From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jan  1 00:18:37 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <018b01c3cfed$7acd9cc0$a7994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312311559320.16128-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Damien Broderick wrote:

> From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:46 PM
>
> > the Schmirk (whose brain was "two sizes too small")
>
> >If the Schmirk is just an anonymous
> > character then the story reads as a good-natured satire; but when he is
> > based on a real person, it becomes a mean-spirited attack.
> >
> > Read it and see if I'm overreacting
>
> You're not over reacting.

I would disagree and I would cite the fact that I've been
to a few more nanotech conferences, both academic and business,
than Hal and Damien and have spoken directly with people
from the NSF to Bill Joy.  I've also read the ETC report
and a number of other luddite perspectives.  The points
about very popular views of MNT that Josh makes are by
no means confined to Smalley.  Smalley may have been one
of the first to speak out against MNT but there are
certainly other such as George Whitesides who is also
widely respected who have attacked the vision without
giving good solid reasons.

That is not good science and if one has to resort to
a little of creative license to get people to see past
their blinders and perhaps get others to consider that
they might be wrong then I'm all for it.  I'm not saying
that it will work -- but the "reasonable" efforts to
date by Eric, Ralph, Robert, etc. don't seem to have
worked very well.  When what you are doing doesn't work
it may be reasonable to try something different.  That
may not work either but as the old Chinese saying goes...
"If you do not change the direction in which you are
headed you are likely to end up where you are going".

And where we are now going is costing us 30-50 million
lives a year for each year MNT is delayed.  That puts
people who are responsible for the delays in a class
with Stalin, Hitler, Milosevic, Pot Pol, etc.

So Hal & Damien this goes back to the question recently
posed with respect to the promotion of transhumanism
and the technologies it may require -- what actions
are legitimate for Extropians/Transhumanists/etc
to engage in?  If we are only going to write SciFi
novels (I'm thinking (my paraphrasing) of I think
Charlie's recent comments about how this may spread
the ideas to people who may be more willing to accept
them) then we need to make a *strong* argument that
this is the best path or else we are as guilty as
Smalley and Whitesides and the NNTI directors & grant
review committees and many VC firms for slowing down
the development of MNT.  And we should acknowledge
the blood on our hands as well.

Robert




From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jan  1 00:23:14 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:23:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Spam
In-Reply-To: <066901c3cf51$10659820$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <000001c3cf3f$9bd6a2d0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<066901c3cf51$10659820$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20031231162314.6b393429.samantha@objectent.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:49:16 +1100
"Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Spike wrote:
> 
> > As a thought experiment, ignore the means and list those
> > who would have the motive to mess up the internet, or whose
> > lives may have been better off without it:
> > 
> > Bricks'n'mortar merchants
> > 

Why?  It is cheaper to put something on the web and sale it perhaps with drop shipment than run showroom floors.  

> > Anyone who sells primarily information, such as
> > Ministers

Many ministers are flocking to the net to reach a larger flock.

> > Publishers

Being found by search engines on the net perhaps with excerpts is darn cheap advertising.  There are ways to sale published information on the net with minimum risk of being ripped off.  And again, at lower costs.

Now some middlemen publishers do stand to be obsoleted by the net. 


> > Real estate professionals

Web ads are a boom to their business, so why would the care?

> > Teachers (some of them)

What for?  Any teacher interested in teaching would send her students all over the internet for educational purposes.  

> > Stock and investment advisers (why pay for that which is free?)
> 

Just because it is on the internet or accessible by the internet does not mean it is free or cannot successfully be charged for and collected. 

> > Others?
> 
> I've wondered about this too. What about government and major
> media outlets which are the means by which most people decide
> how to vote or perhaps even what to buy or ask their stock broker
> about.
> 

You have a reasonable point that those forces that wish to restrict information, knowledge and choice by the people will see the internet as a threat.  This means they will seek to manipulate matters so that they can control it.  Its destruction is no longer a remotely rational goal even for these forces as too much is built upon it.
  
> I'm pretty sure I read that there was an internet warfare section
> that was active in the Iraq war. *If* the internet was a potent source
> of non-manipulated media perhaps government (or agencies of it)
> would want to act in accordance with the national interest (or 
> rather how the national interest is perceived) by agencies - which
> might in fact by the interests of the government of the day.
>

Yes.  I think it not unlikely that the government will work hard to change the internet in such a way as to control it and to stifle many of its revolutionary potentials.  I believe this is a sufficient threat that some underground alternate networking infrastructure and methods should be designed and deployed. Our combined intelligence and influence depends on the means of communciation remaining open. 
 
