensen wrote: > >> I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I am >> living in a >> simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I must >> apply the next >> principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not >> living in a simulation. >> > I apply Occam's Razor and deduce the opposite. A simulation implies the existence of an entire simulation infrastructure. How is this "simpler" (in Ocams's sense) than the non0existence of a simulation? In classical terms, when you assume a simulation you must assume the existence of the entire infrastructure (unknowable to you) that supports the simulation. You are postulating the existence of an entire new plane of existence which is at least as complex as the plane we (the inhabitants of the simulation) perceive. By definition, the rules governing th covering plane are at least as complex as those on our plane, so you are violating Occam's razor. >> Based on the four principles above, I am an atheist, using the >> following operational >> definition of atheism: >> I have observed nothing in my universe that is more easily >> explained by the >> existence of a God than is explained by the absence of a God. > > > That rather depends on how 'God' is defined. > Please describe an observable phenomenon that is more easily explained by the existance of a God than by the operation of a universe that does not include a god, however defined. Note that you will need to define your God in the context of the enclosing universe. Most people who accept this challenge end up with an operational definition of "God" as "that entity that controls the portion of reality for which science currently has no explanation." If you choose to define your personal set of otherwise-unexplained phenomena in this fashion, please feel free to do so, but do not expect me to be convinced by your arguments. From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 06:44:18 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:44:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pioneering medical treatment in China Message-ID: <470a3c5204120222444ebb7d66@mail.gmail.com> This very interesting development in China has been in the news for a couple of days. Dr Huang Hongyun cultivates the cells of aborted foetuses and injects them into the brains and spines of his patients. His method is controversial, but his results have led hundreds of westerners to his Beijing surgery. Some have been in wheelchairs for years and believe he can help them walk; others are kept alive by respirators, yet hope he can make them breathe. The voiceless have heard he can bring them speech. The terminally ill seek nothing less than more life. They come in search of one of the most pioneering - and controversial - medical procedures on the planet: the injection of cells from aborted foetuses into the brains and spines of the sick. And the object of their faith is a Chinese surgeon who spent many of his university years labouring as a peasant and is now conducting trial-and-error experiments on live subjects despite his research being rejected by the western medical establishment. Dr Huang Hongyun promises nothing. He claims no miracle cure. He admits he cannot fully explain his results. All he knows, and all he tells his patients, is that his method often works, that the results speak for themselves. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1363260,00.html Video coverage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianfilms/china From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 08:38:56 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:38:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <41AF94A5.60701@lineone.net> References: <200412021900.iB2J0B029613@tick.javien.com> <41AF94A5.60701@lineone.net> Message-ID: <470a3c52041203003833431a71@mail.gmail.com> Probably a mix of the two. Toys and lawnmowers may someday wake up feeling like themselves, but this will be a result of computer research programs in academic labs. So AIs will come out of the game industry, but when the game industry has been "made pregnant" by academic labs. So computer research programs in academic labs will be the father of AIs, and the game industry their mother. G. On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:18:13 +0000, ben wrote: > Here's a thought: > So it's possible that one day, it will be somebodys teddy bear that will > be the thing waking up and saying to itself "Crikey, I'm Me!!", and not > some purpose-designed massive computer. > > What do you reckon. Will AI be the descendant of computer research > programs in academic labs, or will their ancestors be dolls that blink > and wet themselves, and lawnmowers? > > ben From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 3 12:10:47 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:10:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:45:04PM -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > By Moore's Law: > > Current Desktop, 3 Gflops > Ratio 70000/3 = 23.3x10^4 > Moore's law is about 10^2 per decade, so about 22 years. Moore's law doesn't apply to computer performance. Only integration density. http://www.theregister.com/2004/11/29/ibm_sony_cell_debut/ mentiones vaporware specs, which is even more meaningless than theoretical peak. It's going to be very hard to achieve anything spectacular with hardware-agnostic codes. Of course, they promised a PC with PS2 before. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 3 12:11:39 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:11:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pioneering medical treatment in China In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204120222444ebb7d66@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5204120222444ebb7d66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41B057FB.8070806@neopax.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >This very interesting development in China has been in the news for a >couple of days. >Dr Huang Hongyun cultivates the cells of aborted foetuses and injects >them into the brains and spines of his patients. His method is >controversial, but his results have led hundreds of westerners to his >Beijing surgery. >Some have been in wheelchairs for years and believe he can help them >walk; others are kept alive by respirators, yet hope he can make them >breathe. The voiceless have heard he can bring them speech. The >terminally ill seek nothing less than more life. >They come in search of one of the most pioneering - and controversial >- medical procedures on the planet: the injection of cells from >aborted foetuses into the brains and spines of the sick. And the >object of their faith is a Chinese surgeon who spent many of his >university years labouring as a peasant and is now conducting >trial-and-error experiments on live subjects despite his research >being rejected by the western medical establishment. >Dr Huang Hongyun promises nothing. He claims no miracle cure. He >admits he cannot fully explain his results. All he knows, and all he >tells his patients, is that his method often works, that the results >speak for themselves. >http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1363260,00.html >Video coverage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianfilms/china >_______________________________________________ > > You missed the most interesting bit: "Among them is Van Golden, a Christian, anti-abortion Texan who has sold his house so that he can travel to communist, atheist China and have Huang inject a million cells from the nasal area of a foetus into his spine. According to Golden's doctors, his spine was damaged beyond repair in a car crash last Christmas. The damage to his nervous system was so bad that he has been in a wheelchair and racked by spasms ever since. But Golden refused to give up, even if it meant having to compromise his values. "This is the only place that offered us any hope," he says. "Everyone else offered only to help make me sufficient in that chair. But the chair is not my destiny. It is not ordained."" Even hardcore opposition crumbles when the "what's in it for me" factor is big enough. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 3 12:31:54 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:31:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:45:04PM -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > > >>By Moore's Law: >> >>Current Desktop, 3 Gflops >>Ratio 70000/3 = 23.3x10^4 >>Moore's law is about 10^2 per decade, so about 22 years. >> >> > >Moore's law doesn't apply to computer performance. Only integration density. > > > The two are very closely related. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 3 12:51:47 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:51:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:31:54PM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > The two are very closely related. No. There's improvement, but the gap is widening. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 3 12:59:28 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:59:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <41B06330.1020502@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:31:54PM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>The two are very closely related. >> >> > >No. There's improvement, but the gap is widening. > > > Depends. In the past reducing scale also meant increasing clock speed. Now it seems that processors are going parallel (something long overdue IMO) and clock speed is not going to increase as rapidly as in the past. Hence Moore's Law will be very closely linked to computing power. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 3 13:24:43 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:24:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <41B06330.1020502@neopax.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> <41B06330.1020502@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041203132443.GG9221@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:59:28PM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Depends. > In the past reducing scale also meant increasing clock speed. Clock speed is not system performance. Right now there are some severe speed bumps associated with structure shrink (leak currents) and heat dissipation. Successor technologies (carbon nanotube transistors) promise to solve that, but are currently lab unicates. It's not obvious you can grow useful arrays out of gas phase, and you sure can't put them in place individually. Self assembly doesn't seem to help here. > Now it seems that processors are going parallel (something long overdue They're not. The only COTS parallelism is at the CPU level (multicore, which is idiotic, since memory-starved) and individual system level (lousy latency, lousy bandwidth with current signalling mesh -- some improvements with Infiniband and 10 GBit direct memory access NICs, which give you ~us userland latency). None of this is relevant for typical nonscientific code. MPI is great, but nobody is using it outside of scientific supercomputing. No good parallel debuggers, either. And of course no parallel programmers, no code base, no nothing. Does it suck? And how. If you want to build affordable parallel systems with good performance, you have to put multiple cores with embedded memory and crossbars as well as signalling interconnect on die. You can't get conventional OS'ses into such tight memory spaces (though some very small practical systems exist both in industry and academia), and you sure can't build vanilla open source stuff on such highly parallel systems with tiny cores. All off-die memory access will be via signalling mesh, and hence expensive. If you could buy them, that is. Right now resources are only available during periods of positive cash flow, and are immediately dumped into new foundries, which need to be run at full load producing cash chips. Radical R&D is not available in the current climate. Things will only improve if you can scale down the costs of building and running the fabs. > IMO) and clock speed is not going to increase as rapidly as in the past. > Hence Moore's Law will be very closely linked to computing power. You're projecting our desires again. The reality is different, both the past, the present, and the near future. What will happen after that is not yet obvious. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 14:23:16 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:23:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic In-Reply-To: <41AFD757.7090205@cox.net> Message-ID: <20041203142316.66702.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >> I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I > am > >> living in a > >> simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I > must > >> apply the next > >> principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not > >> living in a simulation. > >> > > I apply Occam's Razor and deduce the opposite. > > A simulation implies the existence of an entire simulation > infrastructure. How is this "simpler" > (in Ocams's sense) than the non0existence of a simulation? > In classical terms, when you assume > a simulation you must assume the existence of the entire > infrastructure (unknowable to you) that > supports the simulation. You are postulating the existence of an > entire new plane of existence > which is at least as complex as the plane we (the inhabitants of the > simulation) perceive. By definition, > the rules governing th covering plane are at least as complex as > those on our plane, so you are violating Occam's razor. Now you are turning Occam's Razor into a circular argument like any good theist would be capable of. Physics is pretty clear that M-theory states that any given universe can be created either out of singularities in other universes, or out of some higher-level ten dimensional universe. The turtles are already on the table, according to physics. The only real question that the SA asks is how deeply the turtles are stacked. > > > Please describe an observable phenomenon that is more easily > explained by the existance of a God > than by the operation of a universe that does not include a god, > however defined. Note that you will > need to define your God in the context of the enclosing universe. Note those who say that there is no simulation operator are playing the Wizard of Oz game, demanding not only that there is Great and Powerful Wizard, but that there is also not a guy behind the curtain OR that there even is a curtain. M-theory and string theory already says that the curtain is there and it is wiggling. Who or what is behind it all is merely denied existence by atheists. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 14:46:19 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:46:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells and Philosophy Message-ID: <470a3c52041203064675799a5c@mail.gmail.com> Interesting article on Tech Central Station. Of course I don't agree with the evident preferences of the author, but the last paragraph is interesting: "The real debate signified by the stem cell controversy is only superficially about science. What is really at issue is philosophy, namely, What philosophy shall guide us? On one side we have those who propose a philosophy that has long gone by the name Utilitarianism. The other side (it must be admitted) is much more confused in its philosophical commitments, but I think we might tentatively name their philosophy as Natural Law. When men argue about stem cell research, if their arguments penetrate to any real depth, what they really controvert is the question of what philosophical system best approximates the truth about mankind and his lot here on earth. And if we are to adopt utilitarianism as our public philosophy, we must have a debate about philosophy, not science". Comment: Given this polarzation, I am definitely for utilitarianism. http://www.techcentralstation.com/120304D.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 15:04:56 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:04:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Tenet proposes internet tyranny Message-ID: <20041203150456.75138.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 15:13:08 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:13:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: <20041203132443.GG9221@leitl.org> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> <41B06330.1020502@neopax.com> <20041203132443.GG9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:24:43 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > You're projecting our desires again. The reality is different, both the past, > the present, and the near future. > > What will happen after that is not yet obvious. > Have you heard about Orion Multisystems? Press Release Aug 30, 2004: Specs: "Orion's DS-96 deskside Cluster Workstation has 96 nodes with 300 gigaflops (Gflops) peak performance (150 Gflops sustained), up to 192 gigabytes of memory and up to 9.6 terabytes of storage. It consumes less than 1500 watts and fits unobtrusively under a desk. Orion's DT-12 desktop Cluster Workstation has 12 nodes with 36 Gflops peak performance (18 Gflops sustained), up to 24 gigabytes of DDR SDRAM memory and up to 1 terabyte of internal disk storage. (1) The DT-12 consumes less than 220 watts and is scalable to 48 nodes by stacking up to four systems." Their 'big idea' is to put 12 processors on each board. Up to 36 Gflops on a desktop Linux cluster for 10,000 USD. Not too bad? The up-to-300 Gflops floor-standing box costs about 100,000 USD and is getting more towards the small super-computer range. Some progress? BillK From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Dec 3 15:18:21 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:18:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tenet proposes internet tyranny In-Reply-To: <20041203150456.75138.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041203150456.75138.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B083BD.7080402@humanenhancement.com> What, specifically, is the "tyrannical" part? Given the complete lack of details, it seems a bit premature to lable it "tyranny". Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com Mike Lorrey wrote: >http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r > >===== >Mike Lorrey > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 15:27:17 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:27:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Tenet proposes internet tyranny In-Reply-To: <41B083BD.7080402@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <20041203152717.78870.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> He proposes: a) national border firewalls controlled by governments b) licensing of internet users, and limiting licenses to 'trusted' persons who have demonstrated an understanding of and willingness to practice secure computing. c) taxing of internet users d) policing of internet users e) spying on internet users --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > What, specifically, is the "tyrannical" part? Given the complete lack > of details, it seems a bit premature to lable it "tyranny". ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 15:30:30 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:30:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <470a3c52041203003833431a71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20041203153030.79372.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> On this note, I'd expect the first AI to wake up will be a serial killing mutant naked undead hooker character in a video game. What a girl to take home to mom, eh? --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Probably a mix of the two. Toys and lawnmowers may someday wake up > feeling like themselves, but this will be a result of computer > research programs in academic labs. So AIs will come out of the game > industry, but when the game industry has been "made pregnant" by > academic labs. > So computer research programs in academic labs will be the father of > AIs, and the game industry their mother. > G. > > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:18:13 +0000, ben wrote: > > Here's a thought: > > > So it's possible that one day, it will be somebodys teddy bear that > will > > be the thing waking up and saying to itself "Crikey, I'm Me!!", and > not > > some purpose-designed massive computer. > > > > What do you reckon. Will AI be the descendant of computer research > > programs in academic labs, or will their ancestors be dolls that > blink > > and wet themselves, and lawnmowers? > > > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Dec 3 15:31:25 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:31:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tenet proposes internet tyranny In-Reply-To: <20041203152717.78870.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041203152717.78870.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B086CD.3040604@humanenhancement.com> You got all that out of that article? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com Mike Lorrey wrote: >He proposes: >a) national border firewalls controlled by governments >b) licensing of internet users, and limiting licenses to 'trusted' >persons who have demonstrated an understanding of and willingness to >practice secure computing. >c) taxing of internet users >d) policing of internet users >e) spying on internet users > >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > >>What, specifically, is the "tyrannical" part? Given the complete lack >>of details, it seems a bit premature to lable it "tyranny". >> >> > >===== >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! >http://my.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From metagenyx at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 15:32:41 2004 From: metagenyx at yahoo.com (Gaurav Gupta) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:32:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Project stopped - appologies for the previous email Message-ID: <20041203153241.86098.qmail@web61105.mail.yahoo.com> The CM project has been terminated as it has become too expensive to maintain. I appologize for taking precious minutes of your time by sending the previous email and appreciate all the feedback recieved. Thank you. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Fri Dec 3 15:45:41 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:45:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Project stopped - appologies for the previous email In-Reply-To: <20041203153241.86098.qmail@web61105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041203153241.86098.qmail@web61105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62FE2F5C-4542-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Gaurav: I assume you'll be refunding any money sent in the last few days :) best, patrick On 3 Dec 2004, at 16:32, Gaurav Gupta wrote: > > The CM project has been terminated as it has become > too expensive to maintain. I appologize for taking > precious minutes of your time by sending the previous > email and appreciate all the feedback recieved. Thank you. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From metagenyx at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 16:04:06 2004 From: metagenyx at yahoo.com (Gaurav Gupta) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:04:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Project stopped - appologies for the previous email In-Reply-To: <62FE2F5C-4542-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <20041203160406.82014.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> Obviously none was sent. --- Patrick Wilken wrote: > Gaurav: > > I assume you'll be refunding any money sent in the > last few days :) > > best, patrick > > > On 3 Dec 2004, at 16:32, Gaurav Gupta wrote: > > > > > The CM project has been terminated as it has > become > > too expensive to maintain. I appologize for taking > > precious minutes of your time by sending the > previous > > email and appreciate all the feedback recieved. > Thank you. > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > > http://my.yahoo.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 3 16:24:48 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:24:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] SUVs Message-ID: <008f01c4d954$9c58ebd0$60b32643@kevin> A news article about how 1 out of every 8 drivers in the US now has an SUV. And people wonder why gas has become so expensive? Kevin Freels -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 3 16:24:48 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:24:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 70 teraflops In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105160023.01ab0760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41AF6FDA.B301A97D@gcmail.maricopa.edu> <6.0.3.0.1.20041202174021.0295d848@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20041203121047.GB9221@leitl.org> <41B05CBA.7030805@neopax.com> <20041203125147.GE9221@leitl.org> <41B06330.1020502@neopax.com> <20041203132443.GG9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20041203162448.GO9221@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:13:08PM +0000, BillK wrote: > Their 'big idea' is to put 12 processors on each board. > Up to 36 Gflops on a desktop Linux cluster for 10,000 USD. Not too bad? They're using Transmeta Efficeon CPUs. While energy efficient, they're not suitable for most numerics work. Look at the very bottom of http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/2004-August/thread.html#10617 to see an exhaustive thread on why this is a very minor beer. This is something like beefed up http://www.slipperyskip.com/page10.html preconfigured with standard cluster stuff, from a commercial source. > The up-to-300 Gflops floor-standing box costs about 100,000 USD and is > getting more towards the small super-computer range. > > Some progress? Not really. The most interesting (caveat: lots of vapor) current development is the Cell processor. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~zimmons/CELL.ppt http://www.cs.unc.edu/~zimmons/Zimmons__CellGFX.ppt It would be a nice to see affordable consumer hardware not locked by DRM one could hook up into a cluster (a la http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ps2/index.php ). Something like a poor man's Blue Gene. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 3 16:47:52 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:47:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America Message-ID: I wrote: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 >Some of this is old and already discussed (here in the past), but I >think it is useful to see it presented in one place by a foreign >(nonUS) newspaper, and for another perspective. >http://www.corriere.it/english/editoriali/Gaggi/23_11_04.shtml and, responding to Mike Lorrey Fri, 26 Nov 2004, I wrote: >>Mike Lorrey: >>If there is such a visa clamp down, why is it that the pre-existing >>H1-B quota was exhausted on the first day of the fiscal year? (me) >Backlog from waiting for one or two years? >I don't know if you are questioning the basic premise of the article, >but for me it is old news, the visa restrictions have been written >about in the last years in all of the periodicals to which I subscribe. >For example, Physics Today was printing a new report on the visa >restrictions every few months. Nature and Science and The Economist >have printed articles once in a while on this topic too. You should >be able to find more information on the web. >Amara to which Mike Lorrey replied Fri, 26 Nov 2004: >I find the claims of corporations to be specious when there are many >thousands of highly trained Americans out of work because their jobs >have been offshored, downsized, reengineered, etc. >I have my own experience with the H1-B program and know that many >companies abuse the system. Many get bought by foreign interests that >want to ship their own people into the country, while in other >instances, professionals deliberately write job descriptions so >narrowly that they exclude any local people who are completely capable >of doing the work, so they can justify giving a person they are friends >with the job and get them into the US on an H1-B, or get a job for the >unmarried significant other of a person they are already bringing into >the country. This especially occurs quite frequently in academia. I >have seen it occuring frequently at Dartmouth, for instance. (So now, my response to the above.) From what you wrote, Mike, It looks to me like you don't know these sources. I will Ignore for the moment that the visa that I was describing is not the H1-B visa. Your criticism of 'corporation' is a pretty strange criticism to level against a loose organization of hundreds of thousands of scientists and technology oriented people. --------------------------------------------------------------- The publication "Physics Today" http://www.aip.org/pt/ is one of several published by the American Institute of Physics. If you're a associate member of one of the ten organizations below (I'm a member of the Amercan Astronomical Society), then you receive the magazine for free with your membership fee. I don't know exactly the circulation of Physics Today, but my guess is one or two hundred thousand. American Institute of Physics http://aip.org/aip/ The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is a 501(c)(3) membership corporation chartered in New York State in 1931 for the purpose of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare. [Tax information for Charitable Organizations http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html] It is the mission of the Institute to serve physics, astronomy, and related fields of science and technology by serving its Member Societies and their associates, individual scientists, educators, R&D leaders, and the general public with programs, services and publications - Information that matters?. http://aip.org/aip/societies.html About AIP AIP is a federation of ten Member Societies representing the spectrum of the physical sciences. AIP supports their efforts with print and e-publishing services, as well as a range of membership services and physics-related resources. In these ways AIP is able to amplify its Member Societies' common activities and create a united front to achieve shared goals. AIP also supports Affiliate status for other not-for-profit organizations interested in physics. American Physical Society Optical Society of America Acoustical Society of America Society of Rheology American Association of Physics Teachers American Crystallographic Association American Astronomical Society American Association of Physicists in Medicine AVS The Science & Technology Society American Geophysical Union --------------------------------------------------------------- Here's some information for you to learn about the other journals in which I read visa articles in the last years. Science News : http://www.sciencenews.org/ Science : http://www.sciencemag.org/ and Nature: http://www.nature.com/ I think that their journalists are very responsible, and I trust that they can back up their information properly. The Economist: http://www.economist.com/ When they wrote their latest visa story, the science and technology correspondent was querying the physics research usenet group, asking for people's experiences with visas. Usenet is invaluable for me for a source of science information, and I was happy to see one of The Economist editor utilizing that resource too. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Konstantin+Kakaes&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2004&selm=c07cf44b.0405030625.508d9955%40posting.google.com&rnum=1 These are the journals in which I saw articles about the visa problem. If you dig further in the mathematical, chemical, signal processing, etc. fields, I'm sure you will find my small sample multiplied in their professional societies and journals. Friends and colleagues at universities and research institutions have told me their stories as well. Go to a university or research institution and ask questions if you don't trust any of these sources I've given, and learn for yourself. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 3 17:31:21 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:31:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org><016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001> <6.2.0.14.2.20041202144441.02c3ea98@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <005a01c4d95d$f5715e10$d8f54d0c@hal2001> "Robin Hanson" > The many worlds interpretation does not require an infinity > of worlds or beings. Yes but it's not clear to me that it forbids an infinity of worlds either. And even if Many Worlds is wrong there could still be an infinite number of real super civilizations; the observable universe is finite but the entire universe is certainly much larger, possibly infinitely larger. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Fri Dec 3 17:41:40 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:41:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <005a01c4d95d$f5715e10$d8f54d0c@hal2001> References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org><016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001> <6.2.0.14.2.20041202144441.02c3ea98@mail.gmu.edu> <005a01c4d95d$f5715e10$d8f54d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <96B9BD4A-4552-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> On 3 Dec 2004, at 18:31, John K Clark wrote: > Yes but it's not clear to me that it forbids an infinity of worlds > either. > And even if Many Worlds is wrong there could still be an infinite > number of > real super civilizations; the observable universe is finite but the > entire > universe is certainly much larger, possibly infinitely larger. John: But there has been a finite amount of time since the Big Bang. The the universe might be bigger than we can see, but not infinitely so. I had thought astronomers had seen pretty close to the beginning of things. best, patrick From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 3 17:57:52 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:57:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org><016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001><6.2.0.14.2.20041202144441.02c3ea98@mail.gmu.edu><005a01c4d95d$f5715e10$d8f54d0c@hal2001> <96B9BD4A-4552-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <014a01c4d961$9c9f7ed0$60b32643@kevin> You are assuming of course that the Big Bang is the beginning of things. It could very well be just some point in the grand scheme of things. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wilken" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument > > On 3 Dec 2004, at 18:31, John K Clark wrote: > > Yes but it's not clear to me that it forbids an infinity of worlds > > either. > > And even if Many Worlds is wrong there could still be an infinite > > number of > > real super civilizations; the observable universe is finite but the > > entire > > universe is certainly much larger, possibly infinitely larger. > > John: > > But there has been a finite amount of time since the Big Bang. The the > universe might be bigger than we can see, but not infinitely so. I had > thought astronomers had seen pretty close to the beginning of things. > > best, patrick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 3 18:08:04 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:08:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <20041202170910.0500457E2D@finney.org><016601c4d8a0$f51a1230$2cf44d0c@hal2001><6.2.0.14.2.20041202144441.02c3ea98@mail.gmu.edu><005a01c4d95d$f5715e10$d8f54d0c@hal2001> <96B9BD4A-4552-11D9-8FC2-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <00d001c4d963$25500f50$d8f54d0c@hal2001> "Patrick Wilken" > But there has been a finite amount of time since the Big Bang. The > universe might be bigger than we can see, but not infinitely so. No, the time constraint only limits the observable universe. The Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago so the observable universe (for us) is a sphere centered on the Earth with a radius of 13.8 billion light years, we can look at 2 galaxies 13.8 billion light years away and 180 degrees apart but neither can see the other because they are not in their observable universe. If the most popular version of the theory is correct (the inflation theory) the Big Bang was just a time when for a very short instant space expanded at an exponential rate. Perhaps space was finite when all this happened, perhaps not. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 18:28:10 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:28:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] SUVs In-Reply-To: <008f01c4d954$9c58ebd0$60b32643@kevin> Message-ID: <20041203182810.9317.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> --- Kevin Freels wrote: > A news article about how 1 out of every 8 drivers in the US now has > an SUV. And people wonder why gas has become so expensive? This is a statement without supporting facts. What is the average milage of the market as a whole? How has this changed over the past decade, year by year? How has the overall number of vehicles changed over the years? Gas has become expensive, dollar wise (most other countries have not seen nearly the same rise in prices), specifically because the devaluation of the dollar on world markets in the order of 40% or more over the past year. Objectively speaking, though, it's true price is actually lower than it was at the time of the invasion of Iraq due to overproduction. For example, the weighted average price for Iranian crude (light sweet and heavy sour) is under $34.50/bbl. Adjusting this price for the change in exchange rates from two years ago, this price is equal to about $20.00/bbl in late 2002. If you look at the records from that time, oil prices then were about $28.00-32.00/bbl. The facts are that people are driving and flying less than back then. People have gotten exasperated with everything short of cavity checks at airports, and internal INS roadblocks on the nation's highways, and are changing their travelling behavior, which is why a number of airlines are in major financial trouble right now. What has happened is that we've finally achieved a more accurate dollar exchange rate, after decades of having it bouyed up by other nations parasitizing off of our economic stability by pegging and backing their own currencies to ours. Our products are now more competetive overseas, and might become more-so when China shifts its monetary linkage to a mixed basket. If China takes it slow, we will be able to shift a major part of our automobile usage to hybrid vehicles without detrimental effects of further devaluation. The shift will reduce consumption, further decreasing demand and lowering prices for oil, while at the same time help extend the utility of the Strategic Oil Reserve. Regarding China, I shall note that China has launched the newest nuclear sub, capable of carrying its first generation of solid fuelled ICBMs, which, when deployed, will be capable of striking any point in the US with multiple reentry vehicles. While this vessel is undergoing testing, the missile has had test failures but is still in development. When this weapons system is fully functional and deployed off the western US coast, we will not be able to support Taiwan against Chinese invasion, unless we have a significant deployment of SDI capacity along our coasts, and a significant improvement of our anti-sub capabilities. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 18:38:40 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:38:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <00d001c4d963$25500f50$d8f54d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <20041203183840.18156.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Patrick Wilken" > > > But there has been a finite amount of time since the Big Bang. The > > universe might be bigger than we can see, but not infinitely so. > > No, the time constraint only limits the observable universe. The Big > Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago so the observable universe > (for us) is a sphere centered on the Earth with a radius of 13.8 > billion light years, we can look at 2 galaxies 13.8 billion light > years away and 180 degrees apart but neither can see the other > because they are not in their observable universe. It's more than that. We can see 13.8 billion ly in each direction. Those galaxies, proto-galaxies, etc are now 13.7999 billion ly further away (since the light we see now was created 13.8 billion years ago), so the diameter of the universe is now ~54 billion ly not counting stuff that was zooming out before it could generate quantities of point light sources. Counting that stuff, its about 60 billion ly across. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From natashavita at earthlink.net Fri Dec 3 18:42:15 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:42:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Two-point datasets for Life Extension or Future Topic Message-ID: <184670-220041253184215503@M2W081.mail2web.com> Hi - Does anyone have an example of a two-point dataset that relates to life extension (doesn't matter in what way, but it needs to be a two-point dataset); or something else futuristic? Please email me off list. Thanks Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 18:46:57 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:46:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041203184657.12564.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote:> > From what you wrote, Mike, It looks to me like you don't know these > sources. I will Ignore for the moment that the visa that I was > describing is not the H1-B visa. Your criticism of 'corporation' is a > pretty strange criticism to level against a loose organization of > hundreds of thousands of scientists and technology oriented people. If the US gov't has finally started clamping down on academic visas, I say it is a glorious day for US college students. They can finally look forward to classes taught by assistant profs and grad students who can speak english understandably. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Fri Dec 3 19:28:48 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:28:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI Message-ID: <20041203192848.E860B57E2D@finney.org> My guess is that AI will indeed emerge gradually. Even the fans of self-improving AI systems may agree that before the AI can start making a significant contribution to improving itself, it must attain human level competence in at least such fields as programming and AI. This accomplishment must occur without the help of the AI itself and would seem to be a minimum before bootstrapping and exponential takeoff could hope to occur. Yet achieving this goal will be an amazing milestone with repurcussions all through society, even if the self-improvement never works. And as we approach this goal everyone will be aware of it, and of the new presence of human-level capability in machines. Given such a trajectory, I suspect that we will see regulation of AI as a threatening technology, following the patterns of biotech regulation and the incipient nanotech regulation. Recall that these made up the troika of terror in Bill Joy's seminal Wired article. AI threatens the economy by taking away jobs, and it threatens humanity if it can achieve not just human-level, but genius-level intelligence and beyond. AI systems are almost always painted as sinister and threatening in science fiction movies, going all the way back to the Golem. Maybe wrapping it in a fuzzy exterior will help, child robots and talking dogs: "Hello, I'm Rags, woof, woof". But the reality is that people are going to be working side by side with these systems, and I think that is how they will base their conception of them as helpful or dangerous. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 19:21:33 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:21:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <20041203192848.E860B57E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041203192133.89375.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote:> > Maybe wrapping it in a fuzzy exterior will help, child robots and > talking > dogs: "Hello, I'm Rags, woof, woof". But the reality is that people > are going to be working side by side with these systems, and I think > that is how they will base their conception of them as helpful or > dangerous. Yes. Creating personality modules that, at least, mimic a personality that is non-threatening (teddy bear, sexy female, child's voice, etc) is the key to limiting or preventing proscriptive regulation. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From sjatkins at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 22:10:14 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:10:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004 In-Reply-To: <001001c4cf31$a802f610$da494842@kevin> References: <419D5C3A.2030201@pobox.com> <001001c4cf31$a802f610$da494842@kevin> Message-ID: <948b11e041203141060a7af2d@mail.gmail.com> Hmm. I never really looked at life that negatively except briefly in my late teens. Life is what happens between birth and death. It is full of a lot of opportunity for enjoyment and happiness while it lasts. It is the only place any possibility of such or of any good exists. Whether it ends soon or lasts indefinitely long this is still true. I've never understood focusing only on death or on suffering as being what says whether life has any meaning or not. Life is where any and all "meaning" dwells. Life *is* Meaning. -samantha On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:49:24 -0600, Kevin Freels wrote: > > > > > What would it be like to be a rational atheist in the fifteenth century, > > > and know beyond all hope of rescue that everyone you loved would be > > > annihilated, one after another, unless you yourself died first? That is > > > still the fate of humans today; the ongoing horror has not changed, for > all > > > that we have hope. Death is not a distant dream, not a terrible tragedy > > > that happens to someone else like the stories you read in newspapers. > > > > Take any century prior to this one. I often wonder if that isn't exactly > what happened with Alexander, Genghis Khan, or more recently, Hitler and > Stalin. History is full of such people. They may have simply went nuts after > thinking this through and finding that there was nothing they could do and > that life did not matter. Fortunately we are now on the verge of the ability > to put an end to this. Now is the time to push dorward, not give up. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sentience at pobox.com Fri Dec 3 22:49:22 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:49:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <20041203192848.E860B57E2D@finney.org> References: <20041203192848.E860B57E2D@finney.org> Message-ID: <41B0ED72.3000306@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > My guess is that AI will indeed emerge gradually. Even the fans of > self-improving AI systems may agree that before the AI can start making > a significant contribution to improving itself, it must attain human > level competence in at least such fields as programming and AI. Not so. Human competence isn't a level, it's an idiosyncratic flavor. And if one chose the theory (un)wisely, the spark of recursive self-improvement might begin at a level far short of human. Consider that mere natural selection was sufficient to give rise to human intelligence. > This accomplishment must occur without the help of the AI itself AI help is not binary, all-or-nothing. It's a growing degree of assistance. > and would seem to be a minimum before bootstrapping and exponential > takeoff could hope to occur. > > Yet achieving this goal will be an amazing milestone with repurcussions > all through society, even if the self-improvement never works. And as > we approach this goal everyone will be aware of it, and of the new > presence of human-level capability in machines. In theory, SI can pop up with little or nothing in the way of visible commercial spinoffs from the lead AGI project. In practice this may well be the case. > Given such a trajectory, I suspect that we will see regulation of AI as > a threatening technology, following the patterns of biotech regulation > and the incipient nanotech regulation. The Singularity Institute has had great success in getting people, both ordinary folks and AGI researchers, to spend the 15 seconds necessary to think up an excuse why they needn't bother to do anything inconvenient. This holds true whether the inconvenient part is thinking about FAI or just thinking about AI at all; that which is no fun is not done. If AI has a high enough profile, we could see millions or even billions of people taking 15 seconds to think up an excuse for not paying attention. To understand the way the world works, consider cryonics. Death was defeated in the 1970s. No one cared because cryonics sounded sort of weird. People don't need to search very hard for excuses not to think, if they must satisfy only themselves. Human-level AI sounds weird, ergo no one will care until after it happens. Human-level AI will happen for around 30 seconds before the AI zips past human level. After that it will be too late. The matter of the Singularity will be settled in brief crystal moments, the threatening blade of extinction and the attempted parry of FAI. The last desperate battle will be conducted in its entirety by a small handful of programmers. The war will be won by deathly cowardice or lost without a fight by well-meaning bravery, on the battlefield of a brain in a box in a basement somewhere. The world will find out after it's over, if any survive. I do not know the future, but that is what I would guess. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 3 23:05:58 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:05:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Phil Dick arrives in Iraq Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041203170422.019d62b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Hunting for guerillas, handling roadside bombs, crawling across the caves and crumbling towns of Afghanistan and Iraq -- all of that was just a start. Now, the Army is prepping its squad of robotic vehicles for a new set of assignments. And this time, they'll be carrying guns. As early as March or April, 18 units of the Talon -- a model armed with automatic weapons -- are scheduled to report for duty in Iraq. Around the same time, the first prototypes of a new, unmanned ambulance should be ready for the Army to start testing. In a warren of hangar-sized hotel ballrooms in Orlando, military engineers this week showed off their next generation of robots, as they got the machines ready for the war zone. [etc] From hal at finney.org Sat Dec 4 00:23:36 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI Message-ID: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> Eliezer writes: > Hal Finney wrote: > > My guess is that AI will indeed emerge gradually. Even the fans of > > self-improving AI systems may agree that before the AI can start making > > a significant contribution to improving itself, it must attain human > > level competence in at least such fields as programming and AI. > > Not so. Human competence isn't a level, it's an idiosyncratic flavor. What is an idiosyncratic flavor? > And > if one chose the theory (un)wisely, the spark of recursive self-improvement > might begin at a level far short of human. Consider that mere natural > selection was sufficient to give rise to human intelligence. Yes, natural selection gave rise to human intelligence, but only by an exceedingly slow and roundabout path. And there are some who suggest that it was almost infinitely unlikely. See http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html and http://hanson.gmu.edu/hardstep.pdf . Presumably any effort to develop AI will not work by such a haphazard method, but will involve skill and effort devoted towards a specific goal. The record of many failed projects makes clear that creating AI is a tremendously difficult task for beings of merely human intelligence. I don't see how an AI with a competence level far short of human at tasks such as programming or designing AI systems could be of significant help. > In theory, SI can pop up with little or nothing in the way of visible > commercial spinoffs from the lead AGI project. In practice this may well > be the case. What skills would the fledgling AI have that would contribute materially to the project in a way that a human could not, but which would not find commercial value? > > Given such a trajectory, I suspect that we will see regulation of AI as > > a threatening technology, following the patterns of biotech regulation > > and the incipient nanotech regulation. > > The Singularity Institute has had great success in getting people, both > ordinary folks and AGI researchers, to spend the 15 seconds necessary to > think up an excuse why they needn't bother to do anything inconvenient. > This holds true whether the inconvenient part is thinking about FAI or just > thinking about AI at all; that which is no fun is not done. If AI has a > high enough profile, we could see millions or even billions of people > taking 15 seconds to think up an excuse for not paying attention. > > To understand the way the world works, consider cryonics. Death was > defeated in the 1970s. No one cared because cryonics sounded sort of > weird. People don't need to search very hard for excuses not to think, if > they must satisfy only themselves. I don't understand the relevance of this to the question of whether AI will be regulated. > Human-level AI sounds weird, ergo no one will care until after it happens. > Human-level AI will happen for around 30 seconds before the AI zips past > human level. After that it will be too late. Are you serious? 30 seconds, once the AI reaches human level? What on earth could yet another human-level contributor to the team accomplish in that time? > The matter of the Singularity will be settled in brief crystal moments, the > threatening blade of extinction and the attempted parry of FAI. The last > desperate battle will be conducted in its entirety by a small handful of > programmers. The war will be won by deathly cowardice or lost without a > fight by well-meaning bravery, on the battlefield of a brain in a box in a > basement somewhere. The world will find out after it's over, if any > survive. I do not know the future, but that is what I would guess. I don't see how it can happen so quickly. I envision a team with several key members and an AI, where the AI gradually begins making a useful contribution of its own. Eventually it becomes so capable that it is doing more than the rest of the team, and from that point its competence could, conceivably, grow exponentially. But I don't see any reason why this process would go as fast as you describe. Hal From sentience at pobox.com Sat Dec 4 01:31:08 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:31:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> Message-ID: <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > Eliezer writes: > >>Hal Finney wrote: >> >>>My guess is that AI will indeed emerge gradually. Even the fans of >>>self-improving AI systems may agree that before the AI can start making >>>a significant contribution to improving itself, it must attain human >>>level competence in at least such fields as programming and AI. >> >>Not so. Human competence isn't a level, it's an idiosyncratic flavor. > > What is an idiosyncratic flavor? I mean that "human competence" at programming isn't a level like 83.4, it's a set of very weird and unusual things that humans do, at the end of which one finds a program that could almost certainly have been attained through far more direct and efficient means, plus it wouldn't have all the bugs. >>And >>if one chose the theory (un)wisely, the spark of recursive self-improvement >>might begin at a level far short of human. Consider that mere natural >>selection was sufficient to give rise to human intelligence. > > Yes, natural selection gave rise to human intelligence, but only by an > exceedingly slow and roundabout path. And there are some who suggest > that it was almost infinitely unlikely. See > http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html and > http://hanson.gmu.edu/hardstep.pdf . But are the hard steps points along the evolutionary trajectory? And are the hard steps things like: "First genetic code happens to have 64 codons which will eventually end up with 20 amino acids"? > Presumably any effort to develop AI will not work by such a haphazard > method, but will involve skill and effort devoted towards a specific goal. Indeed so. > The record of many failed projects makes clear that creating AI is a > tremendously difficult task for beings of merely human intelligence. No; they didn't know what they were doing. It is not that they knew exactly what they were doing, and failed anyway, because even with perfect theoretical understanding the pragmatic problem was too hard. They threw themselves at the problem without a clue and went splat. Every scientific problem is unsolved for thousands of years before it is solved; chemistry, astronomy. You cannot conclude from present difficulties that it is impossible for a 99th-percentile geek in Mudville, Idaho to create an AI on his home computer, if the state of knowledge of Artificial Intelligence had reached the maturity of today's chemistry or astronomy. > I don't see how an AI with a competence level far short of human at tasks > such as programming or designing AI systems could be of significant help. Even having a "compiler" is a hugely significant help. >>Human-level AI sounds weird, ergo no one will care until after it happens. >>Human-level AI will happen for around 30 seconds before the AI zips past >>human level. After that it will be too late. > > Are you serious? 30 seconds, once the AI reaches human level? What on > earth could yet another human-level contributor to the team accomplish > in that time? "Human level" is an idiosyncratic flavor. I am talking about an AI that is passing through "roughly humanish breadth of generally applicable intelligence if not to humanish things". At this time I expect the AI to be smack dab in the middle of the hard takeoff, and already writing code at AI timescales. >>The matter of the Singularity will be settled in brief crystal moments, the >>threatening blade of extinction and the attempted parry of FAI. The last >>desperate battle will be conducted in its entirety by a small handful of >>programmers. The war will be won by deathly cowardice or lost without a >>fight by well-meaning bravery, on the battlefield of a brain in a box in a >>basement somewhere. The world will find out after it's over, if any >>survive. I do not know the future, but that is what I would guess. > > I don't see how it can happen so quickly. I envision a team with several > key members and an AI, where the AI gradually begins making a useful > contribution of its own. Eventually it becomes so capable that it is > doing more than the rest of the team, and from that point its competence > could, conceivably, grow exponentially. But I don't see any reason why > this process would go as fast as you describe. Because the AI is nothing remotely like the other team members. It is not like an extra coder on the project. You can't even view it as a separate contributor to itself. The AI's competence defines the pattern of the AI. When the AI's competence increases, the whole pattern - implementation, if perhaps not structure - of the AI changes. You can't expect that the AI will sit down and try to rewrite a module. The more relevant capabilities, among those the AI possesses at a given time, are those which operate on a timescale permitting them to be applied to the entire AI at once. Slower capabilities would be used to rewrite global ones, or forked and distributed onto more hardware, or used to rewrite themselves to a speed where they become globally applicable. The AI is not like a human. If you visualize a set of modules yielding capabilities that turn back and rewrite the modules, and play with the possibilities, you will not get any slow curves out of it. You will get sharp breakthroughs and bottlenecks a human has to overcome, and a final sharp breakthrough that carries the AI to nanotech and beyond. An FAI researcher might deliberately choose to slow down that final breakthrough. AGI researchers seem uninterested in doing so, though most are willing to invest 15 seconds in thinking up a reason why they need not care right now. (Sometimes it's okay to care in the indefinite future, just never this minute.) The more you know about AI, the less anthropomorphic your expectations will be, because a novice must imagine by analogy to humans with strange mental modifications, rather than rethinking the nature of mind (recursively self-improving optimization processes) from scratch. The interaction between the AI rewriting itself and the programmers poking and prodding the AI from outside will not resemble adding a human to the team. The trajectory of the AI will not be a comfortably slow and steady timescale. The AI will never be humanishly intelligent, and if you pick an arbitrary metric of intelligence the AI will be "human-level" for around thirty seconds in the middle of the final hard takeoff. (Barring a deliberate slowdown by FAI programmers; we speak now of the "natural" character of the trajectory, and the security risk.) Expect the AI's self-programming abilities to resemble not at all the slow grinding of unreliable human metaphor. The faster the AI's abilities operate relative to human ones, the less arbitrarily defined "intelligence" the optimization process needs to spark a takeoff. This would lower the critical threshold below human intelligence, even leaving out the advantages of AI, the ability to run thousands of different cognitive threads on distributed hardware, and above all the recursive nature of self-improvement (which, this point has to keep on being hammered home, is absolutely unlike anything in human experience). A lot of this is in section III of LOGI. Consider rereading it. http://singinst.org/LOGI/. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Dec 4 04:11:29 2004 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:11:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:31 PM 03/12/04 -0500, Eliezer wrote: >Hal Finney wrote: snip >>Are you serious? 30 seconds, once the AI reaches human level? What on >>earth could yet another human-level contributor to the team accomplish >>in that time? > >"Human level" is an idiosyncratic flavor. I am talking about an AI that >is passing through "roughly humanish breadth of generally applicable >intelligence if not to humanish things". At this time I expect the AI to >be smack dab in the middle of the hard takeoff, and already writing code >at AI timescales. I have a strong emotional inclination to support Hal's view rather than Eliezer's apocalyptic view. However . . . . About two years ago there was that virus, I forget the name, that infected something like 75,000 vulnerable Microsoft database machines that were connected to the Internet. Made a mess of the net for a few days till the machines were taken off line and patched. But what's important about this episode and possibly provides an instructive real world example for AI timing is that the number of infected machines was later analyzed from the records to have a doubling time of 8.5 plus or minus one second. People just can't react to a threat that comes "out of the blue" this fast. If an AI was smart enough to write a virus to take over machines and its intelligence was proportional to "cortical area" (processor cycles) and it "wanted" to get smart fast . . . . . :-( Keith Henson From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Dec 4 04:18:26 2004 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:18:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> Was that the "I love you" virus? Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org My New Project: Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI At 08:31 PM 03/12/04 -0500, Eliezer wrote: >Hal Finney wrote: snip >>Are you serious? 30 seconds, once the AI reaches human level? What on >>earth could yet another human-level contributor to the team accomplish >>in that time? > >"Human level" is an idiosyncratic flavor. I am talking about an AI that >is passing through "roughly humanish breadth of generally applicable >intelligence if not to humanish things". At this time I expect the AI to >be smack dab in the middle of the hard takeoff, and already writing code >at AI timescales. I have a strong emotional inclination to support Hal's view rather than Eliezer's apocalyptic view. However . . . . About two years ago there was that virus, I forget the name, that infected something like 75,000 vulnerable Microsoft database machines that were connected to the Internet. Made a mess of the net for a few days till the machines were taken off line and patched. But what's important about this episode and possibly provides an instructive real world example for AI timing is that the number of infected machines was later analyzed from the records to have a doubling time of 8.5 plus or minus one second. People just can't react to a threat that comes "out of the blue" this fast. If an AI was smart enough to write a virus to take over machines and its intelligence was proportional to "cortical area" (processor cycles) and it "wanted" to get smart fast . . . . . :-( Keith Henson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Sat Dec 4 04:25:11 2004 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:25:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Keith Henson wrote: > If an AI was smart enough to write a virus to take over machines and its > intelligence was proportional to "cortical area" (processor cycles) and > it "wanted" to get smart fast . . . . . .... then it would not be able to fit its thoughts through the internet and go the AI equivalent of senile ;) Rik -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Dec 4 04:53:48 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:53:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [PvT] Re: SUVs [and Chinese subs w/ICBMs] Message-ID: <41B142DC.E811446D@mindspring.com> Which is why the US Navy is working on improving anti-sub capabilities. It will be MAD all over again with extra added ingredient that we have a bunch of crazies in the ME and South Asia with those loud firecrackers. Of course, considering that China got most of the technology for their weapons systems from us, who do we blame but ourselves. A weak dollar does make our goods and services more competitive but there can be a backlash in the form of less investment by foreign concerns and countries in the US. Steve -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 4 05:31:08 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:31:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA Makes Nanotube Transistors In-Reply-To: <41B142DC.E811446D@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20041204053108.2550.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, A long --in a pre-singularity pre-frenzy sort of way-- time coming, but no surprise. Re all the glam talk of DNA, carbon nanotubes, and "self-assembly", the Geek chorus (us) is at risk of becoming all jaded and ennui-ed out. So buck up, and have a Merry Christmas. It ain't no Santa Claus machine,... but it's a step, a real step. Not just vaporware. Tis the season. Remember the people you care about, and those who care about you. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/12/rnb_120304.asp?trk=nl The researchers attached DNA strands to carbon nanotubes and complementary strands to gold electrodes that were anchored to a silicon surface. The electrodes were prepared using standard chip-making techniques. They mixed a liquid containing the DNA-coated nanotubes with the silicon, and the complementary DNA strands combined, placing the nanotubes across pairs of electrodes. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From aperick at centurytel.net Sat Dec 4 07:25:50 2004 From: aperick at centurytel.net (Rick) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:25:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <200412031838.iB3Icr003572@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000001c4d9d2$7c995680$0200a8c0@ricksoyo> Someone correct me if this is wrong, but shouldn't 13.8 billion LE distant and 180 degrees apart, *for us*, mean that those two galaxies are practically bumping shoulders? The big bang occurred in four dimensions, not three. The big bang did not happen centered on our location, nor any other location we can point to, but it happened in a dimensional direction that is one more than what we think we exist in. In our set of three dimensions it would be correct to say that it happened everywhere at a point that was a very small/hot "everywhere" -- all of our space was created from the big bang -- SPACE. Not just the stuff in our space. John K Clark Wrote: No, the time constraint only limits the observable universe. The Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago so the observable universe (for us) is a sphere centered on the Earth with a radius of 13.8 billion light years, we can look at 2 galaxies 13.8 billion light years away and 180 degrees apart but neither can see the other because they are not in their observable universe. If the most popular version of the theory is correct (the inflation theory) the Big Bang was just a time when for a very short instant space expanded at an exponential rate. Perhaps space was finite when all this happened, perhaps not. From scerir at libero.it Sat Dec 4 08:32:40 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:32:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <000001c4d9d2$7c995680$0200a8c0@ricksoyo> Message-ID: <000401c4d9db$d1995a50$75b41b97@administxl09yj> From: "Rick" > -- all of our space was created from > the big bang -- SPACE. Not just the stuff > in our space. Space and stuff, yes. Beautiful lectures by Sean Carroll http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/ourpreposterous/ http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/darkenergy/ Interesting plots :-) http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/beliefs.html Wright's FAQ page http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html Visual course http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cos_home.html Bothun's course http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1997/phys410.html s. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 4 11:18:37 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:18:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20041204111837.GF9221@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:11:29PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > If an AI was smart enough to write a virus to take over machines and its > intelligence was proportional to "cortical area" (processor cycles) and it > "wanted" to get smart fast . . . . . http://www.icir.org/vern/papers/cdc-usenix-sec02/ http://www.lurhq.com/scanrand.html Of could you'd do a stealthy mapping first, building a database of individual hosts and vulnerabilities, before going production. If you 0wn the routers, segmenting the network becomes more difficult (it would also depend on future network topology, I'm having a hunch it will be a far more meshed tree). I don't think the similiarity between spikes and packets is superficial. (You can actually package spike trains into UDP streams, thus approaching theoretical maximum utilization, especially on lagged links). Networking is doing actually very good (10 GBit/s throughput approaching pricing where GBit was a few years ago), but the CPUs are hard pressed to just barely be able to drink from the that hydrant. On network periphery the problem is the opposite, especially on dialup. They would be pretty slow, today. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Dec 4 12:22:32 2004 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:22:32 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Gina Miller wrote: >Was that the "I love you" virus? No, a computer virus requires manual intervention. What Keith was describing is more accurately called a "worm", which can infect hosts by itself. It's probably the Code Red worm. Alfio From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 4 16:05:44 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:05:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <000001c4d9d2$7c995680$0200a8c0@ricksoyo> Message-ID: <001201c4da1b$46d394e0$74f54d0c@hal2001> "Rick" > Someone correct me if this is wrong, but shouldn't 13.8 billion LE distant > and 180 degrees apart, *for us*, mean that those two galaxies are > practically bumping shoulders? No, it would mean they are 27.6 light years distant from each other and forever unobservable from each other. We being in the middle can see both. > The big bang did not happen centered on our location, nor any other > location we can point to Exactly, it happened to all of space at the same time. > The big bang occurred in four dimensions Yes, time is just as important as space. > it would be correct to say that it happened everywhere at a point that was > a very small/hot "everywhere" That could be right, space before the Big Bang could have been very small, but it's also possible that even before the Big Bang space was already infinite and by "Big Bang" we mean a time when everything in space receded from everything else at an exponential rate. Nobody knows. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 17:35:33 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:35:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy' Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041204113517.01a39ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0407/0407221.pdf From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Dec 4 18:00:36 2004 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:00:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:22 PM 04/12/04 +0100, you wrote: >On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Gina Miller wrote: > > >Was that the "I love you" virus? > >No, a computer virus requires manual intervention. What Keith was >describing is more accurately called a "worm", which can infect hosts by >itself. It's probably the Code Red worm. You are right, it was a worm instead of a virus. I should have looked. Googling for _"8.5 seconds" virus_ the first two are: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872842.html "2003 In January the relatively benign "Slammer" (Sapphire) worm becomes the fastest spreading worm to date, infecting 75,000 computers in approximately ten minutes, doubling its numbers every 8.5 seconds in its first minute of infection." http://www.detnews.com/2003/technology/0302/06/technology-78167.htm Code Red gets mentioned here doubling in 37 minutes. That might be slow enough for humans to do something. Keith Henson ************** Thursday, February 6, 2003 "'Slammer' worm fastest ever, doubling in 8.5 seconds By William Selway / Bloomberg News SAN DIEGO -- "Slammer" was the fastest computer worm ever, researchers say, spreading to more than 67,000 computers around the world in 10 minutes on Jan. 25, closing bank machines, delaying flights and slowing Internet traffic. The worm, a string of computer code that took advantage of a flaw in Microsoft Corp.'s server software, doubled in size every 8.5 seconds during the first minute, according to research published by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis. In contrast, the "Code Red" virus took 37 minutes, or more than 250 times as long, to double when it appeared in 2001. "When (a worm) spreads this quickly, it's very hard to react," said David Moore, a researcher at the association, which is based at the University of California, San Diego. Worms are similar to computer viruses in that both types of malicious code make copies of themselves. Worms propagate by attacking a system, while a virus spreads through the exchange of files. Once "Slammer" infected a computer, it scanned the Internet and sent copies of itself to other vulnerable servers, the large machines that run Internet sites and corporate networks. Within 10 minutes, "Slammer" was able to scan 3.6 billion of the world's roughly 4 billion Internet addresses to seek out potential targets, Moore said. The worm looked for vulnerable computers at a pace of 55 million a second within three minutes of its appearance, slowing only because so much of the worldwide computer network lacked the capacity to allow it to spread as quickly as it could. Half of all Internet signals weren't reaching their destination at the height of the attack, according to the Internet Traffic Report, because of the volume of traffic created by "Slammer." Commercial and government networks were affected. Bank of America Corp.'s automatic teller machines were shut down, while emergency dispatchers in Bellevue, Washington, had to take notes with pen and paper after their network slowed. The effect could have been more severe if the worm had carried instructions to harm computer networks rather than spread copies of itself, or if it had exploited a more widespread vulnerability, according to the researchers. In July, Microsoft made software available to fix the flaw in its SQL Server and MDSE 2000 software that was exploited by "Slammer." "It could have been much more damaging than it was," Moore said. "It could have destroyed data on the machines or set itself up to do something more damaging in the future." Most of the infected computers were in the U.S., according to the CAIDA report. About 43 percent of the infected machines were in the U.S. and 12 percent in South Korea, the second-worst affected country, according to the report. CAIDA, the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis, is a center where researchers from business, government and academia study Internet security. From mark at permanentend.org Sat Dec 4 18:15:17 2004 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:15:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com><001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <002e01c4da2d$35b9a980$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Suppose a world's population is fixed at 10 billion inhabitants and only 10% of these (autonomously) choose to pursue superlongevity (to tens of thousands of years or more). Assume further that if one pursues superlongevity then one is not allowed to have children. This means that 1 billion people will continue to live while 9 billion die off in the first hundred years or so. Of course the nine billion that die will be replaced by 9 billion descendents. Assume on the next iteration that 10% of the nine billion choose to pursue superlongevity, in which case 1.9 billion people will forgo ageing, while 8.1 will continue to procreate to top up the numbers. On the next iteration then there are 2.71 billion immortals and 7.29 mortals, and so on. The point of course is that within a very 6 generations the superlongevitists will be the majority and eventually the mortalists will disappear completely. Superlongevity Mortal 1 9 1.9 8.1 2.71 7.29 etc., etc., etc., ---- 10 0 The interest in the argument is that it is based on seemingly equitable principles and conservative assumptions. The argument assumes that the superlongevists will not reproduce, so it is not as if the longer-lived are trying to leverage their numbers by out breeding the mortalists. Nor are the superlongevists using coercion to strengthen their numbers, since the choice to pursue superlongevity is by hypothesis made autonomously (free from coercion). I think 10% is a very conservative figure as to how many would choose superlongevity both initially and over the course time. My own informal survey of students suggest that at least 25% would jump at the chance to access superlongevity technology. I'm inclined to think that many more would hop on the bandwagon when it actually came available. Of course the same conclusion would be reached if only .01% of each generation choose immortality only that it would take longer. Also, the argument works no matter what size the population is (colonizing other planets won't help) so long as it is finite. Of course one complication here is that some of those who choose superlongevity might change their mind and commit suicide. By the same sort of reasoning we should expect that those committing suicide ought to be reduced (as a percentage), for eventually the suiciders will be replaced by individuals who have a much stronger and sustained preference for superlongevity. Of course showing that universal superlongevity is inevitable on these assumptions does not show that it is the morally right decision. However, I think it does show that the only way to stop the immortality wave (given these assumptions) would be to usurp the autonomy of individuals. For example, suppose an affirmative action program that said at least 10% of the population must be mortals would force a percentage of the mortal subgroup (or those that have already chosen immortality) to give up their lives in order to meet the quota. Ironically, perhaps the best bet for mortalists would be to use genetic technologies on their descendents would be to implant an urge to be mortal to try and reduce the attrition of their numbers. This would be a desperate move for moralists like Kass, for instance. Of course it raises the question of how we much we could fiddle with the preferences of our descendents and still call them autonomous. Of course if there are genetic predispositions for preferring superlongevity or mortality then this would favor the idea that universal immortality is inevitable. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 4 18:57:02 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:57:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument References: <000001c4d9d2$7c995680$0200a8c0@ricksoyo> <001201c4da1b$46d394e0$74f54d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <000b01c4da33$11b924b0$19ff4d0c@hal2001> I wrote: > it would mean they are 27.6 light years distant from each other Hey, I was only off by a factor of a billion. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Dec 4 20:15:00 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:15:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> Hal Finney wrote: >I don't see how it can happen so quickly. I envision a team with several >key members and an AI, where the AI gradually begins making a useful >contribution of its own. Eventually it becomes so capable that it is >doing more than the rest of the team, and from that point its competence >could, conceivably, grow exponentially. But I don't see any reason why >this process would go as fast as you describe. On 12/3/2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky responded: >Because the AI is nothing remotely like the other team members. ... You >can't expect that the AI will sit down and try to rewrite a module. The >more relevant capabilities, among those the AI possesses at a given time, >are those which operate on a timescale permitting them to be applied to >the entire AI at once. Slower capabilities would be used to rewrite >global ones, or forked and distributed onto more hardware, or used to >rewrite themselves to a speed where they become globally applicable. The >AI is not like a human. If you visualize a set of modules yielding >capabilities that turn back and rewrite the modules, and play with the >possibilities, you will not get any slow curves out of it. You will get >sharp breakthroughs ... a novice must imagine by analogy to humans with >strange mental modifications, rather than rethinking the nature of mind >(recursively self-improving optimization processes) from scratch. The >interaction between the AI rewriting itself and the programmers poking and >prodding the AI from outside will not resemble adding a human to the >team. ... the advantages of AI, the ability to run thousands of different >cognitive threads on distributed hardware, and above all the recursive >nature of self-improvement (which, this point has to keep on being >hammered home, is absolutely unlike anything in human experience). A lot >of this is in section III of LOGI. Consider rereading >it. http://singinst.org/LOGI/. We humans are familiar with many forms of recursive self-improvement of ourselves. The richer we get, the more abilities we have to get richer. The more we learn, the more and faster we can learn. Each new general insight we gain can be applied across a wide range of problems we face, and all these general insights help us find new general insights faster. Also, computer researchers use faster computers to help them design faster computers, and compilers can be set to compile compilers These recursive processes mainly produce at best steady exponential improvement at familiar slow rates. Artificial intelligence researchers have long searched for general principles to allow them to improve their programs. They keep rediscovering the same few insights, and so they spend most of their time looking for more domain specific insights to help them improve more specific kinds of performance. This is even embodies in the slogan that knowledge is the key - the main difference between smart and dumb systems is how many things they knows. The more you know, the faster you can learn, but mostly what you learn are specific things. You seem to be saying all our familiar experience as recursive businessmen, intellects, computer researchers, and AI programmers is misleading - that there remains a large pool of big general improvements, and there is a very different certain sort of path than a dumb AI could be placed on to find those improvements at a rapidly increasing pace. Others don't see that path, but you do. Virtually no established experts in related fields (i.e., economic growth, artificial intelligence, ...) see this path, or even recognize you as presenting an interesting different view they disagree with, even though you have for years explained it all in hundreds of pages of impenetrable prose, building very little on anyone else's closely related research, filled with terminology you invent. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? Any idea how much it looks just like a crank? Are there no demonstration projects you could build as a proof of concept of your insights? Wouldn't it be worth it to take the time to convince at least one or two people who are recognized established experts in the fields in which you claim to have new insight, so they could integrate you into the large intellectual conversation? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 4 20:16:20 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:16:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: <20041204201620.GR9221@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 01:22:32PM +0100, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > No, a computer virus requires manual intervention. What Keith was > describing is more accurately called a "worm", which can infect hosts by > itself. It's probably the Code Red worm. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/sapphire/ Introduction The Sapphire Worm was the fastest computer worm in history. As it began spreading throughout the Internet, it doubled in size every 8.5 seconds. It infected more than 90 percent of vulnerable hosts within 10 minutes. The worm (also called Slammer) began to infect hosts slightly before 05:30 UTC on Saturday, January 25. Sapphire exploited a buffer overflow vulnerability in computers on the Internet running Microsoft's SQL Server or MSDE 2000 (Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine). This weakness in an underlying indexing service was discovered in July 2002; Microsoft released a patch for the vulnerability before it was announced[1]. The worm infected at least 75,000 hosts, perhaps considerably more, and caused network outages and such unforeseen consequences as canceled airline flights, interference with elections, and ATM failures. Several disassembled versions of the source code of the worm are available. [2]. ... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Dec 4 20:31:06 2004 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:31:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Hope in Human Paralysis Treatment Message-ID: <003501c4da40$2eb54410$6600a8c0@brainiac> "Researchers have successfully tested injections of a liquid polymer to heal spinal injuries in dogs in an experiment that also offers hope for preventing human paralysis ...": http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/202292_spinal04.html Olga From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Dec 4 20:55:53 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:55:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America In-Reply-To: <20041203184657.12564.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (12/3/04 10:46) Mike Lorrey wrote: >If the US gov't has finally started clamping down on academic visas, I >say it is a glorious day for US college students. They can finally look >forward to classes taught by assistant profs and grad students who can >speak english understandably. I'll note that all of my profs in both undergraduate and graduate school for whom English was their 2nd language spoke the language quite well. Don't confuse the cariacature of college with the real thing. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Dec 4 20:59:28 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:59:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <20041203192133.89375.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (12/3/04 11:21) Mike Lorrey wrote: > >--- Hal Finney wrote:> >> Maybe wrapping it in a fuzzy exterior will help, child robots and >> talking >> dogs: "Hello, I'm Rags, woof, woof". But the reality is that people >> are going to be working side by side with these systems, and I think >> that is how they will base their conception of them as helpful or >> dangerous. > >Yes. Creating personality modules that, at least, mimic a personality >that is non-threatening (teddy bear, sexy female, child's voice, etc) >is the key to limiting or preventing proscriptive regulation. > That is, until some enterprising hack^H^H^H^H movie producer releases a summer blockbuster about an AI trapped in a teddy bear's body that goes berserk, puts on a hockey mask, invades people's minds, and kills them all as part of a plot to destroy the Earth with "fricken lasers" B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From megao at sasktel.net Sat Dec 4 22:23:46 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:23:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41B238F2.2020107@sasktel.net> Brent Neal wrote: > (12/3/04 11:21) Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > >>--- Hal Finney wrote:> >> >> >>>Maybe wrapping it in a fuzzy exterior will help, child robots and >>>talking >>>dogs: "Hello, I'm Rags, woof, woof". But the reality is that people >>>are going to be working side by side with these systems, and I think >>>that is how they will base their conception of them as helpful or >>>dangerous. >>> >>> >>Yes. Creating personality modules that, at least, mimic a personality >>that is non-threatening (teddy bear, sexy female, child's voice, etc) >>is the key to limiting or preventing proscriptive regulation. >> >> >> > > >That is, until some enterprising hack^H^H^H^H movie producer releases a summer blockbuster about an AI trapped in a teddy bear's body that goes berserk, puts on a hockey mask, invades people's minds, and kills them all as part of a plot to destroy the Earth with "fricken lasers" > >B > > > Isn't this fun. We are all observers in the primordial soup speculating about how life will come about. In doing so we learn more about our own selves and possible origins as well. However let's hope the AI is not a reflection of its creators or better yet lets hope it chooses it's role models better than some of us humans do. In reflecting about the rate of human development over the last 100,000 years it seems that the rate of and efficiency of communication is the key driving factor. The full convergence of all known technology and knowledge in an AI which spans the entire globe to me marks the point at which the singularity begins. Yes there will be quite an exponential rate change, but I would expect that novel constraints will emerge. Allocation of resources to preserving a historical preserve/ living museum stocked with modern humans may be of dubious value to an AI whose goal is to optimize resource use to maximize its evolutionary rate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 22:26:11 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:26:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041204162238.01c83bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:15 PM 12/4/2004 -0500, Robin wrote to Eliezer: < Wouldn't it be worth it to take the time to convince at least one or two people who are recognized established experts in the fields in which you claim to have new insight, so they could integrate you into the large intellectual conversation? > I agree in general with Robin's comments, but offer this as a possible counter-balance--a furious and frustrated essay by Physics Nobelist Brian Josephson, concerning the institutional barriers to communicating unorthodox ideas: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html Damien Broderick From megao at sasktel.net Sat Dec 4 22:59:06 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:59:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe Message-ID: <41B2413A.6080604@sasktel.net> This is a good proposition as it allows for some unknown genetic or technologically insoluble deadend not to suddenly lead to a catastrophic die off of genetically similar superlonglived humanoids. The divergence of the human species into subspecies designed to survive other worlds without the need for the protections and comforts we now require would provide some reserve capacity to retool the species from if we ever worked ourselves into a genetic corner. As well the population might be controlled by some novel means such as offering dying mortal citizens off planet super-longevity if they had their head frozen and shipped via massdriver/railgun initiated propulsion to have a new body grown and consciousness transferred at the reanimation site on the destination planet. Longevity on an old developed world might not be as important as longevity on a world needing massive societal infrastructure development. Longevity would mean that it would not be a great sacrifice to spend 500 years taming a new world as there would be thousands of years left over to enjoy the results. As well , new harsher environments might require superlongevity traits just to survive. There may be a trade off between reproductive capacity and longevity modifications. We are almost envisioning a society like the greek mythologies with a mixed society of gods and mortals. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:15:17 -0500 From: Mark Walker Reply-To: ExI chat list To: ExI chat list References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218 at Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E at finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E at finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0 at pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218 at Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0 at pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Suppose a world's population is fixed at 10 billion inhabitants and only 10% of these (autonomously) choose to pursue superlongevity (to tens of thousands of years or more). Assume further that if one pursues superlongevity then one is not allowed to have children. This means that 1 billion people will continue to live while 9 billion die off in the first hundred years or so. Of course the nine billion that die will be replaced by 9 billion descendents. Assume on the next iteration that 10% of the nine billion choose to pursue superlongevity, in which case 1.9 billion people will forgo ageing, while 8.1 will continue to procreate to top up the numbers. On the next iteration then there are 2.71 billion immortals and 7.29 mortals, and so on. The point of course is that within a very 6 generations the superlongevitists will be the majority and eventually the mortalists will disappear completely. Superlongevity Mortal 1 9 1.9 8.1 2.71 7.29 etc., etc., etc., ---- 10 0 The interest in the argument is that it is based on seemingly equitable principles and conservative assumptions. The argument assumes that the superlongevists will not reproduce, so it is not as if the longer-lived are trying to leverage their numbers by out breeding the mortalists. Nor are the superlongevists using coercion to strengthen their numbers, since the choice to pursue superlongevity is by hypothesis made autonomously (free from coercion). I think 10% is a very conservative figure as to how many would choose superlongevity both initially and over the course time. My own informal survey of students suggest that at least 25% would jump at the chance to access superlongevity technology. I'm inclined to think that many more would hop on the bandwagon when it actually came available. Of course the same conclusion would be reached if only .01% of each generation choose immortality only that it would take longer. Also, the argument works no matter what size the population is (colonizing other planets won't help) so long as it is finite. Of course one complication here is that some of those who choose superlongevity might change their mind and commit suicide. By the same sort of reasoning we should expect that those committing suicide ought to be reduced (as a percentage), for eventually the suiciders will be replaced by individuals who have a much stronger and sustained preference for superlongevity. Of course showing that universal superlongevity is inevitable on these assumptions does not show that it is the morally right decision. However, I think it does show that the only way to stop the immortality wave (given these assumptions) would be to usurp the autonomy of individuals. For example, suppose an affirmative action program that said at least 10% of the population must be mortals would force a percentage of the mortal subgroup (or those that have already chosen immortality) to give up their lives in order to meet the quota. Ironically, perhaps the best bet for mortalists would be to use genetic technologies on their descendents would be to implant an urge to be mortal to try and reduce the attrition of their numbers. This would be a desperate move for moralists like Kass, for instance. Of course it raises the question of how we much we could fiddle with the preferences of our descendents and still call them autonomous. Of course if there are genetic predispositions for preferring superlongevity or mortality then this would favor the idea that universal immortality is inevitable. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Dec 5 00:03:51 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:03:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > Virtually no > established experts in related fields (i.e., economic growth, artificial > intelligence, ...) What a coincidence, that economics is so closely related to Artificial General Intelligence recursive self-improvement trajectories. Amazingly enough, just about every person who contacts me seems to have specialized in a field that lets them make pronouncements about matters of AGI. As Wil Holland wrote in the foreword to his book "Universal Artificial Intelligence" (no, it's not worth reading): "From many years of working in the construction industry and learning the age-old craftsman's technique of building a structure one block at a time, I have inadvertantly stumbled upon a method of semantic interpretation that applies in any situation..." It would seem that Artificial Intelligence is an even easier art to acquire than managing a government, writing legislation, or maintaining international diplomatic relations. I take it you've never run into people who think that their own field of knowledge easily generalizes to making pronouncements on specific questions in economics? As for seed AI, recursively self-improving AI, I am not aware of anyone who explicitly claims to *specialize* in that except me and Jurgen Schmidhuber. So far as I know, Jurgen Schmidhuber has not analyzed the seed AI trajectory problem. > see this path, or even recognize you as presenting an > interesting different view they disagree with, even though you have for > years explained it all in hundreds of pages of impenetrable prose, > building very little on anyone else's closely related research, filled > with terminology you invent. Oh, come now. That accusation may justly be leveled at "General Intelligence and Seed AI" or "Creating Friendly AI", but I think "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence", to which I referred Finney, deserves better than that. > Are there no demonstration projects you could > build as a proof of concept of your insights? When my insights reach the point of apparent *completeness* with respect to simple problems, that is, it feels like I know how to write a simple demo, I may (or may not) do so, depending on whether that seems like the fastest possible route to expanding the project. I think you underestimate the amount of massive overkill needed in the theoretical understanding department before I can offhandedly write a simple demo AI. > Wouldn't it be worth it > to take the time to convince at least one or two people who are > recognized established experts in the fields in which you claim to have > new insight, I was not aware that humanity presently boasted *any* recognized, established experts in the field of either Artificial General Intelligence or recursive self-improvement trajectories. So far as the academic field of AI is concerned, the status of the problem of Artificial Intelligence is "unsolved - no established fundamental theory". > so they could integrate you into the large intellectual > conversation? http://www.sl4.org/archive/0410/10025.html *Regardless* of what I said there, it is worth noting that as far as I know, LOGI is the *only* academically published paper (appearing in _Artificial General Intelligence_, Springer-Verlag 2005) *explicitly* analyzing seed AI self-improvement trajectories - regardless of what other published analyses may be claimed to "easily generalize" to that unprecedented and bizarre scenario. It's amazing how much stuff out there is "closely related" to AI, you'd think we'd have solved the problem by now. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 02:34:03 2004 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:34:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e041204183452f05b08@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:03:51 -0500, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > As for seed AI, recursively self-improving AI, I am not aware of anyone who > explicitly claims to *specialize* in that except me and Jurgen Schmidhuber. > So far as I know, Jurgen Schmidhuber has not analyzed the seed AI > trajectory problem. Having read LOGI, I'm still curious as to how you expect to solve the fundamental problem of knowing what is and isn't an improvement. Suppose version 1 of the AI comes up with a version 2 that it thinks will be smarter than V1. How does it know whether that's true or not? Trial and error? Or are you hoping (as suggested by a couple of remarks you made along the way) that it'll be able to use formal proof? - Russell From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Dec 5 03:11:06 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:11:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:03 PM 12/4/2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: >Robin Hanson wrote: >>Virtually no established experts in related fields (i.e., economic >>growth, artificial intelligence, ...) > >What a coincidence, that economics is so closely related to Artificial >General Intelligence recursive self-improvement trajectories. Amazingly >enough, just about every person who contacts me seems to have specialized >in a field that lets them make pronouncements about matters of AGI. Economic growth is the fully recursive self-improvement of the world economy as a whole. >It would seem that Artificial Intelligence is an even easier art to >acquire than managing a government, writing legislation, or maintaining >international diplomatic relations. I take it you've never run into >people who think that their own field of knowledge easily generalizes to >making pronouncements on specific questions in economics? I did spend nine years doing Artificial Intelligence research (at Lockheed and NASA). >As for seed AI, recursively self-improving AI, I am not aware of anyone >who explicitly claims to *specialize* in that except me and Jurgen >Schmidhuber. Even if true, the usual procedure is to engage the recognized experts in the most closely related pre-existing fields available, to convince them to recognize you as experts in your new field. If you disagree with my judgement about what the most closely related fields are, well fine, pick some others. Saying that nothing else is at all related won't fly. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 03:32:52 2004 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 03:32:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:11:06 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > Economic growth is the fully recursive self-improvement of the world > economy as a whole. Not fully. The static part consists of the laws of physics (which don't change at all) and the human genome, material composition of the Earth and energy input from the sun (which don't change quickly enough to make a difference on economic timescales). Basically, I don't believe there's any such thing as fully recursive self-improvement; it seems to me there always has to be a static part that drives the improvement of the dynamic part; but I'm curious about the reasons people like Eliezer have for believing otherwise. - Russell From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Dec 5 03:51:45 2004 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:51:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launch inquisition...) Message-ID: The Simulation Argument has such obvious flaws, that I can't imagine why people are still arguing about it.... But here I go anyway.... :-) 1. The Simulation Arguments makes a huge assumption without any basis: That the "probability" of being born into a simulation is the same as the "probability" of being born into a real universe. I am not sure that this statement even makes any sense. Even if it does make sense, I am not sure why simulations should be given equal weight to real universes that have much larger volume, much longer time-spans, very long head-starts, and have more resources than the simulations contained within them. It seems more likely that non-simulated universes should have much more weight in comparison. It may even be plausible that non-simulated universes have more weight than all the simulations contained within them combined. On the basis of space, time, precedence, hierarchy and other comparisons, it seems that real universes always win. I can't think of any reason to give simulations equal or greater weight. 2. The Simulation Argument proponents seem to prefer possibility #3 without evidence. There is no reason to assume possibility #3 is likely. Why would anybody run a significant number of simulations of their history? By the time they have enough information to make accurate simulations, they wouldn't need to run simulations. They would already know how things would turn out. It wouldn't be very useful for research or discovery. For entertainment, it would be even less likely. We fantasize about being in a future simulation to escape our boring present world in favor of the better future world. For such simulations to exist, we must imagine that the future humans have the exact opposite desires. They would be trying to access our primitive and boring universes instead of their own more advanced universes. Even if this were sometime desirable, I doubt such situations would outnumber futuristic simulations or outnumber real-life endeavors. 3. The Simulation Argument proponents seem to dislike possibility #2 without evidence. There are many plausible scenarios where such simulations are not common. Maybe advanced humans are more interested in reality than simulations. Maybe advanced humans decide that it is unethical to create life-forms in a simulation and not let them out into the real world. Maybe most simulated civilizations find a way to escape or crash their universes, such that they don't exist in large numbers or for very long. Maybe there is no point to simulating entire universes and simulating smaller games, small situations, or temporary settings are more common. Maybe simulations never last long compared to real universes, and thus, the number of them is limited or distributed over time such that they never outnumber real universes. Maybe future humans figure out time travel or observe the past directly so that simulating isn't required. Maybe future humans observe parallel universes via Many Worlds quantum physics and have more universes than they could ever explore and don't need to make additional boring ones. 4. The logic is faulty. Similar arguments can be made for other such claims. For example, there are more dreams than real lives on this planet, since every human dreams many dreams per day, therefore we are almost certainly living in a dream. There are more aliens on other planets than there are earthlings on this planet, therefore we are almost certainly extraterrestrial aliens who merely believe we are earthlings. There are more ex-workers from my company than current employees, therefore we are almost certainly already fired and just don't know it yet. The Simulation Argument seems very similar to the Doomsday Argument. It assigns faulty statistics about things we cannot measure or predict, and then makes predictions based on our faulty assumptions. It is simply circular logic that makes assumptions to support the conclusion and then concludes what was already assumed. It is not an example of the scientific method, Occam's Razor, logic, or other form of evidence. It is an example of persuasive rhetoric that proves nothing. Just because our current circumstances seem unlikely does not mean that we must reject the obvious reality around us in favor of an unseen reality that cannot be detected, tested or proven. So, in summary, I think that the obvious solution to the Simulation Argument is possibility #2: "any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)." I think realistic simulations of history will be limited to specific events of interest, and that the sum total of all such simulations in a universe will not even come close to simulating an infinitesimally small fraction of the complete universe itself. I also think that any attempt to weight probabilistic chances of being born into one of these simulations is extremely speculatory at best and meaningless at worst. I think the usage of terminology such as "conclusions" or "likelihoods" or "almost certainly" with respect to this "argument" are simply inaccurate and misleading. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP, ISSAP, ISSMP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Dec 5 03:50:21 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:50:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204224639.02c17038@mail.gmu.edu> At 10:32 PM 12/4/2004, Russell Wallace wrote: >On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:11:06 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > > Economic growth is the fully recursive self-improvement of the world > > economy as a whole. > >Not fully. The static part consists of the laws of physics (which >don't change at all) and the human genome, material composition of the >Earth and energy input from the sun (which don't change quickly enough >to make a difference on economic timescales). Well I grant that some things have stayed constant for long periods of economic growth, and that it is important to be able to analyze growth in some things while holding other things static. But in the future the human genome, material composition of the Earth and energy input from the sun, and even the laws of physics may well change. If anything is going to change these things, it will be further economic growth. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Dec 5 03:54:52 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:54:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041204162238.01c83bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20041204162238.01c83bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204225105.02c69638@mail.gmu.edu> At 05:26 PM 12/4/2004, Damien Broderick wrote: >At 03:15 PM 12/4/2004 -0500, Robin wrote to Eliezer: >< Wouldn't it be worth it to take the time to convince at least one or two >people who are recognized established experts in the fields in which you >claim to have new insight, so they could integrate you into the large >intellectual conversation? > > >I agree in general with Robin's comments, but offer this as a possible >counter-balance--a furious and frustrated essay by Physics Nobelist Brian >Josephson, concerning the institutional barriers to communicating >unorthodox ideas: >http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html Oh there are enormous barriers, I agree. Making it all the more important to learn how best to overcome them. Virtually every intellectual adventure/hero story pits the heroic new idea against conservative resistance. Many of those stories are self-serving nonsense, but others tell valuable lessons. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 04:35:03 2004 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 04:35:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041204224639.02c17038@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204224639.02c17038@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e041204203569b1bcb7@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:50:21 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > Well I grant that some things have stayed constant for long periods of > economic growth, and that it is important to be able to analyze growth > in some things while holding other things static. But in the future > the human genome, material composition of the Earth and energy input > from the sun, and even the laws of physics may well change. If anything > is going to change these things, it will be further economic growth. (Nitpick: We can't change the ultimate laws of physics, more or less by definition; if we do find a way to change things like the mass of the proton, then that'll be in accordance with some deeper laws, which are what I'll refer to as the laws of physics here.) But yes, lots of things that have stayed static in the past might change in the future. The laws of physics will stay constant, of course. If those are the only static part, what will they drive the dynamic part towards? Optimal self-replication; in practical terms, what we'll likely get will be an expanding sphere of nonsentient von Neumann probes, converting all matter into copies of themselves... i.e. just as sure and total a loss as if we simply blew up the planet tomorrow. So in a sense the challenge of the Singularity, and of Friendly AI, is to find a way to expand the static part; to keep those things we value static, while driving enough dynamic change to not get left behind. - Russell From harara at sbcglobal.net Sun Dec 5 05:27:15 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:27:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> <8d71341e04120419324e2c94d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041204211505.029095a8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Waay back in college days (1964 or so) as a physics nerd I discovered psychology. Not the Freud stuff, or any of the other theories like Jung and so on, but via learning human communications by process groups (a nicer term than marathon or encounter). I had discovered rather brutally that my social skills weren't and thus began a 35 year process of insight, emotional growth, and self improvement, mostly cognitive and learning what my feelings were about, as well as how to communicate a bit better. For many years I was of the opinion that "It's all software", and many threads were explored, some quite esoteric, others a la Leary, etc. I don't think so any more. There is a whole selection of levels of plasticity, from recalling a new phone number to my genes. As far as I can tell, some levels get installed in early babyhood and that's it. As a cryonicist, I hope to get a neuronal editor and eventually make changes which cannot be done at the present. Though it is very hard to really realize when something is basically hardwired, there is also a kind of liberation - there is no need to try changing things one lacks tools for. I can focus my limited energy in the possible. I hope the cryonics will work, so the possible is larger. >Basically, I don't believe there's any such thing as fully recursive >self-improvement; it seems to me there always has to be a static part >that drives the improvement of the dynamic part; but I'm curious about >the reasons people like Eliezer have for believing otherwise. > >- Russell ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 5 07:05:16 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:05:16 +1100 Subject: World economic growth metrics? (was Re: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI) References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > Economic growth is the fully recursive self-improvement of > the world economy as a whole. Apologies if this is taken too far out of context but does it actually make sense to speak of a single world economy as something that has a growth that can be meaningfully measured? It seems to me that currently the world is not a homogeneous system under a single set of laws. This means that many of the transactions that take place between persons (both natural and legal) on the planet do so on a basis that is anything but fully voluntary for many people. I am not an economist so my question is almost certainly naive but I wonder what growth metrics would be tracked in measuring the growth of something like a world economy as opposed to a merely national one? Brett Paatsch From Walter_Chen at compal.com Sun Dec 5 08:24:16 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:24:16 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> In the future transhuman age, if you can change whatever (including the genes, or so-called neuronal editor, or even your face/personal characters etc.) you want, then what makes you still the unique you? Thanks. Walter. -------- -----Original Message----- From: Hara Ra Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 1:27 PM > ... There is a whole selection of levels of plasticity, from > recalling a new phone number to my genes. As far as I can tell, some levels > get installed in early babyhood and that's it. As a cryonicist, I hope to > get a neuronal editor and eventually make changes which cannot be done at > the present. > Though it is very hard to really realize when something is basically > hardwired, there is also a kind of liberation - there is no need to try > changing things one lacks tools for. I can focus my limited energy in the > possible. I hope the cryonics will work, so the possible is larger. ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 5 08:44:22 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:44:22 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <002e01c4da2d$35b9a980$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> Mark Walker wrote: > Suppose a world's population is fixed at 10 billion inhabitants and only > 10% > of these (autonomously) choose to pursue superlongevity (to tens of > thousands of years or more). > Assume further that if one pursues > superlongevity then one is not allowed to have children. This means that 1 > billion people will continue to live while 9 billion die off in the first > hundred years or so. Of course the nine billion that die will be replaced > by > 9 billion descendents. Assume on the next iteration that 10% of the nine > billion choose to pursue superlongevity, in which case 1.9 billion people > will forgo ageing, while 8.1 will continue to procreate to top up the > numbers. On the next iteration then there are 2.71 billion immortals and > 7.29 mortals, and so on. The point of course is that within a very 6 > generations the superlongevitists will be the majority and eventually the > mortalists will disappear completely. > > Superlongevity Mortal > 1 9 > 1.9 8.1 > 2.71 7.29 > > etc., etc., etc., > ---- > 10 0 > > The interest in the argument is that it is based on seemingly equitable > principles and conservative assumptions. Seemingly, but how in practice they choose to pursue it isn't specified and almost certainly would have ramifications. If a person wanted to pursue superlongevity but couldn't afford it without assistance from the state to cover the costs for instance. > The argument assumes that the > superlongevists will not reproduce, so it is not as if the longer-lived > are > trying to leverage their numbers by out breeding the mortalists. Nor are > the > superlongevists using coercion to strengthen their numbers, since the > choice > to pursue superlongevity is by hypothesis made autonomously (free from > coercion). I think 10% is a very conservative figure as to how many would > choose superlongevity both initially and over the course time. My own > informal survey of students suggest that at least 25% would jump at the > chance to access superlongevity technology. I'm inclined to think that > many > more would hop on the bandwagon when it actually came available. Of course > the same conclusion would be reached if only .01% of each generation > choose > immortality only that it would take longer. Also, the argument works no > matter what size the population is (colonizing other planets won't help) > so > long as it is finite. Of course one complication here is that some of > those > who choose superlongevity might change their mind and commit suicide. By > the > same sort of reasoning we should expect that those committing suicide > ought > to be reduced (as a percentage), for eventually the suiciders will be > replaced by individuals who have a much stronger and sustained preference > for superlongevity. Of course showing that universal superlongevity is > inevitable on these assumptions does not show that it is the morally right > decision. However, I think it does show that the only way to stop the > immortality wave (given these assumptions) would be to usurp the autonomy > of > individuals. On the contrary I think you've bypassed a key problem if not the key problem. Health is a costly resource. Who pays when someone wants a treatment that they cannot afford themselves? Some might see having to pay for such a treatment for others as usurping their autonomy by removing their ability to do what they want to do with their money because they are being taxed for most of it. Others might be happy to pay tax to support women having children but not to support crusty oldies kicking on indefinately and competing with their children and grandchildren for jobs and opportunities and influence etc. > For example, suppose an affirmative action program that said at > least 10% of the population must be mortals would force a percentage of > the > mortal subgroup (or those that have already chosen immortality) to give up > their lives in order to meet the quota. Ironically, perhaps the best bet > for mortalists would be to use genetic technologies on their descendents > would be to implant an urge to be mortal to try and reduce the attrition > of > their numbers. This would be a desperate move for moralists like Kass, for > instance. Of course it raises the question of how we much we could fiddle > with the preferences of our descendents and still call them autonomous. Of > course if there are genetic predispositions for preferring superlongevity > or > mortality then this would favor the idea that universal immortality is > inevitable. I understand you are trying to teach philosophy students to think through the moral issues in this area. If so more strength to your arm. But the real battles are going to be over health economics and how resources are allocated when they are in short supply I suspect. Also over who can own the technology and for how long can they have patent monopolies. Brett Paatsch From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 5 09:48:34 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:48:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <072201c4daaf$cb512040$7ebf1b97@administxl09yj> > In the future transhuman age, > if you can change whatever (including the > genes, or so-called neuronal editor, or even > your face/personal characters etc.) you want, > then what makes you still the unique you? > -Walter. That you always make that same mistakes, imo. s. 'I have hardly anything in common with myself ..." - Franz Kafka, 8 January 1914, from 'Diaries 1914-1923' From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 5 10:05:45 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:05:45 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <01ee01c4dab1$fcb08570$b8232dcb@homepc> RE: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AIImo, a unique subjective point of view instantiated on a particular matter substrate contained within a bubble like volume of three dimensions of space and one of time that has never reduced to a size less than that which is minimal for the running of a mind process :-) Brett ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter_Chen at compal.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:24 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In the future transhuman age, if you can change whatever (including the genes, or so-called neuronal editor, or even your face/personal characters etc.) you want, then what makes you still the unique you? Thanks. Walter. -------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 5 12:14:40 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:14:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <41B2FBB0.7050403@mac.com> How does your uniqueness require the same lack of control and options as you experience now? If you are unique now then you will use greater options most likely in rather unique ways, yes? I really don't see how more choices will lead to less uniqueness. If anything I would expect it to lead to more unique individuals (and groups for that matter) than today. -s Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > In the future transhuman age, if you can change whatever (including > the genes, or > so-called neuronal editor, or even your face/personal characters etc.) > you want, > then what makes you still the unique you? > > Thanks. > > Walter. > -------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hara Ra > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 1:27 PM > > > ... There is a whole selection of levels of plasticity, from > > recalling a new phone number to my genes. As far as I can tell, some > levels > > get installed in early babyhood and that's it. As a cryonicist, I > hope to > > get a neuronal editor and eventually make changes which cannot be > done at > > the present. > > > Though it is very hard to really realize when something is basically > > hardwired, there is also a kind of liberation - there is no need to try > > changing things one lacks tools for. I can focus my limited energy > in the > > possible. I hope the cryonics will work, so the possible is larger. > > > > ================================================================================================================================================================ > This message may contain information which is private, privileged or > confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended > recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete > the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > ================================================================================================================================================================ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Dec 5 14:34:45 2004 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:34:45 -0500 Subject: World economic growth metrics? (was Re: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI) In-Reply-To: <012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> <012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041205092318.02d099a0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:05 AM 12/5/2004, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >Economic growth is the fully recursive self-improvement of the world > economy as a whole. > >... does it actually make sense to speak of a single world economy as >something that >has a growth that can be meaningfully measured? >It seems to me that currently the world is not a homogeneous system >under a single set of laws. This means that many of the transactions >that take place between persons (both natural and legal) on the planet >do so on a basis that is anything but fully voluntary for many people. All the usual growth metrics can work on the world level as well as the national level. The involuntary nature of transactions can complicate estimates of the value people place on the goods transacted (ick, what a verb), but don't make them impossible. The core idea is to see what stuff (goods and services) people have, and use their trades and other choices to estimate the value they place on that stuff. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 5 15:06:38 2004 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:06:38 -0500 Subject: World economic growth metrics? (was Re: [extropy-chat] Theemergence of AI) References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com><6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu><41B25067.9080303@pobox.com><6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu><012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc> <6.2.0.14.2.20041205092318.02d099a0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <010101c4dadc$05df5840$ad893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:34 AM Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu wrote: >>>Economic growth is the fully recursive >>> self-improvement of the world economy >>> as a whole. >> >>... does it actually make sense to speak of >> a single world economy as something that >> has a growth that can be meaningfully >> measured? It seems to me that currently >> the world is not a homogeneous system >> under a single set of laws. That'd apply within nation states as well. For instance, in the US, State and local laws vary. In some sense, it's arbitrary to speak of one national economy instead of a world economy or a patchwork of local economies. >> This means that many of the transactions >> that take place between persons (both >> natural and legal) on the planet do so on >> a basis that is anything but fully voluntary >> for many people. > > All the usual growth metrics can work on the > world level as well as the national level. As far as they work at all, yes. > The involuntary nature of transactions can > complicate estimates of the value people > place on the goods transacted (ick, what a > verb), but don't make them impossible. The > core idea is to see what stuff (goods and > services) people have, and use their trades > and other choices to estimate the value they > place on that stuff. Have you heard of "The Magnificent Progress Achieved by Capitalism: Is the Evidence Incontrovertible?" by Hendrik Van den Berg? It's in _The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies_ 5(2). For more on that journal, see: http://www.aynrandstudies.com Anyhow, Van der Berg introduces another way of measuring overall individual welfare that might prove helpful in this discussion. (Actually, he's building on the work of Frank Lichtenberg.) This is AILI, Average Individual Lifetime Income. It's derived by looking at the average income and the average life expectancy. E.g., a society where the average person earns $20K per year during his or her whole life and, on average, can expect to live to be 100 yields an AILI of $2M. He thinks this is a better rough measure of average individual welfare than other current measures. He also makes suggestions for fine tuning it in the article. In terms of growth, one could look at changes in the AILI over time. Cheers! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 5 16:46:59 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:46:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Earth rings References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <004301c4daea$0a43e280$f4c41b97@administxl09yj> Would be desirable to contain the particles, from space flight projects, in a ring, around the Earth? Would such a ring remain stable? http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/ 2002/earth-sci-fossil-fuel/ringworld.html http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/restricted/ earth-ring-dynamics.html http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf012/sf012p07.htm http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/ SatelliteFragHistory/13thEditionofBreakupBook.pdf [long, about satellite fragmentation] From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 5 16:43:26 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 16:43:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe In-Reply-To: <200412041900.iB4J0C025358@tick.javien.com> References: <200412041900.iB4J0C025358@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B33AAE.9000504@lineone.net> Mark Walker wrote: This assumes several things that aren't necessarily true. For instance: A) material resources would not apply the brakes on expansion B) the long-lived population would be exactly the same in every other way to the rest of the population, and hence compete in the same ecological niche C) these long-lived, biological people would live indefinitely, instead of succumbing to the statistical probability of dying of accidents etc. (Estimates of the half-lives of immortal biological people vary, but a commonly quoted figure is 1000 years) D) these long-lived humans will not want to escape the half-life problem by becoming less biological, and thus moving to a different ecological niche - ultimately removing themselves from the biological realm entirely. It's quite possible that a population of billions or tens of billions might be able to live in a device the size of a small fridge (they'd have to learn to scrunch their arms and legs up /really tightly/, though) I'm sure there must be others. ben From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 5 17:01:23 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:01:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <200412051215.iB5CFH004266@tick.javien.com> References: <200412051215.iB5CFH004266@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B33EE3.5020803@lineone.net> Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: "In the future transhuman age, if you can change whatever (including the genes, or so-called neuronal editor, or even your face/personal characters etc.) you want, then what makes you still the unique you?" Whatever you like, Walter. That's the beauty of it. ben From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 5 20:29:30 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:29:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy' References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041204113517.01a39ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c4db09$201da9a0$edbd1b97@administxl09yj> [D.B. pointed out ...] > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306042 > Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most > non-classical manifestation of quantum > information theory, cannot be used > to transmit information between remote parties. > Yet, it can be used to reduce the amount > of communication required to process a variety > of distributed computational tasks. We speak > of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglement > serves to eliminate the classical need to > communicate. Telepathy as Shimony's "passion at a distance" between entangled pairs? In those years (1933-36) in which Einstein, but also Popper, were thinking about measurements of correlated observables, and related uncertainties, and predictions and retrodictions, and 'non-separability' of quantum entangled systems, and Grete Hermann developed her "relative state" interpretation of QM (now known as MWI) and - it seems so, according to Max Jammer - also the first "retrocausation" solution of EPR effect (decades ahead of Huw Price, O. Costa de Beauregard, Pegg, Hoyle, etc.), W. Pauli and C.G. Jung were corresponding about telepathy, as well as 'psychic' entanglements, 'non-separability' of systems, and 'retrocausations'. - Pauli to Jung, Zurich, 26 Jul. 1934, [comments, snips] "Jordan's essay ['Uber den positivistischen Begriff der Wirklichkeit'] a copy of which is enclosed, was sent to me for appraisal by the publisher of the Journal _Die Naturwissenshaften_. [...] As for the author, P.Jordan, I know him personally. He is a highly intelligent and gifted theoretical physicist, certainly one to be taken seriously [co-inventor of matrix mechanics, transformation theory, second quantization, etc.]. [...] I would be interested to hear your opinion on the contents of the essay, especially as Jordan's ideas seem to me to have a certain connection with your own. In the last section of the essay in particular, he comes very close to your concept of the collective unconscious. [...] I _do_ have certain misgivings about the picture (p.12), according to which the conscious should be located as a 'narrow borderline area' to the unconscious. Might it not be preferable to advocate the view that the unconscious and the conscious are complementary (i.e., in a mutually exclusive relationship to each other), but not that one is part of the other? [Btw, according to Pauli complementarity was the essential content of QM]. [....]" -Jung to Pauli, Zurich-Kusnacht, 29 Oct. 1934 "With regard to Jordan's reference to parapsychic manifestations, spatial clairvoyance is of course one of the most obvious phenomena to represent the relative nonexistence of our physical image of space. Taking this argument further, he would also necessarily have to bring in temporal clairvoyance, which would represent the relativity of the image of time. Naturally, Jordan looks at these phenomena from the physical point of view, whereas I do so from the psychic point of view - specifically from the fact of the collective unconscious, as you have correctly noted, which presents a layer of the psychic in which individual distinctions of consciousness are more or less extinguished. However, if individual consciousnesses in the unconscious were extinguished, then all perception in the unconscious would occur as in one person. Jordan states [see quantum 'non-separability'] that a sender and a receiver in the same conscious 'space' observe the same object at the same time. One could just as easily turn this statement around and say that in unconscious 'space', sender and receiver are one and the same perceiving object [non-local observer, Goedelian issues]. [...] Carried to its ultimate conclusion, Jordan's approach would lead to the supposition of an absolute unconscious space in which an infinite number of observers are looking at the same object. The phychological version would be: In the unconscious there is just one observer, who looks at the infinite number of objects. [...] By the way, it has just occurred to me that on the subject of time relativity there is a book by a student of Eddington, Dunne, _An Experiment with Time_, in which he deal with temporal clairvoyance in a similar way to how Jordan deals with spatial clairvoyance. He postulate an infinite number of time dimensions that more or less correspond to Jordan's 'intermediary stages'. I would be very interested to hear how you respond to these arguments of Dunne's. [...]" Note that many of these questions (multidimensionality of time, non-separability of quantum systems, non-separability of observers, entanglements in space, entanglements in time, non-distinguishability of all present states of a system from within the system, non-distinguishability of all past and future states of a system from within the system, impossibility of 'picture in picture', time-symmetry, interferences between quantum objects and their mirror images, entanglements from the future/measurement to the past/emission, conceptual impossibility of TOEs, hidden carriers of informations, etc.) are still on the table ... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207029 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102109 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012060 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801061 s. 'Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality; emphasis on its time aspect can be worded atemporality.' -Olivier Costa de Beauregard From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 6 00:04:40 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:04:40 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy' Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FD@tpeexg01.compal.com> You mean G.B. (Gilles Brassard) or A.B, not D.B. These ideas are quite interesting. Thanks. Walter. --------- > [D.B. pointed out ...] > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306042 > Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most > non-classical manifestation of quantum > information theory, cannot be used > to transmit information between remote parties. > Yet, it can be used to reduce the amount > of communication required to process a variety > of distributed computational tasks. We speak > of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglement > serves to eliminate the classical need to > communicate. ... ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 6 00:28:35 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:28:35 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Earth rings Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FE@tpeexg01.compal.com> Can this be regarded as the first step to the so-called planetary brain? Thanks. Walter. --------- > From: scerir > Would be desirable to contain the particles, from > space flight projects, in a ring, around the Earth? > Would such a ring remain stable? ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 6 00:44:49 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:44:49 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: Samantha Atkins > How does your uniqueness require the same lack of control and options as > you experience now? If you are unique now then you will use greater > options most likely in rather unique ways, yes? I really don't see how > more choices will lead to less uniqueness. If anything I would expect > it to lead to more unique individuals (and groups for that matter) than > today. If you can make yourself the most clever, or the most handsome/beautiful, or the most social, or the most leading etc. by the future tech., I think most people will look more or less the same, right? Anyway, why you don't make yourself the best if you can make it easily by tech.? > From: scerir > That you always make that same mistakes, imo. Not that you always do the right things? > From: Brett > Imo, a unique subjective point of view instantiated on a particular matter substrate contained within a bubble like volume of three dimensions of > space and one of time that has never reduced to a size less than that which is minimal for the running of a mind process :-) OK, this sounds like a soul. ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 6 01:59:17 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:59:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] advanced science fights crime Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041205194820.01a2d9d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I read: http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=3f8f2b8f-87c9-433a-8df8-d81bcad148fc < Authorities had never before asked for a DNA sample, the source said. A cotton swab was used to collect the sample from [Michael] Jackson's mouth. < It wasn't immediately clear how authorities planned to use the DNA in Jackson's child molestation case. < Also while at Jackson's ranch, sheriff's investigators measured rooms, trying to establish the sight lines from one room to another, the source said. > I assumed at first that this DNA sample would establish whether any of the young boys allegedly molested by Jackson had been made pregnant by him. But the carefully measured sight lines suggest another scientific line of thought--that Jackson's DNA might have *leaped* from one room to the other, perhaps while everyone slept. After all, science has shown that genes are driven by the desire to spread themselves widely, although not through walls... unless the dancing entertainer's semen contains *mystical teleporting genes*!! Or maybe leading scientists are looking into the possibility that Jackson's mutant genes for ever paler skin, like Lex Luthor's baldness, made him the evil genius he is today. Any forensic experts here who can cast light on this amazing investigation? Damien Broderick From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 6 04:56:01 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:56:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe In-Reply-To: <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <002e01c4da2d$35b9a980$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205201147.02942188@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> I challenge the assumptions made here: 1. I am often told by those reluctant to consider cryonics that Life Extension will work, especially if one is young, due to the bootstrapping effect - each year of more life brings more options, etc unto an extremely long life. What is missed here (just one of several things) is that biological systems are very complex, and each level of intervention will, yes, provide more life, but the next level will be much more complex. Melatonin is simple, Telemeronase is complex, and the Human Genome seriously complex. My favorite analogy is used cars. I am a cheapskate and buy cars about 10 years old. They generally run for 5 - 7 years and then the mechanic tells me the repair costs more than the auto is worth. So on to the next one. The promise of nanotechnology suggests two things: A) Constructing an object the size of a human body uses some 5 x 10^28 atoms, so if the first assembler can do one atom per second, and a BIG presumption, that Moore's Law will still apply, at 10^2 per decade improvement gets a value of 14.5 decades. But that is fabricating a human body in 1 second! If we allow a couple of weeks, 10^6 seconds, 3 decades go away, and now the estimate is 11.5 decades. Now, Moore's Law has been a pretty good predictor of my personal PC, whose cost has been constant in the $800 range, from the Commodore PET (8K RAM, 8 bits, .5mhz 20K Tape storage) to the by now obsolete Pentium I use, (2 gb RAM, 32 bits, 2ghz, 240 gb Hd storage). So, if the cost of the first nanobuilt body is $800 million dollars, guess what - 3 more decades (back to 14.5) and the cost is the same as my PC. The point here is that there will be a time when total body replacement is a cheaper option than continuing life extension. It reminds me of the cherry condition Edsel I saw parked in the street next to my house about 20 years ago. The maintenance cost of that machine must be at least 100x per mile driven than that of a 10 year old used car. 2. Now uploading (or inloading, replacing the brain with computronium) is a whole other matter. In NanoSystems, Drexler using a mechanocomputing model estimates that less than 1ml is needed to create a human equivalent computer. More fun with numbers: 200 billion neurons, average 2K synapses per neuron is 10^11 x 10^3 x 4 = 4 x 10^14 synapses. If we allow a nanobuilt "synapse" to use a cube of .1 micron on a side (and that is generous, even allowing for the connections), now, .001 cubic micron per synaptic equivalent, the volume comes to 4 x 10^14 x 10^-3 x 10^-18 = 4 x 10^-7 M^3 or 0.4 milliliters. A 50 Kg body is 5 x 10^1 x 10^3 = 5 x 10^4 milliliters, so the ratio becomes 5/0.4 x 10^4 = 1.25 x 10^5, so to build a nanoequivalent brain takes less nano resources, if we again apply Moore's law, now we come to 14.5 - 2.5 or 12 decades, and if it still takes 2 weeks, now the number becomes 9 decades. If the cost of such a device is $1 Million, or about 1000x that of my PC, well, ok, 10.5 decades. Please note that the real money improvement in personal income is around 100x per century, so a century from now the real cost is about the value of $10,000 is today. This is clearly not very expensive. And to top it off, even a mechanocomputer will run some 100x faster than a biological brain, so an upload will experience a 100x time expansion factor as well. 3. Our attitudes about life are a combination of genetics, culture and early family experience, all of which are currently not editable. I rather think that a "Life is wonderful and a true joy" mementic installation will prove very popular, ergo those selecting super long life will approach 100%. ------------------------- Of course this is lots of smoke and a nontrivial number of mirrors, and getting better values is intractable at best, but this is why I think the numbers and methods mentioned in this thread are nearly pointless. >Mark Walker wrote: > >>Suppose a world's population is fixed at 10 billion inhabitants and only 10% >>of these (autonomously) choose to pursue superlongevity (to tens of >>thousands of years or more). ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 6 05:05:10 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:05:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com > References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FC@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205210351.02909240@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Identity is a meme, so you are who you believe you are. Yes, recursedly relativitistic. At 12:24 AM 12/5/2004, you wrote: >In the future transhuman age, if you can change whatever (including the >genes, or >so-called neuronal editor, or even your face/personal characters etc.) you >want, >then what makes you still the unique you? > >Thanks. > >Walter. >-------- ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 6 05:15:47 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:15:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com > References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205210650.0292ddc0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Big eddys have small eddys, each with increasing velocity, and so on until viscosity. If I take Occam's Razor and slice with an ever smaller blade, I end up lost in my clade, going from atom to atman, from self observing to self/observing a wavy function of mind/fullness... >Various Folk: > > How does your uniqueness require the same lack of control and options as > > you experience now? > > I think most people will look more or less the same, right? > > That you always make that same mistakes, imo. > >Not that you always do the right things? > > > Imo, a unique subjective point of view > >OK, this sounds like a soul. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 6 05:18:58 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:18:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] advanced science fights crime In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041205194820.01a2d9d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041205194820.01a2d9d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205211642.029604a0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> In Borneo, Java, and Bali, Evil Ghosts and Spirits always move in straight lines..... >I assumed at first that this DNA sample would establish whether any of the >young boys allegedly molested by Jackson had been made pregnant by him. >But the carefully measured sight lines suggest another scientific line of >thought--that Jackson's DNA might have *leaped* from one room to the >other, perhaps while everyone slept. >Any forensic experts here who can cast light on this amazing investigation? > >Damien Broderick ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From zero.powers at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 06:28:47 2004 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:28:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not Just Rednecks for Bush In-Reply-To: <20041124144339.96247.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041124144339.96247.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7a32170504120522284733f456@mail.gmail.com> Once again make me proud to count myself among the African Americans. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:43:39 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > Polls show that the President increased his support by... > > 5% among females > 9% among Latinos > 2% among African Americans > 3% among Asians > 7% among those over age 65 > 5% among Catholics > 6% among Jewish voters > 4% among married people > From zero.powers at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 06:35:37 2004 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:35:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] atheists launch dumb song lyrics In-Reply-To: <007601c4d4c6$a5ae1940$6501a8c0@SHELLY> References: <20041126180642.CFB2F57E2B@finney.org> <007601c4d4c6$a5ae1940$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <7a3217050412052235762a446b@mail.gmail.com> Ever hear the song "Flashlight" by Parliament? One of the funkiest tunes George Clinton & Co. ever came up with. But the lyics? Fageddaboutit! http://www.weddingvendors.com/music/lyrics/song-1079.html Zero On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:18:21 -0800, Spike wrote: > > > "Hal Finney" > > > Amara writes: > > > San Jose is more populated, but unless you are from > > California, or the from western US, the probability is low that you > know where it is. > > > > Of course this problem was immortalized in the song of the > > lost traveller: "Do you know the way to San Jose?" > > Ja, I actually like the song, and I've been a > Dionne Warwick fan ever since, but for cryin out > loud, the lyrics are stupid. Has she ever heard > of a MAP? All this time we were told women didn't > mind asking directions. Most gas station people > have a least a vague notion of where San Jose > might be found. > > Those lyrics are so dumb, it reminds me of the > Dana Carvey comedy routine "Chopping Broccoli". > The routine is about how rock and roll songs > have lyrics that are so dumb, you are certain > that they just made them up on the spot, just > started strumming the guitar and singing whatever > came to mind. He came up with this: > > There's a lady I know > If I didn't know her > She'd be the lady I didn't know. > > And my lady, she went downtown > She bought some broccoli > She brought it home. > > She's chopping broccoli > Chopping broccoli > Chopping broccoli > Chopping broccoli > > She's chopping broccoli > She's chopping broccoli > She's chop.. ooh! > She's chopping broccola-ah-ie! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Shes cold as ice > paradice > and the feelin > wasa nice > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > New beginnings > New beginnings > New beginnings > New beginnings > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Going to the club, gotta work out, work out > Going to the club, gotta work out, work out > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > shes my lady shes my girl > shes my little little girl > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > dead dog lyin in the ditch > cigarette smoker has an itch > secret whores with ancient vices > lucky has the lowest prices > im gettin higher...im gettin higher...in the world > > {8^D > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From zero.powers at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 07:04:11 2004 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:04:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004 In-Reply-To: <419D5C3A.2030201@pobox.com> References: <419D5C3A.2030201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7a32170504120523041fcb71a1@mail.gmail.com> Eliezer, you may be sick of hearing it by now, but I too am saddened by your loss. I wish there were comforting words I could write, but you know and I know there are none. I can only hope that hundreds of years from now when you and I have millenia stretched out before us to use at our leisure, I can gain a sense of who Yehuda was from the collective memories of you, Channah, your parents and grandparents. Grieve as you must, for as long as you must. But please, for your sake and mine, do get back to work ASAP. Best regards Zero On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:36:42 -0500, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > My little brother, Yehuda Nattan Yudkowsky, is dead. > > He died November 1st. His body was found without identification. The > family found out on November 4th. I spent a week and a half with my family > in Chicago, and am now back in Atlanta. I've been putting off telling my > friends, because it's such a hard thing to say. > > I used to say: "I have four living grandparents and I intend to have four > living grandparents when the last star in the Milky Way burns out." I > still have four living grandparents, but I don't think I'll be saying that > any more. Even if we make it to and through the Singularity, it will be > too late. One of the people I love won't be there. The universe has a > surprising ability to stab you through the heart from somewhere you weren't > looking. Of all the people I had to protect, I never thought that Yehuda > might be one of them. Yehuda was born July 11, 1985. He lived 7053 days. > He was nineteen years old when he died. > > The Jewish religion prescribes a number of rituals and condolences for the > occasion of a death. The rituals are pointless and tiring; the condolences > are religious idiocies. Yehuda has passed to a better place, God's ways > are mysterious but benign, etc. Does such talk really comfort people? I > watched my parents, and I don't think it did. The blessing that is spoken > at Jewish funerals is "Blessed is God, the true judge." Do they really > believe that? Why do they cry at funerals, if they believe that? Does it > help someone, to tell them that their religion requires them to believe > that? I think I coped better than my parents and my little sister Channah. > I was just dealing with pain, not confusion. When I heard on the phone > that Yehuda had died, there was never a moment of disbelief. I knew what > kind of universe I lived in, and I knew what I planned to do about that. > How is my religious family to comprehend it, working, as they must, from > the assumption that Yehuda was deliberately murdered by a benevolent God? > The same loving God, I presume, who arranges for millions of children to > grow up illiterate and starving; the same kindly tribal father-figure who > arranged the Holocaust and the Inquisition's torture of witches. I would > not hesitate to call it evil, if any sentient mind had committed such an > act, permitted such a thing. But I have weighed the evidence as best I > can, and I do not believe the universe to be evil, a reply which in these > days is called atheism. > > Maybe it helps to believe in an immortal soul. I know that I would feel a > lot better if Yehuda had gone away on a trip somewhere, even if he was > never coming back. But Yehuda did not "pass on". Yehuda is not "resting > in peace". Yehuda is not coming back. Yehuda doesn't exist any more. > Yehuda was absolutely annihilated at the age of nineteen. Yes, that makes > me angry. I can't put into words how angry. It would be rage to rend the > gates of Heaven and burn down God on Its throne, if any God existed. But > there is no God, so my anger burns to tear apart the way-things-are, remake > the pattern of a world that permits this. > > I wonder at the strength of non-transhumanist atheists, to accept so > terrible a darkness without any hope of changing it. But then most > atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even > less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, > refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient > beings annihilated every day. One point eight lives per second, fifty-five > million lives per year. Convert the units, time to life, life to time. > The World Trade Center killed half an hour. As of today, all cryonics > organizations together have suspended one minute. This essay took twenty > thousand lives to write. I wonder if there was ever an atheist who > accepted the full horror, making no excuses, offering no consolations, who > did not also hope for some future dawn. What must it be like to live in > this world, seeing it just the way it is, and think that it will never > change, never get any better? > > Yehuda's death is the first time I ever lost someone close enough for it to > hurt. So now I've seen the face of the enemy. Now I understand, a little > better, the price of half a second. I don't understand it well, because > the human brain has a pattern built into it. We do not grieve forever, but > move on. We mourn for a few days and then continue with our lives. Such > underreaction poorly equips us to comprehend Yehuda's death. Nineteen > years of life and memory annihilated. A thousand years, or a million > millennia, or a forever, of future life lost. The sun should have dimmed > when Yehuda died, and a chill wind blown in every place that sentient > beings gather, to tell us that our number was diminished by one. But the > sun did not dim, because we do not live in that sensible a universe. Even > if the sun did dim whenever someone died, it wouldn't be noticeable except > as a continuous flickering. Soon everyone would get used to it, and they > would no longer notice the flickering of the sun. > > My little brother collected corks from wine bottles. Someone brought home, > to the family, a pair of corks they had collected for Yehuda, and never had > a chance to give him. And my grandmother said, "Give them to Channah, and > someday she'll tell her children about how her brother Yehuda collected > corks." My grandmother's words shocked me, stretched across more time than > it had ever occurred to me to imagine, to when my fourteen-year-old sister > had grown up and had married and was telling her children about the brother > she'd lost. How could my grandmother skip across all those years so easily > when I was struggling to get through the day? I heard my grandmother's > words and thought: she has been through this before. This isn't the first > loved one my grandmother has lost, the way Yehuda was the first loved one > I'd lost. My grandmother is old enough to have a pattern for dealing with > the death of loved ones; she knows how to handle this because she's done it > before. And I thought: how can she accept this? If she knows, why isn't > she fighting with everything she has to change it? > > What would it be like to be a rational atheist in the fifteenth century, > and know beyond all hope of rescue that everyone you loved would be > annihilated, one after another, unless you yourself died first? That is > still the fate of humans today; the ongoing horror has not changed, for all > that we have hope. Death is not a distant dream, not a terrible tragedy > that happens to someone else like the stories you read in newspapers. One > day you'll get a phone call, like I got a phone call, and the possibility > that seemed distant will become reality. You will mourn, and finish > mourning, and go on with your life, and then one day you'll get another > phone call. That is the fate this world has in store for you, unless you > make a convulsive effort to change it. > > Since Yehuda's body was not identified for three days after he died, there > was no possible way he could have been cryonically suspended. Others may > be luckier. If you've been putting off that talk with your loved ones, do > it. Maybe they won't understand, but at least you won't spend forever > wondering why you didn't even try. > > There is one Jewish custom associated with death that makes sense to me, > which is contributing to charity on behalf of the departed. I am donating > eighteen hundred dollars to the general fund of the Singularity Institute, > because this has gone on long enough. If you object to the Singularity > Institute then consider Dr. Aubrey de Grey's Methuselah Foundation, which > hopes to defeat aging through biomedical engineering. I think that a > sensible coping strategy for transhumanist atheists, to donate to an > anti-death charity after a loved one dies. Death hurt us, so we will > unmake Death. Let that be the outlet for our anger, which is terrible and > just. I watched Yehuda's coffin lowered into the ground and cried, and > then I sat through the eulogy and heard rabbis tell comforting lies. If I > had spoken Yehuda's eulogy I would not have comforted the mourners in their > loss. I would have told the mourners that Yehuda had been absolutely > annihilated, that there was nothing left of him. I would have told them > they were right to be angry, that they had been robbed, that something > precious and irreplaceable was taken from them, for no reason at all, taken > from them and shattered, and they are never getting it back. > > If there should be a monument someday, somewhere on it will be "$1800, in > memoriam Yehuda Nattan Yudkowsky, 1985-2004." It will not restore him to > life. No sentient being deserves such a thing. Let that be my brother's > true eulogy, free of comforting lies. > > When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: "We shall have to work > faster." Any similar condolences are welcome. Other condolences are not. > > Goodbye, Yehuda. There isn't much point in saying it, since there's no one > to hear. Goodbye, Yehuda, you don't exist any more. Nothing left of you > after your death, like there was nothing before your birth. You died, and > your family, Mom and Dad and Channah and I, sat down at the Sabbath table > just like our family had always been composed of only four people, like > there had never been a Yehuda. Goodbye, Yehuda Yudkowsky, never to return, > never to be forgotten. > > Love, > Eliezer. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 6 07:29:09 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:29:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Earth rings References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FE@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <004001c4db65$472196e0$55b51b97@administxl09yj> > Can this be regarded as the first step > to the so-called planetary brain? > Walter. I'm not an expert. I did not even follow any details. But I doubt that first step would be made of spatial rubbish ... From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 6 07:46:51 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:46:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <008601c4db67$bff53890$55b51b97@administxl09yj> > > > [...] then what makes you still the unique you? > > That you always make the same mistakes, imo. > Not that you always do the right things? > Walther I do the right things only by chance :-( From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 6 07:52:51 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:52:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FF@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <20041206075251.GE9221@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:44:49AM +0800, Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > If you can make yourself the most clever, or the most handsome/beautiful, or > the most social, > or the most leading etc. by the future tech., I think most people will look > more or less the same, right? That assumes everybody has calibrated her metrics, and keeps them synchronized. A little Tweety here keeps telling me we're going to get speciation instead, in no time at all. > Anyway, why you don't make yourself the best if you can make it easily by > tech.? Haute Couture is really really expensive. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Mon Dec 6 12:05:47 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:05:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic fundamentalism in USA Message-ID: <2A423904-477F-11D9-A0FB-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> As a nice counter-point to Mike Lorrey's alarmist post about how bad the Islamic situation in Europe is last week the LA Weekly published an interesting piece on increasing allure of fundamentalist Islam to white and hispanic americans. The most interesting point is that these new converts are much more fundamentalist in their beliefs (no western music, movies etc) than than the vast majority of immigrants. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/02/features-bernhard.php best, patrick From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Mon Dec 6 14:15:21 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:15:21 +0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205201147.02942188@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <002e01c4da2d$35b9a980$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20041206131339.00b29c40@pop.cris.net> At 08:56 PM 12/5/04 -0800, you Hara Ra wrote: >2. Now uploading (or inloading, replacing the brain with computronium) is a >whole other matter. In NanoSystems, Drexler using a mechanocomputing model >estimates that less than 1ml is needed to create a human equivalent >computer. More fun with numbers: 200 billion neurons, average 2K synapses >per neuron is 10^11 x 10^3 x 4 = 4 x 10^14 synapses. If we allow a nanobuilt >"synapse" to use a cube of .1 micron on a side (and that is generous, even >allowing for the connections), now, .001 cubic micron per synaptic >equivalent, the volume comes to 4 x 10^14 x 10^-3 x 10^-18 = 4 x 10^-7 M^3 >or 0.4 milliliters. Each synapse is an enormously complex system: hundreds of vesicles containing a multitude of different neurotransmitters at presynaptic side and thousands of different receptors and innumerable subtypes of receptors at postsynaptic side with thousands of various possible substates for every connection. Not to mention dizzy cell machinery and chemo apparatus of environment. Even if a final result of interaction is just a definite postsynaptic potential you cannot emulate a synapse in a naive "wire-to-wire" setup unless you introduce external controlling unit that simulates (currently) unfathomable innards and functional repertoire for each synapse. Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 6 15:19:33 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:19:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Earth rings Message-ID: Earth has a dust ring that has been known already for some time. This is resonant ring of asteroidal dust particles trapped in external mean motion resonances with the Earth. From 10.10: the Earth's Dust Ring in _Solar System Dynamics_ by C.D. Murray and S.f. Dermott, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pg. 522 "In many respects the asteroid belt behaves like a moonlet around the Sun. We have already shown that is likely that collisions within the belt have produced the Hirayama families of asteroids, recognised by their clustering of proper elements (see sect. 7.10). Some of the dust form the same collisions is also detectable as the bands detected by the IRAS spacecraft (see Sect. 7.1.1). Any dust formed in the asteroid belt will spiral in towards the sun due to the effects of PR drag. Dermott et al. (1994) studied the orbital evolution of 12 micron dust and showed htat it can get temporarily trapped in a series of exterior first-order resonances with the Earth (see Fig. 10.29)" also see: S.f. Dermott et al: chapter: "Orbital Evolution" in the book: _Interplanetary Dust_, editor: E. Gruen, b.A.S. Gustafson, S.F. Dermott, H. Fechig, Springer Verlag, 2001, pg. 618-619. and on the NASA ADS: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994aidp.work...16D&db_key=AST&high=413845eb0e03607 (you can download the PDF) -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From namacdon at ole.augie.edu Mon Dec 6 16:04:39 2004 From: namacdon at ole.augie.edu (Nicholas Anthony MacDonald) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:04:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic fundamentalism in USA Message-ID: <1102349079.aaf734c0namacdon@ole.augie.edu> "As a nice counter-point to Mike Lorrey's alarmist post about how bad the Islamic situation in Europe is last week the LA Weekly published an interesting piece on increasing allure of fundamentalist Islam to white and hispanic americans. The most interesting point is that these new converts are much more fundamentalist in their beliefs (no western music, movies etc) than than the vast majority of immigrants." It would be interesting to see if such a trend starts in Europe as well. Jean-Francois Revel almost insinuated such in the book he did with his son Mattieu Ricard, "The Monk and the Philosopher", as they discussed the growth of both Islam and Buddhism in Europe. In his view, it seems like a legitimate possiblity that native Europeans, no longer inspired by a secular worldview, could turn to fundamentalist Islam to provide a new "wisdom tradition" and vision of meaning for their lives (a scary choice). Revel, no fan of monotheism (his most famous work being "Without Marx or Jesus"), hopes that Europeans searching for spiritual nourishment turn to the much more benign Buddhism, even as he questions it's metaphysical truth. -Nicholas MacDonald From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 6 16:39:02 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:39:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America Message-ID: Mike Lorrey : >If the US gov't has finally started clamping down on academic visas, I >say it is a glorious day for US college students. They can finally look >forward to classes taught by assistant profs and grad students who can >speak english understandably. Well, Mike, usually the foreign students in my undergraduate and graduate physics courses were raising the curves, often being much smarter than us U.S. students. I'm very glad for all of the foreigners in my science courses. And I'm also glad that the 'foreigners' fully supported me (my PhD was not only free, I received a stipend to live on) to get my doctorate abroad. This is globalization, working to benefit everyone. Here's one of the articles published on this topic in the last years, that I alluded to earlier. "Science Board Warns of Uncertain Future for US Science and Engineering Leadership" July 2004, Physics Today http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p25.html Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "One world at a time." --Thoreau From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 6 16:45:16 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:45:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20041206131339.00b29c40@pop.cris.net> References: <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <002e01c4da2d$35b9a980$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <019201c4daa6$9dfd8380$b8232dcb@homepc> <4.3.2.7.2.20041206131339.00b29c40@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041206083840.02931528@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Each "synapse" is a small emulator intended to handle these things. In the worst case, such an emulated synapse would be about the same volume as the original. I did not say all 'synapses' were identical, was only doing a volume estimate. I do my best to say what I mean, but I cannot handle assumptions provided by others. So thanks, now you are updated. When nanoscanner examines synapse, would set up model parameters from data therefrom. At 06:15 AM 12/6/2004, you wrote: >At 08:56 PM 12/5/04 -0800, you Hara Ra wrote: >In NanoSystems, Drexler using a mechanocomputing model > >estimates that less than 1ml is needed to create a human equivalent > >computer. now, .001 cubic micron per synaptic > >equivalent, >or 0.4 milliliters. > >Each synapse is an enormously complex system: hundreds of vesicles >containing a multitude of different neurotransmitters at presynaptic side >and thousands of different receptors and innumerable subtypes of receptors >at postsynaptic side with thousands of various possible substates for every >connection. Not to mention dizzy cell machinery and chemo apparatus of >environment. Even if a final result of interaction is just a definite >postsynaptic potential you cannot emulate a synapse in a naive >"wire-to-wire" setup unless you introduce external controlling unit that >simulates (currently) unfathomable innards and functional repertoire for >each synapse. > >Best! > >Gennady >Simferopol Crimea Ukraine > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From megao at sasktel.net Mon Dec 6 18:21:42 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:21:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Forbes piece has some interesting catchwords Message-ID: <41B4A336.4020903@sasktel.net> Software There's A New Grid In Town Quentin Hardy, 12.06.04, 7:28 AM ET SAN FRANCISCO - Now that computer systems are bigger and more complex than ever before, industry titan William Coleman figures, it is time they learned how to run themselves. "We're heading for self-configuration" of computer systems, says Coleman, founder of BEA Systems (nasdaq: BEAS - news - people ), who left that company last year to start Cassatt, a software company aiming to steer that self-configuration. "With the commoditization of the computing world, we have to automate information technology operations." Cassatt is backed by Warburg Pincus with a reported $50 million investment. Cassatt has been in stealth for over a year, while attracting senior development executives from Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ), Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ) and Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ), as well as the former chief information officer of the U.S. federal government. Today, Cassatt will announce its first product, software for automated management of large systems of computer servers and applications. Coleman says the software will be able dynamically allocate previously dedicated servers to different tasks as needed through so-called "virtualization" of servers, fixing problems on the fly and only telling their human managers about it afterward. The software costs about $25,000 for the controlling software, and $1,500 per server managed. Thus, a system of 30 servers would cost $70,000 -- $25,000 for the brain and $45,000 for the individual managers. Coleman faces big competition in the market: Besides Sun, Hewlett Packard (nyse: HPQ - news - people ) offers its Openview software for system management. IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), which has been pushing its own "On Demand" software, is said to be a Cassatt partner. Coleman says that the current push among customers for lower prices and open systems pushed IBM to him. "If they could yet spend more money and make things more and more complicated" they would, he says, but "IBM has to adapt to this -- the world won't go in for On Demand to cost more money and tie it to a single vendor." Both HP and IBM, Coleman says, "aren't competing with us, they are competing with where technology and the economy are going. They have to adapt -- we can help them get there." The company says it has about 40 customers, including Informatica (nasdaq: INFA - news - people ), Ascential Software (nasdaq: ASCL - news - people ) and a program for the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a large pharmaceutical manufacturer. If things go as planned, a new version of the product, incorporating more sophisticated virtualization techniques to turn many computers into a single giant grid, will be announced in the spring. Coleman says Cassatt marks the start of a fourth ten-year cycle in computer technology. The previous ones include exploration of the capabilities of the semiconductor, resulting in the personal computer; their growth into client-server networks; and the maturation of that into the Internet and Web services architectures. In each case, both the capabilities and the geography of electronic intelligence grew vastly larger. In the new era, says Coleman, "the footprint is the globe, always connected -- the productivity enhancements will surpass everything we've seen before." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 19:06:08 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:06:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument In-Reply-To: <001201c4da1b$46d394e0$74f54d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <20041206190608.75397.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Rick" > > > Someone correct me if this is wrong, but shouldn't 13.8 billion LE > distant > > and 180 degrees apart, *for us*, mean that those two galaxies are > > practically bumping shoulders? > > No, it would mean they are 27.6 light years distant from each other > and > forever unobservable from each other. We being in the middle can see > both. Not 'are', 'were'. That was 13.8 billion years ago when those photons were sent out. Those galaxies are now 27.6 billion LY away from us, and more than 54 billion ly apart from each other. How, you ask, did that happen if everything is only 14 billion years old? Because the speed of light is defined by its velocity relative to local space. If space itself is expanding faster than light speed, the stuff in it could be dead still relative to other local stuff and still be going like a bat outta hell. > > > The big bang did not happen centered on our location, nor any other > > location we can point to > > Exactly, it happened to all of space at the same time. However, as all that space is what defines the bounds of the universe, the 'expansion' still has real validity as it is a measure of how fast space is expanding. Things did not just suddenly start off billions of light years away from each other. Because there is no 'boundary' to space (you wind up curving back around the other side if you go fast enough in one direction), every point in space is properly considered the 'center' of the big bang. Every point, however, is fleeing from every other point almost as fast as they possibly can. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 19:44:01 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:44:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041206194401.81236.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brent Neal wrote: > > I'll note that all of my profs in both undergraduate and graduate > school for whom English was their 2nd language spoke the language > quite well. Don't confuse the cariacature of college with the real > thing. Lucky you. Of course, I said assistant profs and graduate instructors, not profs. Foreigners with full professorships do tend to be understandable if not fluent. At WPI in the 80's, the Illegibles and Inscrutibles were typically japlish-type speakers for whome English was a fourth or fifth language (less well spoken, than, say, C, fortran, and pascal). These types generally are wanted strictly for their ability to relieve professors of hard and heavy research number crunching, bean counting and bottle washing. Relieving them of teaching undergrads is also seen as a benefit, but not something graduate slots are selected for. Profs actually tend to like to stick undergrads with inscrutable instructors, they see it as a means of weeding out those who cannot operate independently of instruction. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Dec 6 19:46:50 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:46:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041206131256.26635af0@unreasonable.com> Amara wrote: >Well, Mike, usually the foreign students in my undergraduate and graduate >physics courses were raising the curves, often being much smarter than >us U.S. students. None of the foreign students in my engineering graduate and doctoral classes were discernibly smarter than the US students. They raised the curve because they worked harder than we did. Some because they came from a culture habituated to hard work, some through the filtering inherent in becoming a foreign student, some because they'd have to go back if they didn't get top grades. In our local high school here, the best students are usually the children of Chinese or Indian immigrants, followed by the third-generation Jewish-Americans. The three groups appear comparable in intelligence; the difference in results stems from extraordinary effort. (Brilliance like Sasha's son has is rare enough to have little consequence on the social patterns.) Mike wrote: >They can finally look forward to classes taught by assistant profs and >grad students who can >speak english understandably. This is a legitimate concern, although I do not agree with Mike's remedy. In my years in industry, I've worked with, or considered for employment, thousands of foreign-born engineers. My two concerns, impacting both their individual productivity and their contribution to our team, are language and culture. Are they sufficiently close to native fluency and social norms to fit in without substantial daily accommodation? (Most are fine; some are not.) In academia, the situation is more painful, because the relationship is not 1:1 and may be less voluntary. I remember a math professor, in a class that would have been a struggle for me under any circumstances. He compounded the problem both by being a poor teacher -- racing through material, mumbling toward the blackboard, declaring "obvious" things that weren't -- and through his severe Slavic accent. In that case, most of us transferred to another section; he ended up with 1/5 as many students as the other profs had. -- David Lubkin. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 20:21:45 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:21:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Earth rings In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA40684FE@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <20041206202145.51244.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Rings around gravity wells are not stable without active maneuvering capabilities. Planetary brains are irrelevant to ringworlds, and, furthermore, suffer from greater latency issues than ground communications. --- Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > Can this be regarded as the first step to the so-called planetary > brain? > > Thanks. > > Walter. > --------- > > > From: scerir > > Would be desirable to contain the particles, from > > space flight projects, in a ring, around the Earth? > > Would such a ring remain stable? > > > ================================================================================================================================================================ > This message may contain information which is private, privileged or > confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended > recipient of this message, please notify the sender and > destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this > information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > is prohibited. > ================================================================================================================================================================ > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 20:28:44 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic fundamentalism in USA In-Reply-To: <2A423904-477F-11D9-A0FB-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <20041206202844.52163.