I am not worried about spam destroying the net as we know it except and unless it is used by as yet another excuse for full[er] government control of the net down to the level of deep changes of the underlying code making free, open and/or anonymous internet resources extremely difficult to impossible.


- samantha



From jcorb at iol.ie  Thu Jan  1 00:38:12 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:38:12 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040101003315.03080040@pop.iol.ie>

Well, it's cold outside, the rain has stopped and the fireworks have died down.

But I'm sitting in the warmth sipping coke and chips n'dip.  Life is good, 
and I think during this year it'll get better.  Just think, there's things 
going to happen this year that just couldn't be done last year.  We're 
getting closer to where we want to be, Transhumanistically speaking.

So here's hoping that for all of you, 2004 will be a year that brings us 
all closer to peaceful times and the very, very long lives we've set our 
sights on.

Peace, warmth, love and good food to you all in 2004!



James...



From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jan  1 00:32:21 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312301354160.23039-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <20031230213639.65654.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0312301354160.23039-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20031231163221.7fa9cf47.samantha@objectent.com>

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:59:49 -0800 (PST)
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> > How do these compare?  Requiring marshals on planes
> > does not itself imply it is okay to trample on
> > anyone's rights just because of some factor that has a very
> > shaky, if any, correlation to terrorists.
> 
> Its a double edged sword and one that could cause endless
> debate that I'm not sure would be productive.  But a
> couple of things seem true -- it isn't clear *whose*
> laws in effect during international flights so it
> isn't clear whose rights you have -- (originating
> country, destination country, passport country,
> international or UN rules???).  Second though I
> think most passengers would be grateful to someone
> taking aggressive action towards someone who is
> perceived as dangerous -- there are significant
> risks to the plane, flight crew and passengers
> when firearms are involved.  We have all seen
> various hijacking films (real or fictional) and
> it isn't clear what the best strategies are.
> 

You only use highly frangible ammo on a plane.  The risk with proper ammo and training need be no greater than in any crowd scenario stopping a dangerous person. 

> The same is true for the Almanac checks -- but
> I'd be happy to explain why I had an Almanac if
> I thought it was going to stop even a single
> terrorist act.
> 

I will not be happy until I am free of unwanted harrassment by all government officials and agents.    The other choice leads to the eventual terrorization of the people by their own government.   How many honest, law-abiding citizens in the US do you think are to some degree leaving in anxiety to outright terror of their own government and its various agents?  How many live in fear of the IRS, BATF, DEA, FDA unreasonable lawsuits, draconian selectively enforced laws and so on?  Not one of us is safe by the hands, stated intentions, written policies and practices of our own government.  So why exactly do we believe giving them more power and giving away what shreds of rights remain to us will make us safer?

-s


From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jan  1 00:40:26 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:40:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <2C2FD451-3B18-11D8-B6F6-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312301354160.23039-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<2C2FD451-3B18-11D8-B6F6-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <20031231164026.2a6911bb.samantha@objectent.com>

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:33:21 +0000
Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org> wrote:

> 
> You bet. Which is why the latest news in the UK is that BALPA (the 
> British Air Line Pilots' Association) is telling their members that 
> they don't need to fly if they believe there's an armed stranger on 
> their flight.
> 
> BALPA's objection isn't merely to security -- airline pilots are not in 
> favour of hijackings! -- but they believe that sky marshalls will make 
> flights *less* safe. For one thing, a single sky marshall against a 
> group of hijackers may merely give them a free firearm. For another 
> thing, sky marshalls may accidentally wound or kill non-hijackers, or 
> damage the aircraft. They may be mistaken for hijackers by passengers 
> and *cause* security incidents -- if you realised the passenger in the 
> seat next to you had a concealed weapon, what would you do? And so on.
>

I would give a lot to have had an armed and trained person, marshall or civilian, on the planes involved in 9/11.   The dangers listed above are small relative to the actual tragedy that resulted at least in part from having no such person on board.  
 
> BALPA want attention focussed instead on heightening security checks 
> before passengers board the aircraft, and point to the poor quality of 
> many security staff as the biggest problem. Unfortunately it costs a 
> *LOT* more to have well-paid, professional, highly-trained airport 
> security staff than minimum wage drones plus one or two sky marshalls.
>

And what if they miss something?  Are the passengers and the potential direct and secondary victims on the ground to have no additional security?  How is this reasonable?   How does the cost of a trained security on planes compare to the staggering and still growing costs of a single incident like 9/11?