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Patrick Wilken wrote: > As a nice counter-point to Mike Lorrey's alarmist post about how bad > the Islamic situation in Europe is last week the LA Weekly published > an interesting piece on increasing allure of fundamentalist Islam to > white > and hispanic americans. The most interesting point is that these new > converts are much more fundamentalist in their beliefs (no western > music, movies etc) than than the vast majority of immigrants. This is common. The Nation of Islam has had similar tendencies for decades. I think it is interesting, though, to see what I believe is a dovetailing of the luddite segment of the population with wahabbism, as I predicted a year or two ago. Expect a Luddite Jihadist domestic terror group to form. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 20:37:43 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:37:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers and students in America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041206203743.89321.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > Well, Mike, usually the foreign students in my undergraduate and > graduate physics courses were raising the curves, often being > much smarter than us U.S. students. I'm very glad for all of > the foreigners in my science courses. And I'm also glad that > the 'foreigners' fully supported me (my PhD was not only free, > I received a stipend to live on) to get my doctorate abroad. This > is globalization, working to benefit everyone. One of the reasons I dropped out of college was I was sick of spending huge amounts of good money for bad grades in courses where I couldn't understand the what the friggin instructor was saying, where my grades were a function of the inscrutability of the instructor. Given the vast number of foreign faculty today, I cannot help but expect that the 'decline' is due to students being driven away by a continuation of this trend of faculty dependence on graduate students with poor engrish skills. Now, that being said, I have found that europeans are typically quite fluent in english. The problem isn't there, it is primarily asian. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon Dec 6 23:44:53 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:44:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics Message-ID: <41B4EEF5.4060101@humanenhancement.com> In response to last month's hit-piece on cryonics in "Skeptic" magazine, they have published a few pro-cryonics responses. One, by NASA scientist and science fiction novelist Gregory Benford, mentions transhumanism in a perhaps-not-so-flattering way: "Of course, cryonics is a huge gamble, and I think it is best viewed that way. The recent piece by Kevin Miller in Skeptic (Vol. 11, No. 1) follows common practice: interview a cryobiologist, who then cites a transhumanist (not a cryonicist) about techno-optimism. Miller's scientist, Kenneth Storey, cites extreme standards (cells must cool "at least 1000 degrees a minute") without backing up that statement; he then says "it will never work fororgans," and "they claim they will overturn the law of physics, chemistry and molecular science," again using the argument from authority but providing no evidence." (Skeptic Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 28). The Transhumanist in question, btw, is George Dworsky of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, who was quoted in the original article as saying "I can't sit here today and look you in the eye and tell you we are going to bring people back. Amupme who is going to tell you that is either deluding themselves, or they're not being realistic. But I think there are enough clues now to give us some hope. ... [the thawing process will need] a radically futuristic technology [that] could resuscitate or revitalize the person." Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Dec 7 03:14:15 2004 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:14:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jim Update #4 References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com><001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <025301c4dc0a$d82f03c0$1db71218@Nano> Hello friends, Good news! Our new insurance company has approved the previous policy as credible, so this means that instead of Jim being forced to wait twelve months for his stem cell transplant, he will be able to continue sooner (the usual wait time is, and will now be, a couple of months) which is more appropriate for where he is, at this point in his treatment. It's a relief that we don't have to worry about Jim withstanding the chemotherapy treatments for an extended period of time. Cause for celebration! We are still waiting for the actual paperwork, but we do know that it has been approved after speaking to a representative on the phone. After the papers are all in order we will then discuss what comes next with the Doctor at the Hutch/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. In the mean time, Jim will be switching to thalidomide to maintain the good/low protein levels he has now acquired from the chemo he has been on thus far. He will start the new treatment as soon as his paperwork for the drug is approved, as you know this particular drug has such a history that it requires careful measures for use. These requirements are no problem for us to meet. Other than this news, Jim has been working hard with Foresight (as they are undergoing some changes), and has been doing some computer program upgrades. I've been just trying to get us prepared for Christmas. On that note, I hope that everyone is having a wonderful holiday season. Warmest regards, Gina http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org My New Project: Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Dec 7 03:47:39 2004 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:47:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Jim Update #4 In-Reply-To: <025301c4dc0a$d82f03c0$1db71218@Nano> References: <001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><5.1.0.14.0.20041203224916.0323b5b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com><001301c4d9b8$4e964fa0$1db71218@Nano> <5.1.0.14.0.20041204124933.033927b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <025301c4dc0a$d82f03c0$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: I'm happy for you both. May this Christmas season and the turning of the year bring you more such blessings. Regards, MB On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Gina Miller wrote: > Hello friends, > Good news! Our new insurance company has approved the previous policy as credible [...] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Dec 7 05:15:18 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:15:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reforming the United Nations Message-ID: <41B53C66.4C0C0FB1@mindspring.com> Two articles on the United Nations... < http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3398746 > [Fighting for Survival] < http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3444899 > [Towards a more relevant United Nations] Terry -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 08:56:14 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 09:56:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Clinton Helps Launch Search Engine Message-ID: <470a3c5204120700562a314a07@mail.gmail.com> Former president Bill Clinton on Monday helped launch a new Internet search company backed by the Chinese government which says its technology uses artificial intelligence to produce better results than Google Inc. "I hope you all make lots of money," Clinton told executives at the launch of Accoona Corp., which donated an undisclosed amount to the William J. Clinton Foundation. The Chinese government, one of several large backers, has granted Accoona a 20-year exclusive partnership with the China Daily Information Co., the government agency that runs an official Chinese and English Web site. The company seeks to distinguish itself from Google, Yahoo Inc. and growing list of other search engine players by using artificial intelligence to make the results more relevant. http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/12/06/ap1694891.html From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 09:01:31 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:01:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientist asserts viruses are the engine of mutations that drive human evolutionary change Message-ID: <470a3c52041207010154a97d09@mail.gmail.com> Interesting article (I don't know how accurate from a scientific point of view): A University of California, Irvine scientist says viruses are much, much more than nasty little microbes that infect us with the flu. If he is right, they have infected all of life - with evolution. In an astonishing set of papers and a new book, UCI virologist Luis Villarreal contends viruses are largely responsible for shaping how we look, how we speak, even how we think. In fact, he says, they are an overlooked evolutionary force, one that has been powerfully influencing the shape of living things since life began - actually, since a little before life began. "I'm saying they are a creative force in the evolution of all life," he said in a recent interview. Villarreal, 56, is accustomed to challenging traditional ideas and swimming outside the academic mainstream. His unorthodox ideas about teaching, such as favoring immersion, not lectures, earned him rebukes from some colleagues but a presidential award from Bill Clinton. n reality, Villarreal contends, much, if not all, of this noncoding DNA is really bits and pieces of ancient viruses. They have modified themselves so they can reside comfortably deep inside our cells while avoiding our immune systems. But they are far from being junk. Viruses mutate far more rapidly than more complex organisms - as much as a million times faster than their hosts, including humans. That means many viruses are little packages of new genes that can endow an organism with all kinds of new capabilities. When these viruses settle quietly into the noncoding regions of our DNA, their disease-causing tendencies are suppressed. Eventually they can be harvested by the host for new genes - for example, by reproductive cells. Big leaps in evolution - such as, for instance, a capacity for language and symbolic thinking among humans - could have happened all at once, with the incorporation into our chromosomes of fresh new genes left behind by old viruses. http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2004/12/07/1102385139.htm From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 09:36:01 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:36:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Thinking Cap' Controls Computer in New Experiment Message-ID: <470a3c5204120701363129496f@mail.gmail.com> Yahoo News: Four people were able to control a computer using their thoughts and an electrode-studded "thinking cap," U.S. researchers reported on Monday. They said their set-up could someday be adapted to help disabled people operate a motorized wheelchair or artificial limb. While experiments have allowed a monkey to control a computer with its thoughts, electrodes were implanted into the animal's brain. This experiment, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites), required no surgery and no implants. "The results show that people can learn to use scalp-recorded electroencephalogram rhythms to control rapid and accurate movement of a cursor in two dimensions," "The impressive noninvasive multidimensional control achieved in the present study suggests that a noninvasive brain control interface could support clinically useful operation of a robotic arm, a motorized wheelchair, or a neuroprosthesis," http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20041207/sc_nm/science_thought_dc From Walter_Chen at compal.com Tue Dec 7 09:47:23 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:47:23 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind over matter Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406853A@tpeexg01.compal.com> It's interesting to see these 2 articles today. Your thought can change your genes. It can also manipulate the computer. What this means? Seems not far away from super nature. Thanks. Walter. --------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Source: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1386262004 Delving into mind over matter ... In his first book, It's The Thought That Counts, due to be published next year, he will put forward the scientific arguments about the mysterious mind-body connection and argue that powerful human states such as happiness and optimism can actually change your DNA. ... As an example, Hamilton quotes the work of Eric Kandel, joint winner of the 2000 Nobel prize for medicine, who carried out pioneering work into the way genes can be switched on or off by social influences. Kandel's conclusion is that many genetic differences between people are influenced by society and conditioning, rather than incorporated in the genetic makeup of the parents. ********************************************* Source: http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/dec04/281287.asp Think, think, shoot, score! Brain electrodes help patients play video games in UW study By JOHN FAUBER jfauber at journalsentinel.com Posted: Dec. 4, 2004 With electrodes implanted directly on their brains, two Madison patients were able to control a computer cursor and play a basic video game just by thinking about it. Quotable ... "Just through trial and error he was able to figure out a way to manipulate it," Garell said. "He couldn't really articulate how (he did it), other than it required his concentration." ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harara at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 7 10:31:52 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:31:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <41B4EEF5.4060101@humanenhancement.com> References: <41B4EEF5.4060101@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041207023044.02961e28@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Come on folks, go to Alcor's web site and read about vitrification. These people you quote are completely uninformed, even the cryobiologists. At 03:44 PM 12/6/2004, you wrote: >In response to last month's hit-piece on cryonics in "Skeptic" magazine, >they have published a few pro-cryonics responses. One, by NASA scientist >and science fiction novelist Gregory Benford, mentions transhumanism in a >perhaps-not-so-flattering way: > >"Of course, cryonics is a huge gamble, and I think it is best viewed that >way. The recent piece by Kevin Miller in Skeptic (Vol. 11, No. 1) follows >common practice: interview a cryobiologist, who then cites a transhumanist >(not a cryonicist) about techno-optimism. Miller's scientist, Kenneth >Storey, cites extreme standards (cells must cool "at least 1000 degrees a >minute") without backing up that statement; he then says "it will never >work fororgans," and "they claim they will overturn the law of physics, >chemistry and molecular science," again using the argument from authority >but providing no evidence." (Skeptic Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 28). > >The Transhumanist in question, btw, is George Dworsky of the Toronto >Transhumanist Association, who was quoted in the original article as >saying "I can't sit here today and look you in the eye and tell you we are >going to bring people back. Amupme who is going to tell you that is either >deluding themselves, or they're not being realistic. But I think there are >enough clues now to give us some hope. ... [the thawing process will need] >a radically futuristic technology [that] could resuscitate or revitalize >the person." > >Joseph > >Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": >http://www.humanenhancement.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 7 15:43:55 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:43:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <41B4EEF5.4060101@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <20041207154355.58351.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Not surprised. The opposition is getting organized. Look up the defintion of 'extropy' on www.dictionary.com ... the smear has begun. --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > In response to last month's hit-piece on cryonics in "Skeptic" > magazine, > they have published a few pro-cryonics responses. One, by NASA > scientist > and science fiction novelist Gregory Benford, mentions transhumanism > in > a perhaps-not-so-flattering way: > > "Of course, cryonics is a huge gamble, and I think it is best viewed > that way. The recent piece by Kevin Miller in Skeptic (Vol. 11, No. > 1) > follows common practice: interview a cryobiologist, who then cites a > transhumanist (not a cryonicist) about techno-optimism. Miller's > scientist, Kenneth Storey, cites extreme standards (cells must cool > "at > least 1000 degrees a minute") without backing up that statement; he > then > says "it will never work fororgans," and "they claim they will > overturn > the law of physics, chemistry and molecular science," again using the > > argument from authority but providing no evidence." (Skeptic Vol. 11, > > No. 2, p. 28). > > The Transhumanist in question, btw, is George Dworsky of the Toronto > Transhumanist Association, who was quoted in the original article as > saying "I can't sit here today and look you in the eye and tell you > we > are going to bring people back. Amupme who is going to tell you that > is > either deluding themselves, or they're not being realistic. But I > think > there are enough clues now to give us some hope. ... [the thawing > process will need] a radically futuristic technology [that] could > resuscitate or revitalize the person." > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 7 15:47:38 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:47:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Clinton Helps Launch Search Engine In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204120700562a314a07@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20041207154738.60495.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Relevant according to party dogma? Or Government propaganda? I find it interesting that something that involves the Communist Chinese government, one of the worst in the world, and Bill Clinton, one of the most corrupt US presidents, and nobody sees this as a bad thing. --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > The company seeks to distinguish itself from Google, Yahoo Inc. and > growing list of other search engine players by using artificial > intelligence to make the results more relevant. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 16:46:29 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:46:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Clinton Helps Launch Search Engine In-Reply-To: <20041207154738.60495.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <470a3c5204120700562a314a07@mail.gmail.com> <20041207154738.60495.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52041207084626ecef4b@mail.gmail.com> Don't underestimate the Chinese Mike. Napoleon said something like, China is a sleeping giant, fear the day it will wake. It seems they are waking and with plans for world domination in a couple of decades. I heard rumors of corruption also of other Presidents... G. On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:47:38 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > Relevant according to party dogma? Or Government propaganda? I find it > interesting that something that involves the Communist Chinese > government, one of the worst in the world, and Bill Clinton, one of the > most corrupt US presidents, and nobody sees this as a bad thing. > > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > The company seeks to distinguish itself from Google, Yahoo Inc. and > > growing list of other search engine players by using artificial > > intelligence to make the results more relevant. > > ===== > Mike Lorrey From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Dec 7 16:46:47 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:46:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <20041207154355.58351.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041207154355.58351.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B5DE77.8000801@humanenhancement.com> "Extropy- the pseudoscientific prediction that human intelligence and technology will enable life to expand in an orderly way throughout the entire universe" One wonders if there's any way to appeal or otherwise alter such definitions. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com Mike Lorrey wrote: >Not surprised. The opposition is getting organized. Look up the >defintion of 'extropy' on www.dictionary.com ... the smear has begun. > >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Tue Dec 7 18:17:07 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:17:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3A883@amazemail2.amazeent.com> I can't imagine that there is any sort of sinister intention behind this; it's probably some disgruntled grad student working on WordNet at princeton who put it in just for kicks. I have requested that it be changed: I take issue with your definition of "Extropy": (the pseudoscientific prediction that human intelligence and technology will enable life to expand in an orderly way throughout the entire universe). I would be more than pleased if you were to remove the word "pseudoscientific"; it betrays an unacceptably biased point of view. But note that their site says (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/blind_person) WordNet is not an authoritative source for definitions, nor is that its intent. Many of the definitions are somewhat antiquated, having reached us via lists of words from other sources. Unfortunately, releasing a new version of WordNet, as when publishing a printed book, takes a good deal of time and money. Thus, the corrected definition will not be publicly visible until the next release of WordNet, and the Google result (via their "definitions" service), which is not under our direct control, may take even longer to reflect our internal correction. Acy -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch Sent: Tuesday, 07 December, 2004 10:47 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics "Extropy- the pseudoscientific prediction that human intelligence and technology will enable life to expand in an orderly way throughout the entire universe" One wonders if there's any way to appeal or otherwise alter such definitions. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com Mike Lorrey wrote: >Not surprised. The opposition is getting organized. Look up the >defintion of 'extropy' on www.dictionary.com ... the smear has begun. > >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Dec 7 18:28:13 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:28:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The emergence of AI In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041204162238.01c83bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041207182813.11820.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:15 PM 12/4/2004 -0500, Robin wrote to Eliezer: > < Wouldn't it be worth it to take the time to > convince at least one or two > people who are recognized established experts in the > fields in which you > claim to have new insight, so they could integrate > you into the large > intellectual conversation? > > > I agree in general with Robin's comments, but offer > this as a possible > counter-balance--a furious and frustrated essay by > Physics Nobelist Brian > Josephson, concerning the institutional barriers to > communicating > unorthodox ideas: > > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html But consider the end of this: > the distinction between 'nutty' ideas (which either > have no scientific meaning or contain serious > errors), which should be barred from the archive, > and unusual ideas which may or may not be right, and > also may turn out to be important, which should be > allowed on the archive. Inventing new terms instead of adapting existing terms robs a thought of scientific meaning - that is, meaning to other scientists, since they would not be as able to comprehend it. And there's also the bit about the unspecified general improvements that no one else has seen, which many would suspect of being an error. If many people are rejecting an idea, then no matter how fiercely one believes in that idea, it's usually worthwhile to see exactly what logic (and there's always some logic) is causing the rejection. At worst, one can illustrate differences in basic perceived facts. (E.g., a rabid anti-choice protestor disagrees strongly with most people on the relative value of the potential life of an embryo vs. the actual life of a human woman who happens to carry the embryo, to the point that the moment of birth is almost the sole point of value: if one dies after being born, one has a nonzero amount of "life", which is all that matters to the protestor.) But most of the time in this situation, one is likely to find at least slight flaws in one's own ideas; once the flaws are found, they can be refined away, leaving something more likely to be perfectly in sync with reality. This effect is so great, that the odds of success by one who utterly rejects this approach (say, by blanket rejecting/refusing to listen to all critics) are nearly zero in almost any endeavor, as demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. The same seems likely to hold true of efforts to develop Singularity-related technologies, even given said technologies' unique qualities. From natashavita at earthlink.net Tue Dec 7 18:44:29 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:44:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in Skeptic re: cryonics Message-ID: <144660-220041227184429376@M2W096.mail2web.com> From: Hara Ra >Come on folks, go to Alcor's web site and read about vitrification. These >people you quote are completely uninformed, even the cryobiologists. Precisely. Natasha At 03:44 PM 12/6/2004, you wrote: >In response to last month's hit-piece on cryonics in "Skeptic" magazine, >they have published a few pro-cryonics responses. One, by NASA scientist >and science fiction novelist Gregory Benford, mentions transhumanism in a >perhaps-not-so-flattering way: > >"Of course, cryonics is a huge gamble, and I think it is best viewed that >way. The recent piece by Kevin Miller in Skeptic (Vol. 11, No. 1) follows >common practice: interview a cryobiologist, who then cites a transhumanist >(not a cryonicist) about techno-optimism. Miller's scientist, Kenneth >Storey, cites extreme standards (cells must cool "at least 1000 degrees a >minute") without backing up that statement; he then says "it will never >work fororgans," and "they claim they will overturn the law of physics, >chemistry and molecular science," again using the argument from authority >but providing no evidence." (Skeptic Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 28). > >The Transhumanist in question, btw, is George Dworsky of the Toronto >Transhumanist Association, who was quoted in the original article as >saying "I can't sit here today and look you in the eye and tell you we are >going to bring people back. Amupme who is going to tell you that is either >deluding themselves, or they're not being realistic. But I think there are >enough clues now to give us some hope. ... [the thawing process will need] >a radically futuristic technology [that] could resuscitate or revitalize >the person." > >Joseph > >Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": >http://www.humanenhancement.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 7 22:33:58 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:33:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] advanced science fights crime In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041205211642.029604a0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041207223358.27784.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Ha ha, hara. Actually, if one assumes that the child was left with deposits of Jackson's semen, skin, or hair which could have been collected by a rape kit if the parents reported the incident quick enough, collecting Jackson's DNA is a smart move. Perhaps instead they were hoping to prove that one or more of Jackson's own kids were not really his biologically speaking so they could justify taking them away from him. --- Hara Ra wrote: > In Borneo, Java, and Bali, Evil Ghosts and Spirits always move in > straight > lines..... > > >I assumed at first that this DNA sample would establish whether any > of the > >young boys allegedly molested by Jackson had been made pregnant by > him. > >But the carefully measured sight lines suggest another scientific > line of > >thought--that Jackson's DNA might have *leaped* from one room to the > > >other, perhaps while everyone slept. > > >Any forensic experts here who can cast light on this amazing > investigation? > > > >Damien Broderick > > ================================== > = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = > = harara at sbcglobal.net = > = Alcor North Cryomanagement = > = Alcor Advisor to Board = > = 831 429 8637 = > ================================== > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From namacdon at ole.augie.edu Tue Dec 7 22:42:11 2004 From: namacdon at ole.augie.edu (Nicholas Anthony MacDonald) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:42:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Andrew Sullivan and Slavoj Zizek- Transhumanists? Message-ID: <1102459331.ad9202e0namacdon@ole.augie.edu> >From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish: "We just learned that some 40 percent of Americans are on some kind of constant medication - many designed to ease the ups and downs of mild depression, or heartburn, or obesity, and so on. We have drugs for hard-ons; and we have elaborate plastic surgery for anyone feeling ugly or fat. We have fat-burning pills and hair-growing treatments. We have pills to send us to sleep; we have medical contraptions to give us better sleep (yay!); we have addictive drugs, like caffeine, to wake us up and keep us awake. The line between pharmaceuticals that actually cure illness and those that enhance our quality of life, or extend it to lengths once thought inimaginable, is getting blurrier all the time. What is health, after all, if not somewhat relative? Am I sick now that my apnea is untreated? Or am I just living with something that humans have lived through for centuries? Do our zoloft prescriptions always treat serious depression - or are they often a means to maximize our social interaction, prevent unsettling bouts of inertia or sadness? I ask all these questions because the brouhaha over steroids in sports strikes me as somewhat off-key. Our cultural norm is that drugs that do not harm you are perfectly legit in increasing your enjoyment of life, or enhancing your ability to perform certain tasks. Why, then, are steroids so illegitimate in sports? Yes, they can harm a body, but only if taken in excess and outside a doctor's supervision. Yes, it's unfair when some players use them and others don't. But the answer to that might just as well be universal steroid use as a universal ban. I think trying to stop this is almost certainly futile (the steroid technology almost always out-strips the testing technology) and not obviously virtuous. The notion that there is some "pure" human being out there - unaffected by the technology that now enhances our lives in so many ways - is fiction. Why are sports the only arena in which this fiction is maintained? And why would it be so bad to aknowledge reality and celebrate the new not that comfortable with that idea; but I'm having a hard time coming up with good arguments as to why I shouldn't be." Sounds like he's leaning towards transhumanism at least- not a suprising position for Sullivan, a man who's own immune system is being saved from collapse by a handful of pills. What is suprising is that he linked to this: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n10/zize01_.html Slavoj Zizek takes on his fellow neo-Hegelians, Fukuyama and Habermas, and while he never says transhumanism by name, we know where he's going with it. When a psychoanalyst with Marxist sympathies and a journalist with Neoconseravative ones are in agreement on something, you know either hell has frozen over- or transhumanism is on the march. I'm guessing the latter. -Nicq MacDonald From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 8 04:10:26 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:10:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <41B5DE77.8000801@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <006f01c4dcdb$df662b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY> > "Extropy- the pseudoscientific prediction that human intelligence and > technology will enable life to expand in an orderly way > throughout the entire universe" > > One wonders if there's any way to appeal or otherwise alter such > definitions. > > Joseph Why would we want to? This looks like good advertisement to me. Is the term "pseudoscientific" offensive? Think it over, perhaps that is exactly the adjective we want. Scientists are likely to be the ones turned off by that description, however these might well agree with the notion of human intelligence expanding throughout. Those non-scientific or anti-scientific may actually see positive connotations in the term. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 09:40:16 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:40:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] European Commission: Let brain waves do the walking Message-ID: <470a3c52041208014013db4648@mail.gmail.com> >From the "IST Results" site of the European Commission: Using brain waves to control screen cursor movements, rather than moving a mouse by hand, seems like science fiction! Yet such direct control over our environment is an integral part of the development work being undertaken by participants in the Presencia project. The IST project Presencia is not due for completion until October 2005, yet project researchers have already developed a working brain/computer interface able to provide direct control of computers. The method is primitive as yet, but has been demonstrated to work. Presencia project participants are developing the technology to navigate 'caves', or virtual environments. Here VR (virtual reality) gloves and the brain/computer interface enable participants to move around within an environment and interact with others present. However, the technology also has obvious potential for patient rehabilitation applications. Here the brain/computer interface could be used to control prosthetic limbs or drive a wheelchair. http://istresults.cordis.lu/index.cfm/section/news/tpl/article/BrowsingType/Features/ID/73140 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 8 13:15:15 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:15:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic fundamentalism in USA In-Reply-To: <20041206202844.52163.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041206202844.52163.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B6FE63.8040402@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Patrick Wilken wrote: > > > >>As a nice counter-point to Mike Lorrey's alarmist post about how bad >>the Islamic situation in Europe is last week the LA Weekly published >>an interesting piece on increasing allure of fundamentalist Islam to >>white >>and hispanic americans. The most interesting point is that these new >>converts are much more fundamentalist in their beliefs (no western >>music, movies etc) than than the vast majority of immigrants. >> >> > >This is common. The Nation of Islam has had similar tendencies for >decades. I think it is interesting, though, to see what I believe is a >dovetailing of the luddite segment of the population with wahabbism, as >I predicted a year or two ago. Expect a Luddite Jihadist domestic >terror group to form. > > > Fortunately everyone who hates us also hate each other eg Luddite Greens, Moslem and Xian fundies etc -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 8 13:24:17 2004 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:24:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mobility Merger: Blurring the Line Between Driver and Vehicle Message-ID: <003601c4dd29$38b1f1c0$1a893cd1@pavilion> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_i-unit_041208.html From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Dec 8 14:28:44 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:28:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <006f01c4dcdb$df662b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY> References: <006f01c4dcdb$df662b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <41B70F9C.3010408@humanenhancement.com> I disagree; the term "pseudo-science" is dismissive. It is used to describe such things as UFOlogy, phrenology, and other areas of dubious scientific merit. It is most certainly not the brush I'd want to be painted with... Joseph Bloch Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com Spike wrote: >>"Extropy- the pseudoscientific prediction that human intelligence and >>technology will enable life to expand in an orderly way >>throughout the entire universe" >> >>One wonders if there's any way to appeal or otherwise alter such >>definitions. >> >>Joseph >> >> > >Why would we want to? This looks like good advertisement >to me. Is the term "pseudoscientific" offensive? Think >it over, perhaps that is exactly the adjective we want. >Scientists are likely to be the ones turned off by that >description, however these might well agree with the notion >of human intelligence expanding throughout. Those >non-scientific or anti-scientific may actually see >positive connotations in the term. > >spike > From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed Dec 8 14:41:33 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:41:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <41B70F9C.3010408@humanenhancement.com> References: <006f01c4dcdb$df662b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY> <41B70F9C.3010408@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4184C92E-4927-11D9-AB18-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> On 8 Dec 2004, at 15:28, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I disagree; the term "pseudo-science" is dismissive. It is used to > describe such things as UFOlogy, phrenology, and other areas of > dubious scientific merit. It is most certainly not the brush I'd want > to be painted with... I think more correctly pseudo-science is used to define work that its proponents claim is scientific when its not. Since Extropians don't claim their belief structure is scientific this is simply false. Perhaps some Extropians have pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's another issue. No one is claiming that there are scientific principles that show the inevitability of singularity etc are they? Marxism was a pseudo-scientific belief system that believed in the historical inevitability of the rise of socialism. best, patrick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 8 15:33:53 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <4184C92E-4927-11D9-AB18-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <20041208153353.70123.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> --- Patrick Wilken wrote: > > On 8 Dec 2004, at 15:28, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > I disagree; the term "pseudo-science" is dismissive. It is used to > > describe such things as UFOlogy, phrenology, and other areas of > > dubious scientific merit. It is most certainly not the brush I'd > want > > to be painted with... > > I think more correctly pseudo-science is used to define work that its > proponents claim is scientific when its not. Since Extropians don't > claim their belief structure is scientific this is simply false. > Perhaps some Extropians have pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's > another issue. > > No one is claiming that there are scientific principles that show the > inevitability of singularity etc are they? a) Moore's Law was determined by an econometric study of integrated chip development and market response. b) Various scientific studies have determined various amounts of 'processing power' that is in the human brain. It is pretty clear that if you label belief in the likelihood of the Singularity a pseudoscientific belief, then that tar brush equally applies to all of economics that seeks to predict future economic activity based on past results and various scientifically arrived-at models. However, that being said, Extropy itself does not infer a belief in the Singularity. It is merely a set of principles or philosophy that many believe is most conducive to humanity surviving to and through any technological singularity. At this point in time, I would say with confidence that those who don't believe there will be some sort of technological singularity are those who are being the most pseudo-scientific or un-scientific in their beliefs. The weight of evidence is just too signficant to think otherwise. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed Dec 8 15:56:44 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:56:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <20041208153353.70123.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041208153353.70123.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 8 Dec 2004, at 16:33, Mike Lorrey wrote: > At this point in time, I would say with confidence that those who don't > believe there will be some sort of technological singularity are those > who are being the most pseudo-scientific or un-scientific in their > beliefs. The weight of evidence is just too signficant to think > otherwise. I think you miss the point. Belief for or against the singularity is has nothing to do with the practice of science (at least the sort of things scientists generally practice). best, patrick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 8 17:53:30 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:53:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism mentioned in "Skeptic" re: cryonics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041208175330.94293.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Patrick Wilken wrote: > > On 8 Dec 2004, at 16:33, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > At this point in time, I would say with confidence that those who > don't > > believe there will be some sort of technological singularity are > those > > who are being the most pseudo-scientific or un-scientific in their > > beliefs. The weight of evidence is just too signficant to think > > otherwise. > > I think you miss the point. Belief for or against the singularity is > has nothing to do with the practice of science (at least the sort of > things scientists generally practice). Quite true, but as I said, where I cited Moore's Law and scientific estimates of the processing capacity of the human brain, it is rather clear that at some point the average desktop computer will have the same capacity as the human brain, while the next generation will be twice as capable, etc. Denying this is what is truly unscientific, AND as I said, to call such a prediction "pseudoscientific" is to also call all economic, meteorological, vulcanological, seismological, etc. predictions "pseudoscientific". Scientific predictions can turn out to be quite wrong while still being scientifically arrived at. Thus, whoever wrote that definition is clearly biased and must be corrected. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Dec 8 19:20:30 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:20:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mobility Merger: Blurring the Line Between Driver and Vehicle In-Reply-To: <003601c4dd29$38b1f1c0$1a893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20041208192030.26152.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_i-unit_041208.html "More than meets the eye..." ;) Seriously, though, I've been thinking about something like this myself - though only in the realm of sci-fi speculations. A vehicle that can fold up into roughly human proportions would have the practicality of not needing a parking space, at least for standard work commute (where you could "park" it in your cubicle or office), assuming it was indoors-friendly ("wipe your feet" doesn't even begin to describe what'd be needed, though "sheathe your tires and be able to move around with your engine off" might). It might also be adaptable into a good lunar or martian spacesuit (that is, a spacesuit intended for use only on the Moon or Mars) - though it'd need arms, pure electric power, and a few other modifications. From kurt at metatechnica.com Wed Dec 8 21:57:11 2004 From: kurt at metatechnica.com (Kurt Schoedel) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:57:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Viruses as the Driver of Evolution Message-ID: The idea that viruses, especially retroviruses, are the driver of evolution should not supprise anyone. It makes sense and should be obvious to everyone since the discovery of the HERVs (human endongenous retroviruses) that exist in the 10,000s in the human genetic code. I first learned of HERVs when I read Laurie Garrett's book, "The Coming Plague", about 10 years ago. I saw sitting in a bar in the Roppongi when the thought occurred to me that infectious agents have got to be the driving force behind evolution. There is more. There is another researcher who has written a book about evolution. Her name is Lynn Caporale and her book is "Darwin in the Genome", in which she constructs a theory of evolution that is also based on infectious agents. Kurt Schoedel MetaTechnica From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 8 22:05:57 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:05:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Viruses as the Driver of Evolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208160154.0198ea08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:57 PM 12/8/2004 -0800, Kurt Schoedel wrote: >I first learned of HERVs when I read Laurie Garrett's book, "The Coming >Plague", about 10 years ago. I saw sitting in a bar in the Roppongi >when the thought occurred to me that infectious agents have got to be >the driving force behind evolution. > >There is more. There is another researcher who has written a book about >evolution. Her name is Lynn Caporale and her book is "Darwin in the >Genome", in which she constructs a theory of evolution that is also >based on infectious agents. Yes, and Greg Bear's novels DARWIN'S RADIO (1999) and sequel DARWIN'S CHILDREN, and, possibly, my story `A Tooth for Every Child' (written in 1981, published 1985). Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 8 22:21:01 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:21:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Viruses as the Driver of Evolution In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208160154.0198ea08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208160154.0198ea08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041208222101.GV9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:05:57PM -0600, damien wrote: > >There is more. There is another researcher who has written a book about > >evolution. Her name is Lynn Caporale and her book is "Darwin in the > >Genome", in which she constructs a theory of evolution that is also > >based on infectious agents. > > Yes, and Greg Bear's novels DARWIN'S RADIO (1999) and sequel DARWIN'S > CHILDREN, and, possibly, my story `A Tooth for Every Child' (written in > 1981, published 1985). Doesn't this assume the inserted segments are going to make other sense entirely, occasionally? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu Dec 9 03:44:43 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:44:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PopSci profiles Aubrey de Grey In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208160154.0198ea08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: A long, irreverent, and generally very good article at PopSci profiles Aubrey de Grey and his work. In a very mainstream magazine as well - I think we're making progress :) http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/article/0,20967,929447,00.html Meanwhile, the Methuselah Foundation is still growing. A new site went up just recently: http://www.mprize.org Feel free to pitch in if you haven't done so already. We're making waves, and the waves are only going to get bigger. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 05:34:38 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:34:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PopSci profiles Aubrey de Grey In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208160154.0198ea08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208233305.01a22a68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> < Transhumanists are science (and science-fiction) enthusiasts entranced by the prospect that futuristic technology will allow us to modify our bodies-wings, anyone? infrared vision?-and also to live a really, really long time (if not in our own bodies, then in robotic ones governed by our own downloaded brains). Most any gerontologist of repute would dive under the desk if a transhumanist came calling, but de Grey enjoys passing between the worlds of the professional scientist and the amateur crank. > Ah. Cranks again. Insightful! Damien Broderick From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu Dec 9 06:00:25 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:00:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PopSci profiles Aubrey de Grey In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041208233305.01a22a68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: ---> Damien Broderick > < Transhumanists are science (and science-fiction) enthusiasts > entranced by > the prospect that futuristic technology will allow us to modify our > bodies-wings, anyone? infrared vision?-and also to live a really, really > long time (if not in our own bodies, then in robotic ones governed by our > own downloaded brains). Most any gerontologist of repute would dive under > the desk if a transhumanist came calling, but de Grey enjoys passing > between the worlds of the professional scientist and the amateur crank. > > > Ah. Cranks again. Insightful! Yes, but cranks with links from PopSci to our more notable websites, appearing underneath a fairly concise explanation of what we're about. Dismissive or not, that's good. This is a good excuse to write scathing letters to the editor that may just get printed. And turn out cutting return volley articles for publication at Betterhumans - something that doesn't happen often enough. Just for reference, from Alexa: Betterhumans traffic ranking: 89,935 PopSci traffic ranking: 24,252 ScienceDaily traffic ranking: 9,625 ---------- http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/article/0,20967,930738,00.html While most of us science-literate folks are watching the biotech revolution with tentative optimism, hoping for innovations like medicines that have no side effects because they're tuned to a patient's genes, or livers and kidneys grown to order for people with organ failure, some intrepid souls are taking much larger leaps. Based on the fledgling promise of stem cells and brain-machine interfaces, they wonder: Why tolerate chronic pain, or suffer irrevocable injury in accidents? Why become forgetful, get sick, or grow old? Why, indeed, experience any of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that so relentlessly characterize the human condition? These technology-over-biology advocates call themselves transhumanists. Some are focused on redesigning the human body, adding built-in telephones, multiple joints or even wings. Others are more interested in downloading their minds so that they can spend eternity in a robotic body. Most scientists would dismiss transhumanists out of hand, advising them to ease off on their fantastical reading. Not Aubrey de Grey, a theorist at the University of Cambridge, who has developed a biology-based plan whereby, he believes, it should be possible for all of us to live forever-or at least for 5,000 years. De Grey walks a line between legitimate scientific thinker and eccentric showman, and he welcomes dialogue with the transhumanist community. Following are some transhumanist Web sites that are worth checking out. Better Humans: www.betterhumans.com The goal: Provide information, analysis and opinion on the influence of advancing science and technology. Great clearinghouse of articles from the mainstream and alternative press and from medical journals. Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org The goal: Improve the human condition by finding ways to eradicate "stupidity, malice, conflict, aging, and death." Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence:www.singinst.org The goal: "Enhance cognition"-that is, make humans smarter-to help solve present-day challenges, including the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer' s disease, AIDS and multiple sclerosis. Foresight Institute: www.foresight.org The goal: Promote nanotechnology, the ability to build microscopic machines with atomic precision. Medically based nanomachines would have multiple applications, from scrubbing arteries free of plaque to tracking down and killing cancer cells. The Immortality Institute: imminst.org The goal: "Conquer the blight of involuntary death." World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org The goal: Support the development of and access to new technologies that promote human enhancement, enabling us to be "better than well." ------------- Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 06:17:09 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:17:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] PopSci profiles Aubrey de Grey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041209061709.1460.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Reason wrote: > > > > Ah. Cranks again. Insightful! > > Yes, but cranks with links from PopSci to our more notable websites, > appearing underneath a fairly concise explanation of what we're > about. > Dismissive or not, that's good. Yeah. When we get lots of grant dollars, then the can start calling us eccentrics.... ;) ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 9 18:10:49 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:10:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> My fellow not-quite-yet-transhumans, Forgive my lack of Net etiquette if I bring up a topic discussed in October, but the topic is one of particular interest to me, and, in all humility, I think I am in a position to have inside knowledge about it. Please forgive as well the length of this note, but I wanted to share my musings on several comments in the thread. Before I continue, I must express that I am honored my books came to your attention, therefore all my comments below are spoken by one who, hat in hand, speaks in a tone of respect. Certainly the ultimate destiny of mankind, even whether our posterity shall remain human or not, is a fascinating one. My attempt in THE GOLDEN AGE was to present an imaginary future where all boundaries to human inventiveness had fallen, in order to see what boundaries could not fall (such as limitations on the speed of light, economic scarcity, the ultimate victory of entropy, and so on) that I might speculate on the human reaction to these limits, both of those who bowed to the inevitable, and those who did not. This has no bearing on my comments below, save that I wanted to reassure all and sundry to take my words in the kindest possible way. I am surprised and secretly pleased to find anyone discussing my words or my works at all. I should say at the outset that the subject line of this thread wants accuracy. I did not, strictly speaking, "find" God. It might be more accurate to say He found me, or, if I may be permitted a drollery on so profound a topic, He pounced on me. I was the patient, not the agent. In my interview with Greg West, I said I was introverted, bookish, rude, irreligious, un-athletic, smart and smart-mouthed: a typical product of popular culture in America. Trend Ologist wrote: > Bookish? the 'typical product of our culture' leans more towards local yokel ..they can read sports statistics, romance novels, etc. ... I confess my comment could have been more clearly worded: I did not mean to imply that rude and bookish introverts were the only typical products of American popular culture, merely that boys of that "type" were "typical." One can speak of a ?typical? sunny spring day without meaning to imply that all days of all seasons are sunny. There is many a man (myself included) that falls into the stereotype described. Of my friends and peers in my generation, no one respected authority or honored tradition. We were all avowed nonconformists, uniformly and in lockstep. Brett Paatsch wrote: > Phenomena such as belief in the supernatural (heaven, reincarnation, happy hunting ground, nirvana) must itself have a basis in something. It may be that belief in the supernatural has its basis in experiences of the supernatural, which are common to all races and ages of man. This explanation at least has the merit of being straightforward. If we restrict ourselves to natural explanations for supernatural longings, I suppose nothing is more natural that human beings would desire life, justice, love from a world ruled by Mother Nature, a lady who is notoriously deadly, cruel and indifferent. In the naturalistic philosophy, these desires for life, justice and meaning must be merely the by-products of a sloppy evolution, which instilled these desires in us for the sake of their utility: but evolution is too blind a tool to shape our desires exactly to the contours of reality, and so there is always an awkward overlap, such as the desire of a man better off dead to live. Perhaps a more careful or kindly evolution would have tailored our desires to fit reality, so that men would crave death without fear once they were useless to their posterity; or with perfect indifference cease to love their parents, mates and offspring the moment they were useless. Unfortunately, evolution rewards reproductive success, not emotional serenity. But if we seek a supernatural explanation for supernatural longings, then, of course, nothing is more natural than that we exiles from a better world would retain a dim longing for it, or that the fingerprints of the potter who made us would still be found, to our surprise, in our souls. >I can't see I have a lot of necessarily persuasive evidence for this view (it doesn't seen falsifiable) but I still think its true. My dear sir, you ask too much of yourself in this case. The criterion that a view be ?falsifiable? applies only to empirical propositions, not to metaphysical ones. Metaphysical conclusions are proven or disproven by reason, not by observation. In this case, the axioms chosen at the outset determine the outcome. If you seek only a natural explanation for that homesickness for heaven only believers know, a supernatural explanation is outside the scope of your examination. Jeff Albright writes: > An overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning can tip one over the edge. Nothing in Greg West's interview with me presents evidence that I was possessed with an "overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning" at the time of my conversion. Just between you and me, I was perfectly content with my status as a "bright", i.e. a hard-core rationalist atheist. We must assume here that Mr. Albright is speaking in general terms about religions conversions, not of me in particular. > Once tipped, they will appear as rational as before, except for a tendency toward selective observation of information which confirms the new belief set. Please forgive me, but this sentence contains a whiff of paranoia about it: why say the converted ?appear? rational rather than ?are? rational? I am not sure if Mr. Albright is speaking of a selection bias, or if he is merely noting that people are interest in what interests them. When I was an Objectivist, I read Ayn Ran; as a Stoic, I read Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius; when I was an atheist, I read Ingersoll; when I became a Christian, I read the Gospel. This does not imply an absence of objectivity, merely a presence of more interest in some topics than others. In any case, selection bias is only pertinent to cases whose outcome depend on a number of observations conforming to a given set, that is, to people who chose what to believe based on statistics, anecdotes, or examples. Nicholas Anthony MacDonald says, in reply to Mr. Albright: > Except Robert Wright's search for "ultimate meaning" is of a very different character than John Wright. Robert Wright is engaged in a philosophical "search", while John just happened to have a near death experience and decide that Jesus was to blame. Well, this sentiment is accurate (my conversion was not the product of philosophical rumination) but the characterization is slightly inaccurate. Mr. McDonald is not to blame for assuming I had a near death experience and "decided Jesus was to blame", since my description to Greg West about the event was rather coy. I did not ?decide? anything. My reaction to a blinding revelation was something more spontaneous than rationally choosing which falsifiable theory best fit the observed and empirical facts. It was more like falling in love. You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when speaking to strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event beyond human understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no referent experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, as a human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can only hint that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter is far more glorious than we suspect. My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I have only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? Does he, like Scrooge, claim Marlowe's ghost is a bit of beef, a product of bad digestion? Does he accuse himself of hallucination rather than entertain the opinion that his axioms might be mistaken? Occam's razor, plus a modicum of intellectual integrity, would seem to militate against this assumption. I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming evidence suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so carefully constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of painstaking thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? Once upon a time, I saw the Goodyear blimp hanging over the town where I went to college. Back on campus, I told some friends of mine of the sighting. All of them knew of my sobriety and honesty, and yet not one of them believed me. Not one. Even though I am an avowed skeptic of long practice and impeccable credentials, I was at a loss to explain their skepticism. But, gosh, am I glad I did not see a flying saucer. Yours truly, John C. Wright From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 18:42:29 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:42:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52041209104260686ddf@mail.gmail.com> John, if finding (having been found by) God will help you write more books as good as the Golden Age, I am all for God:-) Seriously, your words quoted below are quite intriguing. Perhaps you care to elaborate, not everyone here is a "fundamentalist atheist" you know. All the best, Giulio On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:10:49 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:> You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when speaking to > strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event beyond human > understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no referent > experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, as a > human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can only hint > that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter is far > more glorious than we suspect. > > My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I have > only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest and rational > man do when he has a supernatural experience? > > Does he, like Scrooge, claim Marlowe's ghost is a bit of beef, a product of bad > digestion? Does he accuse himself of hallucination rather than entertain the > opinion that his axioms might be mistaken? Occam's razor, plus a modicum of > intellectual integrity, would seem to militate against this assumption. > > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming evidence > suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so carefully > constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of painstaking > thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? > > Once upon a time, I saw the Goodyear blimp hanging over the town where I went > to college. Back on campus, I told some friends of mine of the sighting. All of > them knew of my sobriety and honesty, and yet not one of them believed me. Not > one. Even though I am an avowed skeptic of long practice and impeccable > credentials, I was at a loss to explain their skepticism. > > But, gosh, am I glad I did not see a flying saucer. > > Yours truly, John C. Wright From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 18:43:30 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:43:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209123220.01af4128@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:10 PM 12/9/2004 -0600, John Wright asked: >My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I have >only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest and >rational >man do when he has a supernatural experience? > > Does he, like Scrooge, claim Marlowe's ghost is a bit of beef, a product > of bad > digestion? Does he accuse himself of hallucination rather than entertain > the >opinion that his axioms might be mistaken? Occam's razor, plus a modicum of >intellectual integrity, would seem to militate against this assumption. I believe I was the one who started this thread. Thanks to Mr Wright for his interesting and quite moving response. I have to ask at once: what does an honest and rational man do when he has a UFO abduction experience, complete with rectal probing? (Let us suppose that Whitley Strieber can be believed when he makes this claim, that he has not simply concocted it.) What does an honest and rational man do when he has a psychic experience, complete with spoon bending? (Let us suppose that Michael Crichton can be believed when he makes this claim.) What does an honest and rational man do when he defends claims of fairies dancing in the garden, complete with photographs, as Conan Doyle did? One could go on almost indefinitely. Many of these kinds of experiences seem to have been overwhelming, apodictically persuasive, even life-changing, and utterly at odds with each other, piling L. Ron Hubbard atop Phil Dick atop Madam Blavatsky atop charismatic faith healers atop witnesses of N-rays atop... Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 19:16:24 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:16:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209123220.01af4128@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > I have to ask at once: what does > an honest and rational man do when he has a UFO abduction experience, > complete with rectal probing? (Let us suppose that Whitley Strieber > can be believed when he makes this claim, that he has not simply > concocted it.) What does an honest and rational man do when he has > a psychic experience, complete with spoon bending? (Let us suppose > that Michael Crichton can be believed when he makes this claim.) > What does an honest and rational man do when he defends claims of > fairies dancing in the garden, complete with photographs, as Conan > Doyle did? One could go on almost indefinitely. Many of these > kinds of experiences seem to have been overwhelming, apodictically > persuasive, even life-changing, and utterly at odds with each other, > piling L. Ron Hubbard atop Phil Dick atop Madam Blavatsky atop > charismatic faith healers atop witnesses of N-rays atop... Well, as a person who has had one, count-em, one experience in his life he can clearly categorize as 'supernatural', at which time he was not under the influence of any alcohol, caffiene, or other drug, was clearly awake, and simply cannot come up with any possible rational or scientific explaination for it, I am forced by logic, by Sherlock Holmes' admonishment that, when all else is ruled out, that which remains is the truth, and by my own sense of sanity, to conclude that the atheist excuse that anything that cannot be explained by science doesn't exist is a very narrow minded conclusion. Just because something cannot be currently explained by science, does not occur frequently enough or predictably enough for science to observe, or does not present enough information about it to be falsifiable, does not mean that it does not exist or did not happen, or that it will never be explained by science. The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently explain is very long. The human mind is at the top of that list. That does not mean that the human mind does not exist. Ergo, the atheist argument of scientific falsifiability falls on its face. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 9 19:28:48 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:28:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently > explain is very long. And keeps getting shorter. The blank areas of our map are not faithful representations of blank territories. Mystery exists to be conquered, to be transformed into non-mystery. This task is not accomplished by those who, meeting the great dragon Unknown, sheathe their blades and bow their heads in delicious submission. > The human mind is at the top of that list. *draws blade* *lops top item off list* Next! -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 19:28:47 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:28:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8A76F.4000100@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > > > My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I have >only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest and rational >man do when he has a supernatural experience? > > Acknowledge it, but don't jump to conclusions. > > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming evidence >suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so carefully >constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of painstaking >thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? > > > Not at all. Clearly a materialist philosophy works, for the most part. Now you've experienced something extra. Happened to me first time I took LSD in my 30s. I was utterly amazed by the expansion of consciousness and perception. I was experiencing something that previously I did not have the capacity to imagine. As for 'supernatural' eg psi phenomena etc, I would not call that something that could discredit a materialist philosophy. All it means if psi exists is that we have a bigger picture to integrate. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 19:36:00 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:36:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209123220.01af4128@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209132517.019faec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:16 AM 12/9/2004 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Many of these > > kinds of experiences seem to have been overwhelming, apodictically > > persuasive, even life-changing, and utterly at odds with each other >The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently >explain is very long. The human mind is at the top of that list. That >does not mean that the human mind does not exist. Ergo, the atheist >argument of scientific falsifiability falls on its face. `Utterly at odds with each other' is a very general criterion of the unintelligibility or incredibility of at least one of the competing explanations, however thrilling the experience was, and is hardly limited to canons of scientific falsifiability. If L. Ron Hubbard's world view is right, the Pope's is not. I suppose it's even barely conceivable that neither of them might be correct. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 19:40:32 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:40:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> Message-ID: I agree with Eliezer that if something exists in our universe, sooner or later it shall be explained, and tamed, by science. Including supernatural experience of course. But perhaps the explanation, when one is found, can be much stranger that whatever we are able to understand or even imagine at our current stage of evolution. Let's not forget Clarke's Third Law. This stranger-than-you-can-imagine realities can accommodate what we call supernatural today. G. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Eliezer Yudkowsky Sent: jueves, 09 de diciembre de 2004 20:29 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently > explain is very long. And keeps getting shorter. The blank areas of our map are not faithful representations of blank territories. Mystery exists to be conquered, to be transformed into non-mystery. This task is not accomplished by those who, meeting the great dragon Unknown, sheathe their blades and bow their heads in delicious submission. > The human mind is at the top of that list. *draws blade* *lops top item off list* Next! -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 05/12/2004 From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 19:43:14 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:43:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> References: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> Message-ID: <41B8AAD2.1020500@neopax.com> Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> >> The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently >> explain is very long. > > > And keeps getting shorter. The blank areas of our map are not > faithful representations of blank territories. Mystery exists to be > conquered, to be transformed into non-mystery. This task is not > accomplished by those who, meeting the great dragon Unknown, sheathe > their blades and bow their heads in delicious submission. > >> The human mind is at the top of that list. > > > *draws blade* > *lops top item off list* > > Next! > Riiiiiiight... all we have to do is wrap up the problem of consciousness using computer theory and fuse QM and GTR then we can all pack up and go home. Just like this time about 100yrs ago... Just a few loose ends... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 19:54:22 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:54:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41B8AD6E.3050507@neopax.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I agree with Eliezer that if something exists in our universe, sooner or >later it shall be explained, and tamed, by science. Including supernatural >experience of course. But perhaps the explanation, when one is found, can be >much stranger that whatever we are able to understand or even imagine at our >current stage of evolution. Let's not forget Clarke's Third Law. This >stranger-than-you-can-imagine realities can accommodate what we call >supernatural today. >G. > > Maybe we have frogs brains ie we are constrained by inbuilt limitations that we cannot overcome no matter how much additional intellect we throw at it because we lack faculty X - and cannot even concieve of the possibility that it exists because we don't have faculty X etc OTOH, maybe the universe is not ultimately understandable. Mathematics certainly isn't, as Chaitin, Godel, Turing et al have shown. Perhaps it's non computable, or turtles all the way down and psi etc occasionally bubbles from the depths... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 9 20:49:35 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:49:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041209204935.12670.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > what does an honest and > rational > man do when he has a supernatural experience? Keep an open mind about the possible causes, and integrate that one experience with all the rest of the evidence one has perceived. Perhaps science can't explain everything (yet). But just because we don't know why X happened, doesn't automatically mean that God or aliens caused X. True, it *may be possible*, but there are other possible explanations, some of them more wondrous than simply blaming it on mystical beings that happen not to show up whenever we specifically look for them. For instance, the human soul. A fragment of ineffable supernatural substance that gets stamped out factory-style by God is simple to understand, but rather bla, IMO. But consider when each mind/soul is actually the product of an incredible number of biochemical interactions and stimuli from the environment - many of which have been extraordinarily fine-tuned through millions of years of evolution, yet many more are in combination unique to each individual, producing such a wondrous array of possibilities and potentials (both between people, and in one's own future choices and resulting paths). Far more fascinating, and worthy of promoting the nobility of the human soul (at least, those souls that are noble), than just saying "God did it", no? From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 9 20:53:21 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:53:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412092056.iB9KuC002246@tick.javien.com> Giulio Prisco quips: > John, if finding (having been found by) God will help you write more books as good as > the Golden Age, I am all for God:-) Thank you, sir, but I can only promise to write, not to be inspired. If my work did not displease you, the praise is due, not to the author of the book, but to the Great Author who created both the world and the writer who depicts the world. > Seriously, your words quoted below are quite intriguing. Perhaps you >care to elaborate, not everyone here is a "fundamentalist atheist" you >know. I am unfortunately a prolix man. If you ask me a specific question, perhaps I can answer without endangering the patience of other subscribers on this list. If the question is too delicate for public airing, I can write to you privately. Mr. Broderick, quite rightly, answers my question with a question: >I have to ask at once: what does >an honest and rational man do when he has a UFO abduction experience, >complete with rectal probing? (Let us suppose that Whitley Strieber can be >believed when he makes this claim, that he has not simply concocted it.) To this list he adds a number of things to which a skeptical man will not normally assent: Psychic spoon bending, fairies being photographed, N-rays. The honest man speaks the truth, with humility, to any one who will hear. But perhaps the question should have been instead what the honest judge should do when he hears a believable witness tell an unbelievable story. A healthy dose of skepticism is perfectly natural in such cases. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Myself, were I convinced of the sobriety and good faith of the witness, my first question would be whether he claimed the results were repeatable. I would invite someone who can bend spoons with his brainwaves to do so in front of James Randi (AKA The Amazing Randi of the committee for the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal) after Randi checked his sleeves and pockets for the apparatus stage magicians use to do the spoon-bending trick. Likewise, I might palm the aluminium prism allegedly being used to refract the N-Rays to see if the observers would get the same results. Keep in mind that certain things on the list are claimed to be non-repeatable. UFO's do not land, nor do the fairies dance, at human command. In such cases, assuming the claim is not disqualified for some other reason (such as that the fairies are obviously paper cutouts wearing current styles), we have no choice but to fall back on authority. If there were fairies, or UFO, it is safe to assume that reports of them would be relatively constant across all lands and ages: and I mean reports meant to be taken in earnest, not in stories meant to amuse. That stories appear in every land and age, not even skeptics doubt. Here we immediately notice a sharp divide between the items on the list and the question of theism. The authority for belief in God, or, at least, in some sort of supernatural reality is overwhelming. There is no race of men that does not worship, does not bury its dead, does not embrace sober claims of miracles. Even materialists burn or bury their dead with signs of respect they have no rational reason to show to the inanimate meat occupying the space where their loved ones once breathed. An irrational sense that there is more to life than mere matter is ubiquitous. Aristotle and Plato and Epictetus were monotheists, as were Aquinas, Hobbes, Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Descartes, and even good old Thomas Paine. Whatever one may say about these men, they had first-rate intellects, they understood (and in one case, formulated) the laws of logic, and skeptical thinking was not alien to their natures. Atheists were and are in an astonishing minority on these issues. Such authority does not compel belief: far from it! It does, however, dispel the implication that religion is merely a crackpot fad like theosophy, Ufology or table-tipping. (Indeed, the rise of crackpot fads may be linked to the decline of religion in the West as an ordinary part of life. The hunger for spiritual things affects most of mankind; and if not fed on food, they feast on shadows). Such authority certainly dispels the proud idea that only children and silly old women believe such things. The highest exemplars of our race, men famed for wisdom and justice, found the belief sufficiently sound to rest upon it. If belief in the supernatural were merely a crackpot fad, it would not be universal. The belief, right or wrong, is indeed universal. Therefore it is not a crackpot fad. I am not making an argument from authority, nor, indeed, any argument in favor of faith at all. My faith was visited upon my by the Holy Spirit; it was poured into me like fine wine into an empty tin cup. I do not believe reason the proper tool to use to decide these matters; nay, I do not believe that they are "decided" at all. Now, you may ask: is the experiment repeatable? If I went to the same hospital as John C. Wright and lay in the same bed, would the same miracles, visitations, and religious experiences appear before me? Well, that is a strange question, for it is based on a strange assumption. It is like asking whether, had you been kneeling in front of my beloved as I was when I asked her to marry me, she would have chosen you for her bridegroom instead of me. Marriage is not a matter open to experiment. The results, in one sense, are not repeatable. You are, of course, free to find a comely maiden to kneel before, and court her with flowers and poetry and offer her a ring. There is a way in which these things are done. So, the results are not repeatable, but they can be reproduced, if you take my meaning. Only a Benedict refuses to believe, despite the ample evidence, that marriage is what it claims to be. (Allusion alert: I mean Shakespeare's Benedict, not Zelazny's). Now, as I say, the experiment is not repeatable, but, like proposing to a bride, there is a way in which these things are done. As in marriage, in this case also, it is customary to start on one?s knees. From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 9 21:07:21 2004 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:07:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8BE89.2020102@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > My fellow not-quite-yet-transhumans, > > Forgive my lack of Net etiquette if I bring up a topic discussed in October, >but the topic is one of particular interest to me, and, in all humility, I >think I am in a position to have inside knowledge about it. Please forgive as >well the length of this note, but I wanted to share my musings on several >comments in the thread. > > > Mr. Wright, I read and enjoyed your Golden Age series, especially in the ways it illuminated some of humanity's intrinsic values ranging from the individual to the collective, and over a similarly wide range of time. It is my experience that a great deal can be learned by examining a system while "zooming" in or out to view less or more of the associated context, and I think that this observation may apply as well to the issue of differing beliefs. Rather than viewing one deeply held belief as right and another as wrong, it seems to me more effective to see each as part of a coherent whole, on which we all would agree, given the same context, but on which can never be fully objective. This leads me toward discussion of the profound influence of subjectivity or intersubjectivity on our understanding of consciousness, free-will, and ethics, but this may or may not be related to the topic at hand. > > Jeff Albright writes: > > >>An overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning can tip one over the edge. >> >> > > Nothing in Greg West's interview with me presents evidence that I was possessed > with an "overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning" at the time of my >conversion. Just between you and me, I was perfectly content with my status as a > "bright", i.e. a hard-core rationalist atheist. > > We must assume here that Mr. Albright is speaking in general terms about >religions conversions, not of me in particular. > > > Yes, not knowing anything of your specific situation, I was referring in a general sense to our evolved drive to find meaning in all of our experience. >>Once tipped, they will appear as rational as before, except for a tendency >> >> >toward selective observation of information which confirms the new belief set. > > Please forgive me, but this sentence contains a whiff of paranoia about it: why >say the converted ?appear? rational rather than ?are? rational? > > > Hmmm, I see how this may have been taken as indication of a bit of paranoia, and I do admit that my observations of the world at large lead me to think we are at high risk due to our irrational behavior, but I find it personally effective to set my sights on the positive, given half a chance. In this case I was speaking of selection bias, but in the strong intentional sense rather than the more subtle sense with which we are familiar in general scientific endeavor. > I did not ?decide? anything. My reaction to a blinding revelation was >something more spontaneous than rationally choosing which falsifiable theory >best fit the observed and empirical facts. It was more like falling in love. > > You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when speaking to > strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event beyond human >understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no referent >experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, as a >human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can only hint > that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter is far >more glorious than we suspect. > > > > > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming evidence >suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so carefully >constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of painstaking >thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? > > > > Mr. Wright, I think you will find among those who attend this discussion group there are a variety of responses to claims of the extraordinary. Many of us are well aware that such claims are often accompanied by ignorance of what is already known of the natural world and rational methods of thought, and we therefore tend to give little of our time to their serious consideration. On the other hand, a report of an anomalous observation, presented with obvious intelligence and knowledge of the world, is almost sure to be seriously considered and discussed in this forum with the result tending toward greater understanding for all of the participants. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 9 21:07:21 2004 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:07:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8BE89.2020102@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > My fellow not-quite-yet-transhumans, > > Forgive my lack of Net etiquette if I bring up a topic discussed in October, >but the topic is one of particular interest to me, and, in all humility, I >think I am in a position to have inside knowledge about it. Please forgive as >well the length of this note, but I wanted to share my musings on several >comments in the thread. > > > Mr. Wright, I read and enjoyed your Golden Age series, especially in the ways it illuminated some of humanity's intrinsic values ranging from the individual to the collective, and over a similarly wide range of time. It is my experience that a great deal can be learned by examining a system while "zooming" in or out to view less or more of the associated context, and I think that this observation may apply as well to the issue of differing beliefs. Rather than viewing one deeply held belief as right and another as wrong, it seems to me more effective to see each as part of a coherent whole, on which we all would agree, given the same context, but on which can never be fully objective. This leads me toward discussion of the profound influence of subjectivity or intersubjectivity on our understanding of consciousness, free-will, and ethics, but this may or may not be related to the topic at hand. > > Jeff Albright writes: > > >>An overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning can tip one over the edge. >> >> > > Nothing in Greg West's interview with me presents evidence that I was possessed > with an "overwhelming desire to find ultimate meaning" at the time of my >conversion. Just between you and me, I was perfectly content with my status as a > "bright", i.e. a hard-core rationalist atheist. > > We must assume here that Mr. Albright is speaking in general terms about >religions conversions, not of me in particular. > > > Yes, not knowing anything of your specific situation, I was referring in a general sense to our evolved drive to find meaning in all of our experience. >>Once tipped, they will appear as rational as before, except for a tendency >> >> >toward selective observation of information which confirms the new belief set. > > Please forgive me, but this sentence contains a whiff of paranoia about it: why >say the converted ?appear? rational rather than ?are? rational? > > > Hmmm, I see how this may have been taken as indication of a bit of paranoia, and I do admit that my observations of the world at large lead me to think we are at high risk due to our irrational behavior, but I find it personally effective to set my sights on the positive, given half a chance. In this case I was speaking of selection bias, but in the strong intentional sense rather than the more subtle sense with which we are familiar in general scientific endeavor. > I did not ?decide? anything. My reaction to a blinding revelation was >something more spontaneous than rationally choosing which falsifiable theory >best fit the observed and empirical facts. It was more like falling in love. > > You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when speaking to > strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event beyond human >understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no referent >experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, as a >human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can only hint > that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter is far >more glorious than we suspect. > > > > > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming evidence >suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so carefully >constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of painstaking >thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? > > > > Mr. Wright, I think you will find among those who attend this discussion group there are a variety of responses to claims of the extraordinary. Many of us are well aware that such claims are often accompanied by ignorance of what is already known of the natural world and rational methods of thought, and we therefore tend to give little of our time to their serious consideration. On the other hand, a report of an anomalous observation, presented with obvious intelligence and knowledge of the world, is almost sure to be seriously considered and discussed in this forum with the result tending toward greater understanding for all of the participants. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 21:25:24 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:25:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092056.iB9KuC002246@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092056.iB9KuC002246@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8C2C4.9040405@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >I am not making an argument from authority, nor, indeed, any argument in favor >of faith at all. My faith was visited upon my by the Holy Spirit; it was poured >into me like fine wine into an empty tin cup. I do not believe reason the proper >tool to use to decide these matters; nay, I do not believe that they are >"decided" at all. > > > > There is the experience, and then there is the 'explanation' which is the cultural context in which you place it. Different cultures will provide different explanatory frameworks. While the experience stands as it is, the explanation does not. The clearest 'context free' analysis, which is no analysis (subtle joke), is Zen. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 9 21:30:10 2004 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:30:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209132517.019faec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209123220.01af4128@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041209132517.019faec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41B8C3E2.7050405@jefallbright.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > `Utterly at odds with each other' is a very general criterion of the > unintelligibility or incredibility of at least one of the competing > explanations, however thrilling the experience was, and is hardly > limited to canons of scientific falsifiability. If L. Ron Hubbard's > world view is right, the Pope's is not. I suppose it's even barely > conceivable that neither of them might be correct. > > Damien Broderick > > We can be quite sure that each one's world view is incorrect in the bigger picture. But we observe that what works survives, that knowledge tends to ratchet forward, and that communication and cooperation tend to more of the same. All of these arrows point to an ever-expanding sphere of world-view in common, along with the -- paradoxically to some -- increasing diversity required for growth. - Jef From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 9 21:32:40 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:32:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412092132.iB9LWo007291@tick.javien.com> Mr. Adrian Tynes writes, in answer to my question: >Keep an open mind about the possible causes, and >integrate that one experience with all the rest of >the evidence one has perceived. Perhaps science >can't explain everything (yet). But just because we >don't know why X happened, doesn't automatically mean >that God or aliens caused X. True, it *may be >possible*, but there are other possible explanations, >some of them more wondrous than simply blaming it on >mystical beings that happen not to show up whenever >we specifically look for them. Bravo. This is a perfectly rational answer, and shows a healthy measure of common sense. And yet... And yet, I am in the same position as Mr. A Square of Flatland might be in trying to describe a sphere to his fellow two-dimensional beings. "It was like a circle, and yet it was not a circle, for it extended into directions for which we have no name and cannot picture." Mr. A Square has no word for "volume" and he cannot express the overwhelming solidity of his three-dimensional visitor. A religious experience is not like observing an interesting object. It is not as if a mermaid swam into my room, and I decided to explain the sight by assuming, against all evidence, that there was a God who sent her. A religious experience, or, to be precise, a visitation by the Paraclete is a literal inspiration, the entering of one spirit into another. The Holy Ghost enters the mind and soul and works a transformation. The only analogies I can think of are one both shopworn and mildly insulting to my brother atheists: like explaining sight to a man born blind, like explaining romance to a boy below the age when girls have cooties. No, wait. I am (or pretend to be) a writer after all, so I should be able to come up with a new metaphor, one that deprecates me and not my audience. Hmm .... Trying to explain a religious experience is like a Yahoo trying to explain his love of the shiny but useless metal called gold to the dignified and perfectly-rational Houyhnhnms. No matter what he says, the Houyhnhnms cannot see the value or the beauty of the substance they cannot eat. My experience was one that attacked and changed the axioms, the very foundations of my thought. My conception of what constituted myself, the universe, and my relation to it, were changed. So radical a change cannot be integrated with prior experience because the root of all experience is overturned. Imagine discovering where your thoughts come from before you think them, and tracing those thoughts back to a mind infinitely greater than your own, timeless and unutterably benevolent. It would be like one of the characters in my books suddenly growing aware of me, his author, and realizing that the thoughts and words I ascribe to him are mine, not his. How would you even begin to describe such an event? One is not aware of one?s own thoughts through the eye or ear by means of touch or taste. There would be nothing to hold up to another man?s eyes. And yet, neither could the experience be dismissed. I can also testify (and this will sound like a paradox, but make of it what you will) that the change was a growth, not merely an alteration. By that, I mean that all the things I used to see, I still see, but now my understanding has a weight and solidity, which heretofore it lacked. My new beliefs are larger than and encompass my older. A man who changes his coat merely makes a change, and he must put off the one to put on the other: a man who grows into an adult, while losing nothing of his personality when he was a child, builds a new level onto old foundations. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 21:57:37 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:57:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092132.iB9LWo007291@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092132.iB9LWo007291@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209154040.01a9aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:32 PM 12/9/2004 -0600, John Wright wrote: >Mr. A Square has no word for "volume" and >he cannot express the overwhelming solidity of his three-dimensional visitor. This is interesting, because... >A religious experience, or, to be precise, a visitation by the Paraclete is a >literal inspiration, the entering of one spirit into another. The Holy Ghost >enters the mind and soul and works a transformation. ...that way of putting it embraces such a specific, contingent and local tradition. Is it just a stroke of luck that you happened to live in a culture where people read the Gospels, or would you have expressed the same inexpressible experience in terms of animism, Hindu pantheism or Scientology, with the same confidence, had you lived among one of those mythic systems? Would it make any difference which form of limited analogy you employed for the unutterable? This is not a captious question; many people in the USA assert that to be saved one must gain and confess a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and declaring for L. Ron Hubbard or Pan or the Sky Spirits and their messenger Binnungar the frill-necked lizard just won't do it. >a man who grows into an adult, while >losing nothing of his personality when he was a child, builds a new level onto >old foundations. Well, yes, but I hope this observation does not entail the implication that atheists are children and you an adult speaking of what we'll only grasp when our adolescent tantrums are outgrown? Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 9 22:14:36 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:14:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092132.iB9LWo007291@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041209221436.57170.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > And yet, I am in the same position as Mr. A Square > of Flatland might be in > trying to describe a sphere to his fellow > two-dimensional beings. "It was like a > circle, and yet it was not a circle, for it extended > into directions for which > we have no name and cannot picture." Mr. A Square > has no word for "volume" and > he cannot express the overwhelming solidity of his > three-dimensional visitor. You're talking about spiritual experiences, right? Eh, had 'em. Remember that you're just an observer, and that your senses can be tricked. You know they've found the neurochemistry behind them, right? It can seem profound to the observer - but think of it as an electrochemical mirage. Just like how a desert traveller might see something that looks just like water on the horizon...yet, upon closer study, there's no water there. But the mirage-seer sees something completely indistinguishable, from afar, from water. Likewise, these spiritual mirages can seem completely indistinguishable from being touched by God...yet, upon closer examination, one does not see that. Note that you're having trouble putting the experience into words. It is not just a factor of the language not having words for them, but due to the distorted nature of your recollection of the event - being the observer who experienced this mirage. You yourself can not perceive it in the same way you can perceive the computer you're reading this note on. Now, that said - having had this experience, you can remember it and use it to relate to others who have had it. You remember your own search to attach meaning to it, and how natural it can feel to ascribe it to the supernatural. Many people just leave it there, rationalizing it as proof that God must exist and that they are now chosen to believe. But consider what you actually felt: there was no doctrine, there was no dogma, just a presence. Mankind makes up what gets attached to that - and the earliest stories gained steam as more and more people accepted those theories in lieu of better ones. But study the history of science through the past few (at least two) centuries, and you will see how even the most cherised of truths can, if unchallenged, enshrine things that turn out not to be so. (Which is not to say that God doesn't necessarily exist. Just that if God does, the impact on our life is either so vague or so enshrined in the nature of the universe as to be equivalent to if there is no God for all practical purposes, including and especially issues of morality. I.e., "Thou shalt not kill" so that other people don't waste their resources defending against you, and if they reciprocate then you can spend your resources elsewhere - say, on improving your life and maybe others'.) From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 9 22:20:14 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:20:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041209154040.01a9aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200412092132.iB9LWo007291@tick.javien.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041209154040.01a9aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41B8CF9E.5080606@pobox.com> "I would sooner believe that one could change the neural connections in your mind to *really* believe that magick had happened than you could change the physical laws of the universe. It comes down to a simple question of which is more malleable." -- Robert Bradbury -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 9 22:29:07 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:29:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> Dirk Bruere writes: >There is the experience, and then there is the 'explanation' which is >the cultural context in which you place it. >Different cultures will provide different explanatory frameworks. >While the experience stands as it is, the explanation does not. >The clearest 'context free' analysis, which is no analysis (subtle >joke), is Zen. Sir, you hit upon a point that I confess I find fascinating, namely, the question of objectivity within religious experience and sentiment. I am familiar in an amateur and passing way, with Zen, to the extent that I spent one weekend at an Ashram meditating. I found the Rochi to be gravely serious and impressive men. The firmest argument against religion is that the dogmas of the various churches of man do not agree. As Mr. Broderick so aptly puts it, if f L. Ron Hubbard's world view is right, the Pope's is not. On the other hand the counter-argument usually raised in defense of religion is that the fundamental and mystical experience, that haunting idea that the world is other than it seems to be, is a foundation for all religious sentiment. Baldly put, all faiths agree that there is a supernatural world. It is possible that both the Pontiff and the Scientologists might be partly agreed on a truth they both grasp only in part. As Mr. Albright suggests, "Rather than viewing one deeply held belief as right and another as wrong, it seems to me more effective to see each as part of a coherent whole, on which we all would agree, given the same context, but on which can never be fully objective." Here I will venture my own opinion. The hunger for truth is universal: I cannot see how any organism can survive without it. The hunger for the spirit world is widespread; it exists in most men, most of the time, but by no means in all. If the hunger for the spirit world is merely the blind programming of inanimate nature organizing the molecules of our brains over generations of evolution, then we are trapped in an illusionary belief by our basic drives and instincts. In such as case, the atheists may rightly congratulate themselves in using their minds to break free from a innate but demeaning instinct: their victory is as honorable as a pacifist renouncing violence, or a nun renouncing marriage. If the hunger for the spirit world is sent from the spirit world, like music heard across a starry sea, promising a farther shore, then the hunger has a proper object to satisfy it; an object not found on any earthly shore. All spiritual travelers depart from matter and materialism in their search: mysticism, by which I mean specifically the search for knowledge by non-rational, non-sensory means, is the common ocean onto which all such travelers embark. Now then, at this point, the skeptic can say that these so-called different travelers all ferried themselves to islands existing in their imaginations only, and brought back reports fished up from merely dreams and hallucinations: no wonder they disagree. The point is well taken. And yet, it is ships that sailed from England that colonized North America, not elsewhere, and our language bears the stamp of that ancestral isle. South America bears the stamp of Portugal and Spain. The descriptions of the Spanish Main do not match the descriptions of New England. If we were as skeptical of claims of the New World as we are of claims of the spirit world, each contradiction between the traveler's tales would encourage our disbelief. Likewise, the spiritual travelers who set off from Calvary and those who set sail from the Deer Park in Benares may have reached the same New World, but not the same continent. My experience tells me that Zen is like the first step of seamanship. One must let go of solid land to sail the mystic oceans. But, if there is a Truth out there to be found (or, in my case, a Truth that set sail to come find me) we cannot expect anything other than it will be stranger than we expect; we can hope it will be more glorious than we can hope. A Christian believes the Person of God passed that ocean, otherwise impassible, to land ashore at the most unlikely spot imaginable: the smelly stable in the crowded inn of a conquered nation. Of the many faiths of Earth, I am not bold enough to condemn any as utterly false, and my prayer is that all of them might lead sincere hearts, somehow, out of this sorrowful world where we find ourselves, to the shining lands of which the prophets speak. And yet is seems a cruel truth that not all peoples are equal to the task, any more than all nations are equal to discover the arts of ship-builders and longitudinal navigation. Likewise, some faiths are better than others: the cruelties of the Aztecs are not to be compared to the subtle reasonings of the peaceful Buddhist. You may think it terribly un-multicultural of me to believe that the Jews discovered (or were chosen to receive) a monumental truth by which all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that the Messiah appeared among them, not elsewhere. Perhaps so, but I cannot picture it happening any other way. It is not odd or absurd to learn that Euclid elaborated the geometry, or Ptolemy the astronomy, which was less developed even in other civilized lands. No one thinks the truths in these sciences are invented by nor restricted to one race of men. They are objective truths, free for all to discover. But, then again, but no one uses Eskimo or Hottentot mathematics and astronomy to determine his position at sea. From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Thu Dec 9 22:32:07 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:32:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3A9DF@amazemail2.amazeent.com> I'd like to share a few of my own ineffable experiences and my interpretation of them. I'll start off by saying I was raised mormon but have been a devout non-believer for fifteen or twenty years, so interpret in that context. The first is a dream I had some years ago. I was in a large, cylindrical room, infinitely tall and deep, a bottomless pit, and around twenty feet in diameter. This room was the entirety of existence, the entire universe. It was broken into floors, and each floor had a handrail to keep one from falling. On one side of the well, elevated above me, was a giant bronze face, twenty feet high. It spoke to me with a huge voice, a penetrating and utterly commanding voice. Its speech was my will, and it was inconceivable that I could disobey. It was majestic, grand, magnificent, all-powerful, and peaceful, just as I expect a god would sound, and I wish I could experience it again. Unfortunately I can't remember what it said :) The second is an earlier drug experience which I don't want to go into in too much detail; suffice it to say that I had taken altogether too much of too many kinds of drugs. As I was lying on the floor with my feet elevated trying not to black out, I realized that my inner monologue sounded like the movie version of the devil/satan voice, pitch shifted down a couple of octaves. I thought "this is really strange" in my devil voice, and then I realized I could change the voice in my head to sound like anyone I knew. I expiremented with my parents, girlfriend, donald duck, and friends and could hear myself as any one of them. I could even become them for short periods before my identity reasserted itself. Another experience was a fugue state I entered for an hour or two while on a long drive alone through Texas. It was quite similar to the preliminary hints of a psychedelic experience, but it never manifested itself fully; some might even call it a flashback, but it wasn't scary and didn't affect my cognition in any perceivable way; my head just felt tight and everything had a distant and pointy aspect to it. This was years after I had had any other psychedelic experiences. I imagine it was some response to the utter boredom of Texas highway driving. The important aspect of this experience is that it was not brought about by any incident; it just happened. I've also felt pure nirvana, being one with all things, as well as pure emptiness and isolation, being alone, an infinitesimal point in the eternal and infinite universe. In my mind, all of these experiences are a result of temporary oddities of neurotransmission, signals getting through where they shouldn't, or being amplified unreasonably, or some other neurochemical defect. What caused them? Stress, boredom, drugs? I don't doubt that someone in an extremely threatening situation could experience a similar state and have a conversion experience, when their critical faculties are suppressed by ancient reflexes, fear, and unimagineable uncertainty. Introspection is not in general a good way to understand the details of the mind's workings, but I feel enriched by each of these experiences in their own way. I would never consider them to be of deific origin, though, given the circumstances. Thanks, Acy > A religious experience, or, to be precise, a visitation by the > Paraclete is a literal inspiration, the entering of one spirit into > another. The Holy Ghost enters the mind and soul and works a > transformation. The only analogies I can think of are one both > shopworn and mildly insulting to my brother atheists: like explaining > sight to a man born blind, like explaining romance to a boy below the > age when girls have cooties. > > No, wait. I am (or pretend to be) a writer after all, so I should be > able to come up with a new metaphor, one that deprecates me and not > my audience. Hmm .... > > Trying to explain a religious experience is like a Yahoo trying to > explain his love of the shiny but useless metal called gold to the > dignified and perfectly-rational Houyhnhnms. No matter what he says, > the Houyhnhnms cannot see the value or the beauty of the substance > they cannot eat. > > My experience was one that attacked and changed the axioms, the very > foundations of my thought. My conception of what constituted myself, > the universe, and my relation to it, were changed. So radical a > change cannot be integrated with prior experience because the root of > all experience is overturned. > > Imagine discovering where your thoughts come from before you think > them, and tracing those thoughts back to a mind infinitely greater > than your own, timeless and unutterably benevolent. It would be like > one of the characters in my books suddenly growing aware of me, his > author, and realizing that the thoughts and words I ascribe to him > are mine, not his. How would you even begin to describe such an > event? One is not aware of one's own thoughts through the eye or ear > by means of touch or taste. There would be nothing to hold up to > another man's eyes. And yet, neither could the experience be > dismissed. From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 22:40:33 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:40:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <20041209221436.57170.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041209221436.57170.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B8D461.7090409@neopax.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > >>And yet, I am in the same position as Mr. A Square >>of Flatland might be in >>trying to describe a sphere to his fellow >>two-dimensional beings. "It was like a >>circle, and yet it was not a circle, for it extended >>into directions for which >>we have no name and cannot picture." Mr. A Square >>has no word for "volume" and >>he cannot express the overwhelming solidity of his >>three-dimensional visitor. >> >> > >You're talking about spiritual experiences, right? >Eh, had 'em. Remember that you're just an observer, >and that your senses can be tricked. > >You know they've found the neurochemistry behind them, >right? It can seem profound to the observer - but >think of it as an electrochemical mirage. Just like > > And when the neurochem behind love, hate, creativity, flashes of insight, the colour red etc has been discovered we can consign all of those to the rubbish bin as well. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 9 22:56:04 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:56:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception In-Reply-To: <41B8D461.7090409@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041209225604.67485.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: [re: spiritual experiences] > >You know they've found the neurochemistry behind > them, > >right? It can seem profound to the observer - but > >think of it as an electrochemical mirage. > > > And when the neurochem behind love, hate, > creativity, flashes of > insight, the colour red etc has been discovered we > can consign all of > those to the rubbish bin as well. *snicker* Not. Just because we understand the basis for something does not in itself make it less real. Mirages, yes, okay, those aren't real - though note that they never were, and we're just finding out about it. But love? No, that exists, and it would continue to exist even if we could perfectly artificially synthesize it. (I further suspect, from what I know of it, that the "synthesis" would turn out to be merely a way of inducing the real thing.) The color red makes an even better example: we *do* know the neurochemistry behind the perception of the color red (although we don't quite know what all people do with it internally). We know the biophysics as well. We can and do cause the perception of "red", by creating things that are percieved that way or changing lighting conditions to induce that perception, all the time. (Ask any theatrical lighting expert about the color tones used to induce, say, a romantic tone around a character.) We could even, if we wanted, stimulate specific neurons to create the perception of "red" where no red truly existed. (Indeed some scientists are using a similar technique to create the perception of light in blind people - some of whom have never seen before.) Yet despite our thorough understanding of it, "red" stubbornly continues to exist. Spiritual experiences will continue to exist. And note that people try desperately to attach some meaning to them - *therefore the meaning and the experience are not one and the same thing*. The experiences themselves do not care what their cause is; they still happen. It's part of the current human condition. From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 23:11:02 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:11:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8DB86.4000902@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Dirk Bruere writes: > > > >>There is the experience, and then there is the 'explanation' which is >>the cultural context in which you place it. >>Different cultures will provide different explanatory frameworks. >>While the experience stands as it is, the explanation does not. >>The clearest 'context free' analysis, which is no analysis (subtle >>joke), is Zen. >> >> > > >If the hunger for the spirit world is sent from the spirit world, like music >heard across a starry sea, promising a farther shore, then the hunger has a >proper object to satisfy it; an object not found on any earthly shore. All >spiritual travelers depart from matter and materialism in their search: >mysticism, by which I mean specifically the search for knowledge by >non-rational, non-sensory means, is the common ocean onto which all such >travelers embark. > > > You are again casting the experience into the cultural context with which you are most familiar. Reality is not dual. There is no spirit world and no material world. They are the same. >Now then, at this point, the skeptic can say that these so-called different >travelers all ferried themselves to islands existing in their imaginations only, >and brought back reports fished up from merely dreams and hallucinations: no >wonder they disagree. > >The point is well taken. And yet, it is ships that sailed from England that >colonized North America, not elsewhere, and our language bears the stamp of that >ancestral isle. South America bears the stamp of Portugal and Spain. The >descriptions of the Spanish Main do not match the descriptions of New England. > >If we were as skeptical of claims of the New World as we are of claims of the >spirit world, each contradiction between the traveler's tales would encourage >our disbelief. > >Likewise, the spiritual travelers who set off from Calvary and those who set >sail from the Deer Park in Benares may have reached the same New World, but not >the same continent. > The general consensus amongst mystics (even modern ones) from the Buddha to St John of the Cross is that it is the *same* reality. It is casting the experience into a language and context that creates the differences. > > >My experience tells me that Zen is like the first step of seamanship. One must > > My experience tells me it is the last. >You may think it terribly un-multicultural of me to believe that the Jews >discovered (or were chosen to receive) a monumental truth by which all the >nations of the world would be blessed, and that the Messiah appeared among them, >not elsewhere. Perhaps so, but I cannot picture it happening any other way. It > > I don't think it un-multicultural, but a position of ignorance of the historical Jesus, of mysticism and all the religions that have a Messiah from Isis and Horus to Baldur of my religion (Asatru). Jesus is but a latecomer in the line of Messiahs, and all the trappings from the virgin birth, the rising from the dead, the travels to the underworld etc etc have a long pedigree stretching back into pre-history. The Jews invented/discovered nothing with respect to the Messiah, but did inherit a vast amount from their neighbours and predecessors. Ever read the Garden of Eden story from Sumeria? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 23:17:16 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:17:16 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception In-Reply-To: <20041209225604.67485.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041209225604.67485.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B8DCFC.6060007@neopax.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >>And when the neurochem behind love, hate, >>creativity, flashes of >>insight, the colour red etc has been discovered we >>can consign all of >>those to the rubbish bin as well. >> >> > >*snicker* Not. > >Just because we understand the basis for something >does not in itself make it less real. Mirages, yes, >okay, those aren't real - though note that they never > > Actually, they often are - they are images of something real elsewhere. >were, and we're just finding out about it. But love? >No, that exists, and it would continue to exist even > > Does it? prove it! >if we could perfectly artificially synthesize it. (I >further suspect, from what I know of it, that the >"synthesis" would turn out to be merely a way of >inducing the real thing.) > > > So what's the 'real thing'? >The color red makes an even better example: we *do* >know the neurochemistry behind the perception of the >color red (although we don't quite know what all >people do with it internally). We know the biophysics >as well. We can and do cause the perception of "red", >by creating things that are percieved that way or >changing lighting conditions to induce that >perception, all the time. (Ask any theatrical >lighting expert about the color tones used to induce, >say, a romantic tone around a character.) We could >even, if we wanted, stimulate specific neurons to >create the perception of "red" where no red truly >existed. (Indeed some scientists are using a similar >technique to create the perception of light in blind >people - some of whom have never seen before.) Yet >despite our thorough understanding of it, "red" >stubbornly continues to exist. > > > Actually, you are making a common mistake. You are talking about the mechanism for registering a certain wavelength of light. How the qualia called 'red' arises is totally unknown. >Spiritual experiences will continue to exist. And >note that people try desperately to attach some >meaning to them - *therefore the meaning and the >experience are not one and the same thing*. The >experiences themselves do not care what their cause >is; they still happen. It's part of the current human >condition. > > The argument seems to be whether they are aberrant neurochem or properly working neurochem. I say the latter. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 9 23:18:56 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:18:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3A9DF@amazemail2.amazeent.com> References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3A9DF@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: <41B8DD60.1000508@neopax.com> Acy James Stapp wrote: >The second is an earlier drug experience which I don't want to go >into in too much detail; suffice it to say that I had taken altogether >too much of too many kinds of drugs. As I was lying on the floor >with my feet elevated trying not to black out, I realized that >my inner monologue sounded like the movie version of the devil/satan >voice, pitch shifted down a couple of octaves. I thought "this is >really strange" in my devil voice, and then I realized I could >change the voice in my head to sound like anyone I knew. I >expiremented with my parents, girlfriend, donald duck, and friends >and could hear myself as any one of them. I could even become them >for short periods before my identity reasserted itself. > > > http://www.kbnet.co.uk/artemis/words/Travels/words.htm -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 9 23:30:06 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:30:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412092330.iB9NUF023184@tick.javien.com> Mr. Broderick asks two very pertinent questions: >Is it just a stroke of luck that you happened to live in a >culture where people read the Gospels, or would you have expressed the same >inexpressible experience in terms of animism, Hindu pantheism or >Scientology, with the same confidence, had you lived among one of those >mythic systems? The question is perfectly fair. It was not Krishna nor Grandfather Coyote who came to visit me. Not all parts of the various miracles, visions, visitations, and religious experiences I suffered are beyond description, but, unfortunately, some of them I was commanded not to speak of. If you are asking me the theoretical question, ?would the Virgin Mary appear to a man in the form of Parvati if he were a Hindu, rather than a man raised in Christendom?? That question no mortal can answer. Would my wife have accepted my proposal of marriage had I been born a Zulu? There is a possibility that God is all things to all people, and appears in whatever form we cloak Him in. If so, I have been deceived by the cloak. It is possible that I am in error, and that I misunderstood what I saw and what I was told. If so, I ask only that the Hindus pray to Vishnu to preserve me through higher reincarnations as I clear myself of this error, and that the Shaman intervene on my behalf with the ancestral spirits, if, in return, I pray my God forgive them their sins and errors. If we all pray for each other, perhaps we can all be saved, no matter who, in the end, turns out to be right. >Would it make any difference which form of limited analogy >you employed for the unutterable? Well, the analogy comes from A. Abbott?s book FLATLAND. In this case, it is the culture in which my readers were raised that concerns me, not my culture. >This is not a captious question; many >people in the USA assert that to be saved one must gain and confess a >personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and declaring for L. Ron Hubbard >or Pan or the Sky Spirits and their messenger Binnungar the frill-necked >lizard just won't do it. I am not in a position to pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of the assertion. The unambiguous mainstream belief of the Christian tradition agrees with the proposition that Christ is the exclusive door to salvation. I pray that the good Lord might extend His mercy even to those that reject and scorn Him, as I did for so many years; but I am not sure that this is logically possible. I assume the form, and the content, of the worship has an effect on the fate of the worshiper: otherwise worship is pointless. >>a man who grows into an adult, while losing nothing of his personality when he was a >>child, builds a new level onto old foundations. >Well, yes, but I hope this observation does not entail the implication that >atheists are children and you an adult speaking of what we'll only grasp >when our adolescent tantrums are outgrown? Heaven forbid! The analogy I hoped you would prefer was that I was the Yahoo addressing the Houyhnhnms, the all-too-human ogre talking to creatures of pure reason. My only point there was that some changes are organic, and do not involve a loss. A two eyed man who (somehow) grows a new organ of sight and opens a new eye in a new viewpoint, is not the same as a one-eyed man giving up an old viewpoint to move to a new viewpoint: binocular vision lends depth. An example is better than an analogy. Like most good Stoics (and all good Objectivists), my reason had concluded that there must be an objective moral order to the universe (for, if not, then there is no ground to condemn those who falsely think it so. If there is no virtue, intellectual integrity and honesty are not virtues, therefore the thinker has no reason to practice even the small amount of honesty needed to think about the question of whether there is a moral order to the universe). As a Christian, it was shown to me that this moral order which I dimly perceived with my reason, is a living thing, a Mind, a Principle, that can operate on me independent of my reason, and bring me (I pray) into conformity with it. In sum, the old me and the new me can agree on the objectivity of morality; where the old me had a relation to the moral order of the universe like that of a mathematician to geometry, the new me has a father-son relationship with it. But far be it from me to pretend any superiority of insight or wisdom! The gods would smite me for my hubris, were I to condescend. You may think of me, if you like, as one who has been flung from the Olympian cliffs of sanity and logic into the mired swamp of primitive superstition; but if you use that analogy, just keep in mind that, to me, it look as if I have just been freed from a tomb and flung up into the dazzling clouds. A theist and an atheist cannot agree on basic axioms. They cannot agree which direction is ?up?. They can agree upon the flinging. But, at least they can both agree that their common enemy, the relativist, is wrong. The change was not merely an arbitrary movement from point A to point B according to an arbitrary axis. It was either a fall or an ascension. From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 9 23:39:11 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:39:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception In-Reply-To: <41B8DCFC.6060007@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041209233911.77098.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >Just because we understand the basis for something > >does not in itself make it less real. Mirages, > yes, > >okay, those aren't real - though note that they > never > > > Actually, they often are - they are images of > something real elsewhere. I meant as in they aren't what they appear to be. Images of air, placed to suggest water. One would see the sky's image reflected off real water at sea. > >were, and we're just finding out about it. But > love? > >No, that exists, and it would continue to exist > even > > > Does it? prove it! Prove it doesn't. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that "love exists" is a more obviously likely position. > >if we could perfectly artificially synthesize it. > (I > >further suspect, from what I know of it, that the > >"synthesis" would turn out to be merely a way of > >inducing the real thing.) > > > So what's the 'real thing'? That which we can experience now, and other humans have experienced. > >The color red makes an even better example: we *do* > >know the neurochemistry behind the perception of > the > >color red (although we don't quite know what all > >people do with it internally). We know the > biophysics > >as well. We can and do cause the perception of > "red", > >by creating things that are percieved that way or > >changing lighting conditions to induce that > >perception, all the time. (Ask any theatrical > >lighting expert about the color tones used to > induce, > >say, a romantic tone around a character.) We could > >even, if we wanted, stimulate specific neurons to > >create the perception of "red" where no red truly > >existed. (Indeed some scientists are using a > similar > >technique to create the perception of light in > blind > >people - some of whom have never seen before.) Yet > >despite our thorough understanding of it, "red" > >stubbornly continues to exist. > > > Actually, you are making a common mistake. > You are talking about the mechanism for registering > a certain wavelength > of light. > How the qualia called 'red' arises is totally > unknown. To my knowledge, "the qualia called 'red'" is, inherently, the registration of a certain wavelength of light, and things that result from that event. Not all of those extra things are known, yes - but the registration is an essential, integral part of the experience. > >Spiritual experiences will continue to exist. And > >note that people try desperately to attach some > >meaning to them - *therefore the meaning and the > >experience are not one and the same thing*. The > >experiences themselves do not care what their cause > >is; they still happen. It's part of the current > human > >condition. > > > The argument seems to be whether they are aberrant > neurochem or properly > working neurochem. > I say the latter. Actually, I'm not saying anything about aberrant vs. properly working. I'm just saying it *is* neurochem. From Walter_Chen at compal.com Fri Dec 10 00:19:29 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:19:29 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068553@tpeexg01.compal.com> Interesting analogy! So there is some cause-effect: If you believe in something (such as God), you have higher probability to get it. If you don't believe in something (such as God), you have less probability to get it. > From: john-c-wright at sff.net ... > Well, that is a strange question, for it is based on a strange assumption. It is > like asking whether, had you been kneeling in front of my beloved as I was when > I asked her to marry me, she would have chosen you for her bridegroom instead of > me. Marriage is not a matter open to experiment. The results, in one sense, are > not repeatable. ... > Now, as I say, the experiment is not repeatable, but, like proposing to a bride, > there is a way in which these things are done. As in marriage, in this case > also, it is customary to start on one's knees. ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 10 00:24:53 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:24:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092330.iB9NUF023184@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092330.iB9NUF023184@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B8ECD5.8010601@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >If you are asking me the theoretical question, ?would the Virgin Mary appear to >a man in the form of Parvati if he were a Hindu, rather than a man raised in >Christendom?? That question no mortal can answer. > > Actually, that can be answered, and the answer is 'yes'. The archetypes are the same, but the names change. The Virgin Mary, as is commonly described, is Isis/Astarte. >There is a possibility that God is all things to all people, and appears in >whatever form we cloak Him in. If so, I have been deceived by the cloak. It is >possible that I am in error, and that I misunderstood what I saw and what I was >told. > >If so, I ask only that the Hindus pray to Vishnu to preserve me through higher >reincarnations as I clear myself of this error, and that the Shaman intervene on >my behalf with the ancestral spirits, if, in return, I pray my God forgive them >their sins and errors. If we all pray for each other, perhaps we can all be >saved, no matter who, in the end, turns out to be right. > > > It's not as simple as that. >I am not in a position to pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of the >assertion. The unambiguous mainstream belief of the Christian tradition agrees >with the proposition that Christ is the exclusive door to salvation. I pray that > > Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really Yashua? And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name (any of them) at all? Can we call upon him even if we do not know he existed/exists? In fact, *what* is Jesus? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 10 00:26:43 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:26:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception In-Reply-To: <20041209233911.77098.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041209233911.77098.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B8ED43.3040606@neopax.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >>The argument seems to be whether they are aberrant >>neurochem or properly >>working neurochem. >>I say the latter. >> >> > >Actually, I'm not saying anything about aberrant vs. >properly working. I'm just saying it *is* neurochem. > > As is *everything* - all we have are models of the world in wetware. And even wetware is a theory we have for explaining mind. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 10 00:28:32 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:28:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068553@tpeexg01.compal.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068553@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <41B8EDB0.4040502@neopax.com> Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > Interesting analogy! > So there is some cause-effect: > If you believe in something (such as God), you have higher probability > to get it. > If you don't believe in something (such as God), you have less > probability to get it. > http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 10 01:22:46 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:22:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8ECD5.8010601@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041210012246.74392.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. > Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really > Yashua? And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name > (any of them) at all? Can we call upon him even if we do not know he > existed/exists? In fact, *what* is Jesus? Jesus is a domain name. The real trick is finding out his/her/its IP address... ;) The IP of the true server of the Jesus domain could very easily be serving other domain names, for different websites, each with their own content and structure. They might be the same site, but presenting different structure and language based on the web browser and language/culture of the browsing individual. Penetrating this graphical interface, and getting to the command prompt, not to mention root level access, is the same quest as Neo seeking to find out what is the Matrix. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 10 01:33:28 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:33:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <20041210012246.74392.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041210012246.74392.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41B8FCE8.6090804@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. >>Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really >>Yashua? And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name >>(any of them) at all? Can we call upon him even if we do not know he >>existed/exists? In fact, *what* is Jesus? >> >> > >Jesus is a domain name. The real trick is finding out his/her/its IP >address... ;) > >The IP of the true server of the Jesus domain could very easily be >serving other domain names, for different websites, each with their own >content and structure. They might be the same site, but presenting >different structure and language based on the web browser and >language/culture of the browsing individual. > >Penetrating this graphical interface, and getting to the command >prompt, not to mention root level access, is the same quest as Neo >seeking to find out what is the Matrix. > > > That's not really the answer to the question. It refers to the statement 'I am the Way' - not *a* Way. If we accept Xian theology then JC is the name given to the link between man and god. There's only one link, but there are any number of methods to access it. Accessing it does not mean having to know the detailed history of JC as any kind of historical person. One only has to know that it exists and be willing to use it. It comes down to this: What is the absolute minimum one has to know/believe in order to be an Xian? Clearly the name is irrelevent (since we don't actually use his likely historical name). A full bio is also not required, since we don't have one. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Dec 10 03:18:56 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:18:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412100319.iBA3JW019587@tick.javien.com> Dirk Bruere writes: >I don't think it un-multicultural, but a position of ignorance of the >historical Jesus, of mysticism and all the religions that have a Messiah >from Isis and Horus to Baldur of my religion (Asatru). Sir, with all due respect, it is bad form to assume a stranger is ignorant of something when it is possible that he is familiar with it, but might come to a differing conclusion about it. You put me in the awkward position of having to boast about my learning in an area where, for all I know, you may be more learned than me. Modesty forbids I claim anything other than an amateur interest in comparative mythology. As an amateur, then, I can report I have a passing familiarity with Biblical scholarship, Sumerians and Babylonian myths, and so on. I have read Sir James George Frazier and James Ingersoll, and the similarity between the Passion story and earlier pagan myths is not lost on me. I am not of your religion, but I have friends who are, I have read the Havalmal and the Prose Edda. Let me digress to express my respect and camaraderie! I hope you are an honest, old-fashioned pagan, who takes his gods seriously, and not a modern dilettante. It is good to know that there are men willing to die, weapon in hand, eager for no softer fate than to be carried by the Choosers of the Slain to the Valhall, there to await the doom of worlds. You will fall at the side of Alfadur and Asathor, fighting to the last against the rude and monstrous giants of frost and fire, the wolf of chaos, the deadly serpent who has all the middle world in his coils. This is a fight all omens say is hopeless, and which will extinguish God and Man alike, and all our works. Unlike a Christian, no one can accuse you of adopting a belief as a bribe: no paradise is promised to you. I salute you as a brother. You may not think of us as brethren, but, compared to what I used to believe, compared to the icy world-view that says we come from nothing and return to nothing, children of a blind cosmos-sized machine, compared to that, the differences between the various flavors of faith should be measured in angstroms. If you imagine I am being sarcastic or ironic, put such imagination aside. I believe the absurd story that the Omnipotent compressed Himself into the son of a Jewish cabinet-maker and died the vile death reserved for a criminal, and that this somehow saves me from death and damnation. Compared to that, the tale of the God of the Slain crucifying himself on the world-ash with the great spear with all the oaths of heaven carved into its shaft, in order that he might seize the runes that grant him sovereign power, seems both straightforward and sane. A man who believes in the Virgin birth is not going to mock someone who believes Heimdall had nine mothers. End of digression. >Jesus is but a >latecomer in the line of Messiahs, and all the trappings from the virgin >birth, the rising from the dead, the travels to the underworld etc etc >have a long pedigree stretching back into pre-history. The Jews >invented/discovered nothing with respect to the Messiah, but did inherit >a vast amount from their neighbours and predecessors. There are three explanations Christian offer to explain the similarity to earlier myths, ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. First, some say devils, anticipating the Passion, impersonated it beforehand in other countries as a trick to erode the faithfulness of the faithful. One can imagine Spanish conquerors horrified to see the practices of the Aztecs impersonating the forms and ideas of the communion and the host. But this theory, true or not, sounds rather self-serving. Second, some say the shattering supernatural effect of the entry of God to the world might have cast echoes or reflections back through time, and the minds of men naturally picked up on this. A divine mind might be able to understand how effect can precede cause, but I cannot. Third, some say that man naturally gropes toward the light, and is inspired by his creator to find those tales which approach the truth; it also may be that providence arranged that the Incarnation would not occur on a world unprepared for the idea, therefore the idea had to be introduced before the Incarnation. These matters are too subtle for me. I make no claim that Christianity is original, merely that it is true. Were it as original as, say Scientology, I would suspect it to be largely a human invention. As far as my analogy goes (and it is only an analogy, mind) if I said that Euclid?s ELEMENTS expressed the most perfect understanding of geometry among all the ancient civilizations, it does not betray an ignorance on my part that I do not mention Pythagoras who came before him. The Chinese and the Hindu also understood the principles of geometry, and the fragments of text exist that show the Egyptians attempted to calculate pi. But Euclid was more clear and systematic than those who came before him. Mr. Bruere says in another letter: >>If you are asking me the theoretical question, ?would the Virgin Mary >>appear to a man in the form of Parvati if he were a Hindu, rather >>than a man raised in Christendom?? That question no mortal can answer. >Actually, that can be answered, and the answer is 'yes'. >The archetypes are the same, but the names change. >The Virgin Mary, as is commonly described, is Isis/Astarte. With all due respect, this is guesswork on your part. Perhaps what I saw were the gods in masquerade, dressed up as familiar figures to please me. But unless you, a mortal man, can peer behind the stage of life and see the supernatural machinery, watch the gods in their dressing rooms putting on their masks, then you cannot say for sure anything other than the fact that some men see some resemblances between tales told of Isis and Mary. Maybe one is real and the other is not. Maybe one is a Saint and the other an angel. If the gods are dressing up as Christians for my sake, honestly, I wish they would stop. Had they wished to impress me with characters I found impressive, the ghost of Cato or Scipio would have been far more to my tastes at the time. Mr. Buere continues: >> If we all pray for each other, perhaps we can all be >>saved, no matter who, in the end, turns out to be right. >It's not as simple as that. I did not suspect that the matter was simple. It is merely my hope that the mainstream tradition of Christianity underestimate the mercy of which Our Lord is capable. I was expressing a wish, not a creed. >>I am not in a position to pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of the >>assertion. The unambiguous mainstream belief of the Christian tradition agrees >>with the proposition that Christ is the exclusive door to salvation. >Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. Again, with the ignorance crack, my dear sir? I have read what I have read, and I know what I know. It may be small learning, but it is all I have. I am basing my understanding of ?mainstream? Christian theology on my reading of St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. With all possible respect to the Mormons, I am placing their beliefs outside what I call ?the mainstream? for the purposes of his discussion. I mean no belittling of their faith by that. I am willing to hear you support the proposition that Christians do not take as their creed the idea that Christ is necessary for salvation, if you can give it. Otherwise, I am not sure in what respect my theology errs? >Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really >Yashua? Beg pardon? What is this an example of? As best I know, Jesus is a Romanization of the name Joshua, which is a Greek version of Yesshua, God-the-Savior. It is not theology, but metaphysics, which tells us that the properties of an object do not change when the name assigned to it changes. >And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name >(any of them) at all? It depends, I suppose, on who does the calling. A magician cannot command what he knows not the true name of: this is the rule of names. A Christian seeks to supplicate to his God in prayer, or to confess, or to praise, not to command. We ask only that the names we use to glorify Him be treated with respect. The other Christs of other religions, we Christians are specifically forbidden to call upon. For whatever reason, those are our orders. > Can we call upon him even if we do not know he > existed/exists? It worked in my case. You can shout out the window of a burning building for a fireman even if you don?t know for sure the fireman is there. As long as the fireman knows for sure you are there, why would he not raise his ladder and save you? >In fact, *what* is Jesus? My savior and my Lord. I?d be happy to introduce Him to you. Indeed, we are commanded to do so. Knock, and the door will open. Ask, and you will be answered. Mr. Walter Chen writes: >Interesting analogy! >So there is some cause-effect: >If you believe in something (such as God), you have higher probability to get it. >If you don't believe in something (such as God), you have less probability to get it. Well, it is customary in the West to ask the bride before the wedding for her hand. So I suppose there is a cause and effect in that case, too. If God is real, and those things said of Him are true, He will hear even the prayer of an atheist, and may well answer. The answer may be terrifying beyond belief, as it was in may case, and land you in the hospital, but it will be answer. From dirk at neopax.com Fri Dec 10 11:46:28 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:46:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412100319.iBA3JW019587@tick.javien.com> References: <200412100319.iBA3JW019587@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41B98C94.7040809@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Dirk Bruere writes: > > > >>I don't think it un-multicultural, but a position of ignorance of the >>historical Jesus, of mysticism and all the religions that have a Messiah >> >> >>from Isis and Horus to Baldur of my religion (Asatru). > >Sir, with all due respect, it is bad form to assume a stranger is ignorant of >something when it is possible that he is familiar with it, but might come to a >differing conclusion about it. You put me in the awkward position of having to > > > The point is that you learned this as an 'outsider', so to speak I came from the other direction in a peculiar manner. I was brought up on the GrecoRoman myths rather than biblical stories. I was a fairly militant atheist of the type one sees here until I was in my early 30s. Took some acid, had a chat with God and came by a circuitous route to Asatru. >Let me digress to express my respect and camaraderie! I hope you are an honest, >old-fashioned pagan, who takes his gods seriously, and not a modern dilettante. >It is good to know that there are men willing to die, weapon in hand, eager for >no softer fate than to be carried by the Choosers of the Slain to the Valhall, >there to await the doom of worlds. You will fall at the side of Alfadur and >Asathor, fighting to the last against the rude and monstrous giants of frost >and fire, the wolf of chaos, the deadly serpent who has all the middle world in >his coils. This is a fight all omens say is hopeless, and which will extinguish >God and Man alike, and all our works. Unlike a Christian, no one can accuse you >of adopting a belief as a bribe: no paradise is promised to you. I salute you >as a brother. > > > There are many interpretations of Ragnarok, ranging from the personal to the cosmic. In the lore there are survivors into the next cycle. A man and a woman survive in Midgard, Baldur returns from Hel (along, presumably with the rest of the dead) and some of the other Aesir and Vanir also survive. The Einheriar of Valhalla and those of Niflhel are burned up. Many see their death as a dissolution from which the next cycle gains its existence and tenor. Little or nothing is mentioned of those who reside in some of the other halls of the Gods, eg Freya's hall Sessrumnir, but one might assume that they too carry on. However, I don't think you will find many of us who believe the literal truth of the lore. We see it as metaphor and have no problem with that. >You may not think of us as brethren, but, compared to what I used to believe, >compared to the icy world-view that says we come from nothing and return to >nothing, children of a blind cosmos-sized machine, compared to that, the >differences between the various flavors of faith should be measured in >angstroms. > > > That is indeed a bleak and pointless view of life. I would assume that at the very least we have a 4D worldline. >If you imagine I am being sarcastic or ironic, put such imagination aside. I >believe the absurd story that the Omnipotent compressed Himself into the son of >a Jewish cabinet-maker and died the vile death reserved for a criminal, and >that this somehow saves me from death and damnation. Compared to that, the tale >of the God of the Slain crucifying himself on the world-ash with the great >spear with all the oaths of heaven carved into its shaft, in order that he >might seize the runes that grant him sovereign power, seems both >straightforward and sane. A man who believes in the Virgin birth is not going >to mock someone who believes Heimdall had nine mothers. End of digression. > > > The difference is that while we argue over whether Odin was an historical shamanic figure or not, we have never burned people at the stake for claiming it was all metaphor and not historical reality. By its fruits you will know it. >>Jesus is but a >>latecomer in the line of Messiahs, and all the trappings from the virgin >>birth, the rising from the dead, the travels to the underworld etc etc >>have a long pedigree stretching back into pre-history. The Jews >>invented/discovered nothing with respect to the Messiah, but did inherit >>a vast amount from their neighbours and predecessors. >> >> > >There are three explanations Christian offer to explain the similarity to >earlier myths, ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. > >First, some say devils, anticipating the Passion, impersonated it beforehand in >other countries as a trick to erode the faithfulness of the faithful. One can >imagine Spanish conquerors horrified to see the practices of the Aztecs >impersonating the forms and ideas of the communion and the host. But this >theory, true or not, sounds rather self-serving. > >Second, some say the shattering supernatural effect of the entry of God to the >world might have cast echoes or reflections back through time, and the minds of >men naturally picked up on this. A divine mind might be able to understand how > > Ragnarok also perhaps. >effect can precede cause, but I cannot. Third, some say that man naturally > > Cramer's Transactional Interpretation anyone? :-) OTOH, maybe the price of consistency is that the past is not fixed. >gropes toward the light, and is inspired by his creator to find those tales >which approach the truth; it also may be that providence arranged that the >Incarnation would not occur on a world unprepared for the idea, therefore the >idea had to be introduced before the Incarnation. > >These matters are too subtle for me. I make no claim that Christianity is >original, merely that it is true. Were it as original as, say Scientology, I >would suspect it to be largely a human invention. > > > But *what* of Xianity is true? Forbidding women to uncover their head in church? The abomination of divorce (and JC was explicitly against that in an unequivocal manner if one believes the truth of the NT)? >As far as my analogy goes (and it is only an analogy, mind) if I said that >Euclid?s ELEMENTS expressed the most perfect understanding of geometry among >all the ancient civilizations, it does not betray an ignorance on my part that >I do not mention Pythagoras who came before him. The Chinese and the Hindu also >understood the principles of geometry, and the fragments of text exist that >show the Egyptians attempted to calculate pi. But Euclid was more clear and >systematic than those who came before him. > >Mr. Bruere says in another letter: > > > >>>If you are asking me the theoretical question, ?would the Virgin Mary >>>appear to a man in the form of Parvati if he were a Hindu, rather >>than a >>> >>> >man raised in Christendom?? That question no mortal can answer. > > > >>Actually, that can be answered, and the answer is 'yes'. >>The archetypes are the same, but the names change. >>The Virgin Mary, as is commonly described, is Isis/Astarte. >> >> > >With all due respect, this is guesswork on your part. Perhaps what I saw were > > In your case, perhaps. But in almost all other cases where the BVM has appeared she has appeared as Isis/Astarte, simply because her iconography, titles etc were transferred to her directly and undiluted from the Goddess archetype of the Middle East. >the gods in masquerade, dressed up as familiar figures to please me. But >unless you, a mortal man, can peer behind the stage of life and see the >supernatural machinery, watch the gods in their dressing rooms putting on their >masks, then you cannot say for sure anything other than the fact that some men >see some resemblances between tales told of Isis and Mary. Maybe one is real >and the other is not. Maybe one is a Saint and the other an angel. > >If the gods are dressing up as Christians for my sake, honestly, I wish they >would stop. Had they wished to impress me with characters I found impressive, >the ghost of Cato or Scipio would have been far more to my tastes at the time. > > > The Gods dress so that we may understand them and accomplish their purpose. >>>I am not in a position to pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of the >>>assertion. The unambiguous mainstream belief of the Christian tradition agrees >>>with the proposition that Christ is the exclusive door to salvation. >>> >>> > > > >>Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. >> >> > >Again, with the ignorance crack, my dear sir? I have read what I have read, and >I know what I know. It may be small learning, but it is all I have. > > Perhaps it is time to re-read with new eyes. >I am basing my understanding of ?mainstream? Christian theology on my reading >of St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. With all possible respect to the >Mormons, I am placing their beliefs outside what I call ?the mainstream? for >the purposes of his discussion. I mean no belittling of their faith by that. > > > I suggest you start looking less at the 'rationalists' and more at people like St John of the Cross, or Theresa of Avila. >I am willing to hear you support the proposition that Christians do not take as >their creed the idea that Christ is necessary for salvation, if you can give >it. Otherwise, I am not sure in what respect my theology errs? > > > I did not claim that. What I am suggesting is that the 'bridge' embodied for Xians in the mythology of JC exists by other names, or even when nameless. >>Can we call upon him even if we do not know he >>existed/exists? >> >> > >It worked in my case. You can shout out the window of a burning building for a >fireman even if you don?t know for sure the fireman is there. As long as the >fireman knows for sure you are there, why would he not raise his ladder and >save you? > > > >>In fact, *what* is Jesus? >> >> > >My savior and my Lord. I?d be happy to introduce Him to you. Indeed, we are >commanded to do so. Knock, and the door will open. Ask, and you will be >answered. > > > I did knock, and have been answered, but not by anything dressed as an Xian. To be honest, I rather desise the Xian legacy and I feel that JC would too if he were alive today (a joke, of sorts). His warning and test were clear - by its fruits you will know it. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From namacdon at ole.augie.edu Fri Dec 10 15:26:06 2004 From: namacdon at ole.augie.edu (Nicholas Anthony MacDonald) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:26:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> "Nicholas Anthony MacDonald says, in reply to Mr. Albright: > Except Robert Wright's search for "ultimate meaning" is of a very different character than John Wright. Robert Wright is engaged in a philosophical "search", while John just happened to have a near death experience and decide that Jesus was to blame. Well, this sentiment is accurate (my conversion was not the product of philosophical rumination) but the characterization is slightly inaccurate. Mr. McDonald is not to blame for assuming I had a near death experience and "decided Jesus was to blame", since my description to Greg West about the event was rather coy." Pardon my assumption. I'd more or less been trying to defend Robert Wright from what I thought was an unjustified attack, I didn't mean to jump to conclusions (though I certainly did), it just seemed like the most natural explanation (given the circumstances). "You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when speaking to strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event beyond human understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no referent experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, as a human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can only hint that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter is far more glorious than we suspect." Something I frequently ponder as well, I just wonder about, to borrow a term from Ken Wilber, the "unpacking" of such events in a religious context. I had a similiar experience (though probably not as shocking to my system) five years ago that caused a similiar realignment of my perceptions, which I've been unable to integrate into any orthodox religious context... but if such an understanding works in your case, good for you. -Nicholas MacDonald From harara at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 10 18:13:16 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:13:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> References: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041210100941.029300c8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Mmmmph. I think this thread would profit highly by reading Stanislav Grof: Realms of the Human Unconscious LSD Psychotherapy Reading these will add a much needed perspective to this discussion. >(one of many posts excerpt: )"Nicholas Anthony MacDonald says, in reply to >Mr. Albright: > > Except Robert Wright's search for "ultimate meaning" is of a very > different >character than John Wright. Robert Wright is engaged in a philosophical >"search", while John just happened to have a near death experience and decide >that Jesus was to blame. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 19:22:51 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:22:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In memory of my mother, 1929-2001 Message-ID: <470a3c52041210112224ae1439@mail.gmail.com> Tomorrow December 11 it will be 3 years since the death of my mother. A few days later I wrote the message quoted below to the extropy list. I had been lurking on the lists and occasionally posting for some time before, but it was then when I decided to try supporting more actively the subversive and beautiful idea that someday we can DEFEAT DEATH. To all those here who are grieving for the death of a loved one, I wish to say that I still believe, as most of us do, that someday aging and death will only be ugly things of the past. I never believed in a utopia where unhappiness is completely eliminated. I am sure even in a posthuman world there will be reasons to be unhappy, but not permanently unhappy and not including knowing that you will never see again someone you loved. G. --- My mother Anna F. died a few days ago after a long illness. For the first time, I have seen a loved one dying. I had seen her aging in the last few years, perhaps that was even worse. Aging and death are not necessary, they are just a horrible, stupid, cruel and pointless waste. Yes, death has been a tool of evolution, and we owe it the development of our mind. But I believe our mind itself can now offer evolution a much better tool. By mastering the sciences ad technologies of life and information, we will take full control of our development and make aging and death ugly things of the past. In memory of Anna, I will do my best to help achieving this goal. I only hope it is soon. http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::EnwiQD5P-SBJn-eEJM-JGVA-Klc8URp6FVxS From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 10 20:05:25 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:05:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412100319.iBA3JW019587@tick.javien.com> References: <200412100319.iBA3JW019587@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210135611.01bbaec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:18 PM 12/9/2004 -0600, John Wright wrote: >If God is >real, and those things said of Him are true, He will hear even the prayer >of an >atheist, and may well answer. The answer may be terrifying beyond belief, >as it >was in may case, and land you in the hospital, but it will be answer. I am reminded of a passage in my novel TRANSMITTERS (1984); it incorporates some material by my pal Rory Barnes. Intellectual Ray's young wife Marjory, in 1983, dismally disputes politics with her conservative Catholic father: ============ Ray returns to Jesus. A gold sphere rests in one oozing hand. The other, visibly perforated though not yet flyblown, gestures with gloomy confidence to his heart, which floats a few inches in front of his robe, dripping blood, torn by a vicious plait of thorns. Dr Barney Clark, first Mormon with a plastic heart, has finally thrown in the towel and died, Ray recalls. An age of botched miracles. Ray wonders if the incipient volcano across from him suffers heart trouble. If so, Marjory is certainly doing her best to bring on an attack. The Man from Nazareth looks steadily down, serenely untroubled by his own cardiac condition. [...] Ray listens to his wife. At least she's given up farting in bed. It's all a matter of cycles. Holons. There is a pattering of rain on the window and Ray turns his head to look at this unusual sight. All of Melbourne is cracked and parched, walls are fracturing as the earth slips, drying out; plaster falls in the night. And now the rains have returned. Locales burned to black ash a couple of Wednesdays ago have already been flooded by freak squalls further down the coast. God's providence. [...] The pattern in the heavy brown velvet curtains is starting to go where the silverfish have been at work. Jesus and His Mother and a mixed batch of saints and Popes gaze on from gilt frames, constant, compassionate, beyond blasphemy, shielded by glass. Ray lets his thoughts slip away into contemplation of poor dead Jean-Paul Sartre's error in asserting an unbridgeable metaphysical gulf between the Pour-Soi and the En-Soi, Being-for-itself and Being-in-itself, volitional consciousness and inert matter. It is the assertion of this gap that caused Sartre to deny Darwinian evolution, a denial as absolute and ludicrous as any churchman's refusal of Galileo's telescope. But evolution is a reality; rationally it cannot be denied or ignored that some of the structural elements of consciousness are the creation of selection pressures in the brute universe. So human praxis is to some extent canalized by the pratico-inert aspect of our being, just as the movements of our limbs are constrained by the metrical laws that constitute gravity and inertia. But Sartre's intuition of freedom, Ray thinks, that remains largely valid. The holonistic structure of consciousness generates an enormous optional range of actualisation. Yet the Pour-Soi has limits, and those can only be unearthed by positivist, reductionist science, Sartre's bane. Is the world a clock, after all? Out of the cradle endlessly ticking. The only moving thing in the room is the ornate sweep hand. It presses on with its simple gyrations. There is no blood in the clock's veins to quicken or falter as the souls of the dead drown in the burning seas of hell. Ray considers the sweep hand skimming the gothic numerals, crossing the two key holes (one for the main spring, one for the chimes). The clock stands solid, a lighthouse in the high tide of anger swirling about it. Marjory is sunken and withdrawn in her corner of the sofa, eyes signaling her rage and contempt. Ray's body seems quite dead. None of the sensations of life ticking over on standby are available to inspection. He wishes he were dead. He lets his gaze drift upward again to Jesus, the Man sharing his torn-out wounded heart with the room, a perfect case of the triumph of the Pour-Soi over the En-Soi. To his horror, Ray's eyes well with burning tears. He is taken up and out of the room, into another place. Light pours into him. Cream, thick and sweet, into the cracked jug. Why now? Oh shit. Not me. Aw fuck. He chokes, coughs, stares at the painting, horrified, sick with belief. It is the flood after the drought, too much, too suddenly, smashing into the ashes and hurling them in a foaming muck to smear the broken charred stumps of incinerated trees, the crisp-skinned rotting corpses of animals too slow to escape the flames and now too dead to care about their drowning. The old man's rage is love shouting at his deaf, stupid, brilliant daughter. Ray goes out of the room, stepping on Doris Nourse's arthritic toes as he stumbles by. Father and daughter look at him in surprise. He rips down his jeans, strikes the cold rim of the lavatory bowl, no time to lower the seat, and voids his liquid bowels. It is the love and truth of God pithing him. He finds himself grinning. He wipes his stinging arse, using sheet after sheet of floral absorbent paper. The stomach cramps subside. All his bitter shame. He flushes the lavatory and washes his hands happily, trying to believe this dreadful, ill-timed ambush. In the living room, he tells Doris of his attempt to cook one of her casserole recipes. Oven temperatures and pyrex, carrots and stewing steak. His own heart is pumping. Marjory leaves her redoubt on the sofa and sits on the arm of Ray's chair, putting her arm around his neck, her hand coming to rest against his collarbone, inside his shirt. She is trembling. Ray disengages himself, gives her hand a squeeze, goes to the kitchen on the pretext of checking a detail in Robert Carrier. The volcano follows him, passes him in the hall, heading for the workshop out the back. Ray returns, wondering what he is going to do with the rest of his life, and sits in an unoccupied chair, leaving his wife on the arm of the one he has vacated. ====================== Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 10 21:18:05 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:18:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Step towards augmented reality Message-ID: <20041210211806.32572.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4081289.stm Embedded transmitters, using widely-deployed (rather than proprietary) formats, sending data about themselves to any readers in range that care to accept their signals (thus the importance of the format: start off with a large userbase, so that the network effect makes this worthwhile from the first deployment). From ml at gondwanaland.com Fri Dec 10 22:43:39 2004 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:43:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092330.iB9NUF023184@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092330.iB9NUF023184@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041210224339.GA39478@or.pair.com> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 05:30:06PM -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Like most good Stoics (and all good > Objectivists), my reason had concluded that there must be an objective moral > order to the universe (for, if not, then there is no ground to condemn those who > falsely think it so. If there is no virtue, intellectual integrity and honesty > are not virtues, therefore the thinker has no reason to practice even the small > amount of honesty needed to think about the question of whether there is a moral > order to the universe). Let me get this straight: - If no objective moral order, can't condemn people who think there is an objective moral order. - If no objective moral order, no reason to think about whether there is an objective moral order. If I may simplify, action requires an objective moral order, you perceive action, therefore an objective moral order exists. I missed the proof for "action requires an objective moral order." > As a Christian, it was shown to me that this moral order > which I dimly perceived with my reason, is a living thing, a Mind, a Principle, > that can operate on me independent of my reason, and bring me (I pray) into > conformity with it. Sure, why not. > In sum, the old me and the new me can agree on the > objectivity of morality; where the old me had a relation to the moral order of > the universe like that of a mathematician to geometry, the new me has a > father-son relationship with it. Thanks for the reminder that Objectivists are nuts also. Please do not be gentle. -- Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/ml/ From Walter_Chen at compal.com Sat Dec 11 00:34:47 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:34:47 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068567@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: Dirk Bruere > http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html > Incidentally, 'The Amazing Randi'vii has a standing offer of one million dollars for anyone > who can demonstrate psychic phenomena in a laboratory setting of his design. Isn't it time some of us collected? > Dirk Bruere - September 2004 It would be *very* interesting to know if you have tried or when you plan to get the $1M prize. ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Sat Dec 11 01:08:10 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:08:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068567@tpeexg01.compal.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068567@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <41BA487A.70806@neopax.com> Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > > From: Dirk Bruere > > http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html > > Incidentally, 'The Amazing Randi'vii has a standing offer of one > million dollars for anyone > > who can demonstrate psychic phenomena in a laboratory setting of his > design. Isn't it time some of us collected? > > Dirk Bruere - September 2004 > > It would be *very* interesting to know if you have tried or when you > plan to get the $1M prize. > Well, if I can get a group of people together to replicate the Toronto SPR results then it will be worth a shot. IMO they had a phenomenon that was sufficiently replicable to be able to claim the prize - except they were 20yrs too early. All this from a book I picked up at a secondhand bookshop... Talked to some people from the SPR and nobody appears to have repeated, or even attempted, the expt since then. That's what I find strange. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Dec 11 04:25:34 2004 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:25:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> References: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> Message-ID: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> Forgive me for perhaps speaking out of turn, as I've only recently returned to the Extropy email list, but I must wonder why folks are coddling this bizzare talk of visits from ghosts, gods, magic nose goblins, holy spirits, or what-have-you? Mind you, I don't question Mr. Wright's earnestness or his motives; I simply question his credulity. The mechanisms of hallucination-- even wildly vivid hallucination-- are well-known to medical science, and the specific parts of the brain which react to religiously-based hallucinations (as well as religiously-based experiences which are based on ritual and other human-induced causes) are beginning to be identified and even their evolutionary benefits identified. I'm sure it felt realer than sunshine to Mr. Wright, but so too do the demons that haunt the mind of the schizophrenic seem to him or her. He asks: > what does an honest and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? > > Does he, like Scrooge, claim Marlowe's ghost is a bit of beef, a product of bad > digestion? Does he accuse himself of hallucination rather than entertain the > opinion that his axioms might be mistaken? Occam's razor, plus a modicum of > intellectual integrity, would seem to militate against this assumption. I take issue with his notion that Occam's razor slices on the side of theism (particularly that it comes down on the side of any particular branch of theism, such as Christianity, whence seems to have been drawn the imagery for his own experience). What, I ask, is the simpler solution? That he has experienced a well-known and well-studied phenomeon (vivid hallucination with particularly religious connotations) in a time of emotional stress (lying in a hospital bed, if I can parse his prose properly)? Or that he has been personally visited by a supernatural entity whose very existence is unnecessary according to the accepted scientific cosmology of the day and whose specific exploits (according to the Christian scriptures, at any rate) are explicitly contrary to what we know to be true in terms of the creation of the universe, its constraints, and its age, and who just happens-- by sheerest coincidence-- to map perfectly to the predominant religious ideation in which he grew up; despite the fact that he did not himself accept it, he was still surrounded by 9 out of 10 individuals who did, at any given time. To paraphrase Dickens: "There's more of delusion than deity about it, whatever it was!" He further claims: > My faith was visited upon my by the Holy Spirit; it was poured into me like fine > wine into an empty tin cup. I do not believe reason the proper tool to use to > decide these matters; nay, I do not believe that they are "decided" at all. Indeed, here we agree. I would say they are "imposed"; we are the product of a few hundred thousand years of hominid evolution, which has, apparently because religious experience such as your own was evolutionarily advantageous, hard-wired some 90+% of us to accept them and thereby become more altruistic and/or deferential towards authority. Populations with such genes naturally flourished relative to those who did not, back before technology became the great leveler. He is a product of his evolutionary heritage, even as he seeks to deny it. And lastly, he attempts to create an analogy to explain his experience, finding the example of Flatland lacking: > Trying to explain a religious experience is like a Yahoo trying to explain his > love of the shiny but useless metal called gold to the dignified and > perfectly-rational Houyhnhnms. No matter what he says, the Houyhnhnms cannot > see the value or the beauty of the substance they cannot eat. I am reminded of the earnest entreaties of those who create tin-foil hats to frustrate the plots of the Illuminati. Or those who think that we are inhabited by invisible undetectable 'engrams' which are really aliens banished by the evil galactic emperor a million years ago. Or those who think that every stream and stone and tree harbors an invisible spirit. The examples of such earnest foolishness are legion, but they boil down to a single fact; we Houyhnhnmns can only allow and encourage the Yahoo to starve in their quest for gold, as long as they leave us alone to feast on the fruits of the world. Because, truly, man starves by relying on every word that proceeds from the mouth of god alone. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 05:08:53 2004 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:08:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post Message-ID: To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's heads and initiating dialogue. This is my first post here, so I should probably introduce myself. I'm Neil, a first-year graduate student at Caltech, pursuing a PhD in Computation & Neural Systems. My past research experience is with computational neuroscience and robot vision, when I was studying computer science and cognitive science at Carnegie Mellon. I'm still uncertain as to what area my thesis will be on, but I'm interested in such topics as computational vision, the neural basis of consciousness, modeling of the visual system, and neuroprosthetics. I've been interested in extropy for a couple of years now, and also have a keen interest in commercial spaceflight and space settlement. Cheers! -- Neil Halelamien From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 05:33:59 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:33:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c52041210213363624cbd@mail.gmail.com> TRANSHUMANISTS DO IT FOREVER Welcome Neil! On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:08:53 -0800, Neil Halelamien wrote: > To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed > recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or > otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, > transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've > found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's > heads and initiating dialogue. > > This is my first post here, so I should probably introduce myself. I'm > Neil, a first-year graduate student at Caltech, pursuing a PhD in > Computation & Neural Systems. My past research experience is with > computational neuroscience and robot vision, when I was studying > computer science and cognitive science at Carnegie Mellon. I'm still > uncertain as to what area my thesis will be on, but I'm interested in > such topics as computational vision, the neural basis of > consciousness, modeling of the visual system, and neuroprosthetics. > I've been interested in extropy for a couple of years now, and also > have a keen interest in commercial spaceflight and space settlement. > > Cheers! > > -- Neil Halelamien From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 11 05:51:53 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:51:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: <470a3c52041210213363624cbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52041210213363624cbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210234713.01aa30d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:33 AM 12/11/2004 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >TRANSHUMANISTS DO IT FOREVER >Hs >Do It ? pronounced `overdo it', of course :) >Welcome Neil! And to the other newcomers and returners and all! (Joseph spoke, I suspect, for many here who must have covered their heads with pillows and fallen into disbelieving silence.) [yes, pun intended] Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Dec 11 05:55:38 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:55:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041211055538.48605.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Neil Halelamien wrote: > To switch to a topic completely different from > what's been discussed > recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available > (clever or > otherwise) which have messages/images related to > extropy, > transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably > sounds tacky, but I've > found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting > memes in people's > heads and initiating dialogue. Tacky can be good. If you can reduce it to a commonplace thing, and your objective in the first place was to make it commonplace... > This is my first post here, so I should probably > introduce myself. I'm > Neil, a first-year graduate student at Caltech, > pursuing a PhD in > Computation & Neural Systems. My past research > experience is with > computational neuroscience and robot vision, when I > was studying > computer science and cognitive science at Carnegie > Mellon. I'm still > uncertain as to what area my thesis will be on, but > I'm interested in > such topics as computational vision, the neural > basis of > consciousness, modeling of the visual system, and > neuroprosthetics. > I've been interested in extropy for a couple of > years now, and also > have a keen interest in commercial spaceflight and > space settlement. Hmm. Well, I can invite you over to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/howtobuildaspacehabitat/ for the latter. As to the former...have you heard much about the work being done on neural net modelling of human vision, including higher-level processes like object recognition, and if so could you give a digest of the current state of the art? This would seem to be one of the things likely to lead towards computer modelling of the entire human brain, not to mention its more immediate applications. From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Dec 11 06:25:32 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:25:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --> Neil Halelamien > To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed > recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or > otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, > transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've > found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's > heads and initiating dialogue. ExI (and the WTA for that matter) should make like the rest of us and grab a CafePress store. There's no money in selling t-shirts, but the CafePress model at least lets you do it very efficiently just for the meme exposure - the only significant outlay is in time spent pulling together the necessary image files. http://www.cafepress.com/longevitymeme http://www.cafepress.com/methuselahmouse http://www.cafepress.com/imminst etc. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From harara at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 11 06:24:38 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:24:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] In memory of my mother, 1929-2001 In-Reply-To: <470a3c52041210112224ae1439@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52041210112224ae1439@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041210222333.02947780@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Well, let me ask the obvious question: Are you a cryonicist? At 11:22 AM 12/10/2004, you wrote: >Tomorrow December 11 it will be 3 years since the death of my mother. >A few days later I wrote the message quoted below to the extropy list. >I had been lurking on the lists and occasionally posting for some time >before, but it was then when I decided to try supporting more actively >the subversive and beautiful idea that someday we can DEFEAT DEATH. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 06:30:48 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:30:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In memory of my mother, 1929-2001 In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041210222333.02947780@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <470a3c52041210112224ae1439@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20041210222333.02947780@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204121022301747721b@mail.gmail.com> Yes of course, I am a CI member. We may really be the last mortal generation as in Damien's book. I am quite confident that those born in the 21st century won't even need cryonics. But we will (I am 47 oh my god) as I don't think all needed technologies will be developed in useful time. G. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:24:38 -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > Well, let me ask the obvious question: Are you a cryonicist? > > At 11:22 AM 12/10/2004, you wrote: > >Tomorrow December 11 it will be 3 years since the death of my mother. > >A few days later I wrote the message quoted below to the extropy list. > >I had been lurking on the lists and occasionally posting for some time > >before, but it was then when I decided to try supporting more actively > >the subversive and beautiful idea that someday we can DEFEAT DEATH. From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Dec 11 06:41:02 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:41:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: ---> Joseph Bloch > Forgive me for perhaps speaking out of turn, as I've only recently > returned to the Extropy email list, but I must wonder why folks are > coddling this bizzare talk of visits from ghosts, gods, magic nose > goblins, holy spirits, or what-have-you? If there's one thing that observing the ExI list has taught me, it's that demonstrating your puissance through the creation of really good book will garner you a lot of respect. At the very least, it's very hard to say "you suck" in intellectualese when faced with the tangible reality of said book, hovering over your attempts to paint the author as somehow lacking in the grasp of reality department. It requires something of an exercise. As an aside, I've noticed, in respect to this particular case, much the same issue going on over a http://www.schlockmercenary.com - the author recently came out as a God Speaks To Me And Told Me To Draw Comics Full Time sort of chap. Raised eyebrows, but life goes on as before. Patently, there is a transhumanist-aware, clever sci-fi comic, and there is also a very religious person creating it. And then there's Orson Scott Card. And so forth - like the ten dozen people you know who are no doubt equally touched in their own ways (and operate as normal human beings until you engage them on the subject of religion) but don't happen to produce stunning works of prose. Religious delusions are much like statist delusions; they are so prevalent and such a matter of personal choice that one really has few alternatives to humoring them if one wants to participate in polite society. It's the missionaries backed up by forceful coercion you have to watch for, but beyond that, who cares to comment on the tapestries people paint on the inside of their own skulls? If you're running Dali 1.0 on the inside it's no matter to me provided you can expose a Normal Rockwell API for me to interface with. (Or vice versa, of course). Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 06:53:57 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:53:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Technique Scans Electrical 'Brainscape' Message-ID: <470a3c5204121022536cca2ed8@mail.gmail.com> Using hairlike microelectrodes and computer analysis, neurobiologists at Duke University Medical Center have demonstrated that they can see the detailed instant-to-instant electrical "brainscape" of neural activity across a living brain. According to Nicolelis, the new results "support a global theory of brain function that holds that all these processes are extremely dynamic. And now with this analytic technique we can measure these dynamics. It gives us a new language of how to describe continuous brain function. "One of the Holy Grails of neurobiology has been the neural 'code' by which the brain processes information. Now we can say that there is no such thing as a single neural code, because the code is continuously changing according to the internal state of the brain, and according to the strategy the animal selects to search the environment." Also, said Nicolelis, such analyses will influence neurobiology to advance beyond the current theory that the single neuron is the basic computational unit of the brain. "A single neuron is too noisy to act as a reliable unit of neuronal function," he said. "But an ensemble of neurons resolves that noise and makes neuronal output stable." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208093616.htm From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 10:10:01 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:10:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: References: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:41:02 -0800, Reason wrote: > > And so forth - like the ten dozen people you know who are no doubt equally touched in their own ways (and operate as normal human beings until you engage them on the subject of religion) but don't happen to produce stunning works of prose. Religious delusions are much like statist delusions; they are so prevalent and such a matter of personal choice that one really has few alternatives to humoring them if one wants to participate in polite society. It's the missionaries backed up by forceful coercion you have to watch for, but beyond that, who cares to comment on the tapestries people paint on the inside of their own skulls? If you're running Dali 1.0 on the inside it's no matter to me provided you can expose a Normal Rockwell API for me to interface with. > Exactly. John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life. More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will report having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. Even atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a fundamental part of how the human brain is structured. Religious experiences are as real to the person experiencing them, as is pain and pleasure, or an emotion, or a sensation -- seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting. These religious experiences can even feel more real and deeper than ordinary experiences and can often be life changing. Abraham Maslow said that WE ALL have peak experiences. Here's how he described them: * the experience is ego-transcending; it goes beyond "you" * you see reality clearly, vividly, profoundly * everything in the universe seems meaningful and interconnected * you feel passive, receptive and surrendered to the experience * you see things for what they are and not according to your own needs * every thing looks unique and beautiful * you feel acceptance and love for everything * time and space seem irrelevant * you feel wonder, awe, humility * you feel fortunate and graced * you feel a sense of free-will and responsibility for the world * all of your fears, anxieties, and conflicts disappear * you KNOW that this experience is what life is all about How you deal with these experiences is unique to each individual. The objects of a religious experience depends on the culture of the person experiencing it. In a Muslim environment they will be related to the Koran. In a Christian environment they will be related to Jesus and Biblical events. In Ancient Rome they were related to the Gods and myths of the Romans at that time. And, so on. All religious experiences ("supernatural experiences") are personal and originate and end in the brain of the person experiencing them. No one and no group has a monopoly on these experiences or has a religious superiority over anyone else -- each experience is unique to that person and does not represent some external universal phenomenon. Religious experiences are not a type of perceptual experience, i.e. a type of experience in which something external is perceived. Religious experiences are more akin to imaginings than they are to perception. The object of the experience is not something that exists objectively in the world but rather is something that exists subjectively in the mind of the person having the experience. Each person's God (if he considers a God at all) is in his brain, not an entity beyond this. BillK From dirk at neopax.com Sat Dec 11 12:35:11 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:35:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> References: <1102692366.992f7c00namacdon@ole.augie.edu> <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <41BAE97F.40402@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Forgive me for perhaps speaking out of turn, as I've only recently > returned to the Extropy email list, but I must wonder why folks are > coddling this bizzare talk of visits from ghosts, gods, magic nose > goblins, holy spirits, or what-have-you? Mind you, I don't question > Mr. Wright's earnestness or his motives; I simply question his credulity. > > The mechanisms of hallucination-- even wildly vivid hallucination-- > are well-known to medical science, and the specific parts of the brain > which react to religiously-based hallucinations (as well as > religiously-based experiences which are based on ritual and other > human-induced causes) are beginning to be identified and even their > evolutionary benefits identified. I'm sure it felt realer than > sunshine to Mr. Wright, but so too do the demons that haunt the mind > of the schizophrenic seem to him or her. So too does love, hate, joy, ambition, creativity, sadness, insight etc etc And by what yardstick do you judge which mental states are 'really real' and which aren't? Consensus reality? Take an opinion poll? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Sat Dec 11 12:40:55 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:40:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: References: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <41BAEAD7.2050104@neopax.com> BillK wrote: >Religious experiences are not a type of perceptual experience, i.e. a >type of experience in which something external is perceived. Religious >experiences are more akin to imaginings than they are to perception. >The object of the experience is not something that exists objectively >in the world but rather is something that exists subjectively in the >mind of the person having the experience. > >Each person's God (if he considers a God at all) is in his brain, not >an entity beyond this. > > > Debateable. Penrose has other ideas, of course, at least in respect to a mathematical Platonic realm 'out there'. Or are you one of those people who think maths is a cultural artefact invented, but not discovered? And if math is 'discovered' (even only partially) it is one of those 'internal' processes that act as if it were pure perception. Ditto God(s). -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Sat Dec 11 13:05:40 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:05:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: References: <41BA76BE.4000406@humanenhancement.com> <41BAEAD7.2050104@neopax.com> Message-ID: <41BAF0A4.1060902@neopax.com> BillK wrote: >On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:40:55 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>BillK wrote: >> >> >>>Religious experiences are not a type of perceptual experience, i.e. a >>>type of experience in which something external is perceived. Religious >>>experiences are more akin to imaginings than they are to perception. >>>The object of the experience is not something that exists objectively >>>in the world but rather is something that exists subjectively in the >>>mind of the person having the experience. >>> >>>Each person's God (if he considers a God at all) is in his brain, not >>>an entity beyond this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Debateable. >>Dirk >> >> >> > >If it is not solely in your own brain then it has to show measurable >effects in the real world. Come back after you can do this. (Randi has >1 million USD waiting for you). If you discover a hitherto >undiscovered power that can make it rain every Wednesday afternoon or >provide free electric power to your home then best of luck to you. >There are thousands of flaky web sites out there that will tell you >just that. Enjoy. > > > Mathematics - see other post. http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 23:37:01 2004 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:37:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: vision research, was: T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: <200412111900.iBBJ0J020523@tick.javien.com> References: <200412111900.iBBJ0J020523@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:00:19 -0700, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > Hmm. Well, I can invite you over to > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/howtobuildaspacehabitat/ > for the latter. Thanks for the link! > As to the former...have you heard > much about the work being done on neural net modelling > of human vision, including higher-level processes like > object recognition, and if so could you give a digest > of the current state of the art? This would seem to > be one of the things likely to lead towards computer > modelling of the entire human brain, not to mention > its more immediate applications. I'm only beginning to familiarize myself with the vast literature on the subject, but I can take a stab at it. In general, we have a reasonable understanding of the overall architecture, and have many good models of individual circuits for things like attention and certain aspects of object recognition. One particular interest of mine recently is David Lowe's SIFT (scale-invariant feature transform), an object recognition algorithm loosely based on our understanding of visual cortex and the inferior temporal (IT) area. In a gist, the algorithm operates by identifying scale-invariant features in an image, and identifying objects (as well as their relative position and orientation) by detecting memorized constellations of such features. This particular algorithm is fast and invariant to scale, rotation, and a certain amount of affine transformation. One major problem with it though is that it doesn't do any sort of object segmentation, but instead identifies objects based on the entire image. On a related note, here's a neat utility which uses SIFT to find common feature keypoints between images, in order to construct panoramas: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~nowozin/autopano-sift/ However, even though we have many great models of many areas of the visual system, we're still somewhat limited in our understanding of how different areas interact with each other. People are slowly but surely making progress with this, though. For example, some students in my department (actually in the lab I'm rotating in next term) have done some great work by using attentional maps to select relevant parts of an image, then using SIFT to learn and identify objects in attended areas. This results in a system which gets less distracted by clutter and is better at learning individual objects: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/publication/reference-view.pl?refdbname=paper&paper_id=492 Another open problem is that most research so far deals only with feedforward connections in the visual system, simply because they're more tractable. However, in many (most?) parts of the visual system, there are actually more feedback connections than feedforward connections. I'm not too familiar with the research done on them so far, but I get the impression that we know fairly little about what these feedback connections are doing. Hopefully progress in multielectrode recordings and simulation capabilities will help make feedback connections more tractable. Of course, it's impossible for me to really give a full overview of current research -- I've only commented on a couple of things along the forefront. If you have questions about any particular aspects of current research, feel free to ask. I'm not sure if I'm knowledgeable enough yet to adequately answer such questions, but I can try. :) -- Neil Halelamien From riel at surriel.com Sun Dec 12 03:17:18 2004 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:17:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> References: <20041209191624.83525.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> <41B8A770.5040907@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > The list of things that science has not been able to sufficiently > > explain is very long. > > And keeps getting shorter. Is it ? My impression has always been that the more we discover, the more new questions we get to ask. Almost like a fractal being iteratively drawn, filling up the screen bit by bit (understanding more of the total), but the edge growing infinitely long (unanswered questions). > The blank areas of our map are not faithful representations of blank > territories. Mystery exists to be conquered, to be transformed into > non-mystery. This task is not accomplished by those who, meeting the > great dragon Unknown, sheathe their blades and bow their heads in > delicious submission. I enjoy mysteries. Especially the half-dozen new mysteries that invariably spring up once the mystery that's in front has been tackled. cheers, Rik -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From riel at surriel.com Sun Dec 12 03:34:10 2004 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:34:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8DB86.4000902@neopax.com> References: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> <41B8DB86.4000902@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote: > You are again casting the experience into the cultural context with > which you are most familiar. > Reality is not dual. There is no spirit world and no material world. > They are the same. The wave and the particle both exist, yet they are the same. I see dualism at many levels and don't see why it couldn't exist on the spiritual level, too. Rik -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 12 04:15:27 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:15:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041211221355.037e47d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:08 PM 12/10/2004, you wrote: >To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed >recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or >otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, >transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've >found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's >heads and initiating dialogue. Yes, there are several designs still available from the various conferences. I agree with you that t-shirts are very effective Send Extropy Institute an email at info at extropy.org Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 12 04:16:52 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:16:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041211221607.037ea828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:25 AM 12/11/2004, Reason wrote: >--> Neil Halelamien > > > To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed > > recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or > > otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, > > transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've > > found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's > > heads and initiating dialogue. > >ExI (and the WTA for that matter) should make like the rest of us and grab a >CafePress store. There's no money in selling t-shirts, but the CafePress >model at least lets you do it very efficiently just for the meme exposure - >the only significant outlay is in time spent pulling together the necessary >image files. > >http://www.cafepress.com/longevitymeme >http://www.cafepress.com/methuselahmouse >http://www.cafepress.com/imminst Sound good Reason. Would you like to advise on this? Please email us to set up a tele-conference. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Sun Dec 12 04:31:02 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:31:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post References: Message-ID: <001101c4e003$63f12bd0$c3ebfb44@kevin> My other half has a printing degree and a small print shop. She inquired on here a year ago to see if there was any interest in such a product and received little response. If you have something in mind, I am sure she would be glad to print it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reason" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 12:25 AM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post > > --> Neil Halelamien > > > To switch to a topic completely different from what's been discussed > > recently: Are there by chance any t-shirts available (clever or > > otherwise) which have messages/images related to extropy, > > transhumanism, or the singularity? It probably sounds tacky, but I've > > found t-shirts to be an effective means of planting memes in people's > > heads and initiating dialogue. > > ExI (and the WTA for that matter) should make like the rest of us and grab a > CafePress store. There's no money in selling t-shirts, but the CafePress > model at least lets you do it very efficiently just for the meme exposure - > the only significant outlay is in time spent pulling together the necessary > image files. > > http://www.cafepress.com/longevitymeme > http://www.cafepress.com/methuselahmouse > http://www.cafepress.com/imminst > > etc. > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 12 07:20:08 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:20:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubble's last best hope? Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212011905.01c343a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1212OKEEFENU0.htm O'Keefe resigning. From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 08:47:27 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:47:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092056.iB9KuC002246@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092056.iB9KuC002246@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520412120047c01461a@mail.gmail.com> Well I am sure we would all like to hear more from you on this. For example, are we talking of the Cristian God or of a "generic" superior being which exists and can make her/his existence known (as you imply (s)he did in your case)? BTW I just received the Golden Transcendence (Amazon had screwed up and I had to wait two months) so finally today I will find out what happens to Phaeton and what the hell is the Silent Oecumene. I refrained from reading spoilers so far. G. On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:53:21 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Giulio Prisco quips: > > John, if finding (having been found by) God will help you write more books as > good as > the Golden Age, I am all for God:-) > > Thank you, sir, but I can only promise to write, not to be inspired. If my work > did not displease you, the praise is due, not to the author of the book, but to > the Great Author who created both the world and the writer who depicts the world. > > > Seriously, your words quoted below are quite intriguing. Perhaps you > >care to elaborate, not everyone here is a "fundamentalist atheist" you > >know. > > I am unfortunately a prolix man. If you ask me a specific question, perhaps I > can answer without endangering the patience of other subscribers on this list. > If the question is too delicate for public airing, I can write to you privately. From scerir at libero.it Sun Dec 12 10:24:20 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:24:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pirelli Challenge "SR 2005" References: <200412111900.iBBJ0J020523@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <004701c4e034$be42b320$b0c31b97@administxl09yj> http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html From riel at surriel.com Sun Dec 12 03:23:51 2004 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:23:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for > I have only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest > and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? Accept the fact and admire the miracle. Afterwards, feel sorrow about the fact that the human lifespan probably isn't long enough to find a scientific explanation for the observed miracle, let alone to uncover the miracles behind ... ;) Rik -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Dec 12 13:18:37 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:18:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Perry Barlow vs The Man Message-ID: <20041212131357.M21726@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Dear Extropes Boing-boing (http://boingboing.net) alerted me to a distressing story posted by John Perry Barlow (co-EFF founder, Grateful Dead lyricist, among his many talents). Barlow was arested in September 2003 at the San Francisco Airport and charged with the misdemeanor possession of controlled substances that had allegedly been discovered during a search of his checked baggage. He was requested to get off the plane (which was about to take off) by an attendant, who escorted him to the baggage claim area. Barlow says at his Blog (http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/12/a_taste_of_the_.html) : "He led me to an office in the baggage claim area that was thicker with cops than some banana republics. They greeted me with same distaste they'd likely have shown an actual terrorist and treated me accordingly for the remainder of that very long day. On the counter lay small quantities of marijuana (for which I have a physician's recommendation), mushrooms, and ketamine that had allegedly been encountered in my suitcase. That the total volume of this prize was significantly more compact than the amount of high explosive necessary to endanger an aircraft, and indeed, insufficient to merit a felony charge on any count, didn't matter to them. They clearly regarded me as a threat to public safety. When I pointed out to the officials that they only had authority to search for threats to the aircraft, one of them, a bug-eyed, crew-cutted troglodyte, declared that, if I had taken any of these substances, then I would have endangered Flight 310. That such an obviously ungifted person was capable of so imaginative a conceptual leap remains a marvel to me." Barlow spent the day locked up in the Redwood City jail, and not being given access to any of his documents or to a phonebook, he contacted one of his daughters who contacted another EFF co-founder, John Gilmore, who put up the $25,000 in cash to spring Barlow. They couldn't have chosen a better person for the task, because, besides having the money, and demonstrating a few more civil liberties principles to the jail attendants, Gilmore has experience fighting airport security laws. Rather than taking the path of least resistence in this case , the two have now chosen to make a particular case out of Barlow's incident, feeling that a law has been broken, and they would like to make this a precendent against TSA's routinely over-broad searches of checked bags. Those of you living in the San Francisco Bay Area, take note. Barlow says: "On December 15, at 2:00 pm, I will pay yet another visit to the North San Mateo County Courthouse in South San Francisco. This time I expect I will actually get a chance to plead my case. (Any interested Bay Area BarlowFriendz are invited to attend. It should be pretty decent theater.)" I recommend reading Barlow's full blog on this story. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Dec 12 13:25:46 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:25:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Strombolian Holiday Tree Message-ID: <20041212132332.M5754@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> another volcano vignette: A Strombolian Holiday Tree http://www.amara.com/photo/stromb04.html bella giornata tutti... Amara From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Dec 12 14:42:32 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:42:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] book: Paddling my Own Canoe by Sutherland Message-ID: <20041212143914.M51186@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> The book: _Paddling My Own Canoe_ Four years ago, I talked about this book, unfortunately, it was out of print at the time. The book is back in print (amazon has it) For a short, sweet read, full of parables for life, I recommend this book alot. (Its a kick to read) _Paddling my Own Canoe_ by Audrey Sutherland Paperback: 144 pages Publisher: University of Hawaii Press; 3rd Prntg edition (August 1, 1980) ISBN: 0824806999 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824806999/ The book is about a woman (Sutherland) who first started making solo journeys to a particular inaccessible beach in Moloka'i in 1958. She is a strong woman who made her first attempts swimming from one side of the island (after being dropped there by plane), dragging her gear in waterproof containers that she also built, and then later she improvised by building small rafts/canoes. This part of Moloka'i was uninhabited and, because of terrain and enormous cliffs around, one could not reach the beach from inland. And the Moloka'i Channel is one of the most dangerous stretches of water in the Pacific Ocean, so that getting there by boat is/was non-trivial too. Each year she learned new things on how to accomplish this task, and became more knowledgeable and sophisticated in her sea-faring methods. Eventually she built a cabin for herself on that beach, bringing all of the materials patiently on each journey. The whole book (it's only ~130 pgs) is a monologue. She (Audrey Sutherland) is talking to herself telling what she is thinking when this thing or that thing happened, and how she set about solving each little problem. She is always planning, trying, thinking, researching, improving how to do something. For me it's a book showing thinking for oneself and how to live with grace and humor and courage and diligence and how to solve big problems by breaking them down into manageable pieces. For example: much of her "equipment" she built or devised on her own because there didn't exist the kind of expedition equipment (lightweight, sturdy, waterproof) that she needed at the time. She is also very modest, often chiding herself, and she has a funny sense of humor. This book might be a good book for teenagers to read, to help understand that usually to accomplish large tasks, you must accumulate the successes of smaller tasks, and achieving at the end, what looked at first, impossible. I liked the book because I think that she is an amazing woman, and the book descriptions remind me of my childhood. Plus I especially liked her descriptions of solitude. It brings home why I like to go on long solo bike trips. I'll quote some parts of the book. Here is from near the ending: {begin quote} "And why did I always come alone to Moloka'i? I know why, but the telling is hard. Daily we are on trial, to do a job, to make a marriage good, to find depth, serenity, and meaning in a complex, deterioating world of politics, false values, and trivia. But rarely are we deeply challenged physically or alone. We rely on friends, on family, on a committee, on community agencies outside ourselves. To have actual survival, living or dying, depends on our own ingenuity, skill, or stamina- this is a core question we seldom face. We rarely find out if we like having only our own mind as company for days or weeks at a time. How many people have ever been total isolated, ten miles from the nearest other human, for even two days? Alone, you are more aware of surroundings, wary as an animal to danger, limp and relaxed when the sun, the brown earth, or the deep grass say, "Rest now." Alone you stand at night, alert, poised, hearing through ears and open mouth and fingertips. Alone, you do not worry whether someone else is tired or hungry or needing. You push yourself hard or quit for the day, reveling in the luxury of solitude. And being unconcerned with human needs, you become as a fish, a boulder, a tree- a part of the world around you. I stood once in midstream, balanced on a rock. A scarlet leaf fluttered, spiraled down. I watched it, became a wind-blown leaf, swayed, fell into the water with a giant human splash, then soddenly crawled out, laughing uproariously. The process of daily living is often intense and whimsical. The joy of it, and the compassion, we can share, but in pain we are ultimately alone. The only real antidote is inside. The only real security is not insurance or money or a job, not a house and furniture paid for, or a retirement fund, and never is it another person. It is the skill and humor and courage within, the ability to build your own fires and find your own peace. On a solo trip you may discover these, or try to build them, and life becomes simple and deeply satisfying. The confidence and strength remain and are brought back and applied to the rest of your life." {end quote} The author becomes more philosophical towards the later portions of the book, but in my opinion, there are many jewels along the way to grab you and sustain you. There are philosophical paragraphs scattered throughout, but what I found as interesting is her way of presenting something really amazing (to me) as "ordinary". Here is an example: {begin quote} It is about 3:00 AM. I wake from a dream and hear the seas rising, but something else awakened me. There is a bug in my ear. He crawls across the eardrum, his footfalls sounding and feeling like a branch scraping on a tin roof. I roll off the narrow air mattress onto the bare boards of the bottom bunk and fumble for the flashlight. The bug's antennae are probing. I grope thruogh the plastic bag of miscellany for the bottle of olive oil, tilt my head, pour a teaspoon of oil into the ear, slosh my head around. After two doses he stops squirming, and I tilt oil and bug out onto a towel. It is a small, greasy expiring cockroach. Olive oil is very versatile. I use it to fry fish, clean my face, dress salads, treat sunburn, lubricate zippers -- and drown bugs. {end quote} {begin quote} I peeled down to the high-topped tennis shoes and clumped off to the river with the dirty dishes. Alone and content among the trees at the water's edge, I stood like Daphne, bewitched there in the forest. Daphne, ha! Where's Apollo, you dirty, salty female? I knelt by the pool and scrubbed, composing a derisive haiku, as did Basho and Issa in Japan long ago. Goddess by the stream Tall, bare, proud ... laughs at dreams, and Squats to wash the pots. {end quote} {begin quote} What I really need is for some scientist to develop a dehydrated or freeze-dried wine. Please forgive such sacrilege, Monsieur Lichine and Mr. Balzer and you other connoisseurs, but I do enjoy wine with my meals, and seven half-bottles, a week's supply, weigh ten pack-sagging pounds. Table wines are twelve percent alcohol and perhaps two percent grape residue. Perfect a dehydration method and I could carry a fifth of that lovely wine, Louis Martini's Moscato Amabile, in a container holding four ounces. Develop further; freeze-dry the alchohol. Then I could buy foil packets of a powdered Beaulieu Cabernet Sauvignon, or, for Franco-oenophiles, a Chateau LaMission Haut Brion, add water, display the packet label with a flourish, and pour with a drip-stopping wrist twist- into a Sierra Club cup. "But listen, Aud", say my scientific friends. "If you really want concentrated wine, it's already been done. It's called brandy." {end quote} {begin quote} I had to go back again. To be that terrified of anything, that incompetent, survive by that small a margin - I'd better analyze, practice,then return and do it right. {end quote} Enjoy... Amara From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Sun Dec 12 15:58:32 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:58:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210234713.01aa30d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c52041210213363624cbd@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210234713.01aa30d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11 Dec 2004, at 06:51, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:33 AM 12/11/2004 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >> TRANSHUMANISTS DO IT FOREVER Better sex through nanotubes? best, patrick From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 12 17:55:06 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:55:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4e073$bcbf96f0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> > >> TRANSHUMANISTS DO IT FOREVER Better sex through nanotubes? best, Patrick\ High on the list of things you hope your girlfriend does not say to you on the second date: "What's that, a carbon nanotube?" spike {8^D From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 12 18:58:10 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:58:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm Reviewed on amazon.com: <> From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 12 20:07:23 2004 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:07:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41BCA4FB.7050209@jefallbright.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > > Reviewed on amazon.com: > > < read book over and over again. I did. I didn't understand at first, > but then I got it. Listen, I'm not dumb when it comes to physical > education. It's just that scientists who talk about atoms and gravity > have really been wrong all along, and I and all us other peopel who > rely on common sense knew it all along, and McCutcheon knew it all > along. That's why we didn't understand. Because what the scientists > were saying was a bunch of hogwash. Who decides anyways, that the >> > Damien - Thank you very much for bringing this book to our attention. As those on this list well know, a central theme of the utmost important to me is the sharing of knowledge and bringing together people of disparate beliefs and knowledge to form a greater whole. Today you have passed along a key piece to the universal puzzle, which I am sure will link Mark McCutcheon's revolutionary work in the hard sciences with the inspiring work of the Objective Christian Ministries applying this greater understanding to our daily lives. See also I have only two words to express my gratitude: Thank you, thank you, thank you. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 12 20:40:13 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:40:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <41BCA4FB.7050209@jefallbright.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <41BCA4FB.7050209@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212143641.01b795b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:07 PM 12/12/2004 -0800, Jef wrote: >See also This seems a little abstract to me. I prefer the visceral thrills of http://objective.jesussave.us/zounds.html and such ever popular attractions as * Hanukkah Hoedown at Mt. Fellowship's main auditorium. Join our Jewish friends to celebrate the rootingest-tootingest Festival of Lights ever! Featuring the Country-Western-Yiddish stylings of Dwight "Billy-Bob" Liebowitz. Special lasso performances by the Cowboys for Christ team. while singing along to the happy strains of Zounds YRM, < a ministry aimed at teens and young adults that uses the rocking power of awesome music to reach out and bring the Word to those that feel traditional church services too boring or uncool. We offer Totally Radical Salvation for today's totally radical kids! Zounds supports straight edge living and abstinence until marriage, but we also support good times with friends and rocking out for the Lord! Our high-energy services are more like concerts, and when we Get Down, we Get Down on our knees and pray! Yeah! > Damien Broderick From ned_lt at yahoo.com Sun Dec 12 22:40:09 2004 From: ned_lt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:40:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] interview with economist Message-ID: <20041212224009.84758.qmail@web61307.mail.yahoo.com> Though the interview is from 1999, it nevertheless remains relevant to 21st century economic dislocation:: http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/mbook017.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 12 22:47:21 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:47:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> References: <200412092229.iB9MTC014195@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41BCCA79.6080601@mac.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > >Here I will venture my own opinion. The hunger for truth is universal: I cannot >see how any organism can survive without it. The hunger for the spirit world is >widespread; it exists in most men, most of the time, but by no means in all. > >If the hunger for the spirit world is merely the blind programming of inanimate >nature organizing the molecules of our brains over generations of evolution, >then we are trapped in an illusionary belief by our basic drives and instincts. >In such as case, the atheists may rightly congratulate themselves in using their >minds to break free from a innate but demeaning instinct: their victory is as >honorable as a pacifist renouncing violence, or a nun renouncing marriage. > > > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that evolutionary programming left us susceptible to certain patterns of experience and belief that do not necessarily reflect anything truly "out there". Some of these belief patterns are/were actually useful in some ways and thus propagate in socieities. It is not that it was programmed in so much as evolution did not result in being programmed out. We are not trapped unless we agree to be, unless we fail to question deeply. There is no "instinct" for religion or the supernatural. >If the hunger for the spirit world is sent from the spirit world, like music >heard across a starry sea, promising a farther shore, then the hunger has a >proper object to satisfy it; an object not found on any earthly shore. All >spiritual travelers depart from matter and materialism in their search: >mysticism, by which I mean specifically the search for knowledge by >non-rational, non-sensory means, is the common ocean onto which all such >travelers embark. > >Now then, at this point, the skeptic can say that these so-called different >travelers all ferried themselves to islands existing in their imaginations only, >and brought back reports fished up from merely dreams and hallucinations: no >wonder they disagree. > >The point is well taken. And yet, it is ships that sailed from England that >colonized North America, not elsewhere, and our language bears the stamp of that >ancestral isle. South America bears the stamp of Portugal and Spain. The >descriptions of the Spanish Main do not match the descriptions of New England. > > > And yet they brought back actual real things everyone could see and touch. The analogy breaks down. >Of the many faiths of Earth, I am not bold enough to condemn any as utterly >false, and my prayer is that all of them might lead sincere hearts, somehow, out >of this sorrowful world where we find ourselves, to the shining lands of which >the prophets speak. And yet is seems a cruel truth that not all peoples are >equal to the task, any more than all nations are equal to discover the arts of >ship-builders and longitudinal navigation. Likewise, some faiths are better than >others: the cruelties of the Aztecs are not to be compared to the subtle >reasonings of the peaceful Buddhist. > > > And while we are looking for those finer and more subtle shores will we let this all too apparently real world disintegrate into darkness? Will we spend our lives and hearts and energy on inchoate longings for the "Beyond the Beyond"? Every culture where a significant number of the finest minds took this path has stagnated and devolved into superstition and ritual. >You may think it terribly un-multicultural of me to believe that the Jews >discovered (or were chosen to receive) a monumental truth by which all the >nations of the world would be blessed, and that the Messiah appeared among them, >not elsewhere. Perhaps so, but I cannot picture it happening any other way. It >is not odd or absurd to learn that Euclid elaborated the geometry, or Ptolemy >the astronomy, which was less developed even in other civilized lands. No one >thinks the truths in these sciences are invented by nor restricted to one race >of men. They are objective truths, free for all to discover. But, then again, >but no one uses Eskimo or Hottentot mathematics and astronomy to determine his >position at sea. > > > A comparitive study of the world's religions should show you that Christianity is not privileged or even terribly original. An examination of the history of Christianity and the creation of the Bible as we have it today will surely show good reason to doubt it has some shining veracity beyond all other belief systems. As far as mysticism itself goes Christian mystical practice and writing is primitive compared to many Eastern variants. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 12 23:21:46 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:21:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> A most interesting post! On Dec 9, 2004, at 10:10 AM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Nicholas Anthony MacDonald says, in reply to Mr. Albright: >> Except Robert Wright's search for "ultimate meaning" is of a very >> different > character than John Wright. Robert Wright is engaged in a > philosophical > "search", while John just happened to have a near death experience and > decide > that Jesus was to blame. > > Well, this sentiment is accurate (my conversion was not the product of > philosophical rumination) but the characterization is slightly > inaccurate. Mr. > McDonald is not to blame for assuming I had a near death experience and > "decided Jesus was to blame", since my description to Greg West about > the event > was rather coy. > > I did not ?decide? anything. My reaction to a blinding revelation was > something more spontaneous than rationally choosing which falsifiable > theory > best fit the observed and empirical facts. It was more like falling > in love. > I know that experience. It makes most falling in love we generally know about rather pale. > You must forgive me for being close-mouthed about the details when > speaking to > strangers. It is my own inadequacy that stills my pen. An event > beyond human > understanding cannot be described in human words to those who have no > referent > experiences, no frame, in which to understand it. If you wonder how I, > as a > human, could have witnessed an event beyond human understanding, I can > only hint > that we humans are not what we think we are. The truth of the matter > is far > more glorious than we suspect. I very much understand and I do have useable referents. Yet I also have to ask what the worth of these experiences is. As you may know, certain types of epilepsy lead to near continuous mystical visions and knowings of tremendous power. Some types of brain stimulation also appear capable of generating such experience at least in part. Psychedelics are famous for giving some very similar experiences although to be perfectly frank, my mystical expriences of a few years ago were quite different from anything I experienced in my misspent psychedelic youth all too long ago. > > My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, > for I have > only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest and > rational > man do when he has a supernatural experience? I don't know. I only know what I did. The first such experience utterly floored me. My entire idea of what life was about and what was important and who/what I was changed. So much so that I saw nothing to be done but to fully live and surrender to what I had seen. I was ready to become a full-time religious although what I had experienced did not fit so well with the dogma of any religion that had such vocations. Fortunately (or not) there were enough roadblocks between me and such a life that I had a considerable cooling off period. At the end of that time I was left with the only "non-supernatural" explanation being that the human mind/heart is capable of layers of integration, experience, emoting, insight far beyond what I thought. But in the end what did this great wonderful experience of utter Love and knowing everything from within everything and from within That in which everything was actually say about what is true? Too many critical questions were left hanging. It took some time but I put it aside at least tentatively. Eventually I more or less decided that such an extraordinary interrupting experience not backed up by other evidence was not to be trusted at face value. Over time I became very un-enamored of all the credulity that unfortunately seemed nearly inseparable from "The Path" or the walking of it. I gradually "lost my faith" even backed by Experience. But it was not easy. It was and even today sometimes is an incredible internal struggle. I very much wanted to stay with the Bliss - the greatest joy, happiness and peace I have ever known. But I could not help wondering if it was all it appeared to be. Then, just when I was back to my naturalistic self and worldview, I had another Experience, that integrated many of the things I thought opposed to the meaning of the first experience. I saw the inevitability of God and many different aspects of what spirituality is and why it is important. I experienced a Grand Integration of all I knew and cared about. I experienced sheaves of sermons of all the implications and how they could be shared to heal the world. As I was happily and atheist by then and thought i had got far away from "that stuff" this was very, very distressing and not at all what I wanted. Yet there it was. It was so powerful that the truth of it boomed out of every cell of my body. This one dropped me to my knees! Because of the insights I had received I was sorely tempted to immediately go out and start sharing these with any who I could get to listen. Yet I had just signed up for a very important and interesting project that I very much wanted to do even though it was very "mundane" in comparison. So again I had a cooling off period. This vision was very different in that I saw the "Supernatural" in terms of the "Natural". I saw why God would come to be if God did not exist already. I saw that if God came to be then God must transcend space-time. If in any conditions ever God could come to be then God Is. I saw how naturalistic science would lead to ever accelerating technological change that would require we ourselves to transcend our evolutionary programming or perish. I saw that it led directly (if succesful) to Intelligence Augmentation and the creation of every greater Mind. I saw that the most successful direction of that transcendence over our evolution was very similar to the directions for transcendence of the "ego" or "natural man". I saw how the age of Information would push us beyond our selfishness if we are to survive and thrive at all. Enough for now. I cannot do it justice in this space. > > Does he, like Scrooge, claim Marlowe's ghost is a bit of beef, a > product of bad > digestion? Does he accuse himself of hallucination rather than > entertain the > opinion that his axioms might be mistaken? Occam's razor, plus a > modicum of > intellectual integrity, would seem to militate against this assumption. > When confronted with an experience seriously out-of-band with everything else one must first asks whether this experience is an aberration. This is only reasonable. It is said (I wouldn't know) that the high from heroin is the most glorious experience. But that it is glorious does not by itself says it is worth pursuing or that those fabulous feelings/insights/perceptions have real meaning. Our feelings are not normally taken as valid tools of cognition. Does then a veritable tsunami of Feeling automatically mean we are low if we doubt and question its meaning? > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming > evidence > suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the world, so > carefully > constructed by materialist rational philosophy over many years of > painstaking > thought, is utterly wrong and discredited? Pretend it did not happen? > Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the purported Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us who seek it or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome truth of the way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human beings? Why this capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that I to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I have experienced. - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 00:18:25 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:18:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212180555.01a3cec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:21 PM 12/12/2004 -0800, samantha wrote: >This vision was very different in that I saw the "Supernatural" in terms >of the "Natural". I saw why God would come to be if God did not exist >already. I saw that if God came to be then God must transcend >space-time. If in any conditions ever God could come to be then God >Is. I saw how naturalistic science would lead to ever accelerating >technological change that would require we ourselves to transcend our >evolutionary programming or perish. I saw that it led directly (if >succesful) to Intelligence Augmentation and the creation of every greater Mind. This is the Stapledonian vision that seems to have powered John Wright's Golden Age sequence, and was proposed seriously by Sir Fred Hoyle in THE INTELLIGENT UNIVERSE. (And, I have to say, a year earlier by me in THE JUDAS MANDALA, although that was as an sf trope drawn from Julian Huxley and Teilhard.) >Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, Love, >Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but without >filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Quite so. Wright would say (has said, really, in his posts) that the Handbook is readily accessible: it's the New Testament. Luckily, had he lived in another culture, he would not have been forced to go without such guidance, though, for each of them has its own versions of the Rapture Handbook, most of them at odds with each other when it comes to practical implementation. Even those drawing upon the Gospels have been known to disagree mildly, hard though that is to credit. See for example the useful advice provided at http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html >This looks deeply suspicious to me. Entirely suspicious. >And yet please understand that I to this day feel like a lout to say so >after the Depth of what I have experienced. As I said when I first launched this thread: Be careful. It could happen to you. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 00:37:29 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:37:29 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The powerful impact of some non-veridical experiences Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212182639.01a50ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> One impressive (if partisan and fallible) attempt to explore the induction of non-real experiences is described at length at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6521/ Back in 1977, before UFO abduction imagery was as pervasive as it is now, Dr. Lawson elicited from several good hypnotic subjects quite detailed and familiar close encounter/abduction narratives. Now one might argue that all he did was expose the terrifying ubiquity of *actual* abductions; a more reductive conclusion seems plausible to me: they made it up, but fooled themselves. How can such contrived (and rather silly) quasi-experiences have the profound life-altering effects they often do? Lawson traces the impact to a recovery of perinatal child-parent bonding. That might or might not be substantiated, but perhaps the etiology of bogus abductions also helps explain some of the rapture and overwhelming uncritical bliss described with wonderfully intense sincerity by Samantha Atkins and John Wright. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Dec 13 00:53:31 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:53:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs In-Reply-To: <41BCCA79.6080601@mac.com> Message-ID: <000001c4e0ae$3143e140$6401a8c0@mtrainier> Hey cool, check this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700752/ Anyone here live in the Virginia area, could you find one of these guys, or preferrably a breeding pair? Or failing that, does anyone here know where we could buy some of these things? I can think of a lot of experiments I would like to do on them. spike From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 13 00:57:01 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:57:01 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406856E@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: Damien Broderick > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > ... Have you read this book and agree to this TOE? I checked the web site of this book and still don't know if this TOE is more true. For example, it says: ******************** Quantum Mechanics -- is it all just a Misunderstanding? Yes, it is. One of the support pillars of quantum mechanics is the supposedly bizarre dual nature of light as sometimes an energy wave and sometimes a stream of photon particles. This support pillar is completely removed when the true nature of light is revealed, showing this supposed "quantum mechanical mystery" to be a mere misunderstanding. In actuality, waves of pure energy do not exist anywhere in nature. The water wave analogy commonly used to support the energy wave concept is seriously flawed since water waves are merely wavelike motion of countless particles (water molecules). In actuality, the "energy wave" concept has no support at all, and is debunked and replaced by the same new subatomic principle that runs throughout the book. All other apparent support for quantum theory is equally debunked and clearly explained for the first time ever, such as Einstein's photoelectric effect, quantum entanglement, and the classic double-slit experiment. *********************** Can you tell us what new insights this TOE provides? ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 01:31:08 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:31:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406856E@tpeexg01.compal.com > References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406856E@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212192713.01ab0ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:57 AM 12/13/2004 +0800, Walter asked (and I'm glad he did): > > > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > > >Have you read this book and agree to this TOE? >I checked the web site of this book and still don't know if this TOE is >more true... >Can you tell us what new insights this TOE provides? It provides a dazzling insight into whether readers can tell shit from Shinola. For many years, that was not a necessary test on this list. Here is useful reference: http://www.pottymouth.org/humor/shinola.html Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 02:02:39 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:02:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Great Shinola Quest In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212192713.01ab0ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406856E@tpeexg01.compal.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041212192713.01ab0ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212195602.01b2aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> On reflection, I must apologize to Walter Chen for snarling at him. I guess from his +8000 time stamp that Walter lives in China (Hong Kong?) and his conversational English is a hell of a lot better than my Mandarin. (Which, alas, is non-existent.) I do understand that Aussie/British/American humor might be hard to grasp if you haven't grown up in one of those places, despite the presence everywhere of Hollywood. Still, I remain depressed at the thought that anyone on this list could seriously suppose for a moment that McCutcheon's drivel was being recommended. It was a joke, Walter. Damien Broderick From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 13 02:23:22 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:23:22 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Great Shinola Quest Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068571@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: Damien Broderick > ... Still, I remain depressed at > the thought that anyone on this list could seriously suppose for a moment > that McCutcheon's drivel was being recommended. It was a joke, Walter. You must be kidding! I don't see why TOE is not to be recommended or possible. At least I think TOE is not more far away than transhumans. I live in Taiwan (a free country!). ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Dec 13 03:23:29 2004 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:23:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Strombolian Holiday Tree In-Reply-To: <20041212132332.M5754@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> References: <20041212132332.M5754@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: This is very beautiful, Amara! Thanks for sharing. I'm glad you're getting to go on all these volcano excursions, they must be fascinating. And perhaps terrifying. I've followed the links from your page and looked at the many pictures from Stromboli Online - what an amazing thing to see! Regards, MB On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Amara Graps wrote: > > another volcano vignette: > > A Strombolian Holiday Tree > http://www.amara.com/photo/stromb04.html From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 03:30:27 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:30:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] and speaking of anal probes Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212212531.01b4aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> (I've always thought that should be `rectal probes', BTW, but then I've also always thought that people usually mean `vulva' when they teach their kids to say`vagina')... ...a nicely rational and infuriated 1994 piece by James Gleick on the egregious and late Dr. John Mack: http://www.around.com/abduct.html [extracts:] Though he is in all the machinery surrounding his book as true a believer as can be, still, in the actual text, he engages in a slippery form of rhetoric--as if somehow he still wanted to hedge his bets. He writes of "the actual experience (whatever the source of these experience may ultimately prove to be)." What does John Mack really believe (assuming that the whole thing isn't just a calculated scam)? Does he have any curiosity about the technology of this species, on the one hand capable of passing through walls and beaming people about on rays of light, and on the other hand, sometimes reduced to flagging down cars? Does he believe that creatures from another planet are grabbing our fellow humans, pinning them down, and engaging in weird sex with them? Literally? Well, yes--and no. Certainly he writes as though he does, but he also manages to avoid answering such tacky direct questions. Sometimes he switches over to writing in terms of "the abduction phenomenon" (Smartspeak) instead of "abductions" (Markspeak). Mack says, "Our use of familiar words like 'happening,' 'occurred,' and 'real' will themselves have to be thought of differently, less literally perhaps"--it's a sickeningly corrupt style of hiding behind language. His writing is full of phrases drained of all meaning: "the collapse of space/time"; "the alien being opened Ed's consciousness." And there is always the ultimate hedge: "the problem of defining in what reality the abductions occur." We know some realities they aren't occurring in. They aren't occurring in the reality Mack calls "the ontological framework of modern science." This is the reality where we might be tripped up by things like "accepted laws of physics and principles of biology." They aren't occurring in "the Judeo-Christian tradition"--Jews and Christians have become such stick-in-the-muds compared to (no surprise here) "Eastern religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, which have always recognized a vast range of spirit entities in the cosmos . . ." Things that, after all, could not have really happened, are constantly happening in "converging time frames" or "another dimension." The game of let's-find-another-reality turns someone like me into such a party-pooper, having to fall back on the common-sense idea that reality is in fact . . . reality. But it's not just a game. Mack is a practicing psychiatrist, and he's toying with real people. There is "Ed," who first got in touch with Mack in 1992 and "recalled" having been abducted, raped (not Mack's word), and lectured to about "the way humans are conducting themselves here in terms of international politics, our environment, our violence to each other, our food, and all that"--all this having supposedly occurred 31 years earlier, in 1961, though Ed didn't begin to recall it until 1989. In a chilling aside, Mack writes that Ed and his wife, "Lynn," have had "a number of fertility problems, which may or may not be abduction-related, including three or four spontaneous terminations of Lynn's pregnancies." It's a reminder: This man is practicing medicine. He is telling patients that their miscarriages may be due to imaginary aliens. Why do the medical licensing boards permit this? [...] We are not fully rational creatures. Our minds are not computers. We see people, we hear voices, we sense presences that are not really there. If you have never seen the face of someone you know, in broad daylight, clear as truth, when in reality that person was a continent away or years dead, then you are unusual. Our memories cannot be trusted--not our five-minute-old memories, and certainly not our decades-old memories. They are weakened, distorted, rearranged, and sometimes created from wishes or dreams. With or without hypnosis, we are susceptible to suggestion. From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 13 04:28:27 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:28:27 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068574@tpeexg01.compal.com> > From: Damien Broderick > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > ... http://dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf This seems to be a good review (33 pages). You can try and comment. ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 13 04:46:23 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:46:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068574@tpeexg01.compal.com > References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068574@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212224256.01a0ed10@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:28 PM 12/13/2004 +0800, Walter wrote: >http://dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf > >This seems to be a good review (33 pages). >You can try and comment. Actually it seems to be an idiotic review: < According to OP I can choose any theory I like and make a world that perfectly matches that theory simply by REALLY believing in that theory. That gives me a universe of one. Whether anyone else wants to join me in that world is another question. Of course, I can REALLY believe that many others will join me in that world and that will become part of the theory. Acceptance by others of that world will constitute validation of such a theory. > Let's have an exciting discussion about Mormon archeology instead. Or Colin Wilson's exciting new idea that Atlantis is Antarctica. Or George Bush's terrific analysis of Iraq. Damien Broderick From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Dec 13 04:53:25 2004 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:53:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs Message-ID: <1102913605.15768@whirlwind.he.net> > Anyone here live in the Virginia area, could you > find one of these guys, or preferrably a breeding > pair? Or failing that, does anyone here know where > we could buy some of these things? I can think of a > lot of experiments I would like to do on them. Just admit it Spike, you want to use them as ice cubes for cocktail parties. So much entertainment value to be had here... j. andrew rogers From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 13 05:44:35 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:44:35 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pirelli Challenge "SR 2005" Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068576@tpeexg01.compal.com> Thanks. Walter. --------- -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:24 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] Pirelli Challenge "SR 2005" http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Walter_Chen at compal.com Mon Dec 13 05:44:54 2004 From: Walter_Chen at compal.com (Walter_Chen at compal.com) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:44:54 +0800 Subject: Recall: [extropy-chat] Pirelli Challenge "SR 2005" Message-ID: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068577@tpeexg01.compal.com> Chen. Walter (TPE) would like to recall the message, "[extropy-chat] Pirelli Challenge "SR 2005"". ================================================================================================================================================================ This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ================================================================================================================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Dec 13 07:04:12 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:04:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] book: Paddling my Own Canoe by Sutherland Message-ID: <20041213070412.5245A57E2A@finney.org> Amara writes about: > _Paddling my Own Canoe_ by Audrey Sutherland > Paperback: 144 pages > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824806999/ > > The book is about a woman (Sutherland) who first started > making solo journeys to a particular inaccessible beach in > Moloka'i in 1958. > ... > "And why did I always come alone to Moloka'i?" Sutherland's description of the effects of being alone and isolated, miles from any other human being, for days or weeks at a time suggests that it can be a mind-altering experience, almost like taking drugs: > Alone, you are more aware of surroundings, wary as an animal > to danger, limp and relaxed when the sun, the brown earth, or > the deep grass say, "Rest now." > ... > I stood once in midstream, balanced on a rock. A scarlet leaf > fluttered, spiraled down. I watched it, became a wind-blown > leaf, swayed, fell into the water with a giant human splash, > then soddenly crawled out, laughing uproariously. Here's what I think. We grow up amid a culture and a language. We are immersed in it and it becomes part of our minds. It's strange, but a fundamental part of what we think of as being human comes from outside of us. It is language and lessons and ways of thinking about the world. These are as much a part of us and as much a part of being humans as our limbs and senses and organs. Imagine a human baby who is somehow raised without any of this. He lives in a natural environment which is so benign that he is able to survive. It may be a challenging and interesting world, one to test and stimulate his mind and body. But he never hears a human word and never sees a human being. This person, when grown, would not really be a human being as we think of one. He would have no language, other than perhaps some rudimentary mental patterns he might construct himself. He would not be able to think about abstractions and reason with logic the way we can. He would, in truth, be deeply crippled, and mentally damaged. Humans have evolved to live with linguistic input. We can't develop properly without it. To some extent I think we can see our consciousness as an interloper or parasite or symbiote which lives in the brain. Language takes root in our minds, but our minds are like the fertile ground, and language is a seed planted by others. The brain supplies the raw materials, but language is what organizes and patterns them to create a human mind. And this goes on beyond the developmental stage. We are constantly swimming through a sea of language. We are engulfed in it, the constant give and take, the exchange, the flow of words. I think this helps to maintain the stability of our human consciousness. Now imagine a person who loses this connection to the flow. They go off, as Sutherland did, and live for weeks by themself. What happens? Well, people will have different experiences. Some probably keep the language flow going internally on their own, it's very stable for them, and they keep talking and talking to themselves the whole time. But others will find that being cut off from the flow of language will change their mentality. The feedback is no longer present. The plant of language in their mind begins to wither. This, I think, is what people like Sutherland describe when they talk about the impact of being alone and experiencing the silence. Their mind changes. And they like it, or at least they find the novelty of the experience attractive. I think this is part of what urges people to experiment with drugs, the feeling of an alteration to mentality. People take stimulants, and they take depressants, and both change how their minds work, and both are attractive even though the effects are opposite, because it's the change people are craving, the novelty. If our minds were always like they are after smoking pot, and there were a drug we could take to make our minds like they are for us normally, people would seek out that drug. This seeking after novelty I think is also one of the reasons that those who change their minds by solitude find it rewarding. The key question, then, is whether going out alone and altering your mind in this way is actually a valuable experience. Are you gaining a useful insight? Or is this simply a new drug? Our minds are adapted to live in a human society built on language. Depriving them of that flow produces altered responses. I can't help seeing it as analogous to depriving the body of oxygen, which can also produce strange mental states (which some people do seek out - I knew several kids in elementary school who used to intentionally make themselves pass out, by a strange pattern of breathing and chest pressure). If you go out into the wilderness for days or weeks, and your mind changes, are you really gaining insight into your true nature? Or are you merely experiencing how your mind reacts without the supporting flow of linguistic information that it needs to retain its stability? I think of language as a somewhat precarious passenger we carry in our minds, yet a crucially important partner which truly makes us what we are (in fact we might even say that we are language more than brain). It's not suprising that taking away the flow of information destabilizes our internal language. And in my view, that means it destabilizes our self. If I go out and spend weeks alone, and I change, I become more like an animal as Sutherland describes: > Alone, you are more aware of surroundings, wary as an animal > to danger, limp and relaxed when the sun, the brown earth, or > the deep grass say, "Rest now." Alone you stand at night, > alert, poised, hearing through ears and open mouth and > fingertips. Alone, you do not worry whether someone else is > tired or hungry or needing. You push yourself hard or quit for > the day, reveling in the luxury of solitude. And being > unconcerned with human needs, you become as a fish, a boulder, > a tree- a part of the world around you. Is that the real me? Or is the busy, thoughtful, analytical, linguistic mind the real me? I don't know that there is an a priori reason to say that one or the other is the true self, but I certainly would not jump to the conclusion that the language-suppressed version is real, and the busy, language- and society-oriented version is some kind of artifact. As I said at first, it is the insertion of language and culture into a rather unformed brain which makes us human. Like it or not, language is what our thoughts are made of. Turning away from that is turning away from our humanity. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Dec 13 07:32:15 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:32:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs In-Reply-To: <1102913605.15768@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <000001c4e0e5$e49725e0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs > Anyone here live in the Virginia area, could you > find one of these guys, or preferrably a breeding > pair? Or failing that, does anyone here know where > we could buy some of these things? I can think of a > lot of experiments I would like to do on them. Just admit it Spike, you want to use them as ice cubes for cocktail parties. So much entertainment value to be had here... j. andrew rogers Well yes, I did say "a lot of experiments." The old frog-in-the-punchbowl trick would be a terrific party gag. (Hey cool, unintended double meaning.) {8^D I want to get a bunch of them, freeze them all at the same time, then thaw one out each day to see if there is a time limit. Do they get freezer burn? Do they take on the flavor of other foods? Can you take them down to lower temps than the freezer? Will houseguests gross out? Can you refreeze them? How many times? What if you set the freezer to just below freezing, can you leave them longer? Does it matter if they freeze quickly or slowly? How cold can we make them and still get them back? Can we thaw them in the microwave? Can we freeze the frog eggs? Can we take them to liquid nitrogen temperatures? That kinda stuff. You can see why these are important questions. spike From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 13 07:50:43 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:50:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA406856E@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <007801c4e0e8$72e74490$a7bd1b97@administxl09yj> [Walter] > Have you read this book and agree to this TOE? T. Breuer wrote something strong about TOEs http://www.staff.fh-vorarlberg.ac.at/tb/ See under 'publications' and you'll find 'What Theories of Everything Don't Tell', in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 28, (1997), 137-143.2 > Quantum Mechanics -- is it all just a Misunderstanding? This is a general hope :-) According to Rabi, Wheeler, etc. it is more a blindness, than a misunderstanding. "Someday, surely, we will see the principle underlying existence as so simple, so beautiful, so obvious that we will all say to each other, 'Oh, how could we all have been so blind, so long.'" --John Archibald Wheeler, "A Journey Into Gravity and Spacetime," _Scientific American Library_, 1990. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 13 08:25:19 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:25:19 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs References: <000001c4e0e5$e49725e0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> Message-ID: <002301c4e0ed$4869f0f0$b8232dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: > Can we take them to liquid nitrogen temperatures? "The glucose lowers the freezing temperature of water inside the frogs' cells, and because of this, the cells stay liquid, even as ice fills the space around them. This is crucial: If the water inside the cells froze, scientists say, the jagged ice crystals would destroy everything inside, killing the frog." Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 13 09:10:22 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:10:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068574@tpeexg01.compal.com> References: <483D64E30D008A4E930645FE7B92CEA4068574@tpeexg01.compal.com> Message-ID: <20041213091022.GP9221@leitl.org> What are you doing reading this message? Since you're not the intended recipient, you're supposed to notify the recipient, and destroy this message (before reading, of course). On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:28:27PM +0800, Walter_Chen at compal.com wrote: > > From: Damien Broderick > > > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > > ... > > http://dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf > > This seems to be a good review (33 pages). > You can try and comment. > > > ================================================================================================================================================================ > This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > ================================================================================================================================================================ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 13 11:29:36 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:29:36 +1100 Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <005e01c4e107$06b1c1f0$b8232dcb@homepc> John Wright wrote: > My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, > for I have only departed your company recently) is this: what does > an honest and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? To me, or perhaps for me, a supernatural experience is or would be a contradiction in terms. All my experiences, however surprising and unexpected must be natural to me by definition. My experiences *are* the stuff out which of I construct my world view. I was a theist before I became an atheist. There is an infinitesimal chance that the Christian God exists. Also that unicorns exist and that mermaids exist etc. I think these do not exist. If I encountered what seemed to be a unicorn or a mermaid I would be unsettled and I would look for an explanation that would enable me to have a cogent world view once again. In the case a unicorn or a mermaid I'd probably look for a trick. If I had an experience that *I* thought could be a visit from the Holy Spirit, then I'd keep an open mind but I think I'd suspect that something was going wrong with my senses or with my mind. Just about the least likely explanation would be the one that I've been culturally primed for. Perhaps I'd laugh out loud that of all the unlikely deities the Christian deity which comes with so much baggage would be the one that my mind was messing with. I'd remember lucid dreaming, I'd remember deja vu, and I'd remember reading or hearing about a bunch of stuff by folk like Carl Sagan, Hume, and William James that would offer alternate explanations. > I ask this in all seriousness. What does one do when overwhelming > evidence suddenly breaks in on you that your entire system of the > world, so carefully constructed by materialist rational philosophy > over many years of painstaking thought, is utterly wrong and > discredited? If your entire system of the world gets blown away then you probably had a pretty shaky world view to begin with. Ultimately no one can discredit your *entire* world view but you whilst you remain you. (Think of Descartes method of hyperbolic doubt. Even an evil demiurge can't convince you you are wrong in thinking you have a viewpoint whilst you have it. Your own existence is always your bedrock certainty even if you do not know what it is that you are). Atheists and theists have some things in common. They both *know* that they exist to have a perspective a viewpoint on the world (whatever it is) with greater certainty I think than they know anything else. And there is a consequence of this for you if you become a theist. You know you exist. You know (I presume) that suffering exists. (Pace Leibniz with your best of all possible worlds). If you believe in the traditional Christian God as the creator, then you will, if you are a serious thinker, probably have to come to terms with the problem of evil. This is NOT a problem for the atheist. i.e.. How could evil come to be in a world created by an omnipotent loving God? Brett Paatsch From megao at sasktel.net Mon Dec 13 14:34:46 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:34:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip Van Winkle Pets Message-ID: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> Seriously, between the fish anti-freeze proteins, conventional solvents/cryo adjuvants , anti neural oxidative deterioration chemical prepping and the frog chemistry there should be good fuel to improve upon the cryo art. At very least lets get some groundhogs frozen over a winter and bring "Punksatoney Pete" back with a real bang to see his shadow. Then follow the little beasties through a year and freeze the whole family. Procreate them a couple of generations to increase the numbers and sell 50% off to chinese customers as "Rip Van winkle" designer pets. The Chinese have a fondness for gophers as pets. Make pet cryonics a money making cottage industry. Remember Artificial Insemination was used for cows for decades before it arrived on the people scene. By the way I saw a story on a sat feed about 20 years ago of a CO2 cooled helmet to rapidly cool the brain to beat the 4 minute factor from body temp to 32. If that plus a tank of Ice Water was set so the cryonaut or his/hers appointed pushed the process start button one might hope to have the body in a condition where is could be easily resuscitated . If one is terminal with less than a couple of months left that would be a better time to start the process than after the body has shut itself down naturally. MFJ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:32:15 -0800 From: spike Reply-To: ExI chat list To: andrew at ceruleansystems.com, 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] freezing frogs > Anyone here live in the Virginia area, could you > find one of these guys, or preferrably a breeding > pair? Or failing that, does anyone here know where > we could buy some of these things? I can think of a > lot of experiments I would like to do on them. Just admit it Spike, you want to use them as ice cubes for cocktail parties. So much entertainment value to be had here... j. andrew rogers Well yes, I did say "a lot of experiments." The old frog-in-the-punchbowl trick would be a terrific party gag. (Hey cool, unintended double meaning.) {8^D I want to get a bunch of them, freeze them all at the same time, then thaw one out each day to see if there is a time limit. Do they get freezer burn? Do they take on the flavor of other foods? Can you take them down to lower temps than the freezer? Will houseguests gross out? Can you refreeze them? How many times? What if you set the freezer to just below freezing, can you leave them longer? Does it matter if they freeze quickly or slowly? How cold can we make them and still get them back? Can we thaw them in the microwave? Can we freeze the frog eggs? Can we take them to liquid nitrogen temperatures? That kinda stuff. You can see why these are important questions. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 13 15:07:02 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:07:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] book: Paddling my Own Canoe by Sutherland Message-ID: Dear Hal, >Sutherland's description of the effects of being alone and isolated, >miles from any other human being, for days or weeks at a time suggests >that it can be a mind-altering experience, almost like taking drugs: I don't think being alone for a few days or a week or so is mind-altering in that way. At least my drug experiences were radically different than being isolated for a little while. My impression from her book (I've read it twice) is that she was talking about being completely comfortable in one's own mind and being comfortable with accepting that each of us are ultimately alone. And that these facets of our character can be gained at the same time of challenging ourselves in a basic survival environment. Even though she didn't use the word: Abyss, the ideas of the Abyss are present in her book. No matter who may be around us for giving love and support, ultimately each of us are alone. The Abyss is a terrifying freefall place where one sees that there is no support outside of oneself. And the Abyss provides the framework with which we can grow our true selves. Growing our true selves, following our life path, is a process: --------------------------------------------- oops oops / \ / \ /oops / \ / \ / \ \--- |-----\ / \--- \ / \ / oops --------------------------------------------- Failures and mistakes are an integral part of living and growing and taking risks, and sometimes it's excruciatingly hard to know if one is following in the right path of being true to oneself. Sutherland chose to challenge herself with a Moloka'i beach impossibility, and so began years of efforts and mistakes and successes, and growing herself at the same time. For her, it was important to be in a completely different environment to challenge herself in the way she needed. Perhaps it is not necessary for other people, but I suggest _some_ isolation is still valuable to have a dialog with one's mind. >Here's what I think. We grow up amid a culture and a language. We are >immersed in it and it becomes part of our minds. It's strange, but a >fundamental part of what we think of as being human comes from outside >of us. It is language and lessons and ways of thinking about the world. >These are as much a part of us and as much a part of being humans as >our limbs and senses and organs. I think that one can do well to understand what are mostly external inputs and what the core parts of our psychology that can face an Abyss by sitting at a table, and 'having a tea' with it. I agree that a fundamental part of who we are comes from the outside, but I think that a crucial challenge in every human's life is to know how to psychologically support ourselves. No one else can do this for you. >Imagine a human baby who is somehow raised without any of this. He lives >in a natural environment which is so benign that he is able to survive. >It may be a challenging and interesting world, one to test and stimulate >his mind and body. But he never hears a human word and never sees a >human being. >This person, when grown, would not really be a human being as we think >of one. He would have no language, other than perhaps some rudimentary >mental patterns he might construct himself. He would not be able to >think about abstractions and reason with logic the way we can. He would, >in truth, be deeply crippled, and mentally damaged. >Humans have evolved to live with linguistic input. We can't develop >properly without it. [...] >Now imagine a person who loses this connection to the flow. They go >off, as Sutherland did, and live for weeks by themself. I understand what you are saying about linguistic input, but I don't believe that Sutherland's excursions were long enough to cause her mind to fill in the gaps from the missing linguistic input. She was a single mom with four children, and she spent her excursions to Moloka'i using her one or two vacation weeks per year away from her secretarial job. I don't believe her trips were longer than one or two weeks. But she did this over 20 years. Her challenge to herself was how to survive (and survive well) given the goal of reaching that beach, and then later, building her little cabin on the beach. This is why I say that her story showed how to break large tasks into small parts, and keep trying, and refining and learning how to make it work, by iterating on mistakes, solving each over time. Even though I have not challenged myself to survive like Sutherland, I've played with that survival boundary in my bike tours and I understand how a few days in 'survival mode' and relying on oneself changes (recharges) you. My bike trips were also never very long (5 days to 2 weeks), but my life perspective during that short time is so different and so 'rich' from my usual life that I find that I crave my bike journeys when too long of a time passes with no bike trip. It's as if I'm missing an integral part of myself. During those days or weeks that I'm on my bike, like Sutherland, the survival aspects are the most important. I'm concerned with getting enough water, or finding a place to sleep, or reaching a town where there is a store for food, or having enough strength in my legs to make it up a mountain pass. When parts of my bike break, I either fix it and congratulate myself, or berate myself for not bringing the proper tool or backup part and I vow that I will never make that mistake again. Injuries while on tours are yet another challenge. I didn't face death from my many bike trip mistakes but walking or hitching rides from mishaps while in foreign countries teaches one many lessons about the importance of selfsufficiency and skill in fixing one's mode of transportation. Over time it helps me build confidence. My bicycle trips have an added benefit that Sutherland's doesn't have, in that I'm alone in strange places and vulnerable, and I reinforce or relearn how to trust complete strangers (because I must). >This, I think, is what people like Sutherland describe when they talk >about the impact of being alone and experiencing the silence. Their mind >changes. And they like it, or at least they find the novelty of the >experience attractive. For her, I don't think it is the lack of language. The experience of the silence is to hear one's own mind, like it, and revel in being alive. >The key question, then, is whether going out alone and altering your >mind in this way is actually a valuable experience. Are you gaining a >useful insight? Or is this simply a new drug? Well, I can say from my own drug experiences that I've gained valuable insights. For one thing, I learned how fear looks, because I was able to walk around it, and see it from every perspective and I learned that the usual pain associated with fear didn't kill me. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end." --Calvin From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 13 15:37:26 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:37:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) In-Reply-To: <005e01c4e107$06b1c1f0$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20041213153726.40208.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > i.e.. How could evil come to be in a world created by an omnipotent > loving God? Why do birds kick their children out of the nest? Why do devout catholic women who repeatedly miscarry keep trying to have children? Why do transhumanists keep trying to create more extropy when every such act causes more entropy in the world? It is because the net benefits of trying are greater than not trying at all. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From etcs.ret at verizon.net Mon Dec 13 17:41:52 2004 From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:41:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs In-Reply-To: <200412131130.iBDBUQ017980@tick.javien.com> References: <200412131130.iBDBUQ017980@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:30:26 -0700, in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 19 spike wrote: >------------------------------ > > Do they get freezer burn? Do they >take on the flavor of other foods? Can you take them >down to lower temps than the freezer? Will houseguests >gross out? Can you refreeze them? How many times? >What if you set the freezer to just below freezing, >can you leave them longer? Does it matter if they >freeze quickly or slowly? How cold can we make them >and still get them back? Can we thaw them in the >microwave? Can we freeze the frog eggs? Can we take >them to liquid nitrogen temperatures? Can you throw them over your shoulder Like a Continental soldier? They're Extropian, batrachian, Gotta find something To rhyme with them. chor. Tension, apprehension, etc stencil sends From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 18:20:45 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:20:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs In-Reply-To: References: <200412131130.iBDBUQ017980@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:41:52 -0500, stencil wrote: > Can you throw them over your shoulder > Like a Continental soldier? They're > Extropian, batrachian, > Gotta find something > To rhyme with them. > > chor. > Tension, apprehension, etc > We use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose. Get your crunchy frogs here! BillK From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 13 18:30:51 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:30:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip VanWinkle Pets References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> "By the way I saw a story on a sat feed about 20 years ago of a CO2 cooled helmet to rapidly cool the brain to beat the 4 minute factor from body temp to 32." Couldn;t this be a handy household device to have around for people who live in rural areas? It can take qute some time for an ambulance to respond to a heart attack or similar problem in such a situation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 13 18:28:22 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:28:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip Van Winkle Pets In-Reply-To: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213102727.02944550@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> May I suggest going to Alcor.org and using the site search for "vitrification". At 06:34 AM 12/13/2004, you wrote: >Seriously, between the fish anti-freeze proteins, conventional >solvents/cryo adjuvants , anti neural oxidative deterioration chemical >prepping and the frog chemistry there should be good fuel to improve upon >the cryo art. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 13 18:16:53 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:16:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The powerful impact of some non-veridical experiences In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212182639.01a50ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212182639.01a50ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213101608.0294d608@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> >Like I said, read your Grof. > >How can such contrived (and rather silly) quasi-experiences have the >profound life-altering effects they often do? Lawson traces the impact to >a recovery of perinatal child-parent bonding. That might or might not be >substantiated, but perhaps the etiology of bogus abductions also helps >explain some of the rapture and overwhelming uncritical bliss described >with wonderfully intense sincerity by Samantha Atkins and John Wright. > >Damien Broderick ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 13 18:24:42 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:24:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) In-Reply-To: <20041213153726.40208.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041213182442.47431.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > i.e.. How could evil come to be in a world created > by an omnipotent > > loving God? > > Why do birds kick their children out of the nest? > Why do devout > catholic women who repeatedly miscarry keep trying > to have children? > > Why do transhumanists keep trying to create more > extropy when every > such act causes more entropy in the world? It is > because the net > benefits of trying are greater than not trying at > all. Ah, but birds, catholic women, and transhumanits have to work within the limits of the world they find themselves in. God is presumed to be the one who created, and can edit, those limits. From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 13 18:40:49 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:40:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] book: Paddling my Own Canoe by Sutherland In-Reply-To: <20041213070412.5245A57E2A@finney.org> Message-ID: <20041213184049.24815.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Imagine a human baby who is somehow raised without > any of this. He lives > in a natural environment which is so benign that he > is able to survive. > It may be a challenging and interesting world, one > to test and stimulate > his mind and body. But he never hears a human word > and never sees a > human being. > > This person, when grown, would not really be a human > being as we think > of one. He would have no language, other than > perhaps some rudimentary > mental patterns he might construct himself. He > would not be able to > think about abstractions and reason with logic the > way we can. He would, > in truth, be deeply crippled, and mentally damaged. Sadly, one doesn't have to imagine it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Dec 13 18:43:14 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:43:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Those wacky Objectivists (was John Wright finds God) Message-ID: <200412131843.iBDIhI001405@tick.javien.com> Mike Linksvayer writes: Let me get this straight: - If no objective moral order, can't condemn people who think there is an objective moral order. Correct. - If no objective moral order, no reason to think about whether there is an objective moral order. Not quite. I propose only that there is no moral obligation to study the question, no reason to be more loyal to the truth than to falsehood. > If I may simplify, action requires an objective moral order, you perceive action, therefore an objective moral order exists. I missed the proof for "action requires an objective moral order." In your simplification, you leave out the operative term. Honest action requires moral order. Honesty is a moral category. If no moral categories, then questions of honesty are meaningless. I put it to you that you would not have written the words you did above, if you did not mean the questions honestly, did not believe that I would give you an honest answer, or, at least, a courteous one. People can exchange jokes or insults about philosophy without a modicum of honesty, but they cannot have a serious discussion. Therefore serious discussion of a philosophical question (such as, e.g. whether there is a moral order to the universe) presupposes categorically that there is a moral order to the universe. Without such an assumption the debate cannot begin. >Thanks for the reminder that Objectivists are nuts also. If you mean to say that there is an object standard of sanity and that the Objectivists do not meet it, I am afraid you are playing into their hands. However, whatever their flaws, if you argue with an Objectivist without first admitting that morality is objective, you have no standard by which the argument can be judged. There is nothing wrong with an ad Hominem attack, for example, unless it is both illogical and wrong. If there is no such thing as right and wrong, what's wrong with being illogical? From megao at sasktel.net Mon Dec 13 18:47:54 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:47:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip VanWinkle Pets In-Reply-To: <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> Message-ID: <41BDE3DA.7080509@sasktel.net> Don't think this was ever commercialized , likely regulatory stuff as regards a "medical device". It looked like a little leaguer's warm up helmet and circulated CO2 to cool down the head so that the 4 minutes could be extended to perhaps 15-45 minutes. I have a video on it in my tape archives. Exactly, we are in a rural area and if you are lucky enough to have another person within 2 minutes you are indeed lucky. If you can get to any facility with an MD, it is 90-120 minutes round trip for pickup, and 180 minutes to a real city hospital. If someone had biomonitors to alert of problems and personal ownership of a head or whole body "lifeboat" it would be invaluable as time and distance would no longer be the killer they are now. This is not rocket science and the market should be huge. Anybody with a predisposing medical condition should have one. Kevin Freels wrote: > "By the way I saw a story on a sat feed about 20 years ago of a CO2 > cooled helmet to rapidly cool the brain > to beat the 4 minute factor from body temp to 32." > > Couldn;t this be a handy household device to have around for people > who live in rural areas? It can take qute some time for an ambulance > to respond to a heart attack or similar problem in such a situation. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 13 19:05:54 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:05:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs References: <200412131130.iBDBUQ017980@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <020c01c4e146$c5d1fc50$c3ebfb44@kevin> Aren;t these frogs old news? From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Dec 13 19:18:02 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:18:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412131918.iBDJID007393@tick.javien.com> Dirk Bruere Writes: >The difference [between Christianity and the Viking religion] is that while we argue over whether Odin was an historical shamanic figure or not, we have never burned people at the stake for claiming it was all metaphor and not historical reality. By its fruits you will know it. The Vikings also raided, raped and looted and burnt: Christian men do evil because we are men, not because we are Christian. The difference is that some Christians do actually turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies. There is nothing in the Havamal which requires you to do any such thing. >I did knock, and have been answered, but not by anything dressed as an Xian. To be honest, I rather desise [sic despise?] the Xian legacy and I feel that JC would too if he were alive today (a joke, of sorts). Joke or not, I agree wholeheartedly that my Lord would take up a lash and drive the money-changers out of the temple. He has no patience for those who have brought such disgrace upon His house, Pharisees and hypocrites. Hatred for Christians and their bloody history is not unknown to me. When I was a militant atheist, I felt it every day. >His warning and test were clear - by its fruits you will know it. My Lord also said that the branch that does not bear fruit would be thrown on the fire: a warning that those who have betrayed and demeaned His message would do well to heed. It is possible that certain Christians have tried to do good in the world that has merely not recommended itself to your attention. Saint Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa are not less representative of Christianity as Torquemada Cardinal Richelieu. I am sure the Red Cross and the Christian Children?s Fund have done charitable works you might find praiseworthy. All I can do in my own life it try to make my own little vine come to fruition. From etcs.ret at verizon.net Mon Dec 13 19:28:26 2004 From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:28:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs In-Reply-To: <200412131900.iBDJ0M004381@tick.javien.com> References: <200412131900.iBDJ0M004381@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5oqrr0p37vdo2vblt2thkvq4fbnakakbv6@4ax.com> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:00:22 -0700, in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 20 Kevin Freels wrote: > >Aren;t these frogs old news? > Yes. Many decades ago the Bayarrhea was flooded with t-shirts decorated variously but all emblazoned, KISS ME AND YOU'LL LIVE FOREVER! You'll be frog... but you'll live forever. Frogs and toads of course, have been known for centuries to have unusually effective survival strategies when faced with extremes of cold, drought, or lack of food. The Virginia naturalists were quoting textbook science. But it is ...cool. stencil sends From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Dec 13 19:34:17 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God Message-ID: <200412131934.iBDJYT009842@tick.javien.com> BillK writes: > John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life. More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will report having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. Even atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a fundamental part of how the human brain is structured. Will all due respect, you misquote me. I did not say my experience was unique. Far from it. I merely opine that the most logical explanation to a type of perception that an overwhelming majority of people have had is not necessary the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of people are mistaken. It could be that that are: but the burden of proof surely lies on the party making the more extraordinary claim. From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Dec 13 19:42:59 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:42:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> Mr. Bloch writes: >Forgive me for perhaps speaking out of turn, as I've only recently returned to the Extropy email list, but I must wonder why folks are coddling this bizzare talk of visits from ghosts, gods, magic nose goblins, holy spirits, or what-have-you? Mind you, I don't question Mr. Wright's earnestness or his motives; I simply question his credulity. Well, I hate to say it, but he has a good point. This thread is actually off topic for the question of human means to discover human transcendence. My purpose in writing was merely to thank those who read an enjoyed my book, and also, perhaps, to convince those who love logic as much as I do, that at least some Christians may be mistaken, or credulous of things the world finds incredible, but we neither fanatical, nor unintelligent, nor inarticulate. It is a question of different axioms, not a defect in the brain, that makes a man religious. That purpose served, I suppose I can bow out of any further conversation with no ill will: there are Christian apologists more able than I to debate our doctrines, and forums more suited. As Mr. Broderick said when he opened this thread (though he meant it as a warning, I as a welcome) "it could happen to you." JCW From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Mon Dec 13 20:18:31 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:18:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] book: Paddling my Own Canoe by Sutherland Message-ID: <20041213200517.M42294@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> To add to what I wrote before. Audrey Sutherland taught her (4) kids self-sufficiency as much out of necessity, as out of passing on her own value system. I enjoyed seeing a glimpse of the running of her household because there are valuable and/or confirming life lessons in this part of her world too. Perhaps some of you would recognize your own houses (I did), or perhaps it would seem bizarre to you; nevertheless, I think these words are useful and interesting. So continuing why she went to Moloka'i alone, she says: ---- "Despite all standard advice, it does not seem foolish to come alone. I now know how and what to do, having learned most of it the hard way. The few competent, compatible people that I'd like to have along are seldom available to come when I do. Alone, I am doubly careful. At home the family knows my planned route, the deadline for my return, and what to do if I don't meet it. I carry signal flares for emergency; a daily sight-seeing plane flies by a mile away. There is another reason to come alone, besides my own need. The children, by necessity, have been trained to self-sufficiency. We have no television -- they read omnivorously. There have been few other children living nearby, but there is plenty of life in the tide pools in front of the house. I work days and often nights, and have the car with me; the kids ride bikes or walk or run. There are no organized playgrounds; they've learned to skin-dive and to surf, Jock becoming "number one" in the world. We have the list posted of twenty things every kid ought to be able to do by age sixteen, which includes fix a meal, splice a cord (manila or electric), change a tire, change a baby, listen to an adult with empathy, see work to be done and do it -- that last one will take about five years more. But now the clan is growing up; the youngest is a teenager. I won't know whether I've done a good job raising them until they all reach forty or so. They I'll see how they respond to other people and to their own children. The transition is going on. They need the opportunity now and then to be without me, to make their own decisions, to make their own mistakes and repair them." --- Amara From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 13 22:10:52 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:10:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) In-Reply-To: <20041213182442.47431.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041213221052.26460.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > i.e.. How could evil come to be in a world created > > by an omnipotent > > > loving God? > > > > Why do birds kick their children out of the nest? > > Why do devout > > catholic women who repeatedly miscarry keep trying > > to have children? > > > > Why do transhumanists keep trying to create more > > extropy when every > > such act causes more entropy in the world? It is > > because the net > > benefits of trying are greater than not trying at > > all. > > Ah, but birds, catholic women, and transhumanits have > to work within the limits of the world they find > themselves in. God is presumed to be the one who > created, and can edit, those limits. Firstly, I have severe doubts about any simulation operators capacity to edit the universe. What we know about quantum computation at present precludes any hacking in mid process unless the hack is part of the original program, in which case it isn't a hack. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 13 22:39:54 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:39:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) In-Reply-To: <20041213221052.26460.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041213223954.60609.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Ah, but birds, catholic women, and transhumanits > have > > to work within the limits of the world they find > > themselves in. God is presumed to be the one who > > created, and can edit, those limits. > > Firstly, I have severe doubts about any simulation > operators capacity > to edit the universe. What we know about quantum > computation at present > precludes any hacking in mid process unless the hack > is part of the > original program, in which case it isn't a hack. Omnipotence isn't a bug, it's a feature. It includes the foresight and design ability to preclude the possibility of such things as evil. That they exist is proof that, if the universe was deliberately designed, evil was intentionally part of it. Which precludes certain classes of God (like a God that wants only goodness to exist), although it does allow for other types of God. (One common practical problem being one of bait-and-switch: religionists try to get one to admit to the possibility of the latter type of God, then twist that into an admission of the former type of God - and therefore an admission of the religion's supreme moral authority, since they claim to be implementing the directives of a God that wants only goodness - even though it was not, and the conclusion would rest on an untested assumption of the church's real and effective loyalties even if the admission was of the former type.) From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 13 22:49:33 2004 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:49:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Those wacky Objectivists In-Reply-To: <200412131843.iBDIhI001405@tick.javien.com> References: <200412131843.iBDIhI001405@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41BE1C7D.6080404@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Mike Linksvayer writes: > >Let me get this straight: - If no objective moral order, can't condemn people >who think there is an objective moral order. > >Correct. > >- If no objective moral order, no reason to think about whether there is an >objective moral order. > >Not quite. I propose only that there is no moral obligation to study the >question, no reason to be more loyal to the truth than to falsehood. > > >However, whatever their flaws, if you argue with an Objectivist without first >admitting that morality is objective, you have no standard by which the argument >can be judged. There is nothing wrong with an ad Hominem attack, for example, >unless it is both illogical and wrong. If there is no such thing as right and >wrong, what's wrong with being illogical? > > Discussion on this topic often carries with it some semantic confusion. Those who say there is no objective morality have a perfectly good point, and they can demonstrate for most, if not all controversial moral issues that "right" action is to some degree dependent on context. On the other hand, those who say there must be an objective basis for morality also make a good case, as demonstrated by Mr. Wright, that we must have at least some common basis for any discussion of "right" and "wrong". Regardless of a thinking person's axioms of choice, moral judgments are based on our values, and our values are ultimately grounded in "what works." Values related to murder, theft, honesty, and so on have evolved both genetically and culturally by a process of natural selection of which humans are an intrinsic part. In a very profound sense, at every level of organization from the sub-atomic to human culture, cooperative-advantage/synergy/non-zero-sumness is part of the fabric of our world, and forms the objective root of our values and thus our morality. Although the branches have grown in somewhat different directions, they have much in common and in the bigger picture are seen as part of a whole that makes sense. - Jef - Jef From sjatkins at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 23:29:10 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:29:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41B8FCE8.6090804@neopax.com> References: <20041210012246.74392.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> <41B8FCE8.6090804@neopax.com> Message-ID: <948b11e0412131529ff4f50e@mail.gmail.com> In "I am the way" much depends on the sense of what is translated as "I". It could be the personal dude form of "I". On the other hand it could refer to a type of consciousness some call the "Christ consciousness". The latter is a lot more universal as an interpretation and a lot more inclusive. - samantha On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:33:28 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > >>Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge. > >>Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really > >>Yashua? And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name > >>(any of them) at all? Can we call upon him even if we do not know he > >>existed/exists? In fact, *what* is Jesus? > >> > >> > > > >Jesus is a domain name. The real trick is finding out his/her/its IP > >address... ;) > > > >The IP of the true server of the Jesus domain could very easily be > >serving other domain names, for different websites, each with their own > >content and structure. They might be the same site, but presenting > >different structure and language based on the web browser and > >language/culture of the browsing individual. > > > >Penetrating this graphical interface, and getting to the command > >prompt, not to mention root level access, is the same quest as Neo > >seeking to find out what is the Matrix. > > > > > > > That's not really the answer to the question. > It refers to the statement 'I am the Way' - not *a* Way. > If we accept Xian theology then JC is the name given to the link between > man and god. There's only one link, but there are any number of methods > to access it. Accessing it does not mean having to know the detailed > history of JC as any kind of historical person. One only has to know > that it exists and be willing to use it. > > It comes down to this: What is the absolute minimum one has to > know/believe in order to be an Xian? > Clearly the name is irrelevent (since we don't actually use his likely > historical name). > A full bio is also not required, since we don't have one. > > > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 13 23:35:34 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:35:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Problem of Evil (was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God) In-Reply-To: <20041213223954.60609.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041213233534.26580.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Ah, but birds, catholic women, and transhumanits > > have > > > to work within the limits of the world they find > > > themselves in. God is presumed to be the one who > > > created, and can edit, those limits. > > > > Firstly, I have severe doubts about any simulation > > operators capacity > > to edit the universe. What we know about quantum > > computation at present > > precludes any hacking in mid process unless the hack > > is part of the > > original program, in which case it isn't a hack. > > Omnipotence isn't a bug, it's a feature. Omnipotence is an unsubstantiated claim of modern era Popes. It has no basis in original scripture. > It includes > the foresight and design ability to preclude the > possibility of such things as evil. That they exist > is proof that, if the universe was deliberately > designed, evil was intentionally part of it. If it was, the fact that is was does not preclude certain classes of God. The examples I previously gave are evidence that a sentient being can be omni-loving but not omni-protective, omni-sheltering, or omni-smothering. Only omni-spoiled omni-brats who resent being weaned would demand such treatment, which might explain why atheism is so prevalent among the Baby Boomers. ;) ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From sjatkins at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 01:09:41 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:09:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <200412131934.iBDJYT009842@tick.javien.com> References: <200412131934.iBDJYT009842@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <948b11e041213170963f397c9@mail.gmail.com> Well, the "claim" is about what these rather extraordinary yet widespread experiences mean. What it means largely falls into two camps. One camp says that the experience means that reality is not like we normally assume it to be and we ourselves are quite different than what we normally believe to be the case. The other camp says that these experiences say little about what really is true beyond the obvious fact that human beings can have such experiences. Which is the more extraordinary interpretration? It looks to me like it is the first. - samantha On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > BillK writes: > > > John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience > was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar > experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life. > More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will report > having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is > common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. Even > atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a > fundamental part of how the human brain is structured. > > Will all due respect, you misquote me. I did not say my experience was unique. > Far from it. I merely opine that the most logical explanation to a type of > perception that an overwhelming majority of people have had is not necessary the > conclusion that the overwhelming majority of people are mistaken. It could be > that that are: but the burden of proof surely lies on the party making the more > extraordinary claim. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From duggerj1 at charter.net Tue Dec 14 02:18:43 2004 From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:18:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charity Suggestions? Message-ID: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> Monday, 13 December 2004 Hello all, As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over for another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions from the lists about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. Here's a starter list: Extropy Institute Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) National Space Society Immortality Institute World Transhumanist Association I've intentionally omitted policital parties and the FSP in the probably vain hope of avoiding flames, not because of my own sympathies or antipathies. I have my own list of charity types I'd like to see, but why bias any answers? Jay Dugger : Til Eulenspiegel http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ Sometimes the delete key serves best. From ned_lt at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 02:35:51 2004 From: ned_lt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:35:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] does vitamin E do more harm than good In-Reply-To: <20041214023037.26652.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041214023551.50951.qmail@web61304.mail.yahoo.com> >From a study publicised in November:: http://summer.antiagingconference.com/ar/exhibitions_study_vitamin_may/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Dec 14 02:46:33 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:46:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charity Suggestions? In-Reply-To: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of duggerj1 at charter.net > As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over > for another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions > from the lists about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. > > Here's a starter list: > > Extropy Institute > Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) > National Space Society > Immortality Institute > World Transhumanist Association > > I've intentionally omitted policital parties and the FSP in the > probably vain hope of avoiding flames, not because of my own > sympathies or antipathies. I have my own list of charity types > I'd like to see, but why bias any answers? You missed the Methuselah Foundation: http://www.mprize.org Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From harara at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 03:39:53 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:39:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip VanWinkle Pets In-Reply-To: <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> I have the original article, appeared in OMNI magazine. Without circulatory access, there is no way to cool the brain rapidly enough. Conduction through the skull is not nearly fast enough. A major limitation is that if you use a really cold gas, you freeze the outer flesh. I'd have to look it up, but I believe there were fluids introduced through the carotids and jugulars. Cannulation of these is incredibly difficult, so such a device needs a skilled operator. If it were available and worked, we would surely use it! At 10:30 AM 12/13/2004, you wrote: >"By the way I saw a story on a sat feed about 20 years ago of a CO2 cooled >helmet to rapidly cool the brain >to beat the 4 minute factor from body temp to 32." > >Couldn;t this be a handy household device to have around for people who >live in rural areas? It can take qute some time for an ambulance to >respond to a heart attack or similar problem in such a situation. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 03:57:14 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:57:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] thinner Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213215530.019e5e98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Aussie fat-burn pill a big success Clara Pirani, Medical reporter 14dec04 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11682770%255E23289,00.html AN Australian company has developed the first weight-loss pill that kick-starts the human body's metabolism to help people burn fat without the need for strict diets or exercise. Melbourne-based Metabolic Pharmaceuticals said yesterday that the results of its second phase of clinical trials proved the drug promoted weight loss without causing any side effects. Three hundred obese people were given either the obesity drug, known as AOD9604, or a placebo every day for 12 weeks. They all followed the same exercise advice and diet. Those taking AOD9604 lost an average of 2.8kg, while those given a placebo lost only 0.8kg. "We are delighted with the results," Metabolic Pharmaceuticals chief executive Chris Belyea said. "It's extremely promising." Dr Belyea said AOD9604 differed from existing obesity drugs that work by suppressing appetite or preventing the body from absorbing food. Appetite suppressants did not help the many overweight people who ate even when they were not hungry, and drugs that prevented food absorption could cause painful and embarrassing side effects such as diarrhoea. The new drug, invented by Monash University associate professor Frank Ng, is based on part of the human growth hormone molecule. The hormone, which stimulates the metabolism of fat, occurs naturally in the body but is suppressed in obese people. "We don't know why the hormone is suppressed in obese people but it makes it harder for them to lose weight," Dr Belyea said. "Our drug makes it possible for these people to lose weight." Six doses of the drug, ranging from 1mg to 30mg, were tested. "We did different doses because for our drug there is an active range and below or above that range there is no effect," Dr Belyea said. "So we expected to see an odd dose response and what we saw, somewhat to our surprise, was that the 1mg dose was the most effective." More than 50 per cent of volunteers taking the 1mg dose lost 2kg or more, and 9 per cent lost 8kg or more. Dr Belyea said the company would continue to test different doses. "We found that the lower dose was the most effective and we expect to see a little bit of an improvement in weight loss when we go down to slightly lower than a 1mg dose." However, Australian Divisions of GPs chairman Rob Walters questioned the long-term safety of weight-loss pills, claiming they gave overweight people an excuse to avoid exercise. "Weight loss is a huge industry predicated on the fact that you can perform miracles with no effort on the part of the patient and with no side effects, and that's not the case," Dr Walters said. Metabolic Pharmaceuticals' shares closed up 8c at $2.04, after hitting $2.50 earlier in the day. The third phase of the clinical trials will begin in the second half of next year and involve at least 1500 volunteers. From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 14 04:09:42 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:09:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet &Rip VanWinkle Pets In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> The way around that is to add something like a sleeping bag and simulate what happens when someone falls into near freezing water and thrashes around causing hypothermia before drowing. I had a prospectus a year back from a company that had developed a "self cooling" pop can which had an insert which once the can was opened would spontaneously remove heat from the contents. They had spent 7 million to date and wanted to raise money for marketing. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af5f7df31f0.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. Florida Firm Creates Self-Cooling Soda Can ~ No Cooler Needed Business/Economy News Source: Miami.com Published: 05/05/2001 Author: Miami.com Staff Posted on 05/06/2001 18:18:23 PDT by GeekDejure BRADENTON, Fla. -- (AP) -- How about a cold beer on demand without lugging an ice chest or waiting in line? Simply twist the can and it chills. A Florida company developed the technology and teamed with a leading global can maker to produce a can that can drop the temperature of its contents at least 30 degrees Fahrenheit in three minutes. The ``I.C. Can'' resembles an aluminum can and works on vacuum heat pump technology, much like a refrigerator. The desiccant in the vacuum draws heat from the beverage through an evaporator into an insulated heat container attached at the bottom of the can. There is a water and gel mix in the small cylinder. The two bind and cool by sucking out the heat, like evaporation. ``We're not creating cold, we're just removing heat,'' said Barney Guarino, president and CEO of Tempra Technology, a small private company which has worked on thermal technology since 1991. Tempra, located in Bradenton south of Tampa, partnered with packaging giant Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. of Philadelphia to develop and mass produce the can. ``It is quite exciting and interesting. I think everyone agrees there is marketing opportunity for on-the-go consumers -- hiking, boating, fishing,'' said Dan Abramowicz, a Crown executive vice president. ``If market trials go well and there is strong interest by customers, it probably would take us 18 months to have a fully commercial line capable of producing millions of containers,'' Abramowicz said. Guarino says the company is negotiating with a European beer maker and some soft drink companies. He estimates a 16-ounce can with 11 fluid ounces would sell for about $1.50. The self-contained can contains no gases or chemicals and is nontoxic and recyclable. A quick twist of the can breaks the seal, triggering the chilling process. The unit will continue to pump out heat until there is no more heat to remove. Then it will just remain idle. On a hot day, the liquid is expected to stay cold about 25 minutes. It won't go below freezing. ``Crown is one of the best and most highly regarded packaging companies in the industry and its involvement will certainly get a hearing from the beverage companies,'' said John Sicher, publisher of Beverage Digest, a trade publication based in Bedford, N.Y. But Sicher envisions only ``modest potential'' for the product, saying it will sell at a premium price and probably have limited appeal because of the accessibility of cold beverages from vending machines and convenience stores. However, Tom Bachmann, publisher of Chicago-based Beverage Industry, said the product will at first be popular with boaters and campers. ``But as the cans gains acceptance there could be a real benefit to Third World countries and countries where there is a lack of refrigeration,'' he said. In the United States, Bachmann predicts ``self-chill'' beer and soda cans on the market by next summer with the technology then extending to juices, sport and energy drinks and water. But the Coca-Cola Co. is somewhat cool to the concept. Robert Baskin, company spokesman in Atlanta, said the soft drink giant has been looking at the technology for years. Coca-Cola sells 17 billion cases of its products a year, Baskin said. The company has 16 million retail outlets globally and more than 2 million vending machines in the U.S. and Japan that dispense chilled Coca-Cola drinks. ``The issue becomes 'Can a package be commercialized at an affordable price?'' Baskin said. ``It isn't commercialized yet.'' In late April, Tempra made its first public demonstration of ``I.C. Can'' in Denver at Cannex 2001, the packaging industry's forum for can manufacturers and suppliers. Guarino said it took a third-place award for creative or innovative technology. He was optimistic that its popularity will grow. ``With ``I.C. Can'' it will be a home run or it's not going to go at all,'' Guarino said. ``Thermal technology has unlimited applications. It's limited only by the imagination.'' Hara Ra wrote: > I have the original article, appeared in OMNI magazine. Without > circulatory access, there is no way to cool the brain rapidly enough. > Conduction through the skull is not nearly fast enough. A major > limitation is that if you use a really cold gas, you freeze the outer > flesh. I'd have to look it up, but I believe there were fluids > introduced through the carotids and jugulars. Cannulation of these is > incredibly difficult, so such a device needs a skilled operator. If it > were available and worked, we would surely use it! > > At 10:30 AM 12/13/2004, you wrote: > >> "By the way I saw a story on a sat feed about 20 years ago of a CO2 >> cooled helmet to rapidly cool the brain >> to beat the 4 minute factor from body temp to 32." >> >> Couldn;t this be a handy household device to have around for people >> who live in rural areas? It can take qute some time for an ambulance >> to respond to a heart attack or similar problem in such a situation. > > > ================================== > = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = > = harara at sbcglobal.net = > = Alcor North Cryomanagement = > = Alcor Advisor to Board = > = 831 429 8637 = > ================================== > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal at smigrodzki.org Tue Dec 14 05:22:08 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:22:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God References: <200412131934.iBDJYT009842@tick.javien.com> <948b11e041213170963f397c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003f01c4e19c$dd2e18b0$0c21bc3f@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:09 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God > Well, the "claim" is about what these rather extraordinary yet > widespread experiences mean. What it means largely falls into two > camps. One camp says that the experience means that reality is not > like we normally assume it to be and we ourselves are quite different > than what we normally believe to be the case. The other camp says > that these experiences say little about what really is true beyond the > obvious fact that human beings can have such experiences. > > Which is the more extraordinary interpretration? It looks to me like > it is the first. ### Indeed, Samantha, I agree with you that the latter interpretation is less extraordinary: It requires fewer assumptions to be made about available sensory evidence. For me, the observation of human brains obviously malfunctioning, and the following behaviors, is an almost daily experience - in the clinic I see patients with e.g. visual hallucinations due to dopaminergic medication, or with olfactory hallucinations due to partial seizures, or with delusions in Lewy body dementia. It is a simple matter of fact to say that human brains malfunction frequently, and in many cases without the patients themselves being aware of the malfunction. I make only the probabilistic assumptions necessary to provide an explanatory and predictive framework for my daily sensory and noumenal experience. This forces me to believe in the existence of e.g. electrons, niobium, Corvettes, toilet paper, flagella, and all the myriad of physical objects and their relationships that constitute my (and other humans') direct and inferred experience - this, and nothing more. Observation of phosphenes, THC-evoked illusions, or Purkinje lights within my own visual system convinces me that my noumenal existence is an aspect of the physical object I may see in the mirror, and no further assumptions about the world are then needed to interpret other noumena as aspects of a physical reality. Therefore, given the regularities in malfunctioning of human brains in general, if confronted with an experience of seeing double, I would first try to trouble-shoot my cranial nerves, and upon seeing rows of little marching men in the corners of the room I would consider the Charles Bonnet syndrome rather than sprites. This syndrome is defined by presence of visual hallucinations without impairment of reality testing, with the patient fully aware of the absence of external referents to his experiences - which appears to be possible as long as the hallucinations do not assume a form with high emotional impact and the remaining parts of the nervous system perform their reality-testing routines without malfunction. Of course, if I had William James' "will to believe", if I was an atheist eager, rather than loath to embrace a spirit, this detached attitude would be more difficult to maintain - but then I would be a different person altogether, rather than being just me skeptically waving away ghosts flitting around in the corners. So, I interpret reports of certain experiences as most likely devoid of the significance that others may attach to them, and not even having such experiences myself would be enough to change this attitude. Short of a physical rewrite of my prefrontal cortex, only specific prophecies (be it regarding the Millenium, or the stock market) coming true could convince me otherwise. Rafal PS. Ghostlike figures crowding in dark corners are really quite common in older people, so to quote Damien, "It may happen to you". > > - samantha > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net > wrote: >> BillK writes: >> >> > John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience >> was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar >> experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life. >> More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will report >> having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is >> common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. Even >> atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a >> fundamental part of how the human brain is structured. >> >> Will all due respect, you misquote me. I did not say my experience was >> unique. >> Far from it. I merely opine that the most logical explanation to a type >> of >> perception that an overwhelming majority of people have had is not >> necessary the >> conclusion that the overwhelming majority of people are mistaken. It >> could be >> that that are: but the burden of proof surely lies on the party making >> the more >> extraordinary claim. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From harara at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 06:19:36 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:19:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] thinner In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213215530.019e5e98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213215530.019e5e98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213221711.02955ac8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> The performance is the same as many other diet pills, 5-7 pounds. Example - Fen-Phen before it was withdrawn. Most clinical trials do not track the long term, once a person stops, does the weight return? >Aussie fat-burn pill a big success >Clara Pirani, Medical reporter >14dec04 ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 07:34:57 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:34:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] just to add to the excitement Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041214013412.01bc0e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.kniff.de/cgi-bin/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1371641,00.html Atheist finds 'God' after 50 years Laura Smith Saturday December 11, 2004 The Guardian A philosophy professor who has been a leading proponent of atheism for more than 50 years has decided that God may exist after all. Antony Flew, 81, now believes scientific evidence supports the theory that some sort of intelligence created the universe. But he continues to reject traditional religious ideas of God and especially the idea of salvation after death. He said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins." He still accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory but doubts it can explain the complexities of the origins of life. Throughout his career, Flew has expounded the lack of evidence for the existence of God while lecturing at St John's College, Oxford and King's College, London. He said his change of heart had been a gradual process prompted by new scientific research. Speaking in a new video, Has Science Discovered God?, Flew argues that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." The first indication of his about-turn came in a letter to Philosophy Now magazine, in which he said: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." Flew, who is writing an introduction of a new edition of his work, God and Philosophy, said: "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: follow the evidence, wherever it leads." From max at maxmore.com Tue Dec 14 08:51:29 2004 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:51:29 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charity Suggestions? In-Reply-To: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> References: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041214024757.03bc5298@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Thanks for thinking about contributing this holiday season, Jay. Contributions to Extropy Institute would be helpful, as we gear up to push the Proactionary Principle. Having just completed a (long) chapter of my book that critiques the currently-dominant precautionary principle, I'm painfully aware of just how badly we need to replace it with something more future-friendly and cognitively adequate. Onward! Max At 08:18 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote: >Monday, 13 December 2004 > >Hello all, > > As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over for > another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions from the lists > about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. > >Here's a starter list: > >Extropy Institute >Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) >National Space Society >Immortality Institute >World Transhumanist Association > >I've intentionally omitted policital parties and the FSP in the probably >vain hope of avoiding flames, not because of my own sympathies or >antipathies. I have my own list of charity types I'd like to see, but why >bias any answers? > > >Jay Dugger : Til Eulenspiegel >http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ >Sometimes the delete key serves best. > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 14 09:27:39 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:27:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet & Rip VanWinkle Pets In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041214092738.GQ9221@leitl.org> I see, it's that time of the year again, where hare-brained schemes of armchair cryonicists roam freely, unfettered by any practical knowledge... On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:39:53PM -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > I have the original article, appeared in OMNI magazine. Without circulatory > access, there is no way to cool the brain rapidly enough. Conduction > through the skull is not nearly fast enough. A major limitation is that if > you use a really cold gas, you freeze the outer flesh. I'd have to look it > up, but I believe there were fluids introduced through the carotids and > jugulars. Cannulation of these is incredibly difficult, so such a device > needs a skilled operator. If it were available and worked, we would surely It needs a skilled surgeon, in fact. You have to find them, to prep them open, to ligate them, introduce the cannula, flush out the bubbles and then untie. And of course the perfusion solution is microfiltered and degassed, made freshly or unexpired, when stored under proper condition, the perfusion apparatus has fresh tubings, etc. It's a long list. Those who still entertain the amusing notion they can improvise this with no training... go straight to the next slaughterhouse, and practice on a freshly killed hog, while accompanied by a medical professional who's going to point out how many times you have killed the poor porcine patient. > use it! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 14 09:42:46 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet &Rip VanWinkle Pets In-Reply-To: <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:09:42PM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > The way around that is to add something like a sleeping bag and simulate There's no way to cool down a patient, core temperature included, using a gas as heat exchanger in required time frame, period. Adding a sleeping bag makes the problem worse (~2 day descent for inner core, you're mush -- look up those CI threads on Cryonet). What is wrong with a thumper and a portable ice bath? > what happens when someone falls into near freezing water and thrashes Water is a liquid, you will observe. > around causing hypothermia before drowing. I had a prospectus a year When you're drowning in ice cold water, you still have circulation. Your periphery shuts down first, and your core temperature can come down as low as ~25 C before you're out cold due to fibrillation. This works best with small children, which can be reanimated up to 45 min (I don't claim this is the longest time). Small children = good volume/surface ratio, low body fat index, and good shape in general, as well as excellent regeneration (there might be additional protection mechanisms at play). > back from a company that had developed a "self cooling" pop can which > had an insert which once the can was opened would spontaneously remove > heat from the contents. They had spent 7 million to date and wanted to > raise money for marketing. Good for cooling beer, sure. Good to cool patients, no. > http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af5f7df31f0.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 14 10:55:38 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:55:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <003f01c4e19c$dd2e18b0$0c21bc3f@dimension> References: <200412131934.iBDJYT009842@tick.javien.com> <948b11e041213170963f397c9@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c4e19c$dd2e18b0$0c21bc3f@dimension> Message-ID: All of that said and heard, I am not convinced that that are no transrational rather than merely irrational or pathological modes of experience. Neither I nor many people who have had mystical experiences exhibit any sign of any known brain or psychological pathology. From the assumption that the rational naturalist view is the pinnacle of human understanding and knowing you are of course right to see these things as utterly untrustworthy. But I know of no way to validate that assumption. I am not sure it is falsifiable. - samantha On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" > > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:09 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God > > >> Well, the "claim" is about what these rather extraordinary yet >> widespread experiences mean. What it means largely falls into two >> camps. One camp says that the experience means that reality is not >> like we normally assume it to be and we ourselves are quite different >> than what we normally believe to be the case. The other camp says >> that these experiences say little about what really is true beyond the >> obvious fact that human beings can have such experiences. >> >> Which is the more extraordinary interpretration? It looks to me like >> it is the first. > > ### Indeed, Samantha, I agree with you that the latter interpretation > is less extraordinary: It requires fewer assumptions to be made about > available sensory evidence. > > For me, the observation of human brains obviously malfunctioning, and > the following behaviors, is an almost daily experience - in the clinic > I see patients with e.g. visual hallucinations due to dopaminergic > medication, or with olfactory hallucinations due to partial seizures, > or with delusions in Lewy body dementia. It is a simple matter of fact > to say that human brains malfunction frequently, and in many cases > without the patients themselves being aware of the malfunction. > > I make only the probabilistic assumptions necessary to provide an > explanatory and predictive framework for my daily sensory and noumenal > experience. This forces me to believe in the existence of e.g. > electrons, niobium, Corvettes, toilet paper, flagella, and all the > myriad of physical objects and their relationships that constitute my > (and other humans') direct and inferred experience - this, and nothing > more. Observation of phosphenes, THC-evoked illusions, or Purkinje > lights within my own visual system convinces me that my noumenal > existence is an aspect of the physical object I may see in the mirror, > and no further assumptions about the world are then needed to > interpret other noumena as aspects of a physical reality. > > Therefore, given the regularities in malfunctioning of human brains in > general, if confronted with an experience of seeing double, I would > first try to trouble-shoot my cranial nerves, and upon seeing rows of > little marching men in the corners of the room I would consider the > Charles Bonnet syndrome rather than sprites. This syndrome is defined > by presence of visual hallucinations without impairment of reality > testing, with the patient fully aware of the absence of external > referents to his experiences - which appears to be possible as long as > the hallucinations do not assume a form with high emotional impact and > the remaining parts of the nervous system perform their > reality-testing routines without malfunction. Of course, if I had > William James' "will to believe", if I was an atheist eager, rather > than loath to embrace a spirit, this detached attitude would be more > difficult to maintain - but then I would be a different person > altogether, rather than being just me skeptically waving away ghosts > flitting around in the corners. > > So, I interpret reports of certain experiences as most likely devoid > of the significance that others may attach to them, and not even > having such experiences myself would be enough to change this > attitude. Short of a physical rewrite of my prefrontal cortex, only > specific prophecies (be it regarding the Millenium, or the stock > market) coming true could convince me otherwise. > > Rafal > > PS. Ghostlike figures crowding in dark corners are really quite common > in older people, so to quote Damien, "It may happen to you". > > >> >> - samantha >> >> >> >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net >> wrote: >>> BillK writes: >>> >>> > John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience >>> was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar >>> experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life. >>> More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will >>> report >>> having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is >>> common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. >>> Even >>> atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a >>> fundamental part of how the human brain is structured. >>> >>> Will all due respect, you misquote me. I did not say my experience >>> was unique. >>> Far from it. I merely opine that the most logical explanation to a >>> type of >>> perception that an overwhelming majority of people have had is not >>> necessary the >>> conclusion that the overwhelming majority of people are mistaken. It >>> could be >>> that that are: but the burden of proof surely lies on the party >>> making the more >>> extraordinary claim. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 14 14:59:25 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:59:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Strombolian Holiday Tree Message-ID: , Sun, 12 Dec 2004: >This is very beautiful, Amara! Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. >I'm glad you're >getting to go on all these volcano excursions, they must be >fascinating. It's another world. Work is so stressful right now (we deliver our instrument to NASA in four months), that I need something like this. FYI, From where I am in Rome, It's not expensive or difficult to go to Stromboli. A long weekend in the summer is all the time you need. In the winter you need a bit of luck because the hydrofoils don't run when the sea is rough and the overnight ship runs just twice per week. You can hike up to the third-way point on your own. Above that point is off limits (they say... :-)) For Etna, you just need to go to Sicily, and a bus runs every hour to the Etna part-way point where one can find accommodations (small hotels). You'll need a guide to the top of Etna, but there are many guides. >And perhaps terrifying. Usually not, but a couple of times I was very stupid and too close and in a very dangerous position. I won't do that again. >I've followed the links from your >page and looked at the many pictures from Stromboli Online - what an >amazing thing to see! (http://stromboli.net) It's a very good educational site, probably the best in the world for volcanoes. You've probably seen the volcano photos, so here are some enhancements: Photos and Quicktime movies (Etna) http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/etna/etna04/etna0410-en.html Panoramas (Etna) http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/etna/etnaqtvr/index-en.html Virtual walks up Stromboli http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/virtual/index-en.html Astrophotos from Stromboli http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/photoastro/comet_q4-en.html For example: This zodiacal light / comet Hale-Bopp / Pleiades / Mercury photo http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/photoastro/comets/icons/habo07.jpg has become the 'canonical' interplanetary dust image -- shown as backdrops on dust astronomers' conference slides and so forth. I used this photo for the first page image in my Sky and Telescope article (2000) about interplanetary dust. In addition this image is the cover image for the _Interplanetary Dust_ book, published by Springer Verlag 2001. Bomb flight Simulation http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/simulation/index-en.html Erta Ale animation http://www.educeth.ch/stromboli/perm/erta/movies-en.html enjoy... Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "And chase down any of those noble gases or whatever that crud is." -- Apollo 12 Astronaut Alan Bean From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 14 15:13:47 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:13:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Okay. We got that solar wind." Message-ID: For some chuckles. When I was digging up material for a popular science article I wrote about how Earth got its water, I discovered this dialog at the Genesis mission web site- their public outreach material. I couldn't stop laughing at the astronaut dialog. The context is the following. One of the important values to use as a base comparison for noble gas measurements in the solar system are neon isotope ratios. The uppermost limit of 20Ne/22Ne is assumed to be that from the solar nebula, which can be measured from gases streaming out from the Sun, (the solar wind). Some of the best measurements today of the isotope ratios of the noble gases in the solar wind were made by the solar wind collection (SWC) experiment on the Moon, placed by the Apollo astronauts between 1969 and 1972. The SWC experiment consisted of a 4200 cm^2 aluminum metal foil placed on a five-section telescopic pole and unrolled. After the collection time, different for each mission, which ranged from ~1 hour to ~50 hours, the foil was rolled up again and returned to the Earth. Have fun... Amara =========== amusing side story: Conversation of Apollo 12 Astronauts with Houston ===== (reference: Genesis educational literature) The difficulty in rolling up the foil after collection varied from one mission to another. Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean had a tougher than usual time rolling up the foil from that mission's solar wind collector (SWC). He described the need to have the foil and tape looked at in lunar conditions for future missions. Astronauts Alan Bean and Pete Conrad are speaking with mission control's Ed Gibson: 134:55:26 Bean: "Solar wind doesn't like to roll up much. (Pause) Little rascal, doesn't want to roll up. (I'll) just wrap it around here best I can, without getting any dirt on it." (Pause) 134:56:13 Bean: "Okay. We got that solar wind." 134:56:17 Conrad: "Good boy!" 134:56:20 Bean: "Houston, we got that solar wind, but it didn't roll up in a very neat package." 134:56:26 Gibson: "Roger, Al. We copy. That's all right." (Long Pause) 134:56:46 Conrad: "Hey, it sure didn't, did it?" 134:56:48 Bean: "No. It just didn't. It split right near the top." 134:56:50 Conrad: "Can I help you?" 134:56:51 Bean: "Yeah. You can hold that, and I'll just try to roll it up as best I can without getting any...I already got a little dirt on it that's not doing any good. (Pause) You see what I mean?" 134:57:02 Conrad: "Yeah." 134:57:03 Bean: "Not a lot I can do about it. I'm sure it's [the solar wind] a good experiment. That thing is fragile." 134:57:09 Conrad: "Here, let me hold this end, and you just wrap it tight. That a boy." 134:57:14 Bean: "I'll squeeze it down." [This is probably where Al is compressing the roll with his hands to get it tight enough to fit in the bag.] 134:57:15 Conrad: "That a..." 134:57:16 Bean: "And chase down any of those noble gases or whatever that crud is. Okay. Stick that in there? (To Gibson) Looks bad, but I think it will do the job, Houston. We squashed it in so it's..." 134:57:27 Conrad: "Where is it [the bag]?" 134:57:29 Bean: "It's right...Let me get it for you." 134:57:32 CapCom: "Roger, Al." 134:57:34 Bean: "There you go. Okay. It just doesn't look so good, Houston." ========================================================================== -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 14 15:59:59 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:59:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00ad01c4e1f5$fa14c9c0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> stencil wrote: > Can you throw them over your shoulder > Like a Continental soldier?... I have been puzzled by those song lyrics since I first heard them as a young child. If I had a continental soldier, why would I wish to throw him over my shoulder? What has he done to deserve such treatment? Does it matter which continent he is from? spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 16:27:28 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:27:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu Message-ID: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | China and its Relation With Spam | | from the but-i-don't-like-spam dept. | | posted by CmdrTaco on Monday December 13, @13:27 (Spam) | | http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/13/1758203 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ smooth wombat writes "[0]Asia Times has a nice article about why China is becoming the [1]spam capital of the world. Steve Linford, of Spamhaus fame, is quoted several times in the article and offers some insight into how the Chinese ISPs operate. Steves quote at the end of the article pretty much sums up why China isn't doing anything to curb the hosting of spam website servers in the country: "They simply don't want to know - China Telecom doesn't care because they're government-owned and there is no pressure coming from the government. Meanwhile, our statistics on spam volumes and the number of spammers setting up in China are going up and up and up."" Discuss this story at: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/12/13/1758203 Links: 0. http://www.atimes.com/ 1. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FL14Ad02.html -end quote- Is there any better demonstration of why nationalized ANYTHING is a bad idea? Looks to be like China will become the Love Canal of spam, at least until some bureaucrat gets annoyed because his secretaries are spending too much time filtering his spam and not enough polishing his knob, and decides to round up all the spammers and send them off to the organ farms... hmmm maybe nationalizing spam isn't such a bad idea.... ;) ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 16:31:21 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:31:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs In-Reply-To: <00ad01c4e1f5$fa14c9c0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> Message-ID: <20041214163122.92243.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > stencil wrote: > > Can you throw them over your shoulder > > Like a Continental soldier?... > > I have been puzzled by those song lyrics since I > first heard them as a young child. If I had a > continental soldier, why would I wish to throw > him over my shoulder? What has he done to deserve > such treatment? Does it matter which continent > he is from? Is this referring to the fact that American Revolutionary soldiers were so poorly supplied with footwear that their primary cause of casualty was foot injuries/frostbite? Or is it referring to the lack of value of the continental dollar (as in "not worth a Continental" that chucking one over your shoulder after having used it to wipe one's backside or light one's pipe is a rather casual affair? ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Tue Dec 14 16:04:26 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:04:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Charity Suggestions? In-Reply-To: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> References: <3khdin$el9u5r@mxip02a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: <41BF0F0A.6060103@pobox.com> duggerj1 at charter.net wrote: > Monday, 13 December 2004 > > Hello all, > > As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over for another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions from the lists about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. > > Here's a starter list: > > Extropy Institute > Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) > National Space Society > Immortality Institute > World Transhumanist Association Singularity Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Tue Dec 14 04:38:21 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:38:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> Message-ID: <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, > Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but > without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why > this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? > Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the purported > Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us who seek it > or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome truth of the > way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human beings? Why this > capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? > > This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that I > to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I have > experienced. Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. I considered John Wright's dilemma, not quite in the form he posed. I asked myself: "If I was overpowered by religious ecstasy, would my rationality survive? Am I that strong?" I've previously considered this question, in the form of wondering whether any conceivable discipline could enable a trained rationalist to defeat schizophrenia. Religious ecstasy is a lesser test. If my future self had an overpowering religious experience, one obvious reaction of my future self might be, "Hm, I must be having a temporal lobe mini-seizure." But that feels to me like cheating; what if I hadn't studied neurology? I thought of arguments that my hypothetical slightly more ignorant future self might consider: "When I was an atheist, I knew that people had deep religious experiences, but I did not think it likely that the experience reflected reality as the retina reports a flower. Now that I have had such an experience myself, my best estimate of the underlying cause should not change. I was content to be an atheist when I knew that other people had religious brainstorms; should this change if one of the 'other people' is myself? For they and I are both humans; the causal analysis is the same in either case." "Far down the tale of science goes; from quarks to atoms to molecules, from molecules to proteins to cells to humans, physics and evolution and intelligence, all a single coherent story. To the best of all human knowledge, since the beginning of time, not one unusual thing has ever happened. A thousand generations have learned to their astonishment and dismay that there are mysterious questions, but never mysterious answers; that the universe runs on math, not heroic mythology. The science that I know is too solid, the laws of rationality too strict, the lessons driven home too many times, to be overturned so lightly." "Let us suppose that the experience is caused by something external to a simple brain malfunction. Just because an entity is capable of inducing an overpowering religious experience in me, does not make the entity morally superior. I have seen people sell their souls for the price of a book. God in the Bible kills and tortures anyone who won't worship Him properly, or even innocent bystanders, such as Egyptian children during the Ten Plagues. If we had pictures of such a thing, occurring in any modern country, we would never forgive the perpetrators; we would hold them in less esteem than Nazi Germany. Kindhearted rabbis read tales of dead Egyptian children, killed to impress their parents with God's might, and the rabbis somehow fail to take moral notice. Is there no end to the human ability to ignore the failings of one's favored political leaders? Killing children is wrong, period, end of discussion. And yet all it takes to make people endorse a God that commits torture-murder of children, is to hand them a book. People sell their moralities so cheaply. They don't even demand that the book be given to them directly by God. They sell their moralities and give over their sense of judgment just because someone else handed them a book and told them God wrote it. Even if God speaks to me directly, I should demand *reasons* before handing over my moral judgment. I have studied evolutionary biology. I know that there are forces in the universe capable of producing complex plans and designs, yet utterly nonhumane. If this "God" wishes me to do something, let It tell me Its reasons, and see if I agree. As it stands, I have no reason whatever to believe that God is good. I will not sell myself so cheaply, into bondage to who knows What." And: "Why should some people have these experiences and not others? Why jerk us around? Why work blatant, showy miracles in front of desert nomads, for the explicit purpose of providing proof, and then mysteriously change policies after the introduction of skeptical thinking and video cameras? If I am told all these spiritual truths, why not give me next week's winning lottery numbers, to help me convey these truths to my friends? If I am given no solid proof because the experience is meant to convince me personally, then, leaving aside the unfairness, why not tell me ten digits of pi starting at the 1000th decimal place? Why is it that not one factual assertion brought back from the grip of religious ecstasy has been surprising, checkable, and right?" I thought of these arguments, Samantha, and yet it occurred to me that if I was caught in the grip of such a powerful religious experience, I might not *want* to think them. And then I would be defeated without ever getting a chance to draw my blade. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for a purpose other than defeating itself. I have trained myself to be wary of knowing my desired conclusion before I begin to think; explicitly emphasized the impossibility of asking a question without being genuinely unsure of the answer. It ain't a real crisis of faith unless it could go either way, as a wise man once said. Having a powerful religious experience isn't quite as bad as going schizophrenic. The religious experience happens and then goes away and you can think about it rationally. Schizophrenia is constant and defeats the frontal lobes of reflectivity, destroying both emotional balance and the ability to use reason to correct it. But I have wondered whether my mental discipline and my explicit understanding of rationality would be powerful enough for me to win through, either the almost impossible test of schizophrenia, or the lesser test of religious ecstasy. I now know that it is possible for a rationalist to cut through to the correct answer even after suffering a religious ecstasy. For you won through, Samantha, traveling from a wrong belief to the correct one, and you even permitted (forced?) yourself to think of arguments like those that occurred to me - me, sitting here easily at my desk, imagining a hypothetical future and hoping I *wouldn't* be persuaded. Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 17:15:44 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:15:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resuscitation: (WAS: freezing frogs & brain freeze helmet &RipVanWinkle Pets) References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net><01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin><6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com><41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> Eugen said: "This works best with small children, which can be reanimated up to 45 min (I don't claim this is the longest time). Small children = good volume/surface ratio, low body fat index, and good shape in general, as well as excellent regeneration (there might be additional protection mechanisms at play)." I think the record resuscitation for such an incident is around 7 hours. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3895005.stm Here is a 29 year old woman who went quite some time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/620609.stm I think we have been speaking of too many different things on this thread and I would like to take a thread down it's own path. What I am interested in is what I understand to be the way the brain dies. According to my understanding, the brain does not start to die after 4-6 minutes. Instead, it is the pathways and arteries for feeding the brain and providing it with oxygen that begin to collapse after this period. At this point, the brain slowly starves to death even if the person's heartbeat and respiration are re-established. I also understand that cold can slow this process. It is that extra time for the ambulance to get to me that I am interested in, not the cryonics aspect of it. If I can avoid it, I would prefer to simply be resuscitated and not have to go through cryonic preservation. Is my understanding about this process incorrect? If so, please let me know. Otherwise, could such a devcice as the aforementioned helmet help to extend this time to up to 30 minutes? From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 17:12:25 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:12:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu In-Reply-To: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:27:28 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Is there any better demonstration of why nationalized ANYTHING is a bad > idea? Looks to be like China will become the Love Canal of spam, at > least until some bureaucrat gets annoyed because his secretaries are > spending too much time filtering his spam and not enough polishing his > knob, and decides to round up all the spammers and send them off to the > organ farms... hmmm maybe nationalizing spam isn't such a bad idea.... > ;) > Mike is just miffed that free enterprise spam from the US has been knocked off the top spot. Up until now the US has been the main source spewing spam to the world. The article also comments:- According to network management firm Sandvine, about 80% of spam is now sent via legions of PCs owned by ordinary - and usually oblivious - computer users around the world. These machines, known as "zombies" or "spam Trojans", have been infected with various viruses (recent examples include MyDoom and Bagle) developed specifically to allow the virus writer to contact them over the Internet and instruct them to spew out, among other things, vast quantities of spam. Because of this, it is now meaningless to say that spam itself originates in any given place - it is truly a cyber-product. Thank you Microsoft (US). BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 17:29:14 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:29:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Charity Suggestions? In-Reply-To: <41BF0F0A.6060103@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20041214172914.67384.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > duggerj1 at charter.net wrote: > > Monday, 13 December 2004 > > > > Hello all, > > > > As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over for > another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions from the > lists about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. > > > > Here's a starter list: > > > > Extropy Institute > > Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) > > National Space Society > > Immortality Institute > > World Transhumanist Association > > Singularity Institute > Methuselah Mouse Prize X-Prize Foundation Foundation For the Future ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 17:46:39 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:46:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu References: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b001c4e204$de288300$c3ebfb44@kevin> If ALL spammers set up in China, wouldn't it be fairly easy to filter them? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | China and its Relation With Spam | > | from the but-i-don't-like-spam dept. | > | posted by CmdrTaco on Monday December 13, @13:27 (Spam) | > | http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/13/1758203 | > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > smooth wombat writes "[0]Asia Times has a nice article about why China > is becoming the [1]spam capital of the world. Steve Linford, of > Spamhaus fame, is quoted several times in the article and offers some > insight into how the Chinese ISPs operate. Steves quote at the end of > the article pretty much sums up why China isn't doing anything to curb > the hosting of spam website servers in the country: "They simply don't > want to know - China Telecom doesn't care because they're > government-owned and there is no pressure coming from the government. > Meanwhile, our statistics on spam volumes and the number of spammers > setting up in China are going up and up and up."" > > Discuss this story at: > http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/12/13/1758203 > > Links: > 0. http://www.atimes.com/ > 1. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FL14Ad02.html > > -end quote- > > Is there any better demonstration of why nationalized ANYTHING is a bad > idea? Looks to be like China will become the Love Canal of spam, at > least until some bureaucrat gets annoyed because his secretaries are > spending too much time filtering his spam and not enough polishing his > knob, and decides to round up all the spammers and send them off to the > organ farms... hmmm maybe nationalizing spam isn't such a bad idea.... > ;) > > > ===== > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 18:16:52 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:16:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Charity Suggestions? In-Reply-To: <41BF0F0A.6060103@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20041214181652.27226.qmail@web41307.mail.yahoo.com> TransVision 2005 Scholarship Fund: http://www.transhumanismo.org/tv05/registration.htm > Monday, 13 December 2004 > > Hello all, > > As the winter holidays roll around the calendar from "over for another year" to "here we go again", I'd like suggestions from the lists about >H-themed and sympathetic charities. > > Here's a starter list: > > Extropy Institute > Foresight Institute (Holiday discount on memberships!) > National Space Society > Immortality Institute > World Transhumanist Association La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harara at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 20:08:13 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:08:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists In-Reply-To: <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> To posts by Eugen and Kevin. For Kevin: My (very limited) information on ischemia is that the Krebs cycle is vulnerable to the loss of oxygen. (The machinery for this cycle is passed via the egg, so evolution in mammalia long ago lost any protection if it was there.) When O2 is returned to the cell, the Krebs cycle has failed, and some steps lack the needed intermediate products, the result is a toxic accumulation of reactive radicals and serious irreparable damage. I don't know about what the arteries do, but failure of their Krebs cycle may well do as you describe. For Eugen: Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me if you think so, and explain why. For Both: If the law permitted touching the patienr prior to announcement of death (not likely in the USA for a very long time), then, in a clinic, 1) give patient general anesthesia 2) cannulate femorals 3) pump in intermediate cooldown fluid (plasma blood extender) with high oxygenation. As the body temp cools, the heart stops at about 50 deg F. Cooldown to 0 deg C can be done in about 10 minutes, without subjecting the patient to ischemia. But, folks, this is legally MURDER, and dat's how it is in the good ole USA. :( PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and other stuff) ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From harara at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 14 19:51:36 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:51:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs/ soldier song In-Reply-To: <20041214163122.92243.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <00ad01c4e1f5$fa14c9c0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> <20041214163122.92243.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041214114929.029398e8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Google came up with: http://plateaupress.com.au/wfw/continen.htm A kids' song, sung to the tune of "Turkey in the Straw," goes like this: Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro? Can you tie 'em in a know? Can you tie 'em in a bow? Can you toss 'em over your shoulder, Like a Continental soldier? Do your ears......hang.......low? ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 14 21:02:28 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:02:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Assisted Suicide Message-ID: <41BF54E4.3060801@sasktel.net> If done to a terminally ill person, with specific legal instructions of how to proceed it would be Assisted Suicide. Question....how would a life insurance policy pay out differently if the patient "died" Vs was assisted in the termination of a terminal condition during what was medically considered the last 90 days of natural life plus a "do not resusitation order". -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:08:13 -0800 From: Hara Ra Reply-To: ExI chat list To: Kevin Freels , ExI chat list References: <41BDA886.6080509 at sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44 at kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0 at pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009 at sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221 at leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44 at kevin> To posts by Eugen and Kevin. For Kevin: My (very limited) information on ischemia is that the Krebs cycle is vulnerable to the loss of oxygen. (The machinery for this cycle is passed via the egg, so evolution in mammalia long ago lost any protection if it was there.) When O2 is returned to the cell, the Krebs cycle has failed, and some steps lack the needed intermediate products, the result is a toxic accumulation of reactive radicals and serious irreparable damage. I don't know about what the arteries do, but failure of their Krebs cycle may well do as you describe. For Eugen: Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me if you think so, and explain why. For Both: If the law permitted touching the patienr prior to announcement of death (not likely in the USA for a very long time), then, in a clinic, 1) give patient general anesthesia 2) cannulate femorals 3) pump in intermediate cooldown fluid (plasma blood extender) with high oxygenation. As the body temp cools, the heart stops at about 50 deg F. Cooldown to 0 deg C can be done in about 10 minutes, without subjecting the patient to ischemia. But, folks, this is legally MURDER, and dat's how it is in the good ole USA. :( PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and other stuff) ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 21:04:16 2004 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:34:16 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu In-Reply-To: <00b001c4e204$de288300$c3ebfb44@kevin> References: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> <00b001c4e204$de288300$c3ebfb44@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc04121413045a5f61ac@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:46:39 -0600, Kevin Freels wrote: > If ALL spammers set up in China, wouldn't it be fairly easy to filter them? I guess. If only all the AOL lUsers would move there as well, then we'd really have a chance... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From etcs.ret at verizon.net Tue Dec 14 21:12:17 2004 From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:12:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs, and other things In-Reply-To: <200412141900.iBEJ0H007024@tick.javien.com> References: <200412141900.iBEJ0H007024@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:00:18 -0700, in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 22 spike & Mike ponder >> stencil wrote: >> > Can you throw them over your shoulder >> > Like a Continental soldier?... >> http://www.hootisland.com/text/songs/doyour.html I guess it must not have been an Air Force thing; but one does wonder at the childhood environment in which spike first heard it.. stencil sends From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 21:24:17 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:24:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: freezing frogs, and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041214212417.84545.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- stencil wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:00:18 -0700, > in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 22 > spike & Mike ponder > > >> stencil wrote: > >> > Can you throw them over your shoulder > >> > Like a Continental soldier?... > >> > http://www.hootisland.com/text/songs/doyour.html > > I guess it must not have been an Air Force thing; but one does > wonder at the childhood environment in which spike first heard it If it was, it would have been killed off shortly before I joined up, as the feminazi PC patrol was in full swing by the time I went in in '88. They'd have not tolerated female airmen having to march to tunes about swinging balls.... 'less twer about busting and cracking them. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 22:09:38 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: feminazis, and other things Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041214160752.01be5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:24 PM 12/14/2004 -0800, Mike wrote: >the feminazi PC patrol was in full swing by the time I went in in '88. >They'd have not tolerated female airmen having to march to tunes about >swinging balls.... 'less twer about busting and cracking them. Um, on those grounds, what part of When your bollocks hang right down, Do they drag along the ground? Do they make a lusty clamor, When you hit them with a hammer? Can you bounce 'em off the wall, Like an Indian rubber ball? Do they ever start to hurt, Cos they're dragging in the dirt? Do they have a hollow sound, When you drop 'em on the ground? would these vicious bitches have refused to sing? BTW, I understand that the more usual word for the people Mike is speaking of here is `women'. Oh, and while we're looking into linguistic usage, does the term `feminazi' implicitly invoke Godwin's Rule and bring the whole discussion to an instant and sickened stop? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 22:22:58 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:22:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: feminazis, and other things In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041214160752.01be5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041214160752.01be5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:38 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Um, on those grounds, what part of > > would these vicious bitches have refused to sing? > > BTW, I understand that the more usual word for the people Mike is speaking > of here is `women'. > > Oh, and while we're looking into linguistic usage, does the term `feminazi' > implicitly invoke Godwin's Rule and bring the whole discussion to an > instant and sickened stop? > Perhaps Mike has not been in the sort of female company that sing the female versions of the song? Replacing 'balls' with 'tits'? (and another even ruder version). The female ladettes in the UK out drinking can be quite an impressive sight. :) BillK From sjatkins at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 23:07:12 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:07:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> Message-ID: <948b11e04121415073cdae2bd@mail.gmail.com> Eliezer, Thank you for your words and for the appreciation of the scope of the struggle. Some days it is difficult for me to see it that way. Some days it is difficult to not dive into what the experiences said was real. So many rationalizations for doing so have been built by others and myself. The ones I built are the hardest ones for me to untangle. No surprise there I suppose. Something you said more elegantly once has helped me many times. I am paraphrasing here but the gist was that building a seemingly plausible theory or arguing that X is possible is not a sufficient reason to believe that X is true. Please fill in the detail again if you would like. As alluded to, a killer question that has kept me from belief in God, even in the very refined and hyper-scientific/futuristic cleanest form I have come up with, is the question of why such a Being would create such a universe peopled by intelligent entities without making it clear to the entities, especially those that very much want to know, just what the real story and purpose is. In other words, why the cosmic game of hide-and-seek where only a few powerful visions and a lot of guesswork and wishful thinking expose the true nature of reality? Why make it even harder by making what the visions say almost impossible to actually validate? Try as I might I have never come up with a scenario that really works. The closest is that this is a great game designed to give as few clues as possible to the players (alternately in-game intelligences) to see what minimal clues and prodding will lead to solving the puzzle. Not exactly a very inspiring worldview is it? And there's the rub. If this is roughly true then we are playthings/players in a diversion. This gives the lie to the great cosmic significance of "who we really are" and "what our purpose is" that is common to many of these visions. I have attempted more than once to walk/create a spiritual path. Each time I noticed that to do so I was opening to considering as plausible many things that do not meet the test of rationality. Sooner or later each time I would become disgusted with the sugar coated baselessness of much around me and of my own attempts to form an integration in these areas. I also noticed that many things in the real world circumstances of my life got shunted aside and insufficiently dealt with no matter what my intentions were. At the very least the purported spiritual path is dangerous and tangled in my experience. There was actually one guru type who said "if you have not started on the spiritual path the very best thing to do is to stay away from it!" Among other things I have done is some fairly earnest meditation for an extended period. After doing this for some time I thought I really had experienced a real change of consciousness and real personal growth. Then, due to a period of illness, I could not do my daily dose of mediatation for a while. I noticed that all these supposed gains evaporated almost immediately. This made me deeply suspicious. It reminded me of feeling so high and righteous in my late teens as long as I smoked a joint every day and spent most of my time running a "groovy" mental dialog. It seemed that in both cases a high maintenance thought entrainment boosted by brain chemistry changes was afoot. I began to find hints as to what meditation actually does in the brain. Slowly it became less mystical and more mundane. I also noticed that during times where I practiced a lot of meditation that some things improved while others seemed to be harmed. Ability to notice my own internal story and emotional productions and choose my actions more consciously improved. Concentration seemed to improve as far as ignoring distractions and single-pointedness goes. But creative problem solving and level of mental energy and inquisitivenessness seemed to be depressed. It felt as if the network of associations and inter-connections in my brain had most paths signal strength lowered due to deeply boosting only a few paths with meditational attention. I also noticed that memory seemed somewhat depressed. As I not only greatly prize these abilities but make my living from them this was more than a little alarming. Also I noticed that my own self-image, self-confidence was somewhat shaken. I do find it fascinating that a few simple meditation practices done for a certain amount of time can cause pretty extensive changes in subjective experience, many of which feel like real improvments. But one of things that meditation apparently does do to brain chemistry is change serontonin levels. Doing this with drugs is known to lead to some similar effects on the postive and negative side. Meditation does lead to more of these experiences, not just during the actual period of meditation. More spontaneous lucid dreaming also can occur. Which makes sense if one is learning to watch one's internal mental productions at a more subtle level. The habit of such focus sometimes partially kicks in during dreaming sleep. To wrap up this bit of a ramble, our brains are capable of some very interesting states of consciousness and productions. These can be invoked and tuned to various degrees by certain practices that many religions and spiritual paths have discovered. But that these experiences occur can only be assured to be saying something about what our brains are capable of. The actual content of these experiences is not likely to be more true than our more normal sensory and conceptual brain content. It is actually less likely to be true as it is produced by bypassing external reality checks and balances by "going within". There are many over-amped states our brains can get into. Some of them are very helpful when they produce for instance an integrative vision solving a sophisticated problem or interlocking set of questions. But that a state is over-amped in various ways says nothing for its relative veracity. That we are in such an over-amped state should make us more cautious rather than less so. We must remember that our evolutionary psychology is such that we tend to pay great attention to powerful experiences and urgings. Only our intelligence can keep us from making serious errors based on this programming. - samantha On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:38:21 -0600, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, > > Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but > > without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why > > this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? > > Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the purported > > Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us who seek it > > or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome truth of the > > way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human beings? Why this > > capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? > > > > This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that I > > to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I have > > experienced. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > I considered John Wright's dilemma, not quite in the form he posed. I > asked myself: "If I was overpowered by religious ecstasy, would my > rationality survive? Am I that strong?" I've previously considered > this question, in the form of wondering whether any conceivable > discipline could enable a trained rationalist to defeat schizophrenia. > Religious ecstasy is a lesser test. > > If my future self had an overpowering religious experience, one obvious > reaction of my future self might be, "Hm, I must be having a temporal > lobe mini-seizure." But that feels to me like cheating; what if I > hadn't studied neurology? I thought of arguments that my hypothetical > slightly more ignorant future self might consider: > > "When I was an atheist, I knew that people had deep religious > experiences, but I did not think it likely that the experience reflected > reality as the retina reports a flower. Now that I have had such an > experience myself, my best estimate of the underlying cause should not > change. I was content to be an atheist when I knew that other people > had religious brainstorms; should this change if one of the 'other > people' is myself? For they and I are both humans; the causal analysis > is the same in either case." > > "Far down the tale of science goes; from quarks to atoms to molecules, > from molecules to proteins to cells to humans, physics and evolution and > intelligence, all a single coherent story. To the best of all human > knowledge, since the beginning of time, not one unusual thing has ever > happened. A thousand generations have learned to their astonishment and > dismay that there are mysterious questions, but never mysterious > answers; that the universe runs on math, not heroic mythology. The > science that I know is too solid, the laws of rationality too strict, > the lessons driven home too many times, to be overturned so lightly." > > "Let us suppose that the experience is caused by something external to a > simple brain malfunction. Just because an entity is capable of inducing > an overpowering religious experience in me, does not make the entity > morally superior. I have seen people sell their souls for the price of > a book. God in the Bible kills and tortures anyone who won't worship > Him properly, or even innocent bystanders, such as Egyptian children > during the Ten Plagues. If we had pictures of such a thing, occurring > in any modern country, we would never forgive the perpetrators; we would > hold them in less esteem than Nazi Germany. Kindhearted rabbis read > tales of dead Egyptian children, killed to impress their parents with > God's might, and the rabbis somehow fail to take moral notice. Is there > no end to the human ability to ignore the failings of one's favored > political leaders? Killing children is wrong, period, end of > discussion. And yet all it takes to make people endorse a God that > commits torture-murder of children, is to hand them a book. People sell > their moralities so cheaply. They don't even demand that the book be > given to them directly by God. They sell their moralities and give over > their sense of judgment just because someone else handed them a book and > told them God wrote it. Even if God speaks to me directly, I should > demand *reasons* before handing over my moral judgment. I have studied > evolutionary biology. I know that there are forces in the universe > capable of producing complex plans and designs, yet utterly nonhumane. > If this "God" wishes me to do something, let It tell me Its reasons, and > see if I agree. As it stands, I have no reason whatever to believe that > God is good. I will not sell myself so cheaply, into bondage to who > knows What." > > And: "Why should some people have these experiences and not others? > Why jerk us around? Why work blatant, showy miracles in front of desert > nomads, for the explicit purpose of providing proof, and then > mysteriously change policies after the introduction of skeptical > thinking and video cameras? If I am told all these spiritual truths, > why not give me next week's winning lottery numbers, to help me convey > these truths to my friends? If I am given no solid proof because the > experience is meant to convince me personally, then, leaving aside the > unfairness, why not tell me ten digits of pi starting at the 1000th > decimal place? Why is it that not one factual assertion brought back > from the grip of religious ecstasy has been surprising, checkable, and > right?" > > I thought of these arguments, Samantha, and yet it occurred to me that > if I was caught in the grip of such a powerful religious experience, I > might not *want* to think them. And then I would be defeated without > ever getting a chance to draw my blade. Intelligence, to be useful, > must be used for a purpose other than defeating itself. I have trained > myself to be wary of knowing my desired conclusion before I begin to > think; explicitly emphasized the impossibility of asking a question > without being genuinely unsure of the answer. It ain't a real crisis of > faith unless it could go either way, as a wise man once said. > > Having a powerful religious experience isn't quite as bad as going > schizophrenic. The religious experience happens and then goes away and > you can think about it rationally. Schizophrenia is constant and > defeats the frontal lobes of reflectivity, destroying both emotional > balance and the ability to use reason to correct it. But I have > wondered whether my mental discipline and my explicit understanding of > rationality would be powerful enough for me to win through, either the > almost impossible test of schizophrenia, or the lesser test of religious > ecstasy. > > I now know that it is possible for a rationalist to cut through to the > correct answer even after suffering a religious ecstasy. For you won > through, Samantha, traveling from a wrong belief to the correct one, and > you even permitted (forced?) yourself to think of arguments like those > that occurred to me - me, sitting here easily at my desk, imagining a > hypothetical future and hoping I *wouldn't* be persuaded. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 00:30:01 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:30:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just What We All Need To Know! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041212125800.01c29c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41BF8589.4070809@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm > > Reviewed on amazon.com: > > < read book over and over again. I did. I didn't understand at first, > but then I got it. Listen, I'm not dumb when it comes to physical > education. It's just that scientists who talk about atoms and gravity > have really been wrong all along, and I and all us other peopel who > rely on common sense knew it all along, and McCutcheon knew it all > along. That's why we didn't understand. Because what the scientists > were saying was a bunch of hogwash. Who decides anyways, that the >> > There's a guy called on the Net called 'Uncle Al' who probably shares my opinion of this book. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 00:33:24 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:33:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> Message-ID: <41BF8654.3040303@neopax.com> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, >> Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but >> without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why >> this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? >> Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the >> purported Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us >> who seek it or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome >> truth of the way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human >> beings? Why this capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? >> >> This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that >> I to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I >> have experienced. > > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > I considered John Wright's dilemma, not quite in the form he posed. I > asked myself: "If I was overpowered by religious ecstasy, would my > rationality survive? Am I that strong?" I've previously considered > this question, in the form of wondering whether any conceivable > discipline could enable a trained rationalist to defeat schizophrenia. > Religious ecstasy is a lesser test. > > If my future self had an overpowering religious experience, one > obvious reaction of my future self might be, "Hm, I must be having a > temporal lobe mini-seizure." But that feels to me like cheating; what > if I hadn't studied neurology? I thought of arguments that my > hypothetical slightly more ignorant future self might consider: > I had such thoughts after I experienced something like this. The answer I have come up with is straightforward. Don't put it into a cultural context (or if you do, recognise that it is scaffolding that you are deliberately putting in place there). Second, validity of insight is measured by utility. Otherwise, as the Zen saying goes, continue to cut wood and carry water. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 00:34:39 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:34:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] thinner In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041213221711.02955ac8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213215530.019e5e98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213221711.02955ac8@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41BF869F.5040701@neopax.com> Hara Ra wrote: > The performance is the same as many other diet pills, 5-7 pounds. > Example - Fen-Phen before it was withdrawn. Most clinical trials do > not track the long term, once a person stops, does the weight return? > When I decided to lose about 20lbs of weight because I had been eating like a pig I simply halved the number of calories, and adjusted my intake so that I did not gain weight. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 00:44:16 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:44:16 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu In-Reply-To: <00b001c4e204$de288300$c3ebfb44@kevin> References: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> <00b001c4e204$de288300$c3ebfb44@kevin> Message-ID: <41BF88E0.6050500@neopax.com> Kevin Freels wrote: >If ALL spammers set up in China, wouldn't it be fairly easy to filter them? > > Yes. When the Chinese govt decides they are more trouble than they are worth they will be given a choice between stopping instantly or a speedy trial followed by a few years in a labour camp. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 00:51:06 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:51:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <948b11e04121415073cdae2bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <200412091810.iB9IAw007757@tick.javien.com> <9778AAAA-4C94-11D9-88B7-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> <41BE6E3D.1090807@pobox.com> <948b11e04121415073cdae2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41BF8A7A.7010004@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: >Among other things I have done is some fairly earnest meditation for >an extended period. After doing this for some time I thought I >really had experienced a real change of consciousness and real >personal growth. Then, due to a period of illness, I could not do my >daily dose of mediatation for a while. I noticed that all these >supposed gains evaporated almost immediately. This made me deeply >suspicious. It reminded me of feeling so high and righteous in my >late teens as long as I smoked a joint every day and spent most of my >time running a "groovy" mental dialog. It seemed that in both cases >a high maintenance thought entrainment boosted by brain chemistry >changes was afoot. > >I began to find hints as to what meditation actually does in the >brain. Slowly it became less mystical and more mundane. I also >noticed that during times where I practiced a lot of meditation that >some things improved while others seemed to be harmed. Ability to >notice my own internal story and emotional productions and choose my >actions more consciously improved. Concentration seemed to improve >as far as ignoring distractions and single-pointedness goes. But >creative problem solving and level of mental energy and >inquisitivenessness seemed to be depressed. It felt as if the >network of associations and inter-connections in my brain had most >paths signal strength lowered due to deeply boosting only a few paths >with meditational attention. I also noticed that memory seemed >somewhat depressed. As I not only greatly prize these abilities but >make my living from them this was more than a little alarming. Also I >noticed that my own self-image, self-confidence was somewhat shaken. > >I do find it fascinating that a few simple meditation practices done >for a certain amount of time can cause pretty extensive changes in >subjective experience, many of which feel like real improvments. But >one of things that meditation apparently does do to brain chemistry is >change serontonin levels. Doing this with drugs is known to lead to >some similar effects on the postive and negative side. > >Meditation does lead to more of these experiences, not just during the >actual period of meditation. More spontaneous lucid dreaming also >can occur. Which makes sense if one is learning to watch one's >internal mental productions at a more subtle level. The habit of >such focus sometimes partially kicks in during dreaming sleep. > > > http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1107731187914.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From ned_lt at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 03:02:36 2004 From: ned_lt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:02:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: feminazis, and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041215030236.7794.qmail@web61302.mail.yahoo.com> Feminazis are not mythological creatures such as the unicorn or the phoenix, they do exist-- though they are not as common as Rush Limbaugh would have us believe. > > Oh, and while we're looking into linguistic usage, > does the term `feminazi' > > implicitly invoke Godwin's Rule and bring the > whole discussion to an > > instant and sickened stop? > > > > Perhaps Mike has not been in the sort of female > company that sing the > female versions of the song? Replacing 'balls' with > 'tits'? (and > another even ruder version). > The female ladettes in the UK out drinking can be > quite an impressive sight. :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 15 03:45:47 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:45:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Strombolian Holiday Tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4e258$9368b9d0$6401a8c0@mtrainier> From: Amara Graps ... Work is so stressful right now (we deliver our instrument to NASA in four months... Amara Amara, how did that experiment come out, the one that was to collect space dust, but the parachute failed and it smacked into the desert floor? Was any of that data salvageable? spike From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 03:49:21 2004 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:49:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: vision research, was: T-shirts? Intro post In-Reply-To: <200412121900.iBCJ0H025105@tick.javien.com> References: <200412121900.iBCJ0H025105@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: A few days ago I came across a great C++ toolkit for neuromorphic vision, released under the GPL. I figured some of you might be interested in it: http://ilab.usc.edu/toolkit/home.shtml This PDF presentation gives a brief overview of some of the toolkit's capabilities and the science behind it: http://ilab.usc.edu/toolkit/iNVT-intro-031204.pdf -- Neil Halelamien From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Wed Dec 15 04:57:23 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:57:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sample Return Missions (was: A Strombolian Holiday Tree) Message-ID: <20041215045221.M9483@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Spike: >Amara, how did that experiment come out, the one that was to >collect space dust, but the parachute failed and it smacked into >the desert floor? Was any of that data salvageable? Dear Spike: You're mixing up your sample return missions. Genesis --> solar 'particles' http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/genesis/spacecraft/return-to-earth. html http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/index.html is the mission where the capsule's parachute failed to open during descent due to design error in the switches and the capsule crashed in the Utah desert. See Sky and Telescope pg. 28, January 2005 for a picture of the broken shards. The pieces are being analyzed at Johnson Space Flight Center, and I hear that some are useable. Stardust --> dust particles http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/top.html The dust from comet Wild2 are in the capsule scheduled to return to Earth January 15, 2006. The rest of the data from Comet Wild 2 was sent back to Earth about one year ago and is really quite unbelieavable, and people are still trying to understand it. And yes, in light of Genesis' accident, the sample return to Earth part of the Stardust mission is being scrutinized again. Amara From megao at sasktel.net Wed Dec 15 09:01:49 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:01:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists-hypothermic liferaft In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> The concept goes thusly: The liferaft = -sleeping /body bag like sack made so that no 2 arms or legs touch each other or body -zipper + ziplock seal - control/RFID biomonitor keypad with on outside -stage 1- evacuate liner to ensure good skin contact with sack -person put inside without outer clothes , shoes etc -put cooling hood or cap over all of head less face, face cover ziplock cover after body cooled off -start in 2 parts; activation of emergency cooling packs layer of sack to quick cool body; hood cooling cycle co2 based for higher cooling rate -infusion of adjuvants may include: Caffeinol as neuroprotectant; berberine in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant; cannabidiol in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant -optional defib cycle to pump neuroprotectants into cooling body uniformly The adjuvants are designed to allow the brain to survive a longer cool-off time than the usual 3-5 minutes. as well as allow for easier re-start of body by hospital medical team -once body temp is near 32F optional external hookups to maintain cooled body during extended transport Once the working prototype is designed and tested , the actual mfg costs may be quite reasonable Morris Johnson Hara Ra wrote: > To posts by Eugen and Kevin. > > For Kevin: > > My (very limited) information on ischemia is that the Krebs cycle > is vulnerable to the loss of oxygen. (The machinery for this cycle is > passed via the egg, so evolution in mammalia long ago lost any > protection if it was there.) When O2 is returned to the cell, the > Krebs cycle has failed, and some steps lack the needed intermediate > products, the result is a toxic accumulation of reactive radicals and > serious irreparable damage. > > I don't know about what the arteries do, but failure of their > Krebs cycle may well do as you describe. > > For Eugen: > > Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig > file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me > if you think so, and explain why. > > For Both: > > If the law permitted touching the patienr prior to announcement of > death (not likely in the USA for a very long time), then, in a clinic, > 1) give patient general anesthesia 2) cannulate femorals 3) pump in > intermediate cooldown fluid (plasma blood extender) with high > oxygenation. As the body temp cools, the heart stops at about 50 deg > F. Cooldown to 0 deg C can be done in about 10 minutes, without > subjecting the patient to ischemia. > > But, folks, this is legally MURDER, and dat's how it is in the > good ole USA. :( > > PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene > bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and > rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because > basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 > is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to > maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the > medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and > other stuff) > ================================== > = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = > = harara at sbcglobal.net = > = Alcor North Cryomanagement = > = Alcor Advisor to Board = > = 831 429 8637 = > ================================== > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 15 10:43:01 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:43:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists-hypothermic liferaft In-Reply-To: <41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20041215104301.GT9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:01:49AM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > The concept goes thusly: > The liferaft = > -sleeping /body bag like sack made so that no 2 arms or legs touch each > other or body > -zipper + ziplock seal > - control/RFID biomonitor keypad with on outside > -stage 1- evacuate liner to ensure good skin contact with sack > -person put inside without outer clothes , shoes etc > -put cooling hood or cap over all of head less face, face cover ziplock > cover after body cooled off > -start in 2 parts; activation of emergency cooling packs layer of sack > to quick cool body; hood cooling cycle Useless. This gives you no advatage over an ice bath. > co2 based for higher cooling rate More than useless. You can't go below 0 C, or you'll get freezing injury. > -infusion of adjuvants may include: > Caffeinol as neuroprotectant; berberine in DMSO solution as > neuroprotectant; cannabidiol in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant > -optional defib cycle to pump neuroprotectants into cooling body uniformly You have to maintain the circulation. Best do achieve this is life support. > The adjuvants are designed to allow the brain to survive a longer > cool-off time than the usual 3-5 minutes. Sorry, but your science is garbage. I'm being delibertely harsh here, because otherwise you won't get the message. > as well as allow for easier re-start of body by hospital medical team > -once body temp is near 32F optional external hookups to maintain cooled > body during extended transport > > Once the working prototype is designed and tested , the actual mfg > costs may be quite reasonable If you have to live in the sticks, you have to rely on people. No machinery is going to help. > Morris Johnson > > Hara Ra wrote: > >For Eugen: > > > > Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig > >file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me > >if you think so, and explain why. Of course I wasn't commenting on what you wrote, but on periodical resurgence of well-meaning-but-clueless armchair cryonicists. > >PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene > >bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and > >rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because Oh yeah, if the cup breaks off you'll get a massive metal rod puncturing the ribcage. > >basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 > >is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to Not if you add neuroprotectants via IV push, and maintain artificial circulation. > >maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the > >medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and > >other stuff) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed Dec 15 13:09:31 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:09:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sample Return Missions (was: A Strombolian Holiday Tree) In-Reply-To: <20041215045221.M9483@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> References: <20041215045221.M9483@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <8ED81B3A-4E9A-11D9-87BC-000D932F6F12@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> On 15 Dec 2004, at 05:57, Amara Graps wrote: > The dust from comet Wild2 are in the capsule scheduled to return > to Earth January 15, 2006. The rest of the data from Comet Wild 2 > was sent back to Earth about one year ago and is really quite > unbelieavable, and people are still trying to understand it. Amara: Can you let us in on the unbelievable results? best, patrick From megao at sasktel.net Wed Dec 15 13:56:05 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:56:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists-hypothermic liferaft In-Reply-To: <20041215104301.GT9221@leitl.org> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> <20041215104301.GT9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <41C04275.4010203@sasktel.net> United States Patent Application 20040097534 Kind Code A1 Choi, Byung-Kil ; et al. May 20, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Composition for the protection and regeneration of nerve cells containing berberine derivatives Abstract Disclosed is a composition for protecting nerve cells, promoting nerve cell growth and regenerating nerve cells comprising berberine, derivatives thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The composition has protective effects against apoptosis of neuronal stem cells and differentiated neuronal stem cells, an effect of inducing the regeneration of nerve cells, a regenerative effect on neurites, a neuroregenerative effect on central nerves and peripheral nerves, a reformation effect on neuromuscular junctions, and a protective effect against apoptosis of nerve cells and a neuroregenerative effect in animals suffering from dementia and brain ischemia. Therefore, the composition can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, ischemic nervous diseases or nerve injuries, and for the improvement of learning capability. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& [0150] Next, the head of the rat was fixed on a stereotaxic apparatus to operate on the occiput, and then the tail was fixed so that it descended downwardly at an angle of 30.degree.. After incising the occipital bone, an electrocauterizing needle having a diameter of 1 mm or less was inserted into the alar foramina positioned at lower part of the first cervical vertebra under the occipital bone. At this time, this approach must be carefully done so as not to damage the muscles in the alar foramina. Thereafter, the vertebral artery was electrically cauterized by intermittently applying current. After the complete electrocauterization of the vertebral artery was confirmed, suturing was carried out using operating clips. After 24 hours, the operating clips were removed. Finally, the common carotid arteries were occluded using the silicone tube rings for 10 minutes to induce ischemia. If light reflex did not disappear within 1 minute, the cervical portion was further tightly sutured. Rats which did not show the complete disappearance of light reflex were excluded from the experiment because they underwent no damage to the CA1 region. After 10 minutes, the common carotid arteries were loosened to reperfuse. For 20 minutes after the reperfusion, loss of consciousness was observed. At this time, only rats which showed consciousness loss period within 20.+-.5 minutes were selected for subsequent experiments. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 2) Experimental Results (1) Concentration of Berberine, Influence of Body Temperature and Ischemia Inducing Time [0157] The highest concentration of berberine was set to 300 .mu.g/0.1 kg, and 600 .mu.l (1 mg/ml) of berberine was intraperitoneally injected to white rats weighing 200 g. In order to determine an optimal ischemia induction time, 2.about.3 rats were selected and ischemia-induced over 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes, respectively. 1 week after reperfusion, they were sacrificed and their hippocampal tissue sections were obtained to observe the number of damaged nerve cells. 10 minutes after ischemia induction, damaged pyramidal cells in the hippocampal CA1 region were found to be reduced to 1/4 of their original numbers. The ischemia induction time of 10 minutes was determined to be most optimal for evaluating the effects of berberine. [0158] For statistically analyzing the effects of berberine, a sham operated group having undergone an operation in the same manner without ischemia induction was used. For comparing the effects of berberine, a control group administered with physiological saline at the same dose as berberine was used. Berberine was intraperitoneally injected into all experimental groups. [0159] It is well known that reduction in body temperature during ischemia induction prevents damage to nerve cells in the hippocampus and thus exhibits neuroprotective effects. Therefore, in order to evaluate the neuroprotective effect of berberine, after ischemia induction and reperfusion, the body temperature of all rats was maintained at a constant (37.+-.1.degree. C.) for 6 hours. (2) Observation of Damaged Nerve Cells [0160] When ischemia was induced by 4-VO and then reperfusion was performed, nerve cells in the neocortex, striatum, hippocampal CA1 region and cerebellum were damaged. Among them, pyramidal nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region were the most susceptible to the induced ischemia, and started to undergo cell death 72 hours after reperfusion. In order to observe delayed neuronal death in the hippocampal CA1 region, 1 week after reperfusion, the time when almost all nerve cells were damaged, white rats were sacrificed and tissue sections from the hippocampus were observed under an optical microscope. In a sham operated group having undergone no ischemia, normal hippocampal nerve cells were observed in the stratum pyramidale (490 .mu.m long)(see,A and B of FIG. 21). [0161] C and D of FIG. 21 as control groups show apoptosis. When cells are induced to undergo apoptosis by an external or an internal stimulus, they shrink to lose their original shapes. This shrinkage breaks the junctions with other adjacent cells so that the interaction between cells is disrupted. When the shrinkage proceeds to some extent, the cell membranes form apoptotic bodies like a bulla. In the hippocampal CA1 region of the control group administered with physiological saline (D of FIG. 21), it was observed that nerve cells underwent apoptotic morphological changes after ischemia induction. In addition, it was observed that tissues was relaxed and separated from adjacent cells, unlike B of FIG. 21. From these observations, it was confirmed that the cell bodies of nerve cells lost their original pyramidal shape and were condensed, thereby appearing to be single cells. Furthermore, it was confirmed that subsequent nuclear chromatin condensation and nuclear envelope collapse led to apoptosis of nerve cells. On the contrary, nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region administered with berberine were similar to normal cells in terms of their morphology (see, E and F of FIG. 21). At this time, because necrotic nerve cells around the CA1 region were very difficult to distinguish from microglias, only viable pyramidal nerve cells in the CA1 region were counted. In F of FIG. 21, separated cells were observed above and below the hippocampal region and cell bodies were condensed. This demonstrates that the damage to nerve cells was great enough to induce apoptosis. Nevertheless, it was observed that a great number of nerve cells were protected from apoptosis and their original pyramidal morphology was maintained. This suggests that berberine has a protective effect against damages to nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region induced by 4-VO. Although it was not confirmed what stage during apoptosis influences nerve cell survival, it was certain that berberine has a significant protective effect against apoptosis of nerve cells (see, E and F of FIG. 21). (3) Protective Effect of Berberine Against Damage to Nerve Cells [0162] In order to examine the neuroprotective effect of berberine after ischemia induction, berberine was intraperitoneally injected 0 and 90 minutes after ischemia induction. [0163] In the sham groups, the density of viable cells was measured to be 308.+-.6.6 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). In the control groups administered with physiological saline, the density of viable cells was measured to be 28.+-.3.8 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). There was cell loss in these two groups. On the other hand, in the experimental groups administered with berberine, the density of viable cells was measured to be 257.+-.9.6 cell/mm.sup.2. In conclusion, berberine was determined to have a significant neuroprotective effect (p<0.05). [0164] As described above, the composition according to the present invention regenerates axons and dendrites of nerve cells, thereby having a protective effect against nerve cell injuries, a positive effect on nerve cell growth and a regenerative effect on nerve cells. In addition, the composition according to the present invention can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases or nerve injuries, in particular, dementia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, palsy, ischemic brain diseases, trauma to the spinal cord and peripheral nerve injuries. [0165] Although the preferred embodiments of the present invention have been disclosed for illustrative purposes, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various modifications, additions and substitutions are possible, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as disclosed in the accompanying claims. * * * * * Aside from its carrier capacity DMSO was chosen for its ability to inhibit damage from a light freeze There are a number of complementary chemistries besides from the ones cited readily available. Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:01:49AM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > > > >>The concept goes thusly: >>The liferaft = >>-sleeping /body bag like sack made so that no 2 arms or legs touch each >>other or body >>-zipper + ziplock seal >>- control/RFID biomonitor keypad with on outside >>-stage 1- evacuate liner to ensure good skin contact with sack >>-person put inside without outer clothes , shoes etc >>-put cooling hood or cap over all of head less face, face cover ziplock >>cover after body cooled off >>-start in 2 parts; activation of emergency cooling packs layer of sack >>to quick cool body; hood cooling cycle >> >> > >Useless. This gives you no advatage over an ice bath. > > > >>co2 based for higher cooling rate >> >> > >More than useless. You can't go below 0 C, or you'll get freezing injury. > > > >>-infusion of adjuvants may include: >>Caffeinol as neuroprotectant; berberine in DMSO solution as >>neuroprotectant; cannabidiol in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant >>-optional defib cycle to pump neuroprotectants into cooling body uniformly >> >> > >You have to maintain the circulation. Best do achieve this is life support. > > > >>The adjuvants are designed to allow the brain to survive a longer >>cool-off time than the usual 3-5 minutes. >> >> > >Sorry, but your science is garbage. I'm being delibertely harsh here, because >otherwise you won't get the message. > > > >>as well as allow for easier re-start of body by hospital medical team >>-once body temp is near 32F optional external hookups to maintain cooled >>body during extended transport >> >>Once the working prototype is designed and tested , the actual mfg >>costs may be quite reasonable >> >> > >If you have to live in the sticks, you have to rely on people. No machinery >is going to help. > > > >>Morris Johnson >> >>Hara Ra wrote: >> >> >>>For Eugen: >>> >>> Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig >>>file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me >>>if you think so, and explain why. >>> >>> > >Of course I wasn't commenting on what you wrote, but on periodical resurgence >of well-meaning-but-clueless armchair cryonicists. > > > >>>PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene >>>bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and >>>rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because >>> >>> > >Oh yeah, if the cup breaks off you'll get a massive metal rod puncturing the >ribcage. > > > >>>basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 >>>is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to >>> >>> > >Not if you add neuroprotectants via IV push, and maintain artificial >circulation. > > > >>>maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the >>>medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and >>>other stuff) >>> >>> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 15 14:31:38 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:31:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists-hypothermic liferaft In-Reply-To: <41C04275.4010203@sasktel.net> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> <20041215104301.GT9221@leitl.org> <41C04275.4010203@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20041215143138.GS9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:56:05AM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > > United States Patent Application 20040097534 > Kind Code A1 > Choi, Byung-Kil ; et al. May 20, 2004 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Composition for the protection and regeneration of nerve cells > containing berberine derivatives Apoptosis is one of damage mechanisms, and is indeed initiated by ischaemic damage. Most of it occurs days after damage, and requires a working metabolism. There are lots of drugs to block it. If you need drugs to block ischaemic damage as a cryonics patient there's something ran terribly wrong. (Blocking brain activity when on life support after flat EEG lacune due to ischemia is something else, and something really really necessary). > Abstract > > Disclosed is a composition for protecting nerve cells, promoting nerve > cell growth and regenerating nerve cells comprising berberine, > derivatives thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The > composition has protective effects against apoptosis of neuronal stem > cells and differentiated neuronal stem cells, an effect of inducing the > regeneration of nerve cells, a regenerative effect on neurites, a > neuroregenerative effect on central nerves and peripheral nerves, a > reformation effect on neuromuscular junctions, and a protective effect > against apoptosis of nerve cells and a neuroregenerative effect in > animals suffering from dementia and brain ischemia. Therefore, the > composition can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and > treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, ischemic nervous diseases or > nerve injuries, and for the improvement of learning capability. > > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > > [0150] Next, the head of the rat was fixed on a stereotaxic apparatus to > operate on the occiput, and then the tail was fixed so that it descended > downwardly at an angle of 30.degree.. After incising the occipital bone, > an electrocauterizing needle having a diameter of 1 mm or less was > inserted into the alar foramina positioned at lower part of the first > cervical vertebra under the occipital bone. At this time, this approach > must be carefully done so as not to damage the muscles in the alar > foramina. Thereafter, the vertebral artery was electrically cauterized > by intermittently applying current. After the complete > electrocauterization of the vertebral artery was confirmed, suturing was > carried out using operating clips. After 24 hours, the operating clips > were removed. Finally, the common carotid arteries were occluded using > the silicone tube rings for 10 minutes to induce ischemia. If light > reflex did not disappear within 1 minute, the cervical portion was > further tightly sutured. Rats which did not show the complete > disappearance of light reflex were excluded from the experiment because > they underwent no damage to the CA1 region. After 10 minutes, the common > carotid arteries were loosened to reperfuse. For 20 minutes after the > reperfusion, loss of consciousness was observed. At this time, only rats > which showed consciousness loss period within 20.+-.5 minutes were > selected for subsequent experiments. > > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > > 2) Experimental Results > > (1) Concentration of Berberine, Influence of Body Temperature and > Ischemia Inducing Time > > [0157] The highest concentration of berberine was set to 300 .mu.g/0.1 > kg, and 600 .mu.l (1 mg/ml) of berberine was intraperitoneally injected > to white rats weighing 200 g. In order to determine an optimal ischemia > induction time, 2.about.3 rats were selected and ischemia-induced over > 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes, respectively. 1 week after reperfusion, they > were sacrificed and their hippocampal tissue sections were obtained to > observe the number of damaged nerve cells. 10 minutes after ischemia > induction, damaged pyramidal cells in the hippocampal CA1 region were > found to be reduced to 1/4 of their original numbers. The ischemia > induction time of 10 minutes was determined to be most optimal for > evaluating the effects of berberine. > > [0158] For statistically analyzing the effects of berberine, a sham > operated group having undergone an operation in the same manner without > ischemia induction was used. For comparing the effects of berberine, a > control group administered with physiological saline at the same dose as > berberine was used. Berberine was intraperitoneally injected into all > experimental groups. > > [0159] It is well known that reduction in body temperature during > ischemia induction prevents damage to nerve cells in the hippocampus and > thus exhibits neuroprotective effects. Therefore, in order to evaluate > the neuroprotective effect of berberine, after ischemia induction and > reperfusion, the body temperature of all rats was maintained at a > constant (37.+-.1.degree. C.) for 6 hours. > > (2) Observation of Damaged Nerve Cells > > [0160] When ischemia was induced by 4-VO and then reperfusion was > performed, nerve cells in the neocortex, striatum, hippocampal CA1 > region and cerebellum were damaged. Among them, pyramidal nerve cells in > the hippocampal CA1 region were the most susceptible to the induced > ischemia, and started to undergo cell death 72 hours after reperfusion. > In order to observe delayed neuronal death in the hippocampal CA1 > region, 1 week after reperfusion, the time when almost all nerve cells > were damaged, white rats were sacrificed and tissue sections from the > hippocampus were observed under an optical microscope. In a sham > operated group having undergone no ischemia, normal hippocampal nerve > cells were observed in the stratum pyramidale (490 .mu.m long)(see,A and > B of FIG. 21). > > [0161] C and D of FIG. 21 as control groups show apoptosis. When cells > are induced to undergo apoptosis by an external or an internal stimulus, > they shrink to lose their original shapes. This shrinkage breaks the > junctions with other adjacent cells so that the interaction between > cells is disrupted. When the shrinkage proceeds to some extent, the cell > membranes form apoptotic bodies like a bulla. In the hippocampal CA1 > region of the control group administered with physiological saline (D of > FIG. 21), it was observed that nerve cells underwent apoptotic > morphological changes after ischemia induction. In addition, it was > observed that tissues was relaxed and separated from adjacent cells, > unlike B of FIG. 21. From these observations, it was confirmed that the > cell bodies of nerve cells lost their original pyramidal shape and were > condensed, thereby appearing to be single cells. Furthermore, it was > confirmed that subsequent nuclear chromatin condensation and nuclear > envelope collapse led to apoptosis of nerve cells. On the contrary, > nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region administered with berberine > were similar to normal cells in terms of their morphology (see, E and F > of FIG. 21). At this time, because necrotic nerve cells around the CA1 > region were very difficult to distinguish from microglias, only viable > pyramidal nerve cells in the CA1 region were counted. In F of FIG. 21, > separated cells were observed above and below the hippocampal region and > cell bodies were condensed. This demonstrates that the damage to nerve > cells was great enough to induce apoptosis. Nevertheless, it was > observed that a great number of nerve cells were protected from > apoptosis and their original pyramidal morphology was maintained. This > suggests that berberine has a protective effect against damages to nerve > cells in the hippocampal CA1 region induced by 4-VO. Although it was not > confirmed what stage during apoptosis influences nerve cell survival, it > was certain that berberine has a significant protective effect against > apoptosis of nerve cells (see, E and F of FIG. 21). > > (3) Protective Effect of Berberine Against Damage to Nerve Cells > > [0162] In order to examine the neuroprotective effect of berberine after > ischemia induction, berberine was intraperitoneally injected 0 and 90 > minutes after ischemia induction. > > [0163] In the sham groups, the density of viable cells was measured to > be 308.+-.6.6 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). In the control groups > administered with physiological saline, the density of viable cells was > measured to be 28.+-.3.8 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). There was > cell loss in these two groups. On the other hand, in the experimental > groups administered with berberine, the density of viable cells was > measured to be 257.+-.9.6 cell/mm.sup.2. In conclusion, berberine was > determined to have a significant neuroprotective effect (p<0.05). > > [0164] As described above, the composition according to the present > invention regenerates axons and dendrites of nerve cells, thereby having > a protective effect against nerve cell injuries, a positive effect on > nerve cell growth and a regenerative effect on nerve cells. In addition, > the composition according to the present invention can be used as a > therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative > diseases or nerve injuries, in particular, dementia, Parkinson's > disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, palsy, ischemic brain diseases, > trauma to the spinal cord and peripheral nerve injuries. > > [0165] Although the preferred embodiments of the present invention have > been disclosed for illustrative purposes, those skilled in the art will > appreciate that various modifications, additions and substitutions are > possible, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention > as disclosed in the accompanying claims. > > * * * * * > > Aside from its carrier capacity DMSO was chosen for its ability to > inhibit damage from a light freeze > > There are a number of complementary chemistries besides from the ones > cited readily available. > > > > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:01:49AM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures > >Inc. wrote: > > > > > > > >>The concept goes thusly: > >>The liferaft = > >>-sleeping /body bag like sack made so that no 2 arms or legs touch each > >>other or body > >>-zipper + ziplock seal > >>- control/RFID biomonitor keypad with on outside > >>-stage 1- evacuate liner to ensure good skin contact with sack > >>-person put inside without outer clothes , shoes etc > >>-put cooling hood or cap over all of head less face, face cover ziplock > >>cover after body cooled off > >>-start in 2 parts; activation of emergency cooling packs layer of sack > >>to quick cool body; hood cooling cycle > >> > >> > > > >Useless. This gives you no advatage over an ice bath. > > > > > > > >>co2 based for higher cooling rate > >> > >> > > > >More than useless. You can't go below 0 C, or you'll get freezing injury. > > > > > > > >>-infusion of adjuvants may include: > >>Caffeinol as neuroprotectant; berberine in DMSO solution as > >>neuroprotectant; cannabidiol in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant > >>-optional defib cycle to pump neuroprotectants into cooling body > >>uniformly > >> > >> > > > >You have to maintain the circulation. Best do achieve this is life support. > > > > > > > >>The adjuvants are designed to allow the brain to survive a longer > >>cool-off time than the usual 3-5 minutes. > >> > >> > > > >Sorry, but your science is garbage. I'm being delibertely harsh here, > >because > >otherwise you won't get the message. > > > > > > > >>as well as allow for easier re-start of body by hospital medical team > >>-once body temp is near 32F optional external hookups to maintain cooled > >>body during extended transport > >> > >>Once the working prototype is designed and tested , the actual mfg > >>costs may be quite reasonable > >> > >> > > > >If you have to live in the sticks, you have to rely on people. No machinery > >is going to help. > > > > > > > >>Morris Johnson > >> > >>Hara Ra wrote: > >> > >> > >>>For Eugen: > >>> > >>> Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig > >>>file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me > >>>if you think so, and explain why. > >>> > >>> > > > >Of course I wasn't commenting on what you wrote, but on periodical > >resurgence > >of well-meaning-but-clueless armchair cryonicists. > > > > > > > >>>PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene > >>>bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and > >>>rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because > >>> > >>> > > > >Oh yeah, if the cup breaks off you'll get a massive metal rod puncturing > >the > >ribcage. > > > > > > > >>>basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 > >>>is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to > >>> > >>> > > > >Not if you add neuroprotectants via IV push, and maintain artificial > >circulation. > > > > > > > >>>maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the > >>>medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and > >>>other stuff) > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Dec 15 14:45:57 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:45:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sample Return Missions Message-ID: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE, Wed Dec 15, 2004 >Can you let us in on the unbelievable results? The large swarms and narrow bursts are weird. Minutes of no dust impacts go by between the bursts. I understand fragmentation, electrostically or by other means, but the spacecraft is within 600 km. How can the dust flux be that burst-y, so close to the comet nucleus? Then it encountered another intense burst 4000 km away. The authors have explanations for the early bursts using the topography of the nucleus, geometry of 'jets crossing', etc. but I think it is still too speculative. And why are the largest depressions on the surface devoid of dust activity? And what can explain such a well-structured burst (like a cloud of dust) 4000 km away? Weird data! (but that's what makes science interesting :-)) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/304/5678/1760a Science, Vol 304, Issue 5678, 1760 , 18 June 2004 (opening note. See the other articles in the issue) Question: How close can you get to a comet? Answer: In this special section, the Stardust spacecraft will take you within 236 kilometers of the nucleus of comet Wild 2. Stardust's primary mission was to collect interstellar dust particles and cometary dust particles. These micrometer-sized particles represent the building blocks of the solar system as well as samples of other stars. The particles were collected in aerogel, an extremely low-density microporous silica. Aerogel can capture particles only at slow relative velocities; however, most previous spacecraft encounters occurred at much higher relative velocities, so the mission engineers designed an orbital path to ensure slow encounters. Launched in February 1999, Stardust collected interstellar particles in May 2000. After coming close to Earth at the end of its first orbit to get a gravity assist, Stardust collected more interstellar dust particles in 2002. Finally, in January 2004, Stardust encountered comet Wild 2 at a relative velocity of about 6 kilometers per second and a breathlessly close distance of 236 kilometers. Besides capturing cometary particles, the Stardust spacecraft used its scientific payload to obtain highly spatially and temporally resolved data on this extremely slow encounter of a unique kind. CREDIT: NASA/JPL-CALTECHAs described by Brownlee et al. (p. 1764), the optical navigation camera took 72 images (one every 10 seconds) and found an oddly shaped nucleus, pockmarked with depressions and ridges. The feature-rich surface suggests that this comet has cohesive strength and is not a porous ball of ice that would fall apart at the slightest perturbation [see the Perspective by Weaver for more details (p. 1760)]. As described by Tuzzolino et al. (p. 1776), the dust flux monitor found unexpected swarms of particles, suggesting fragmentation of larger chunks of the comet. As described by Kissel et al. (p. 1774), the time-of-flight mass spectrometer recorded spectra and found organic-rich matter as well as nitrogen- and sulfur-rich species. The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into perspective. Now that the flyby is complete and the unexpectedly ugly but strong surface of Wild 2 has been revealed in the finest detail possible, scientists can ponder what all of this means for the origin of the solar system, while the mission scientists have sweet dreams made of fluffy particles of comets, the solar nebula, and other stars cushioned in aerogel until the return of the samples in 2006. Then scientists can get really close to actual particles captured from comet Wild 2. Chemical analyses of the particles, combined with the flyby data, should help clear up any nightmares about the origin of the solar system and the dynamics of comets. -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From john-c-wright at sff.net Wed Dec 15 15:11:28 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:11:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural events, ergo all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real skeptics do not take conclusions as articles of faith. "You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost. "I don't." said Scrooge. "What evidence would you have of my reality beyond that of your senses?" "I don't know," said Scrooge. "Why do you doubt your senses?" "Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!" --- Original Message --- From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" To: ExI chat list CC: john-c-wright at sff.net Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:38:21 -0600 Subject: Re: John Wright Finds God > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, > > Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but > > without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why > > this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? > > Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the purported > > Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us who seek it > > or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome truth of the > > way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human beings? Why this > > capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? > > > > This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that I > > to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I have > > experienced. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > I considered John Wright's dilemma, not quite in the form he posed. I > asked myself: "If I was overpowered by religious ecstasy, would my > rationality survive? Am I that strong?" I've previously considered > this question, in the form of wondering whether any conceivable > discipline could enable a trained rationalist to defeat schizophrenia. > Religious ecstasy is a lesser test. > > If my future self had an overpowering religious experience, one obvious > reaction of my future self might be, "Hm, I must be having a temporal > lobe mini-seizure." But that feels to me like cheating; what if I > hadn't studied neurology? I thought of arguments that my hypothetical > slightly more ignorant future self might consider: > > "When I was an atheist, I knew that people had deep religious > experiences, but I did not think it likely that the experience reflected > reality as the retina reports a flower. Now that I have had such an > experience myself, my best estimate of the underlying cause should not > change. I was content to be an atheist when I knew that other people > had religious brainstorms; should this change if one of the 'other > people' is myself? For they and I are both humans; the causal analysis > is the same in either case." > > "Far down the tale of science goes; from quarks to atoms to molecules, > from molecules to proteins to cells to humans, physics and evolution and > intelligence, all a single coherent story. To the best of all human > knowledge, since the beginning of time, not one unusual thing has ever > happened. A thousand generations have learned to their astonishment and > dismay that there are mysterious questions, but never mysterious > answers; that the universe runs on math, not heroic mythology. The > science that I know is too solid, the laws of rationality too strict, > the lessons driven home too many times, to be overturned so lightly." > > "Let us suppose that the experience is caused by something external to a > simple brain malfunction. Just because an entity is capable of inducing > an overpowering religious experience in me, does not make the entity > morally superior. I have seen people sell their souls for the price of > a book. God in the Bible kills and tortures anyone who won't worship > Him properly, or even innocent bystanders, such as Egyptian children > during the Ten Plagues. If we had pictures of such a thing, occurring > in any modern country, we would never forgive the perpetrators; we would > hold them in less esteem than Nazi Germany. Kindhearted rabbis read > tales of dead Egyptian children, killed to impress their parents with > God's might, and the rabbis somehow fail to take moral notice. Is there > no end to the human ability to ignore the failings of one's favored > political leaders? Killing children is wrong, period, end of > discussion. And yet all it takes to make people endorse a God that > commits torture-murder of children, is to hand them a book. People sell > their moralities so cheaply. They don't even demand that the book be > given to them directly by God. They sell their moralities and give over > their sense of judgment just because someone else handed them a book and > told them God wrote it. Even if God speaks to me directly, I should > demand *reasons* before handing over my moral judgment. I have studied > evolutionary biology. I know that there are forces in the universe > capable of producing complex plans and designs, yet utterly nonhumane. > If this "God" wishes me to do something, let It tell me Its reasons, and > see if I agree. As it stands, I have no reason whatever to believe that > God is good. I will not sell myself so cheaply, into bondage to who > knows What." > > And: "Why should some people have these experiences and not others? > Why jerk us around? Why work blatant, showy miracles in front of desert > nomads, for the explicit purpose of providing proof, and then > mysteriously change policies after the introduction of skeptical > thinking and video cameras? If I am told all these spiritual truths, > why not give me next week's winning lottery numbers, to help me convey > these truths to my friends? If I am given no solid proof because the > experience is meant to convince me personally, then, leaving aside the > unfairness, why not tell me ten digits of pi starting at the 1000th > decimal place? Why is it that not one factual assertion brought back > from the grip of religious ecstasy has been surprising, checkable, and > right?" > > I thought of these arguments, Samantha, and yet it occurred to me that > if I was caught in the grip of such a powerful religious experience, I > might not *want* to think them. And then I would be defeated without > ever getting a chance to draw my blade. Intelligence, to be useful, > must be used for a purpose other than defeating itself. I have trained > myself to be wary of knowing my desired conclusion before I begin to > think; explicitly emphasized the impossibility of asking a question > without being genuinely unsure of the answer. It ain't a real crisis of > faith unless it could go either way, as a wise man once said. > > Having a powerful religious experience isn't quite as bad as going > schizophrenic. The religious experience happens and then goes away and > you can think about it rationally. Schizophrenia is constant and > defeats the frontal lobes of reflectivity, destroying both emotional > balance and the ability to use reason to correct it. But I have > wondered whether my mental discipline and my explicit understanding of > rationality would be powerful enough for me to win through, either the > almost impossible test of schizophrenia, or the lesser test of religious > ecstasy. > > I now know that it is possible for a rationalist to cut through to the > correct answer even after suffering a religious ecstasy. For you won > through, Samantha, traveling from a wrong belief to the correct one, and > you even permitted (forced?) yourself to think of arguments like those > that occurred to me - me, sitting here easily at my desk, imagining a > hypothetical future and hoping I *wouldn't* be persuaded. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 16:36:09 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:36:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041215163609.29738.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> --- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes > >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural > events, ergo > all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real > skeptics do not take conclusions as articles of faith. Similar to the point I've been trying to make with these fundamentalist atheists. Of course, it doesn't help the argument to be quoting from a work of fiction. My own singular experience took place in 1993, at age 25, long after the age range in which symptoms of schizoid behavior would have manifested themselves, involved primarily tactile sensation of an invisible phenomenon that only affected my vision once it had made contact with my eyes, and exhibited intelligent response to my own change in response to it. There was no auditory component, though. It was night time, I was fully awake, and was under the influence of no artificial substances. If it was hallucination, it was a damn good one, with absolutely no evidence or symptoms of any neurological cause. What it was, I still have no clue about. It was a bit too 'real' to me for me to rationally dismiss it as hallucination. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed Dec 15 16:55:36 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:55:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Michael Rae on why he joined The Three Hundred In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is an excellent piece: http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=23 Sign up - all the cool kids are doing it! Reason Founder, Longevity Meme ---------------- Today, I made the decision to join The Three Hundred. This essay will explain who The Three Hundred are, why I joined them, and why I think you should do so, too. The short answer to all of the above is that The Three Hundred is a commitment to strongly and directly support what I believe to be the most effective vehicle for funding genuine anti-aging research - research that could drastically delay, or even ultimately eliminate, the slow, but gradually accelerating downward spiral of physical and mental deterioration with the passing of the years. In other words, it is our best hope of substantially forestalling or escaping an otherwise-foreordained future of increasing disability, suffering and death - and of watching helplessly as our loved ones undergo the same terrible decline. While I am still relatively young and believe that I am indeed aging more slower than those around me, I've have suffered the loss of my loved ones to the aging process already. It's bad enough to watch allegedly "independently-living" aged strangers out in public, idly shuffling their feet, pushing cleverly designed wheeled walkers or balancing on their canes, unable to open the doors for themselves, faces a mask of apathy. It's much worse to spend even a few minutes in a nursing home, walking out of a world of relative health of body and mind into an asylum of decay: men and women, once fit, well optimism about the future, now tied to oxygen tanks, raving mad or sunk into almost complete retreat from the outside world, sitting down hours in advance of their meals for lack of any better purpose to their lives, needing help to get out of bed or clean their own wastes. But what is truly terrible is to be in such a house of horrors to visit your grandmother - watching her become increasingly passive, disengaged, and helpless; seeing her unable to carry out the basic activities of daily living until she is a decayed funhouse mirror image of an infant, unable to walk or even control her own bladder; wondering when she will die, and whether that is really the worst fate that you can envision for her. I am consciousness that the advancing process of cellular disorder that took a young woman - a woman that escaped poverty in Scotland, worked through two World Wars to build a home and a family, bore my mother into the world, and cared for me through almost three decades as a mature, increasingly wrinkly, but still proudly independent gra'ma - and slowly sapped her in body and mind ... consciousness that these same processes are invisibly at work in my own flesh, and are now erupting visibly in my own mother and father. Most people refuse to confront this reality. When the horror of aging is thrust in front of their noses, they push it away desperately, reflexively wrenching their attention toward another subject. They pretend that it is "not so bad," that it is unusual and will not happen to them, or engage in elaborate flights of intellectual apologism for the "natural," "divinely-ordained" order of things. They lie to themselves that they will be satisfied with just a few more years of life after which they will simply check out, well before the full weight of the years begins to crush them. As even a cursory glance at previous generations would demonstrate, for better or for worse, no one will choose to give up life merely because their bodies are losing the powers and liberties without which they do not believe that they could live. Whether struck by aging or rendered paraplegic by a fall on the ice, they will grasp at the thread of life until their suffering is truly so wracking of body and soul that their will falters and they simply cannot go on. Fundamentally, we all want to live -- in youth and health if possible, in age and misery if necessary. Many readers will know that I invest a substantial amount of my time and energy into the only scientifically justified method of delaying the horror of biological aging: calorie restriction (CR). It is a measure of my own horror in the face of the aging process that I spend so much of my life's energy in an intervention that I know perfectly well to be crude, weak medicine. Tragically, those around me are so put off by the bitterness in the medicine that they refuse to take it. But even if they were to join me in massive salads and refusing Rocky Road ice cream, CR is not, ultimately, a solution to the problem. CR will - if, as I believe, the animal experiments translate well into the human case - buy perhaps a couple of decades of middle- and late-middle-aged relative health. It has already granted me improved vitality in many ways, even as it has come with a cost in other areas. But CR is just buying time - and not much time, at that. The specter of biological decay is still before me. I want to live forever; or if not, I will accept as a second choice to live indefinitely in youth and in health. CR cannot deliver this dream. To do it, we will need a new biomedicine that attacks aging at its most fundamental, molecular roots, in ways that never naturally occurred in our genetic toolkit. There is reason for optimism in thinking that this goal can be achieved. Decades of research into the biology of aging - much of it using the CR model - have revealed the fundamental molecular lesions that are associated with aging and almost certainly drive it. Theoretically, we could remove or neutralize these toxic wastes, creating interventions that will not just slow down the molecular gumming-up of life's machinery, but halt or even reverse it. We could actually undo the toll of the years ([1-4]; for a very accessible overview, see [5]), and then aging itself could come to an end. We would spend centuries or millennia in youth and health, only falling prey to catastrophic accident or disease. There is significant progress toward [6,7] - and in some cases even preliminary proof-of-concept for [8-10] - several interventions based on these insights. The problem is to turn these as-yet-theoretical solutions - or any others! - into widely available therapies. As with any medical discovery, this entails a long process starting with test-tube studies and working hypotheses, moving to animal models, and finally progressing to human trials and regulatory hurdles. Venture capital has demonstrated that it lacks the attention span or patience for such expensive, long-term projects in medicine. One major problem is that there is no way to quickly assess the effect of a new intervention on aging. You can perform a good rodent cancer study in a few months, and Phase II cancer trial work in humans can be accomplished in a year or so, but there's no way to do this with aging. The critical, absolutely essential first step - a full lifespan study in rodents - takes not five months, but five years, and requires many more rodent subjects (and proportionally greater expense). As a result, all of the biotech companies that initially made their buzz by promising anti-aging drugs have retreated from this vision - more or less as soon as a putative anti-aging drug looks promising as a treatment for some diseases - and lifespan studies are abandoned. Geron, to pick the obvious example, was founded by Michael West to exploit telomerase as the cellular fountain of youth. Venture capital firms were initially excited: West put forward a powerful pitch during the early, optimistic inflation of the biotech bubble. Investors rapidly lost interest in long-term goals, however, and began insisting that Geron work to drugs (and revenue) into the pipeline post-haste. Thus telomerase the anti-aging enzyme became telomerase the target for cancer inhibition. The same thing has happened to Sirtris, Elixir, and all the way down. Venture firms are not being terribly patient with some of the longer-pipeline ventures which do have obvious disease applications either: Advanced Cell Technology and even Osiris Therapeutics have been treading water financially for nearly three years now. There are related problems in academic research, alas. For one thing, the length of time required to do a rodent lifespan study, and the nature of the experiment, makes it very unpopular with grad students and thus difficult for senior researchers to implement. No one wants to spend five years of an up-and-coming career minding lab rats in order to produce one single study (a survival curve, plus commentary) at the end. This is particularly true since, historically, these experiments have mostly been flops - not good material for inclusions in one's CV. Another point worth noting is that government-funded researchers are not exactly at liberty to pursue whatever studies they want. Scientists must write funding proposals to explain exactly what they want to do, and exactly why. Here, a nasty vicious circle is in play: the people making funding decisions, while scientists, are first and foremost acting in their capacity as bureaucrats with political masters. Research thought to be fringe or misunderstood by politicians or the electorate - such as a scheme to "engineer negligible senescence" - is poison to a political or bureaucratic career. Ironically, because of its less cut-and-dried nature, similar bureaucracies in the arts (such as the National Endowment for the Arts in the US) are actually more insulated from their political masters - they can defend the allocation of funds to fringe or unpopular work on freedom of expression grounds, and because art is by its nature in the eye of the beholder. Neither defense applies for scientific work, of course. Thus scientists continue to pursue relatively modest, uninspiring projects, and to couch their work in modest, uninspiring terms. "We're not looking for a cure for aging. We'd just like to learn how to delay some of the diseases of aging so that Granny can be more comfortable in her old age." This is what obtains funding, regardless of the actual limits on what is possible or plausible in medical research. This state of affairs reinforces the impression, in the minds of the electorate, of a scientific consensus that real intervention in the aging process is impossible at this time. This reinforces the pressure on politicians to prevent government funding being "wasted" on such work. This in turn reinforces the need for scientists who want public funding to play it safe. Round and round this vicious circle goes... How do we break out of this self-perpetuating system? One way would be for people like us, concerned about aging, to fund the work ourselves: to hunt down projects that we consider likely to lead to extended life in mice, raise a huge pile of dollars, and just hand the money over to someone willing to do the study. The Life Extension Foundations's LifeSpan study illustrates part of the problem with this approach. Having invested - to their credit - large sums of money in seriously testing a dozen or so promising supplements and drugs, they came away with a fistful of failed overlapping lifespan curves, a lot of dead rodents, and many, many millions of valuable dollars essentially wasted. Another problem is sheer lack of funds - even funds to waste. For now, there are no huge, well-endowed research charities, nor nearly enough concerned individuals, contributing money to work on anti-aging interventions. Charities working on cancer and heart disease raise a lot of money - donors recognize these high profile diseases from which they suffer or of which their mothers, husbands and friends have died. Patients and their advocates are also very politically active in pushing for - and obtaining - public funding for work on their specific diseases. The present state of AIDS funding is perhaps the most spectacular and successful example of this form of activism, but the results of cancer and Alzheimer's advocacy are also impressive. Yet only a few people with the universal disease - aging - are prepared to make the same sort of effort. So long as people refuse to think of aging as a disease, as something that is not "a normal part of life," and as a medical condition that can be cured, then we will not see this kind of mass mobilization (or, in the case of AIDS, a mixture of an energetic and effective activist core coupled with widespread public sympathy and sense of urgency). We have to come up with a creative way to mobile the funds sitting amply in other coffers - the aforementioned government medical research bureaucracies and venture capital firms. From this starting point, we arrive quickly at the Methuselah Mouse Prize - http://www.mprize.org. Structured as an improvement on the X Prize model, and enjoying that organization's Peter Diamandis as a chief advisor, the Methuselah Mouse Prize (or M Prize) actually consists of two related prizes. The Longevity Prize is to be awarded for the next record in single-animal lifespan in the laboratory mouse, the second Rejuvenation Prize for the greatest extension of lifespan in a mouse that is already elderly. The former will likely lead to advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of aging, while the latter is more likely to lead to viable anti-aging therapies for people who (as biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey once put it) have the misfortune of already having been born. The M Prize has the potential to remove the stumbling blocks preventing scientists in government and industry from taking on the aging process as a curable disease. On the one hand, it reorients the incentives for industry. Right now, there is no specific incentive for private researchers to perform lifespan studies in mice: at most, they are a stepping stone toward long, expensive, human trials - and as noted, even the rodent studies are long and expensive. When a significant financial reward - and the promise of substantial publicity - is put in place, however, suddenly there is a business case for spending a few years rather than a few months in testing a compound in mice. Should you succeed in rejuvenating mice, you can bet that Big Pharma will be beating down your door for the rights to translate the intervention to the human case. The M Prize can dislodge the vicious circle that drives the lack of serious anti-aging biogerontology in academic research. For the scientists, it creates an incentive to write those grant proposals, in hopes of obtaining more funding directly and greater prestige for their institutions - prestige itself tends to attract more funding. On the side of public opinion, the Prize structure, by its nature, captures public imagination and provides a dramatic way to educate the public and media that scientists are working on extending healthy lifespan in mammals. This increases the credibility of any similar reputable efforts and wins acceptance for the idea that it can be done in humans. In turn, changes in public opinion eases political constraints on awarding public funding for such projects - and may even lead to active pressure to make such awards. The real tipping point, however, comes when aging is demonstrably reversed in an elderly mouse. Aside from the obvious point that success in mice implies a parallel success in humans with adequate further research, it may initiate a sea change in public opinion as people allow themselves to believe that aging could be cured in humans. I envisage this leading to a public and political demand for a War on Aging. At this point, the whole field of serious anti-aging research will become scientifically respectable. It will attract scientists and funding; this will further fuels the expectations of the public and pressure for public and private funding. Before you know it, a virtuous circle has taken over from the vicious circle. Scientific results will drive public optimism, in turn driving political acceptability, public and private funding. Funding will eventually lead to the results we wish to see: breakthroughs in the science of longevity and aging. The bottom line, however, is that breaking the existing vicious circle will require a substantial reserve of money, even if accomplished the efficient M Prize way. Here, again, we are confronted by the relatively small people who are willing to set aside their protective apologism for aging, and to recognize it for what it is: a degenerative medical condition no more worthy of respect and no more inevitable than syphilis. As I am sure many of you know, most people will not allow themselves to dream of an ageless future, or even acknowledge that it is desirable. Justification and peace of mind was necessary when nothing could be done - but that is no longer the case. Precisely because aging is universal, viewed as inevitable, "natural," and "fair" because it happens after a relatively extended period of time, we don't see the sense of urgency or injustice that fueled the successful campaign to make AIDS a research priority in the 1980s. To make it work, more of us are going to have to stop avoiding the issue and stare unblinkingly at the horror of aging. We must accept that aging is simply a medical condition, subject to research and treatment, and realize the magnitude of the moral obligation and personal stake resting in putting an end to biological aging. To join The Three Hundred - named for a heroic force of 300 Spartan warriors who held back the invading Persian hordes at the narrow pass of Thermopylae, buying the Greeks time to mobilize an effective defense - is to commit to a donation of US$1000 per year for the next 25 years. The donations of the The Three Hundred will help build up the M Prize into an effort mighty enough to mobilize the scientific community into action for a concerted, all-out campaign to defeat aging and age-related disease. The need is great for people to sign on to The Three Hundred - I have now answered the call. As you consider whether you, too, will step forward and make the financial commitment needed to fuel this critical change in the direction of aging research, bear several things in mind. First, remember "you can't take it with you." You may think that you have an unusually well controlled case of aging, but it's still a terminal, degenerative disease. Even the best available treatment (calorie restriction) has some risky side effects associated with it. If a cure is not found, your fate will be sealed in a few short decades. Second, this is a crucial time to contribute to the M Prize, as is begins to garner serious attention from the media and scientific community. You can help show the world that people are serious in the fight to cure aging! Third, for every day of delay in the march towards a cure for aging, tens of thousands of people - men and women; parents, brothers, wives - will die. This is the daily body count resulting from biological aging. Can we really afford to wait? We need an intervention that will fundamentally arrest, or reverse, the biological decay that creeps into our every cell with each passing year. Too few people are pushing this agenda. We - the healthy life extension community - must to put our hands upon the wheel. If not us, who else, after all? We must wake up to the reality of an epidemic in slow motion: a medical condition rendered paradoxically invisible by its very ubiquity is slowly debilitating and killing us all. We should write to our politicians and legislators to and demand they stop interfering with science and start working to support cures. Relevant resources for those ready to do battle with their pens and at the ballot box can be found here: http://www.longevitymeme.com/topics/activism.cfm We must also realize that if we don't invest what we can to fight aging, this slow degeneration will take it all them us anyway. What value has money if our loved ones are dying in front of our eyes? What is the value of a dollar when wallets are emptied by the cost of fighting age-related disease as our bodies fall apart? What use are coins and notes when we have been trapped in the final stages of Alzheimer's? He who dies with the most toys is still dead - and likely received little pleasure from his toys in the gloomy final years of age-related illness and decay. The success of the M Prize is not guaranteed - but as nearly as I can see, it is the only currently available way to make effective use of our resources to bring an end to the Gray Holocaust and commence an endless summer of healthy vitality. Time is growing short: we don't have many years or many chances to defeat aging. Sign up at http://www.mprize.org . Give what you can. Your youth, your health, your life, your loved ones, and the future of humanity are riding on it. 1. de Grey AD, Campbell FC, Dokal I, Fairbairn LJ, Graham GJ, Jahoda CA, Porterg AC. Total deletion of in vivo telomere elongation capacity: an ambitious but possibly ultimate cure for all age-related human cancers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:147-70. Review. PMID: 15247008 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2. de Grey AD. An engineer's approach to the development of real anti-aging medicine. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ. 2003 Jan 8;2003(1):VP1. Review. PMID: 12844502 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/focusPP.pdf 3. de Grey AD. Challenging but essential targets for genuine anti-ageing drugs. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2003 Feb;7(1):1-5. PMID: 12556198 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/manu21.pdf 4. de Grey AD, Ames BN, Andersen JK, Bartke A, Campisi J, Heward CB, McCarter RJ, Stock G. Time to talk SENS: critiquing the immutability of human aging. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 Apr;959:452-62; discussion 463-5. PMID: 11976218 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/manu12.pdf 5. http://www.speculist.com/archives/000056.html (This is also pretty good: http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/printarticle.cfm?article_id=15) 6. Khan SM, Bennett JP Jr. Development of mitochondrial gene replacement therapy. J Bioenerg Biomembr. 2004 Aug;36(4):387-93. PMID: 15377877 [PubMed - in process] 7. Gonzalez-Halphen D, Funes S, Perez-Martinez X, Reyes-Prieto A, Claros MG, Davidson E, King MP. Genetic correction of mitochondrial diseases: using the natural migration of mitochondrial genes to the nucleus in chlorophyte algae as a model system. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:232-9. Review. PMID: 15247021 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 8. Bendiske J, Bahr BA. Lysosomal activation is a compensatory response against protein accumulation and associated synaptopathogenesis--an approach for slowing Alzheimer disease? J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003 May;62(5):451-63. PMID: 12769185 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 9. Du H, Schiavi S, Wan N, Levine M, Witte DP, Grabowski GA. Reduction of atherosclerotic plaques by lysosomal acid lipase supplementation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 Jan;24(1):147-54. Epub 2003 Nov 13. PMID: 14615393 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 10. Kass DA, Shapiro EP, Kawaguchi M, Capriotti AR, Scuteri A, deGroof RC, Lakatta EG. Improved arterial compliance by a novel advanced glycation end-product crosslink breaker. Circulation. 2001 Sep 25;104(13):1464-70. PMID: 11571237 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 15 17:17:08 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:17:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scrooge as evidence of rationalism's failure In-Reply-To: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215111250.01a104a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:11 AM 12/15/2004 -0600, John Wright wrote: >Real skeptics do >not take conclusions as articles of faith. > >"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost. > >"I don't." said Scrooge. Interestingly, the Ghost was made up. Scrooge was made up. Charles Dickens invented them. (Indeed, IIRC, the Ghost was a dream *inside the made-up world of Scrooge*.) What a very peculiar argument this is. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 17:24:34 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:24:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scrooge as evidence of rationalism's failure In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215111250.01a104a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041215111250.01a104a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204121509245f3cc75@mail.gmail.com> Dickens did not invent them, they were already living in the Jungian collective subconscious mind. And Dickens, maybe he was/is/willbe a sim like the rest of us. G. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:17:08 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:11 AM 12/15/2004 -0600, John Wright wrote: > > >Real skeptics do > >not take conclusions as articles of faith. > > > >"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost. > > > >"I don't." said Scrooge. > > Interestingly, the Ghost was made up. Scrooge was made up. Charles Dickens > invented them. (Indeed, IIRC, the Ghost was a dream *inside the made-up > world of Scrooge*.) > > What a very peculiar argument this is. > > Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 17:36:49 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:36:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scrooge as evidence of rationalism's failure In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204121509245f3cc75@mail.gmail.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041215111250.01a104a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5204121509245f3cc75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41C07631.9040807@neopax.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >Dickens did not invent them, they were already living in the Jungian >collective subconscious mind. And Dickens, maybe he was/is/willbe a >sim like the rest of us. >G. > > > > I have started to think that I'm a sim of the real Dirk Bruere simply because there are very extensive (and growing) records of my thoughts and beliefs archived on Usenet! If that were true it would be quite a disappointment - I'm not even me:-( -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 18:07:28 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:07:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520412151007453155eb@mail.gmail.com> Well if we define nature as all that exists, then the supernatural does not exist. The validity of this statement has nothing to do with belief, only with grammar and logic. Or, as I prefer to think, nature includes supernatural in the sense that what science cannot explain today will someday be explained by tomorrow's science. Including things that we cannot even begin to imagine and can only define as supernatural at this moment. There are more things in Heaven and Earth... G. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:11:28 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes > >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural events, ergo > all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real skeptics do > not take conclusions as articles of faith. From jonkc at att.net Wed Dec 15 18:54:12 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:54:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> Wrote: >My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I >have only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest > and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? I have never had a supernatural experience but if I ever have that misfortune I intend to keep it to myself because yammering about it to others is pointless. It is one thing to have a mystical experience, it is quite another to listen so somebody else talk about theirs. Perhaps you really did discover an unexplored world and a new path for knowledge, or perhaps you are just the victim of a bad bit of beef and bad digestion, I have absolutely no way of knowing. Even you can't be certain if you had a real experience or a neurological accident, but at least you can make an educated guess, I can't even do that. I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If it's real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not amenable to the scientific method? John K Clark jonkc at att.net From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 19:09:54 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:09:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wiki update Message-ID: <20041215190954.39363.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Updated the above entry to reflect a more balanced view and links to the Proactionary Principle. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 19:24:56 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:24:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> John K Clark wrote: > I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural > experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; > If it's > real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not > amenable to the scientific method? > It is. That's why chemistry developed out of alchemy. As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From sjatkins at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 19:27:44 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:27:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <948b11e0412151127613a9630@mail.gmail.com> For the same reason that many of our subjective experiences can't be verified, yet. See, wasn't that really easy? As a matter of fact some research is being done and has been done as we get better tech for mapping what is going on in the brain. One study wired up monks, Tibetan Buddhists iirc, and monitored what changed when they went into reportedly higher levels of consciousness. I don't have the reference handy but it said some interesting things about what the attendant physical changes, causative or not, are for some states of consciousness. Using such things it would not be too difficult to actually show that a person had acheived a particular state. That is it would not be if either you had them wired up at the time or reported long term changes were present in their brains. Also, particularly in Eastern religions, there is a rather developed body of knowledge on states of consciousness and distinquishing such states by non-physical examination of experential evidence. - samantha On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:54:12 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > Wrote: > > >My question to my respected fellow atheists (if I may so call you, for I > >have only departed your company recently) is this: what does an honest > > and rational man do when he has a supernatural experience? > > I have never had a supernatural experience but if I ever have that > misfortune I intend to keep it to myself because yammering about it to > others is pointless. It is one thing to have a mystical experience, it is > quite another to listen so somebody else talk about theirs. Perhaps you > really did discover an unexplored world and a new path for knowledge, or > perhaps you are just the victim of a bad bit of beef and bad digestion, I > have absolutely no way of knowing. Even you can't be certain if you had a > real experience or a neurological accident, but at least you can make an > educated guess, I can't even do that. > > I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural > experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If > it's > real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not > amenable to the scientific method? > > John K Clark jonkc at att.net > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 15 19:51:13 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:51:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215134218.019d26b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. Granting this (as I do, to the horror of many extropes), there is no obvious link between that evidence and claims of the supernatural. Granting its validity for the sake of the discussion, psi evidence might suggest that, e.g., quantum entanglement *can* convey information under some circumstances, etc; what it doesn't do (unless a deity bafflingly likes to help willing subjects gain scores of 70%, at best, when 50% or 20% would be expected by chance) is manifest the activities of a divine designer/sustainer of our observable ontology. No more than lightning, however inexplicable at the time, proved the reality of a thundering storm god. Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 20:24:30 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:24:30 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215134218.019d26b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041215134218.019d26b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41C09D7E.5060708@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > >> As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. > > > Granting this (as I do, to the horror of many extropes), there is no > obvious link between that evidence and claims of the supernatural. > I tend to agree. However, I think it is likely there is a link between psi phenonena and altered states of consciousness. Problem is that no really new and interesting experiments are being done. For example, I'd like a PEAR-like machine to be coupled with people on LSD to see what happens. > Granting its validity for the sake of the discussion, psi evidence > might suggest that, e.g., quantum entanglement *can* convey > information under some circumstances, etc; what it doesn't do (unless > a deity bafflingly likes to help willing subjects gain scores of 70%, > at best, when 50% or 20% would be expected by chance) is manifest the > activities of a divine designer/sustainer of our observable ontology. > No more than lightning, however inexplicable at the time, proved the > reality of a thundering storm god. > Well, Thor is still around and still has followers (me, for example). -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From sjatkins at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 21:04:10 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:04:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <948b11e04121513042271556@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:11:28 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes > >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural events, ergo > all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real skeptics do > not take conclusions as articles of faith. This is a rather limited and surprising tack to pull out of a much richer conversation. BTW, please say precisely as you can what you do and do not mean by "supernatural". If you have read what I have written on this subject in particular I don't think you can dismiss me as taking any conclusions "as articles of faith". - s From john-c-wright at sff.net Wed Dec 15 21:04:40 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:04:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God Message-ID: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com> >I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural >experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If >it's real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not >amenable to the scientific method? The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our sense-impressions. --- Original Message --- From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" To: ExI chat list CC: john-c-wright at sff.net Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:38:21 -0600 Subject: Re: John Wright Finds God > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Is it "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming Experience of Meaning, > > Love, Truth, Power, Knowing? Why this over-the-top Experience but > > without filling in the thought and reason and questions fully? Why > > this occasional perfect spiritual storm but not solid understanding? > > Why would the Divine arrange things like this? Why have the purported > > Truth go gamboling among us to occasionally knock one of us who seek it > > or not flat on our ass? Why not share this awesome truth of the > > way-it-really-is across the spectrum with all human beings? Why this > > capricious hide-and-seek and cosmic peek-a-boo? > > > > This looks deeply suspicious to me. And yet please understand that I > > to this day feel like a lout to say so after the Depth of what I have > > experienced. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > I considered John Wright's dilemma, not quite in the form he posed. I > asked myself: "If I was overpowered by religious ecstasy, would my > rationality survive? Am I that strong?" I've previously considered > this question, in the form of wondering whether any conceivable > discipline could enable a trained rationalist to defeat schizophrenia. > Religious ecstasy is a lesser test. > > If my future self had an overpowering religious experience, one obvious > reaction of my future self might be, "Hm, I must be having a temporal > lobe mini-seizure." But that feels to me like cheating; what if I > hadn't studied neurology? I thought of arguments that my hypothetical > slightly more ignorant future self might consider: > > "When I was an atheist, I knew that people had deep religious > experiences, but I did not think it likely that the experience reflected > reality as the retina reports a flower. Now that I have had such an > experience myself, my best estimate of the underlying cause should not > change. I was content to be an atheist when I knew that other people > had religious brainstorms; should this change if one of the 'other > people' is myself? For they and I are both humans; the causal analysis > is the same in either case." > > "Far down the tale of science goes; from quarks to atoms to molecules, > from molecules to proteins to cells to humans, physics and evolution and > intelligence, all a single coherent story. To the best of all human > knowledge, since the beginning of time, not one unusual thing has ever > happened. A thousand generations have learned to their astonishment and > dismay that there are mysterious questions, but never mysterious > answers; that the universe runs on math, not heroic mythology. The > science that I know is too solid, the laws of rationality too strict, > the lessons driven home too many times, to be overturned so lightly." > > "Let us suppose that the experience is caused by something external to a > simple brain malfunction. Just because an entity is capable of inducing > an overpowering religious experience in me, does not make the entity > morally superior. I have seen people sell their souls for the price of > a book. God in the Bible kills and tortures anyone who won't worship > Him properly, or even innocent bystanders, such as Egyptian children > during the Ten Plagues. If we had pictures of such a thing, occurring > in any modern country, we would never forgive the perpetrators; we would > hold them in less esteem than Nazi Germany. Kindhearted rabbis read > tales of dead Egyptian children, killed to impress their parents with > God's might, and the rabbis somehow fail to take moral notice. Is there > no end to the human ability to ignore the failings of one's favored > political leaders? Killing children is wrong, period, end of > discussion. And yet all it takes to make people endorse a God that > commits torture-murder of children, is to hand them a book. People sell > their moralities so cheaply. They don't even demand that the book be > given to them directly by God. They sell their moralities and give over > their sense of judgment just because someone else handed them a book and > told them God wrote it. Even if God speaks to me directly, I should > demand *reasons* before handing over my moral judgment. I have studied > evolutionary biology. I know that there are forces in the universe > capable of producing complex plans and designs, yet utterly nonhumane. > If this "God" wishes me to do something, let It tell me Its reasons, and > see if I agree. As it stands, I have no reason whatever to believe that > God is good. I will not sell myself so cheaply, into bondage to who > knows What." > > And: "Why should some people have these experiences and not others? > Why jerk us around? Why work blatant, showy miracles in front of desert > nomads, for the explicit purpose of providing proof, and then > mysteriously change policies after the introduction of skeptical > thinking and video cameras? If I am told all these spiritual truths, > why not give me next week's winning lottery numbers, to help me convey > these truths to my friends? If I am given no solid proof because the > experience is meant to convince me personally, then, leaving aside the > unfairness, why not tell me ten digits of pi starting at the 1000th > decimal place? Why is it that not one factual assertion brought back > from the grip of religious ecstasy has been surprising, checkable, and > right?" > > I thought of these arguments, Samantha, and yet it occurred to me that > if I was caught in the grip of such a powerful religious experience, I > might not *want* to think them. And then I would be defeated without > ever getting a chance to draw my blade. Intelligence, to be useful, > must be used for a purpose other than defeating itself. I have trained > myself to be wary of knowing my desired conclusion before I begin to > think; explicitly emphasized the impossibility of asking a question > without being genuinely unsure of the answer. It ain't a real crisis of > faith unless it could go either way, as a wise man once said. > > Having a powerful religious experience isn't quite as bad as going > schizophrenic. The religious experience happens and then goes away and > you can think about it rationally. Schizophrenia is constant and > defeats the frontal lobes of reflectivity, destroying both emotional > balance and the ability to use reason to correct it. But I have > wondered whether my mental discipline and my explicit understanding of > rationality would be powerful enough for me to win through, either the > almost impossible test of schizophrenia, or the lesser test of religious > ecstasy. > > I now know that it is possible for a rationalist to cut through to the > correct answer even after suffering a religious ecstasy. For you won > through, Samantha, traveling from a wrong belief to the correct one, and > you even permitted (forced?) yourself to think of arguments like those > that occurred to me - me, sitting here easily at my desk, imagining a > hypothetical future and hoping I *wouldn't* be persuaded. > > Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 21:06:25 2004 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <470a3c520412151007453155eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520412151007453155eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948b11e041215130675bd7c9d@mail.gmail.com> Obviously such a definition of nature is not what those who speak of the "supernatural" have in mind. So it pays to ask. -s On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:07:28 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Well if we define nature as all that exists, then the supernatural > does not exist. The validity of this statement has nothing to do with > belief, only with grammar and logic. > Or, as I prefer to think, nature includes supernatural in the sense > that what science cannot explain today will someday be explained by > tomorrow's science. Including things that we cannot even begin to > imagine and can only define as supernatural at this moment. There are > more things in Heaven and Earth... > G. > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:11:28 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net > wrote: > > With no trace of irony, Mme. Yudkowsky writes > > >Samantha, you are an inspiration to rationalists. > > > > The argument that, since there are by definition no supernatural events, ergo > > all reports of supernatural events must be false, is circular. Real skeptics do > > not take conclusions as articles of faith. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 15 21:25:46 2004 From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:25:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and ArmchairCryonicists-hypothermic liferaft References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net><01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin><6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com><41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org><008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin><6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com><41BFFD7D.7020305@sasktel.net> <20041215104301.GT9221@leitl.org> <41C04275.4010203@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <01f301c4e2ec$a4e7a420$e41f4842@kevin> Just wanted everyone to know that I received my Popular Science magazine today and the helmet that cools the head is in there and should be available in the next few years. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Resuscitation: and ArmchairCryonicists-hypothermic liferaft United States Patent Application 20040097534 Kind Code A1 Choi, Byung-Kil ; et al. May 20, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Composition for the protection and regeneration of nerve cells containing berberine derivatives Abstract Disclosed is a composition for protecting nerve cells, promoting nerve cell growth and regenerating nerve cells comprising berberine, derivatives thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The composition has protective effects against apoptosis of neuronal stem cells and differentiated neuronal stem cells, an effect of inducing the regeneration of nerve cells, a regenerative effect on neurites, a neuroregenerative effect on central nerves and peripheral nerves, a reformation effect on neuromuscular junctions, and a protective effect against apoptosis of nerve cells and a neuroregenerative effect in animals suffering from dementia and brain ischemia. Therefore, the composition can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, ischemic nervous diseases or nerve injuries, and for the improvement of learning capability. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& [0150] Next, the head of the rat was fixed on a stereotaxic apparatus to operate on the occiput, and then the tail was fixed so that it descended downwardly at an angle of 30.degree.. After incising the occipital bone, an electrocauterizing needle having a diameter of 1 mm or less was inserted into the alar foramina positioned at lower part of the first cervical vertebra under the occipital bone. At this time, this approach must be carefully done so as not to damage the muscles in the alar foramina. Thereafter, the vertebral artery was electrically cauterized by intermittently applying current. After the complete electrocauterization of the vertebral artery was confirmed, suturing was carried out using operating clips. After 24 hours, the operating clips were removed. Finally, the common carotid arteries were occluded using the silicone tube rings for 10 minutes to induce ischemia. If light reflex did not disappear within 1 minute, the cervical portion was further tightly sutured. Rats which did not show the complete disappearance of light reflex were excluded from the experiment because they underwent no damage to the CA1 region. After 10 minutes, the common carotid arteries were loosened to reperfuse. For 20 minutes after the reperfusion, loss of consciousness was observed. At this time, only rats which showed consciousness loss period within 20.+-.5 minutes were selected for subsequent experiments. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 2) Experimental Results (1) Concentration of Berberine, Influence of Body Temperature and Ischemia Inducing Time [0157] The highest concentration of berberine was set to 300 .mu.g/0.1 kg, and 600 .mu.l (1 mg/ml) of berberine was intraperitoneally injected to white rats weighing 200 g. In order to determine an optimal ischemia induction time, 2.about.3 rats were selected and ischemia-induced over 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes, respectively. 1 week after reperfusion, they were sacrificed and their hippocampal tissue sections were obtained to observe the number of damaged nerve cells. 10 minutes after ischemia induction, damaged pyramidal cells in the hippocampal CA1 region were found to be reduced to 1/4 of their original numbers. The ischemia induction time of 10 minutes was determined to be most optimal for evaluating the effects of berberine. [0158] For statistically analyzing the effects of berberine, a sham operated group having undergone an operation in the same manner without ischemia induction was used. For comparing the effects of berberine, a control group administered with physiological saline at the same dose as berberine was used. Berberine was intraperitoneally injected into all experimental groups. [0159] It is well known that reduction in body temperature during ischemia induction prevents damage to nerve cells in the hippocampus and thus exhibits neuroprotective effects. Therefore, in order to evaluate the neuroprotective effect of berberine, after ischemia induction and reperfusion, the body temperature of all rats was maintained at a constant (37.+-.1.degree. C.) for 6 hours. (2) Observation of Damaged Nerve Cells [0160] When ischemia was induced by 4-VO and then reperfusion was performed, nerve cells in the neocortex, striatum, hippocampal CA1 region and cerebellum were damaged. Among them, pyramidal nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region were the most susceptible to the induced ischemia, and started to undergo cell death 72 hours after reperfusion. In order to observe delayed neuronal death in the hippocampal CA1 region, 1 week after reperfusion, the time when almost all nerve cells were damaged, white rats were sacrificed and tissue sections from the hippocampus were observed under an optical microscope. In a sham operated group having undergone no ischemia, normal hippocampal nerve cells were observed in the stratum pyramidale (490 .mu.m long)(see,A and B of FIG. 21). [0161] C and D of FIG. 21 as control groups show apoptosis. When cells are induced to undergo apoptosis by an external or an internal stimulus, they shrink to lose their original shapes. This shrinkage breaks the junctions with other adjacent cells so that the interaction between cells is disrupted. When the shrinkage proceeds to some extent, the cell membranes form apoptotic bodies like a bulla. In the hippocampal CA1 region of the control group administered with physiological saline (D of FIG. 21), it was observed that nerve cells underwent apoptotic morphological changes after ischemia induction. In addition, it was observed that tissues was relaxed and separated from adjacent cells, unlike B of FIG. 21. From these observations, it was confirmed that the cell bodies of nerve cells lost their original pyramidal shape and were condensed, thereby appearing to be single cells. Furthermore, it was confirmed that subsequent nuclear chromatin condensation and nuclear envelope collapse led to apoptosis of nerve cells. On the contrary, nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region administered with berberine were similar to normal cells in terms of their morphology (see, E and F of FIG. 21). At this time, because necrotic nerve cells around the CA1 region were very difficult to distinguish from microglias, only viable pyramidal nerve cells in the CA1 region were counted. In F of FIG. 21, separated cells were observed above and below the hippocampal region and cell bodies were condensed. This demonstrates that the damage to nerve cells was great enough to induce apoptosis. Nevertheless, it was observed that a great number of nerve cells were protected from apoptosis and their original pyramidal morphology was maintained. This suggests that berberine has a protective effect against damages to nerve cells in the hippocampal CA1 region induced by 4-VO. Although it was not confirmed what stage during apoptosis influences nerve cell survival, it was certain that berberine has a significant protective effect against apoptosis of nerve cells (see, E and F of FIG. 21). (3) Protective Effect of Berberine Against Damage to Nerve Cells [0162] In order to examine the neuroprotective effect of berberine after ischemia induction, berberine was intraperitoneally injected 0 and 90 minutes after ischemia induction. [0163] In the sham groups, the density of viable cells was measured to be 308.+-.6.6 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). In the control groups administered with physiological saline, the density of viable cells was measured to be 28.+-.3.8 cells/mm.sup.2 (at 37.degree. C.). There was cell loss in these two groups. On the other hand, in the experimental groups administered with berberine, the density of viable cells was measured to be 257.+-.9.6 cell/mm.sup.2. In conclusion, berberine was determined to have a significant neuroprotective effect (p<0.05). [0164] As described above, the composition according to the present invention regenerates axons and dendrites of nerve cells, thereby having a protective effect against nerve cell injuries, a positive effect on nerve cell growth and a regenerative effect on nerve cells. In addition, the composition according to the present invention can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases or nerve injuries, in particular, dementia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, palsy, ischemic brain diseases, trauma to the spinal cord and peripheral nerve injuries. [0165] Although the preferred embodiments of the present invention have been disclosed for illustrative purposes, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various modifications, additions and substitutions are possible, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as disclosed in the accompanying claims. * * * * * Aside from its carrier capacity DMSO was chosen for its ability to inhibit damage from a light freeze There are a number of complementary chemistries besides from the ones cited readily available. Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:01:49AM -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: The concept goes thusly: The liferaft = -sleeping /body bag like sack made so that no 2 arms or legs touch each other or body -zipper + ziplock seal - control/RFID biomonitor keypad with on outside -stage 1- evacuate liner to ensure good skin contact with sack -person put inside without outer clothes , shoes etc -put cooling hood or cap over all of head less face, face cover ziplock cover after body cooled off -start in 2 parts; activation of emergency cooling packs layer of sack to quick cool body; hood cooling cycle Useless. This gives you no advatage over an ice bath. co2 based for higher cooling rate More than useless. You can't go below 0 C, or you'll get freezing injury. -infusion of adjuvants may include: Caffeinol as neuroprotectant; berberine in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant; cannabidiol in DMSO solution as neuroprotectant -optional defib cycle to pump neuroprotectants into cooling body uniformly You have to maintain the circulation. Best do achieve this is life support. The adjuvants are designed to allow the brain to survive a longer cool-off time than the usual 3-5 minutes. Sorry, but your science is garbage. I'm being delibertely harsh here, because otherwise you won't get the message. as well as allow for easier re-start of body by hospital medical team -once body temp is near 32F optional external hookups to maintain cooled body during extended transport Once the working prototype is designed and tested , the actual mfg costs may be quite reasonable If you have to live in the sticks, you have to rely on people. No machinery is going to help. Morris Johnson Hara Ra wrote: For Eugen: Thanks for taking my point and clarifying it. If you read my sig file, I don't think I am an "Armchair cryonicist". Please correct me if you think so, and explain why. Of course I wasn't commenting on what you wrote, but on periodical resurgence of well-meaning-but-clueless armchair cryonicists. PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, which is an obscene bastard of equipment fully capable of major injury to both patient and rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer in the protocol, because Oh yeah, if the cup breaks off you'll get a massive metal rod puncturing the ribcage. basically all patients are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 is a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup with handles, to Not if you add neuroprotectants via IV push, and maintain artificial circulation. maintain circulation for the 3-5 minutes it takes to circulate the medicines (a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, clot busters and other stuff) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 21:24:19 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:24:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com> References: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41C0AB83.4070700@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >>I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural >>experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If >>it's real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not >>amenable to the scientific method? >> >> > >The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our >sense-impressions. > > > Slightly more than that. It is concerned with consensus reality. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 22:14:44 2004 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:14:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <948b11e041215130675bd7c9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520412151007453155eb@mail.gmail.com> <948b11e041215130675bd7c9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:25 -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Obviously such a definition of nature is not what those who speak of > the "supernatural" have in mind. So it pays to ask. > The big problem with admitting 'supernatural' into the system is that it doesn't know when to stop. If you open one door to let in the power of god or a spirit driving you to do something, then because the only evidence is your testimony, everyman and his dog can also testify to 'supernatural' events. And because the only evidence is their testimony, their 'supernatural' events have equal validity. See Occult, paranormal, psychics, etc. Humans have a great imagination and can conjure up gods and demons without end. Look up 'Supernatural' and start with - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws, not physical or material. e.g. supernatural forces or occurrences or beings. Now see where that leads: existing outside of or not in accordance with nature e.g. nonnatural, otherworldly, preternatural, transcendental. departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature, existing or extending beyond the physical world e.g. transmundane without material form or substance e.g. metaphysical departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature, being or having the character of a miracle e.g. miraculous, marvellous not explainable by scientific methods or on the basis of normal experience, esp. in the mental or psychic realm. e.g. paranormal attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) e.g. spiritual, spectral, ghostly, phantasmal, ghostlike, apparitional suggesting the operation of supernatural influences e.g. uncanny, unearthly, weird, eldritch possessing or believed to possess magic power e.g. talismanic possessing or using or characteristic of supernatural powers e.g. magic, magical, sorcerous, witching, wizard, wizardly being or having the character of witchcraft e.g. witchlike suggestive of an elf in strangeness and otherworldliness e.g. fey, elfin used in the art of conjuring up the dead e.g. necromantic Where will it all end? BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 22:15:41 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:15:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41C0AB83.4070700@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20041215221541.57325.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > > > >The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our > >sense-impressions. > > > Slightly more than that. > It is concerned with consensus reality. No, it isn't. Consensus is generally quite unscientific, irrational, and as much based on mythology, urban myth, agit-prop, and general fakery as the worst relgions. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 22:23:50 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:23:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <20041215221541.57325.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041215221541.57325.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41C0B976.1060206@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >> >> >>>The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our >>>sense-impressions. >>> >>> >>> >>Slightly more than that. >>It is concerned with consensus reality. >> >> > >No, it isn't. Consensus is generally quite unscientific, irrational, >and as much based on mythology, urban myth, agit-prop, and general >fakery as the worst relgions. > > > So it's not based upon a reality people can agree upon. Fine. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Dec 15 22:24:59 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:24:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: References: <200412151511.iBFFBX026046@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520412151007453155eb@mail.gmail.com> <948b11e041215130675bd7c9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41C0B9BB.20008@neopax.com> BillK wrote: >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:25 -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>Obviously such a definition of nature is not what those who speak of >>the "supernatural" have in mind. So it pays to ask. >> >> >> > >The big problem with admitting 'supernatural' into the system is that >it doesn't know when to stop. If you open one door to let in the power >of god or a spirit driving you to do something, then because the only >evidence is your testimony, everyman and his dog can also testify to >'supernatural' events. And because the only evidence is their >testimony, their 'supernatural' events have equal validity. See >Occult, paranormal, psychics, etc. Humans have a great imagination and >can conjure up gods and demons without end. > >Look up 'Supernatural' and start with - >not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural >laws, not physical or material. e.g. supernatural forces or >occurrences or beings. > >Now see where that leads: > >existing outside of or not in accordance with nature > e.g. nonnatural, otherworldly, preternatural, transcendental. > >departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to >transcend the laws of nature, existing or extending beyond the >physical world > e.g. transmundane > >without material form or substance > e.g. metaphysical > >departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to >transcend the laws of nature, being or having the character of a >miracle > e.g. miraculous, marvellous > >not explainable by scientific methods or on the basis of normal >experience, esp. in the mental or psychic realm. > e.g. paranormal > >attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) > e.g. spiritual, spectral, ghostly, phantasmal, ghostlike, apparitional > >suggesting the operation of supernatural influences > e.g. uncanny, unearthly, weird, eldritch > >possessing or believed to possess magic power > e.g. talismanic > >possessing or using or characteristic of supernatural powers > e.g. magic, magical, sorcerous, witching, wizard, wizardly > >being or having the character of witchcraft > e.g. witchlike > >suggestive of an elf in strangeness and otherworldliness > e.g. fey, elfin > >used in the art of conjuring up the dead > e.g. necromantic > >Where will it all end? > > > http://www.neopax.com/asatru/spirit/index.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From riel at surriel.com Thu Dec 16 02:31:21 2004 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:31:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: The China Flu In-Reply-To: References: <20041214162728.91705.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, BillK wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:27:28 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Is there any better demonstration of why nationalized ANYTHING is a bad > > idea? Looks to be like China will become the Love Canal of spam, at > > Mike is just miffed that free enterprise spam from the US has been > knocked off the top spot. Up until now the US has been the main source > spewing spam to the world. Still is. AFAICS the majority of the spam that's sent via China, or advertising websites on chinese servers, is sent by US spammers. Rik -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From ned_lt at yahoo.com Thu Dec 16 02:41:55 2004 From: ned_lt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:41:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] armchair cryonicists? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041216024155.61979.qmail@web61302.mail.yahoo.com> I am not familiar with the latest in-crowd expressions and buzzwords. Would you please enlighten as to a more specific meaning of 'armchair cryonicist? Would that, in the venacular of some of you, indicate someone who is interested in cryonics but does not spend funds on being suspended, or does not donate to cryonics organisations? >armchair cryonicists. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 16 05:01:13 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:01:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Babylon Sisters and Other Posthumans: Paul Di Filippo Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215225956.01b64ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I haven't read this; it looks inneresting: http://www.wildsidepress.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WP1&Product_Code=1894815815&Category_Code=difilippo1 the blurb there reads thus: Paul Di Filippo is one of Science Fiction's finest short story writers, wild, witty, exuberantly imaginative; BABYLON SISTERS AND OTHER POSTHUMANS is a generous showcase of his strange, transformative, and powerful Hard SF visions. The fourteen stories collected here are glimpses into the most fantastic possibilities of human evolution ? biological, social, and cultural. From a New York split into warring walled enclaves, to the destiny of our species as a strain of virus, to an Africa made over by nanotech messiahs, to a future Earth protected by half-alien angels, to wars of liberation from what we have always so tragically been: these are only some of the awe-inspiring transitions to be found in Babylon Sisters. Read here of rebellion by books against their librarian, of cosmic destiny remade by stellar lunatics, of disorienting ventures beyond the boundaries of the human; discover here the perverse and terrible dangers of the age of posthumanity. From harara at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 16 05:29:53 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:29:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041215211215.0297fd78@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> 1. I want to make it clear that any opinions I post to this list are strictly personal. Though my sig file has my Alcor affiliations stated, I am NOT IN ANY CASE REPRESENTING ALCOR or any other organization when I make posts to this list. 2. Due to a communications mishap which I am not at liberty to discuss, I became misinformed concerning Alcor's protocols concerning cardiopulmonary support. Please see these pages: http://www.alcor.org/procedures.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CardiopulmonarySupport.html 3. If anyone calls me an "armchair cryonicist" I will call them an "Armchair Extropian" and probably will be banned from the list... 4. Alcor is dedicated to providing the very best technological support for suspensions. I formally withdraw the statement I made below, for it is in error. My sincere apologies to all involved. ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR >PS We currently do no longer use the Thumper, >which is an obscene bastard of equipment fully >capable of major injury to both patient and >rescue team. Respiratory support is no longer >in the protocol, because basically all patients >are over the 4 minute limit, and restoring O2 is >a bad idea. We use an Ambi product, a suction cup >with handles, to maintain circulation for the 3-5 >minutes it takes to circulate the medicines >(a proprietary cocktail of anticoaguants, >clot busters and other stuff) ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu Dec 16 07:46:26 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:46:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] on being old In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041215211215.0297fd78@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://thecorpse.blogspot.com/2004/12/somehow-without-knowledge-of-future.ht ml Reason Founder, Longevity Meme -------------------- Somehow, without the knowledge of a future Pete, I managed to obtain this brief interview with myself at the age of 75. Actually, Pete might know about it, but since he's busy living his mid-21st century life, he probably just didn't get around to letting us in the present in on the discovery. The interviewer isn't mentioned by name, so I've designated him "I" for simplicity's sake. Here goes. -- I: So, Dave, how's life? Dave: Man, I'm tired. Being old is an ass-kicker, and I reckon I've still got another seventy-five years or so before I call it a day. Damn. I: Seventy-five? I know life extension's come a long way, but that's still pretty impressive. Do you foresee the current generation living to 200 or longer? Dave: This has nothing to do with life extension, and I stopped paying attention to what's going on with younger folks after some little shit sent me a bomb back in '36. He apparently wasn't too happy that I wasn't writing very much, so he sent me a Hickory Farms Christmas box filled with black powder, nails, and broken glass. I: You're kidding. How did you survive that? Dave: Because the kid forgot to put a fuse in with the explosives. I: Wow. I guess having your life threatened by your audience might potentially make you turn your back on them. Dave: No, it was the kid's stupidity. I'm ashamed that this kid, who enclosed a note saying how much he liked my first novel, forgot something as basic as the fucking fuse. Even when I was young- in my twenties, say- I didn't hold out a lot of hope for folks younger than myself. After that shitty bomb, I just gave up on them completely, just like I gave up on politics, coffee shops, and every post-mp3/DVD audio format. I: So what are you doing these days? Still writing? Dave: Still dabbling is more like it. I still read a lot. Drink beer. Cruise around in the Judge or the six-five. I collect turntables too. I: Turntables? Dave: Come on, you know what a turntable is. I don't collect them for any reason other than to cannibalize them for parts, though. The only things I collect, so to speak, are spent shell casings, empty beer cans, and the occasional royalty check from my writing. I: Wait, shell casings? I know you still drink beer- Dave: Yeah, those liver filters are the best things that ever happened to me. Well, and the cancer pseudo-vaccine. I: But what about the shell casings? Do you own a gun? Dave: I'm not answering that, for obvious legal reasons. But yeah, I've got about 100,000 spent shell casings. 7.62x39. I'm hoping to find someone who will eventually fuse them all together to build my coffin, and maybe my headstone as well. Want a beer? I: No thanks. Dave: Your loss, dude. I: I'm curious as to your opinion of- Dave: Come on, dude, I'm not that interested in offering my opinion to strangers. You should know that, if you've followed my life and career at all. I: All right. That sounds kind of cynical, though. Dave: Maybe it is. Or maybe you could just call me Johannes de Silentio. Or just more interested in takin' it easy and sitting on the porch. I: So you're still an advocate of idleness? Dave: Did you expect me to have an epiphany and start busting my ass? I: No, but you have a family, and- Dave: Christ on a crutch, who the hell chose you to do this interview? Of course I've got a family, but I'm seventy-fucking-five years old, and the kids have been taking care of themselves for years. Ask me a decent question, please. I: Sorry. Okay. Are you happy? Dave: I reckon I am. I don't have to do much except kick back, drink beer, read, and think a lot, so I've pretty much achieved my life's goals. I: Those don't seem like very... complex goals. Dave: I dare you to quit your job and fuck off for the rest of your life. I bet you couldn't handle it. I've got a question for you, son. I: Um, okay. Dave: Why is asking old fucks like me questions any more complex or fulfilling than trying to answer questions about your own life? Don't get me wrong, I like a good interview or novel or essay as much as the next guy, if not more, but really, wouldn't you rather take some time and engage in a little introspection? I: Well, yes, but- Dave: But you're too busy trying to build a career and leave a legacy. Fuck it, dude. I don't feel like giving a lecture right now. I: Okay. Dave: You ever seen a GTO? I: What's that? Dave: I knew that's what you'd say. You into cars? I: Uh, not really. Dave: Me neither, but the 1970 GTO Judge is the finest car ever made. Before you ask, yes, it runs on gasoline, not hydrogen. I: I thought they outlawed those. Dave: Maybe where you're from, but not in Texas. They've still got the old twentieth-century oil economy mindset. Anyway, fuck this interview. You wanna go cruise? I: Sure. Can I bring the recorder along? Dave: Why not? Let me get my cigarettes and a CD. Yes, I still have a CD player. I'm seventy-fuckin'-five, and I'm not gonna shell out for anything newer, especially since nobody could install a new system in the Judge without fuckin' it up. Come on, dude, let's hit it. -- Looks like being old will kick ass. From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 16 08:29:12 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:29:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] armchair cryonicists? In-Reply-To: <20041216024155.61979.qmail@web61302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041216024155.61979.qmail@web61302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041216082911.GS9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 06:41:55PM -0800, Ned Late wrote: > I am not familiar with the latest in-crowd expressions and buzzwords. -1, troll. http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics9106.txt http://www.google.com/search?q=armchair&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official > Would you please enlighten as to a more specific meaning of 'armchair > cryonicist? Would that, in the venacular of some of you, indicate someone -1, troll. > who is interested in cryonics but does not spend funds on being suspended, > or does not donate to cryonics organisations? No. Armchair cryonicists are (usually well-meaning, and very energetic) people with little or no understanding of medicine and cryobiology, yet full of great ideas. <-- been there, done that. The more obnoxious of them actively resist listening to anything which might burst their bubble. > >armchair cryonicists. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 10:34:16 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:34:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC "If..." on cloning, violence and drug legalisation Message-ID: <470a3c520412160234241c40a3@mail.gmail.com> Solutions to problems which have been with us for decades - or are unique to the new millennium. Sometimes the pace of change can be mind-boggling. To keep up we have to respond quickly. The second series of IF begins on Thursday, 16 December, 2004, on BBC Two. This second series of IF aims to involve you in the options that lie ahead for you, and for your children. The future, of course, is not here. So IF tries to bring that to life through drama. We imagine how the world might be in 10 or 15 years' time. But before we can begin we need information and opinion. We spend weeks reading, talking to experts and compiling briefing documents before we tackle the drama. The first film If... Cloning Could Cure Us explores the potential of cloning and stem cell therapy. To give this courtroom drama real substance and moral complexity, we approached our research on several fronts: scientific, ethical, legal and political. The second film, If... We Could Stop The Violence, might seem like wishful thinking. But it reflects the views of cutting edge scientists who believe that the propensity for violent crime is genetic. The third film If... Drugs Were Legal examines the existing problems with drug prohibition and hears the arguments in favour of legalisation. Feedback from viewers and interested citizens is encouraged: in Embryonic stem cell therapy: have your say, you can post your opinion on "Does this type of research and potential treatment herald a medical revolution, which will save countless lives? Or is it just one step too far in an ethical minefield?". Thoughts and opinions on the issues raised by the programme will be published on the BBC site. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/default.stm From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 16 10:43:22 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:43:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resuscitation: and Armchair Cryonicists In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041215211215.0297fd78@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <41BDA886.6080509@sasktel.net> <01c401c4e141$e056b840$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041213193455.029140f0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <41BE6786.2070009@sasktel.net> <20041214094246.GT9221@leitl.org> <008a01c4e200$8c5fc320$c3ebfb44@kevin> <6.0.3.0.1.20041214115324.02939340@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20041215211215.0297fd78@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041216104322.GX9221@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:29:53PM -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > 3. If anyone calls me an "armchair cryonicist" I will call them an > "Armchair Extropian" and probably will be banned from the list... Hara, no one called you an armchair cryonicist. (Me least of all people, you probably don't recall me talking with you at Extro 4). I was commenting on other people's harebrained schemes, periodically floated here. (I already said this, both to you via private mail, and the list, but a repetition doesn't hurt). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 11:27:45 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:27:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What's Next for Google Message-ID: <470a3c5204121603271caf0f93@mail.gmail.com> Running the Web's best search engine isn't enough: Google wants to organize all digital information. That means war with Microsoft. Read this very good article on possible Google futures on Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/issue/ferguson0105.asp?trk=top From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Dec 16 16:34:16 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:34:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Asimo learns to run Message-ID: <20041216163416.47030.qmail@web41313.mail.yahoo.com> Check the new Toyota i-units in the Performance Show for Expo 2005: http://expo.toyota-g.com/index_en.html And Asimo learning to run: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4098201.stm Humanoid robot learns how to run Asimo is now taller, fatter and faster Car-maker Honda's humanoid robot Asimo has just got faster and smarter. The Japanese firm is a leader in developing two-legged robots and the new, improved Asimo (Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility) can now run, find his way around obstacles as well as interact with people. Eventually Asimo could find gainful employment in homes and offices. "The aim is to develop a robot that can help people in their daily lives," said a Honda spokesman. Jogging along To get the robot running for the first time was not an easy process as it involved Asimo making an accurate leap and absorbing the impact of landing without slipping or spinning. The "run" he is now capable of is perhaps not quite up to Olympic star Kelly Holmes' standard. At 3km/h, it is closer to a leisurely jog. Its makers claim that it is almost four times as fast as Sony's Qrio, which became the first robot to run last year. The criteria for running robots is defined by engineers as having both feet off the ground between strides. Asimo has improved in other ways too, increasing his walking speed, from 1.6km/h to 2.5km, growing 10cm to 130cm and putting on 2kg in weight. While he may not quite be ready for yoga, he does have more freedom of movement, being able to twist his hips and bend his wrists, thumbs and neck. Wowing audiences WHAT ASIMO CAN DO Recognise moving objects Follow movements Greet people Recognise and respond to 50 different Japanese phrases Come when beckoned Walk up and down stairs Asimo has already made his mark on the international robot scene and in November was inducted into the Robot Hall of Fame. He has wowed audiences around the world with his ability to walk upstairs, recognise faces and come when beckoned. In August 2003 he even attended a state dinner in the Czech Republic, travelling with the Japanese prime minister as a goodwill envoy. He is one of a handful of robots used by tech firms to trumpet their technological advances. Technology developed for Asimo could be used in the automobile industry as electronics increasingly take over from mechanics in car design. For the moment Asimo's biggest role is an entertainer and the audience gathered to see his first public run greeted his slightly comical gait with amusement, according to reports. Robots can fulfil serious functions in society and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe predicts that the worldwide market for industrial robots will swell from 81,000 units in 2003 to 106,000 in 2007. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 17:47:22 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:47:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Comments on Annalee Newitz's Neofiles interview Message-ID: <470a3c520412160947464da9c8@mail.gmail.com> Annalee Newitz's Neofiles interview (http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=54) is very interesting as nearly everything written by Annalee Newitz and RU Sirius: here we have a clearly smart and progressive person who is raising her middle finger (see the first picture and read the text) against transhumanism. While the questions and comments of RU Sirius make good sense, Newitz makes some good points but is inconsistent on some others. Some comments: Annalee is assuming that radical life extension is either impossible or very, very far in the future ("it's not something that's likely to happen soon, and I'm not counting on it. Therefore, it's definitely not something I want to base my belief system around"). Here she is ignoring or not taking into account current research results which say that perhaps it is not going to be years, but probably it is going to be decades rather than centuries. So she is guilty of the same sin she accuses transhumanists of: "making a religion" of her firm opinions on things she does not know enough about. She writes very good things about the social side of infotech, but biotech is still more of a science than of a social phenomenon: one has to research the facts first. These days everyone "knows" what is a P2P network, not so for telomeres. She is seeing the world in black and white: you are either pursuing useless dreams of immortality, or "focusing on what needs to be done here and now to fix this shitty-ass planet". It does not cross her mind that you could be trying to do both things. I am definitely in favor of both quests and try to contribute to both. If I contribute more to one, someone else will contribute more to the other. Please save me from those who see only black and white children blocks, the real world is much more complex than that. "I'd rather make life better for people who live into their 70s. Curing death is only going to be cool when everybody is living a cool life". I know many people in their 70s and know that one thing that would make their life really cool is not having to think about being dead in a few years. Hope is one of those things that really make life better. But this is too much: she is in favor of gender reassignment but does not wish to see the analogy with life extension "Getting gender reassignment seems to me really different from life-extension, just in terms of ethics". She is not seeing what she does not want to see: that gender reassignment and life extension are exactly the same kind of thing - using tech (which unfortunately not everyone can afford) to repair nature's mistakes), and that in both cases demand and technical development will lower costs and make such reparations more and more affordable. From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 16 18:01:17 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:01:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God References: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <004601c4e399$509092d0$a6fe4d0c@hal2001> - > The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our > sense-impressions. If by "supernatural" you mean a person having an unusual, even bizarre, subjective experience then I have absolutely no difficulty believing you; but usually something like a burning bush is also involved and rapidly oxidizing vegetable matter is measurable. Whenever a famous person gets assassinated you can be certain that in the next few day dozens of people will come forward and say that they had a vision it would happen the night before; but for reasons not entirely clear they never bother to tell anyone about it until after the poor man was dead. Odd don't you think? "Dirk Bruere" > That's why chemistry developed out of alchemy. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, was an alchemist and there was nothing wrong with that; at the time there was no reason to think you couldn't turn lead into gold if you just used the right chemicals. Today we know better. > As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. The compelling evidence was not gathered using good scientific methods and the evidence that was gathered using good scientific methods is not compelling. Don't you think that's odd? If fortune tellers, psychic healers, and Taro card readers didn't have such stellar reputations for moral rectitude I might almost think fraud was involved . We could have had this exact same conversation 100 years ago and not change one word; in fact people back then did have such conversations, and in the next century despite huge advances in science and technology there is not one more bit of evidence that psi is real than there was back then. Do you find that odd? I find that odd. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 16 18:38:21 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:38:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <004601c4e399$509092d0$a6fe4d0c@hal2001> References: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com> <004601c4e399$509092d0$a6fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <41C1D61D.6090800@neopax.com> John K Clark wrote: > - > >> The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our >> sense-impressions. > > > If by "supernatural" you mean a person having an unusual, even bizarre, > subjective experience then I have absolutely no difficulty believing you; > but usually something like a burning bush is also involved and rapidly > oxidizing vegetable matter is measurable. > > Whenever a famous person gets assassinated you can be certain that in the > next few day dozens of people will come forward and say that they had a > vision it would happen the night before; but for reasons not entirely > clear > they never bother to tell anyone about it until after the poor man was > dead. > Odd don't you think? > > "Dirk Bruere" > >> That's why chemistry developed out of alchemy. > > > Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, was an alchemist and > there was nothing wrong with that; at the time there was no reason to > think > you couldn't turn lead into gold if you just used the right chemicals. > Today > we know better. > > > As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. > > The compelling evidence was not gathered using good scientific methods > and > the evidence that was gathered using good scientific methods is not > compelling. Don't you think that's odd? Like PEAR? Seems like people have been running in circles trying to convince professional 'sceptics'. If the evidence is good, the expt must be bad, and vice versa. > f fortune tellers, psychic healers, > and Taro card readers didn't have such stellar reputations for moral > rectitude I might almost think fraud was involved . > > We could have had this exact same conversation 100 years ago and not > change > one word; in fact people back then did have such conversations, and in > the > next century despite huge advances in science and technology there is not > one more bit of evidence that psi is real than there was back then. Do > you > find that odd? I find that odd. > > I don't find it any more odd than that the same conversations about the nature of qualia were taking place. It would seem likely that it's an aspect of Nature that is still beyond our science. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 16 19:56:27 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:56:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God Message-ID: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> Samantha Atkins writes: >This is a rather limited and surprising tack to pull out of a much >richer conversation. BTW, please say precisely as you can what you >do and do not mean by "supernatural". >If you have read what I have written on this subject in particular I >don't think you can dismiss me as taking any conclusions "as articles >of faith". She is correct to upbraid me, for my reply was less sober than so profound a topic requires, not to mention what courtesy requires. My apologies, for I meant not to sound dismissive. My intent, since I have already been too prolix on a topic where, honestly, I have nothing original to say, was to be brief; instead, it seems I was short with her. By supernatural, I mean what is meant in the ordinary sense of the world: whatever is not of the natural world. My belief is that the natural world stands to the supernatural as the mind to the body. No description of the body and its motions, no matter how accurate, is sufficient to describe the meaning which the mind puts upon it. As far as biologist is concerned, the determination of a man to do a certain act, which he sets in motion his body to do, is supernatural to the science of biology: it stands behind it, cannot be explained in terms of it, and informs it with meaning. If a man is hallucinating because he is drunk, there is a natural explanation for his visions; if he is seeing visions because he is visited by a Spirit, there is no natural explanation. From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Dec 16 20:03:17 2004 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:03:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God Message-ID: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> >>>I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural >>>experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If >>>it's real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not >>amenable to the scientific method? >>The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our >>sense-impressions. >Slightly more than that. >It is concerned with consensus reality. In my consensus reality, reality is objective, and admits of no consensus. Can we all agree that, in reality, reality is what it is, no matter what we agree? From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Thu Dec 16 20:08:31 2004 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:08:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill of Rights- Security Edition Message-ID: <20041216200552.M84329@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> http://www.securityedition.com/ What is the "Security Edition" ? The First Ten Amendments to the constitution of the United States printed on sturdy, pocket-sized, pieces of metal. The next time you travel by air, take the Security Edition of the Bill of Rights along with you. When asked to empty your pockets, proudly toss the Bill of Rights in the plastic bin. ------ (great idea! ) Amara From harara at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 16 20:14:56 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:14:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> References: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041216120454.0294aaf0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> The history of science finds more and more phenomena which were understood as supernatural to have ultimately scientific explanations, so same become natural. An example is ball lightning. It is no major specuation that hallucination coupled with strong stimulation of "this is centrally and ulitimately important" (probably a function of the RAS) would create experiences of the Numinous and Spiritual. The relative rarity and detailed differences between these events have prevented the usual scientific investigations, which require repeated examples to verify conjectures. The flip side of all this is my vision of the Spiritual Nano Store, with shelves like a health food store, with bottles labled things like "Angelic Ascencion", "Dante's Inferno, Level 3", "Pentetcostal Hallelujia", "The Quaker Ezperience" and so on. Inside is a small pill with a few nanites which enter your brain and run for a few hours. I want to clearly distinguish between my cynicism about the super natural nature of supernatuality and the valid and useful psycholgical value of same. BTDT, BTW. >By supernatural, I mean what is meant in the ordinary sense of the world: >whatever is not of the natural world. My belief is that the natural world >stands >to the supernatural as the mind to the body. No description of the body >and its >motions, no matter how accurate, is sufficient to describe the meaning >which the >mind puts upon it. As far as biologist is concerned, the determination of >a man >to do a certain act, which he sets in motion his body to do, is >supernatural to >the science of biology: it stands behind it, cannot be explained in terms >of it, >and informs it with meaning. If a man is hallucinating because he is drunk, >there is a natural explanation for his visions; if he is seeing visions >because >he is visited by a Spirit, there is no natural explanation. ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From harara at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 16 20:20:52 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:20:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> References: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041216121635.0294ad80@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Hardly. If "your reality" correlated with "my reality" gives a high score, we have communion. Repeat for all "other realities" and the subset giving the highest score can be denoted "consensus reality" Science is good at coming up with high scores in this department. > >It is concerned with consensus reality. > >In my consensus reality, reality is objective, and admits of no consensus. > >Can we all agree that, in reality, reality is what it is, no matter what >we agree? ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 16 20:31:40 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:31:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> References: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41C1F0AC.60106@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >>>>I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural >>>>experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been verified; If >>>>it's real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not >>>> >>>> >>>amenable to the scientific method? >>> >>> > > > >>>The scientific method is concerned with measureable aspects of our >>>sense-impressions. >>> >>> > > > >>Slightly more than that. >>It is concerned with consensus reality. >> >> > >In my consensus reality, reality is objective, and admits of no consensus. > >Can we all agree that, in reality, reality is what it is, no matter what we agree? > > > I cannot agree with that except as an act of faith. Maybe the universe, brains, neural structures etc are simply theories that Mind has come up with to explain itself. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Dec 16 20:33:56 2004 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:33:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> References: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41C1F134.9080202@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >She is correct to upbraid me, for my reply was less sober than so profound a >topic requires, not to mention what courtesy requires. My apologies, for I meant >not to sound dismissive. My intent, since I have already been too prolix on a >topic where, honestly, I have nothing original to say, was to be brief; instead, >it seems I was short with her. > >By supernatural, I mean what is meant in the ordinary sense of the world: >whatever is not of the natural world. My belief is that the natural world stands >to the supernatural as the mind to the body. No description of the body and its >motions, no matter how accurate, is sufficient to describe the meaning which the >mind puts upon it. As far as biologist is concerned, the determination of a man >to do a certain act, which he sets in motion his body to do, is supernatural to >the science of biology: it stands behind it, cannot be explained in terms of it, > > So it's the next level up of emergent phenomena >and informs it with meaning. If a man is hallucinating because he is drunk, >there is a natural explanation for his visions; if he is seeing visions because >he is visited by a Spirit, there is no natural explanation. > > Yet there is a huge grey area. I have taken LSD and things I have perceived when my consciousness expanded have been true and valuable insights. I have also perceived 'God' in this manner, although not as you have apparently done. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 16 21:07:24 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:07:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill of Rights- Security Edition In-Reply-To: <20041216200552.M84329@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <20041216210724.29746.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > http://www.securityedition.com/ > > What is the "Security Edition" ? > > The First Ten Amendments to the constitution of the > United States > printed on sturdy, pocket-sized, pieces of metal. > > The next time you travel by air, take the Security > Edition of the > Bill of Rights along with you. When asked to empty > your pockets, > proudly toss the Bill of Rights in the plastic bin. Cute. Except: > You need to get used to offering up the bill of > rights for inspection and government workers need to > get used to deciding if you'll be allowed to keep > the Bill of Rights with you when you travel. The "inspection" will be just seeing that it's a simple piece of metal, with total ignorance of the specific words engraved on it. You'll likely be allowed to keep those pieces of metal, but whether you'll be allowed to keep the rights they proclaim is a different story. Try offering them as a defense to any degree to a security officer, and that will likely only hasten your exit from the group of citizens allowed to fly on standard commercial aviation: if an officer's procedure and the guiding law that allows it come into conflict, usually the officer's procedure wins out, especially in the short term. Symbolic, and in practice possibly detrimental. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 16 21:40:04 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:40:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041216121635.0294ad80@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041216214004.14656.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> A high score is not a consensus. A 90% agreement on 'reality' leaves 10% outside of it. --- Hara Ra wrote: > Hardly. If "your reality" correlated with "my reality" gives a high > score, > we have communion. Repeat for all "other realities" and the subset > giving > the highest score can be denoted "consensus reality" Science is good > at > coming up with high scores in this department. > > > >It is concerned with consensus reality. > > > >In my consensus reality, reality is objective, and admits of no > consensus. > > > >Can we all agree that, in reality, reality is what it is, no matter > what > >we agree? > > ================================== > = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = > = harara at sbcglobal.net = > = Alcor North Cryomanagement = > = Alcor Advisor to Board = > = 831 429 8637 = > ================================== > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 16 21:41:21 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:41:21 +1100 Subject: Damien grants psi evidence (was Re: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God) References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041215134218.019d26b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c4e3b7$fbd66a70$b8232dcb@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: >>As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. > > Granting this (as I do, to the horror of many extropes), .... That's interesting. I'd normally rate your baloney filters pretty highly, so I wonder what experimental evidence of what psi phenomena you'd grant? Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 16 22:20:26 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:20:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Damien grants psi evidence In-Reply-To: <002201c4e3b7$fbd66a70$b8232dcb@homepc> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041215134218.019d26b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <002201c4e3b7$fbd66a70$b8232dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041216160438.01a13ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:41 AM 12/17/2004 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. >>Granting this (as I do, to the horror of many extropes), .... > >That's interesting. I'd normally rate your baloney filters pretty >highly, so I wonder what experimental evidence of what psi >phenomena you'd grant? The margins of this email are too narrow to give the full evidence. Look, e.g., at the material I've url'd in previous posts, from Professor Jessica Utts (and her skeptical foe Professor Ray Hyman) at http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/ perhaps starting with her stuff linked from: That assessed material is acknowledged not to be the strongest operational data derived from the Stargate program, which remains classified, so disagreements persist. Still, Utts makes a fair case for psi. A more adventurous glimpse (with lots of laffs) is Jim Schnabel's REMOTE VIEWERS. Research continues. I think I provided an url recently to an interesting protocol by Prof Suitbert Ertel, who claims to be getting robust, repeatable psi effects, using a haptic protocol, by screening his subjects in advance and concentrating thereafter on those who aced the screen; some will have done so by chance fluctuation, and hence will fall to chance subsequently; the `psi stars', it is supposed, will persist. (And obviously those screening data are not added back in as part of Ertel's evidential data, as skeptics will routinely surmise on the assumption that all lab parapsychologists are fools or rogues.) (And of course most professional astrologers, tea-readers and `psychics' *are* fools or rogues.) Damien Broderick From rafal at smigrodzki.org Fri Dec 17 00:52:39 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God References: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <008201c4e3d2$b7001610$7b88bc3f@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: > > By supernatural, I mean what is meant in the ordinary sense of the world: > whatever is not of the natural world. My belief is that the natural world > stands > to the supernatural as the mind to the body. No description of the body > and its > motions, no matter how accurate, is sufficient to describe the meaning > which the > mind puts upon it. As far as biologist is concerned, the determination of > a man > to do a certain act, which he sets in motion his body to do, is > supernatural to > the science of biology: it stands behind it, cannot be explained in terms > of it, > and informs it with meaning. If a man is hallucinating because he is > drunk, > there is a natural explanation for his visions; if he is seeing visions > because > he is visited by a Spirit, there is no natural explanation. > ### This is indeed quite interesting: You adduce an analogy between different levels of abstract, objective (or intersubjective) description levels of natural phenomena, and the physical vs. noumenal aspects of our existence. It is true that as far as a the ordinary biologist is concerned, many elements of human action are somewhat too complex to be accommodated by the conceptual framework of his theories: Yet, the evolutionary biologist will explain the meaning of many such actions within the larger context of the world, and a cognitive psychologist armed with fMRI and other techniques will explain even more. The different magisteria of natural sciences, from particle physics to systems theory, are a unity, not a dichotomy or plurality: they overlap and provide specialized tools for explanation of the physical world at increasing levels of complexity. "Explanation" here is meant as formation of models, carried within our mind, or in other devices, models that reflect reality, like noumena reflecting aspects of the surrounding world. The ability of such models to predict the future forms the basis for differentiating between true and false ones, which again parallels the criteria we use to assess our noumena - the ones which result in incorrect predictions (e.g. delusions of grandeur and might stemming from cocaine abuse), are seen as inferior. Presumably, with increasing sophistication of the natural sciences, acting in the orderly progression from the simple to the complex, we will be able to explain (in the above meaning), every single action of a human being. The "mind" will be brought into the same light that dispelled the vis vitalis and provided the understanding of the body as a physical object and of the life a cell as a physical process. Predictive models of human action, to be correct, will need to encompass all influences impinging on this human, and all spirits (even the ones of a non-alcoholic nature) will be described as well. In this interpretation, your analogy would not hold: there is only one world, and all mysteries (but not values) are reducible to equations and formulas. For me, the "meaning" or importance of the world is noumenal - an equation bereft of desire, the ineffable quality that seems to appear whenever information is being processed in certain ways inside brains, has no ethical subjectship. Thus, I concur with you that there is a dichotomy to the world, between objects that merely are, and the ones that feel - but the difference in one of attitude, not substance. Perhaps one might find a way of directly assessing the presence of noumena in a physical object. Perhaps it might be possible to build a device perfectly reproducing all the functions of a particular human brain, including a meaningful engagement in the debate about the meaning of life, or writing poetry, yet demonstrably devoid of the noumena of desire - in that case my attitude towards that physical object would greatly differ from my attitudes towards a fellow sentient. But then, maybe it's impossible to divorce some ways of processing information from their noumenal aspect, my knowledge of these matters is insufficient to opine with confidence. The noumenal world would be in either case "natural" in the sense of being subject to manipulation and prediction, and by itself this would not have any ethical (valuation-related) implications - the main ethical issue would still remain the presence or absence of desire. So, perhaps my views could be described as metaphysical and epistemological monism (one, all-encompassing, physical/mathematical, principally knowable world) combined with an ethical dualism (value as a noumenal entity, ultimately produced by, if not necessarily reducible to, physical processes), while you appear to be seeking justifications stemming from a more strictly dualist philosophy (a natural vs. supernatural world, with the unknowable, spiritual world imbuing the physical with value). This philosophical yearning for meaning is perhaps why your experience changed you, while, I suppose, I would brush off the Spirit without budging. Rafal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 17 01:19:10 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:19:10 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God References: <200412162003.iBGK3V009840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <006101c4e3d6$69539b90$b8232dcb@homepc> John Wright wrote: > Can we all agree that, in reality, reality is what it is, no matter what > we agree? I can. Brett Paatsch From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 17 05:28:07 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:28:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God References: <200412152104.iBFL4i019206@tick.javien.com><004601c4e399$509092d0$a6fe4d0c@hal2001> <41C1D61D.6090800@neopax.com> Message-ID: <00b801c4e3f9$6e0d1710$91ee4d0c@hal2001> Me: >> The compelling evidence was not gathered using good scientific methods >> and >> the evidence that was gathered using good scientific methods is not >> compelling. Dirk Bruere" > Like PEAR? Yes, exactly like PEAR. It must be embarrassing when even fellow parapsychologists, not exactly sticklers for good scientific method, can't stomach such shoddy experimental technique. I quote Hansen Utts Markwick from the "Journal" Parapsychology: "PEAR's methods made it easy to cheat. Without the use of randomly selected targets and adequate shielding of the agent from the percipient, it is virtually impossible to detect even simple trickery. [.] The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years." I do disagree with Mr. Markwick on one thing, I don't think you'd have to go back very many years to find equally poor ESP experiments, and yet again we find the less rigorous the experiment the stronger the ESP. Curious. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 17 05:36:26 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:36:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright Finds God In-Reply-To: <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> References: <200412131943.iBDJh5011123@tick.javien.com> <093101c4e2d7$81f4da10$61ff4d0c@hal2001> <41C08F88.5070900@neopax.com> Message-ID: <98001032-4FED-11D9-94EC-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > John K Clark wrote: > >> I do have one question for you, people have been claiming supernatural >> experiences for thousands of years but not one has ever been >> verified; If it's >> real why do you suppose this is the one area of knowledge that is not >> amenable to the scientific method? >> > It is. > That's why chemistry developed out of alchemy. > As for psi phenomena, there is plenty of experimental evidence. > Not that is really vetted generally though to the best of my knowledge. If anyone knows of well vetted research that proves ESP exists then please let me/us know. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 17 06:44:26 2004 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:44:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20041216120454.0294aaf0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20041216120454.0294aaf0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <17FDB0C4-4FF7-11D9-94EC-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Hara Ra wrote: > > The flip side of all this is my vision of the Spiritual Nano Store, > with shelves like a health food store, with bottles labled things like > "Angelic Ascencion", "Dante's Inferno, Level 3", "Pentetcostal > Hallelujia", "The Quaker Ezperience" and so on. Inside is a small pill > with a few nanites which enter your brain and run for a few hours. > Note to self: "Email in my next great idea before someone else beats me to it." I am restraining myself from yet another very extropic sci-fi explanation of God. - samantha From harara at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 17 08:10:24 2004 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:10:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God In-Reply-To: <17FDB0C4-4FF7-11D9-94EC-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> References: <200412161956.iBGJuW008546@tick.javien.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20041216120454.0294aaf0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <17FDB0C4-4FF7-11D9-94EC-000A95B1AFDE@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041217000933.02954b40@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> take my idea and run with it.... >>The flip side of all this is my vision of the Spiritual Nano Store, with >>shelves like a health food store, with bottles labled things like >>"Angelic Ascencion", "Dante's Inferno, Level 3", "Pentetcostal >>Hallelujia", "The Quaker Ezperience" and so on. Inside is a small pill >>with a few nanites which enter your brain and run for a few hours. > >Note to self: "Email in my next great idea before someone else beats me to >it." > >I am restraining myself from yet another very extropic sci-fi explanation >of God. > >- samantha ================================== = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = Alcor North Cryomanagement = = Alcor Advisor to Board = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:08:51 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:08:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The idea of technology enhancing performance everywhere will be normal Message-ID: <470a3c