- samantha


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Jan  1 00:59:40 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Thu,  1 Jan 2004 01:59:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year
Message-ID: <5764479.1072918780961.JavaMail.www@wwinf3005>

On Wed Dec 31, 2003 05:38 pm J Corbally wrote:
> But I'm sitting in the warmth sipping coke and chips n'dip. Life is
> good, and I think during this year it'll get better. Just think,
> there's things going to happen this year that just couldn't be done
> last year. We're getting closer to where we want to be,
> Transhumanistically speaking.
>

Well, I'm leaning back in my comfy computer chair here in London,
sipping a glass of old French brandy, resting my feet on a convenient
serf and watching all the panic messages scroll up my screen.

We've got a bit of crisis here. Our cable provider, Blueyonder, has
collapsed in a heap nationwide and about half a million customers have
no digital TV. Email has gone, website is down and some people have lost
cable phone service. All the support staff are down the pub celebrating
the New Year of course, so it could be sometime before civilization
returns to normal.

Did somebody mention single point of failure?

Bit tricky this advanced technology lark.   ;)

All the best for 2004

BillK
Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save ?7.50 a month 
www.freeserve.com/anytime


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jan  1 01:10:36 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:10:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many worlds and Hugh Everett 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312292149480.4863-100000@server.aeiveos.com><015f01c3cedc$01a9ad50$6501a8c0@int.veeco.com><015c01c3ceea$1d1e4ce0$e3fe4d0c@hal2001><007a01c3ceee$42bb3810$d2256bd5@artemis><001901c3cf0f$743734e0$cbb71b97@administxl09yj>
	<028a01c3cf2a$a9cdaab0$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <000301c3d004$113c0aa0$f0c7fea9@scerir>

From: "Dirk Bruere"

> The point is though, that there are no (currently) testable QM theories
> that both make different predictions from standard QM and are not already
> falsified by experiment.

It seems (to me) a bit difficult to define what is "standard QM", sometimes
called "orthodox" QM. Perhaps there are many "standard QM". There are many
"schools" and many "standard" interpretations: Cambridge, Copenhagen,
Gottingen, Princeton, Zurich, etc. If you read Dirac's book you cannot even
find the term "wavefunction". But you can find that the photon only
interferes with itself (which is not in line with Born's postulate) and
never interferes with other photons (which was proved wrong, experimentally,
in the '60s). If you read von Neumann's book you find that
hidden variables are not allowed, in QM, in principle, something that was
falsified later by John Bell, whose philosophy (realism, Einstein's locality
principle) was then falsified by those experiments performed by A. Aspect.

But von Neumann wrote, perhaps for the first time, a detailed "theory of
quantum measurement", while Dirac avoided as much as he could the issue.
There are other problems with von Neumann's book, since some theorist found
that the definition of "tensor product", given in the book, might be
arbitrary, or worse, and his definition is crucial if one wishes to keep the
"peaceful coexistence" between QM and SR. If you read Bohr's papers you
find, few times, the expression "reduction of wave packets" or "reduction of
probability packets" but he did not speak of a "real" or, better, "physical"
collapse. The "collapse" is un-physical, according to Bohr, which means
"epistemological". Actually the "Copenhagen Interpretation" (so called after
Heisenberg, 1955) is essentially "epistemological".

What about the physical collapse, then? Well, you must read the papers by
Heisenberg and, maybe, the book of von Neumann, if you want to find
something like that. But then came the paper by EPR (1935, but Popper,
von Weizsaecker, and Einstein himself had, independently, the same idea
many years before). And this paper seems to have much to do with a "physical
collapse" which produces "spooky actions" at a distance. Only Bohr found
a consistent way out, based on his "complementarity principle" and his idea
of a non-physical (only epistemological) collapse. But Bohr's words were so
obscure, so deep, and a bit inaccurate, and then people did not realized who
really won that debate, if EPR + Schroedinger, or Bohr, or nobody. (You can
find below something that maybe represents in a more formal way what Bohr
had in mind. For clarity it is discussed the EPR in the Bohm version, that
is to say the EPR-B).

What does it mean all the above? That there is no "standard QM"? No, it just
means that there was no "standard interpretation of QM", since the
beginning. There is of course a general agreement on the fundamental
equations, and rules, and principles.

> The point is though, that there are no (currently) testable QM theories
> that both make different predictions from standard QM and are not already
> falsified by experiment.

There are theories that make different prediction (from standard
QM, and have been falsified by experiments. In example the de Broglie
double solution, in the Selleri-Croca version, which has been falsified
by experiments performed by Mandel, Wang, etc. Also Bohmian mechanics is
tested now and it seems to be wrong.

But if you ask if "standard QM" has been falsified, I would respond:
yes, more or less as Newtonian description has been falsified by SR.
There are theories ("weak measurement", i.e.) which predict what QM,
in the present formalism, cannot predict, and they have been positively
tested. They are radical "extensions" of QM, more than new theories.

We can also say that QM many times falsified itself, in a certain sense.
There was, around 1926-1927, the famous Bohr-Heisenberg debate about the
meaning of UP (uncertainty pr.) and the meaning of CP (complementarity).
Heisenberg was saying that UP has its roots in disturbances, during
measurements. Bohr was saying that UP is a part of CP, and no disturbance
was much involved, the essence of uncertainty was deeper, already present
in the formalism of the QM. Modern experiments ("quantum erasure",
"welcher weg" and distinguishability, etc.) have shown that Bohr was right.
Heisenberg's gamma ray microscope gedanken experiment is obsolete now.

(Btw, it was also shown that in the Bohr-Einstein
debate, Bohr himself introduced many times arguments,
which are completely wrong).

What about the uncertainty relation DE Dt > h which
Aharonov and Bohm proved to be completely false
(meaningless) in 1961? Also Dirac's uncertainty
relation D phase D N = 1 has been proved to be wrong.
And also the famous relation Dposition Dmomentum > h
has been proved to be meaningless in many specific
cases (when one observable is bounded and the other
non commuting observable is stationary, so to speak).

Even the general Robertson's uncertainty relation
for two observables A, B, has some problem since
it depends on the same wavefunction on both sides!
DA(psi) DB(psi) = 1/2 |<psi|[A,B]|psi>|

What about the "correspondence principle", one of the
basic points of the standard QM and the Copenhagen interpretation,
which is even difficult to find, in modern books,
and was proved to be wrong (by A.Leggett et al.)?

> Given the physical equivalence of the various interpretations does
> that mean quantum suicide experiments will have the same outcome?

I do not agree about that "physical equivalence", because theories
are different, and formalisms are, often, different too.

Imo, it is not easy to perform a *quantum* suicide, but, in case of
necessity ..., I would suggest a "weak" quantum suicide. In such a
strategy, the suicide is accomplished in several rounds. One sacrifices
knowledge of the system, on any given round, to avoid the
entanglement with the "device" and the ensuing "split" (or "collapse",
depending on the interpretation) of the wavefunction. This makes it
possible to contemplate (or self-contemplate) the behavior of the "system"
defined by preparation and by a later (hopefully lucky) post-selection,
without significant disturbance of the "system" in the intervening period.
Due to the many rounds strategy, and the weakness of the suicide
procedure, you could stop it as soon as you realize that the post-selection
state is not satisfactory. Or something like this :-)

s.

"What is much more likely is that the new way of seeing things will
involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems
that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded. In this it
is like all theories made by man. But to an unusual extent its ultimate
fate is apparent in its internal structure. It carries in itself the
seeds of its own destruction."
- John Bell
"The Moral Aspect of Quantum Mechanics" in Speakable and Unspeakable in
Quantum Mechanics,Cambridge University Press (1987).


---------------------------

EPR-B 'a la Bohr'

We can write the state of each entangled EPR-B sub-system (1 or 2)
of the composite system, as:
rho(1) = |1.up><1.up|+|1.down><1.down|
rho(2) = |2.up><2.up|+|2.down><2.down|
rho(1), rho(2) are the density matrices describing each sub-system.
The above is the more general definition, and it means
that sub-system.1 and sub-system.2 are "mixed states".

Look that rho(1) = trace(2) rho(1,2) and
rho(2) = trace(1) rho(1,2) where
rho(1,2) = density matrix of the composite EPR-B system =
=(|1.up>|2.down>-|1.down>|2.up>)(<1.up|<2.down|-<1.down|<2.up|)

Look also that for rho(1,2) the total angular momentum
operator has values = 0 for all spatial components,
since the two spins are (pre)correlated, and thay point to
opposite directions. Note also that this is not the case
of rho(1) and rho(2) because they are mixed states,
with no definite values for angular momentum components.

Suppose now that an appatratus.2 measures sub-system.2
(an observable of this sub-system.2). From the universality
of QM, also apparatus.2 will be a mixed state, with no
definite value, for the measured abservable. But since
sub-system.2 is correlated with sub-system.1, apparatus.2
will be also correlated with sub-system.1.

Thus when we read, on apparatus.2, that the observable
of sub-system.2 is "spin up" we know that the observable
of sub-system.1 is "spin down". But since we assumed that
sub-system.1 and sub-system.2 are space-like separated, no
physical interaction is possible. Hence when we read,
on apparatus.2, the value of the observable of sub-system.2,
we do not have any interaction with sub-system.1, which
rests in its mixed state. We can infer, though, the
value of the observable of sub-system.1, without interacting
with it. The above is a conditional inference, or a
conditional probability = 1.

The only possible effect is on "relationships" between sub-system.
Not between the physical states of sub-systems (rectius, between
apparata measuring sub-systems).

Look also that the relationship between sub-systems
(correlation) is pre-existent, it is not due to any
measurement.

If you want to check the (defined above) conditional inferences,
or conditional probabilities, you must measure
with apparatus.2 the sub-system.2 (say spin up) and
with apparatus.1 the sub.system.1 (say spin down) and
see if the measurements agree.

Since sub-system.1 and sub-system.2 (apparatus.1, apparatus.2)
are represented by mixed states there is no need to assume
any physical collapse between them. No collapse -> no interaction ->
no energy transfer -> no FTL 'informations' -> no FTL 'influences' ->
no spooky actions.







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  1 01:41:09 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20031231163221.7fa9cf47.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040101014109.92950.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> Not one of us
> is safe by the hands, stated intentions, written
> policies and practices of our own government.

Well..._maybe_ by the stated intentions, if those were
what actually got put into practice.  A large part of
the problem is that the new powers get abused in ways
not anticipated by the statements, but easily forseen
by students of history.  Whether or not the speakers
of said statements also forsee the abuses is not
provable; it is easy to imagine that they do, but it
seems more often the case that they don't, and turn a
deaf ear to any naysayers.  (In some cases, they so
vigorously tune out dissent that people think they're
doing it to justify the abuses.  I'm not exactly sure
what their real reason is - mere pride and arrogance
seem insufficient - but in my experience, deliberate
covering up is usually not it.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  1 01:56:00 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Spam
In-Reply-To: <20031231162314.6b393429.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040101015600.73326.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

Just a few examples...

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > Spike wrote:
> > > As a thought experiment, ignore the means and
> list those
> > > who would have the motive to mess up the
> internet, or whose
> > > lives may have been better off without it:
> > > 
> > > Bricks'n'mortar merchants
> 
> Why?  It is cheaper to put something on the web and
> sale it perhaps with drop shipment than run showroom
> floors.  

Yes, but to anyone who hasn't adopted those practices,
and refuses to for whatever reason (say, they falsely
believe that putting their inventory online means
it'll get stolen in a heartbeat by someone with a
fake credit card, or a hacker planting false orders
in their database; or, they simply haven't grokked the
Web yet), playing with the Web is not (yet) an option.

> > > Anyone who sells primarily information, such as
> > > Ministers
> 
> Many ministers are flocking to the net to reach a
> larger flock.

And many more decry the 'Net for allowing access to
"evil" viewpoints (read: anyone who disagrees with the
minister...although there are those online that most
people agree are evil too).

> > > Publishers
> 
> Being found by search engines on the net perhaps
> with excerpts is darn cheap advertising.  There are
> ways to sale published information on the net with
> minimum risk of being ripped off.  And again, at
> lower costs.

See the brick 'n' mortar example - but this has some
famous real examples: the RIAA and the MPAA.  Most of
us can probably imagine ways for them to sell securely
online, with minimal risk of being ripped off big
time.  But in practice, their efforts have been
minimal, hesitant, and lacking in content - and thus
far from the vast rewards they are otherwise promised.
But that does not seem to have caused their hardening
against the 'Net; the cause seems to be that, by
allowing so many advertising channels they can not
flood and dominate, the 'Net gives exposure to their
competition: indie bands that focus more on talent
than glitz.  Of course they'd prefer to shut down
their competition...

> > > Teachers (some of them)
> 
> What for?  Any teacher interested in teaching would
> send her students all over the internet for
> educational purposes.  

Emphasis: "interested in teaching".  Some teachers
see only the ability to download common essays and
"cheat" on learning things that were relevant in the
last century.  (Yes, it's a good thing to be able to
spellcheck your works manually.  But for big, long
essays, you'd better get in the habit of applying
your own effort and letting the computer help -
neither relying on your own efforts or the computer's
to the exclusion of the other, because neither one
will catch everything.)


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jan  1 03:15:41 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:15:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
In-Reply-To: <20031231162314.6b393429.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c3d015$89b90300$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Samantha Atkins

> > Spike wrote:
> > 
> > > As a thought experiment, ignore the means and list those
> > > who would have the motive to mess up the internet, or whose
> > > lives may have been better off without it:
> > > 
> > > Bricks'n'mortar merchants
> > > 
> 
> Why?  It is cheaper to put something on the web and sale it 
> perhaps with drop shipment than run showroom floors.

This falls under the category of those who do not use
the internet.  Much of merchandising is presentation.
If the masses come into your showroom, pick out some
merchandise, then go home and order it all off the
internet, your sales will suffer.  With the furniture
showroom example, the markup is huge, sometimes double
the price a warehouse can provide.  Right now car sales lots
are being somewhat protected by the few manufacturers,
but there are plenty of classes of merchandise which
are not so protected.

Consider consumer electronics: presentation costs are
low, so profit margins on things like stereos, TVs,
computers, MP3 players etc, are razor thin, often less
than 10%.  Samantha, our friends in Taxamento demand
7.8% of the sales price.  To the merchants, that must
sound like the state government saying: Sell all the
electronics you can, then hand over *all* the profit.

 
> > > Anyone who sells primarily information, such as
> > > Ministers
> 
> Many ministers are flocking to the net to reach a larger flock.

There is that, but of course the internet is a competition
for their flock's attention, and a wonderfully competent
competitor it is indeed.

There are a couple of points that are specific to this
example.  A minister's primary duty is to prepare sermons.
A good sermon is a little research project.  An extraordinarily
good sermon is of interest even to the non-religious, filled
with detailed historical research, etc.  This research
requires resources available to only a few, those with access
to large theological libraries for instance.  The head pastor
of the theology school I once attended was a master of this
skill, finding wonderfully obscure references and connections.

The internet has made this kind of research two orders of
magnitude easier to do.  One can now google up all kinds of
stuff without ever leaving one's home.  But it also makes it
extremely easy to google up the other side of the story.

In the case of Seventh Day Adventist (I chose that one
only because I know the specific case, but I would imagine
it applies to pretty much all of them) the effect is this:
the pro-SDA material is plentiful, cheap, readily available 
and extremely well-funded.  But those who have opposing 
opinions are not heard, for they have no organized funding, 
no distribution network, no sponsors, nothing.  There are
SDA bookstores but no anti-SDA bookstores.  The writings
of D.M. Canwright are *very* difficult to find, for instance,
even if one is determined.

The internet changes all that, for now it costs almost
nothing to publish a web page.  There is a lot of very
SDA-damaging material that took me *years* to find, that
can now be googled in minutes.  I could imagine a lot of
ministers taking a dim view of it all.  My in-laws
pastor has convinced them that the internet is basically
evil and should be avoided.


> > > Real estate professionals
> 
> Web ads are a boom to their business, so why would the care?

The total number of sales is not increased by the
internet, but it makes it much easier to go around
the real estate professional all together.  Google up
the forms on how to do a for-sale-by-owner and learn
how easy it is.  The internet makes it easy to advertise
your own home without going to the general listing.

Real estate sales people often get commissions of 3% 
or in some cases even more.  Samantha in our
county of Santa Clara, 3% of a typical home price
is 15 to 20 thousand bucks, which is a lotta money
to me.  I think I could figure out how to do a FSBO
for that.

 
> > > Teachers (some of them)
> 
> What for?  Any teacher interested in teaching would send her 
> students all over the internet for educational purposes... -Samantha

Ja, some teachers have taken advantage of the technology,
but I suspect many (if not most) have not.  The internet
can make it very difficult to grade the students if not all
of them have access.  It also makes it a challenge
for the teacher to determine who is plagiarizing.  If they
Google on each student's work they could find out, but
that takes a lot of time.

We still need to deal with this too: the quality of
teachers must continue to drop because it is such a low-
paying job, with ever-increasing liability of working 
with children.  Many teachers may not be able to afford
a high-speed internet connection.  My brother-in-law
and his wife are elementary school teachers in south-
central LA.  Dial-up modem only.  Googling at their
home is extremely frustrating.   

My own recent experience is in judging a science fair 
for the local elementary school.  Many of the students'
projects consisted of choosing a topic, googling on it,
printing out a few web pages and pasting it to a backboard.
They produced some terrific *looking* projects, stuff that
woulda won hands down in my day (I had to use that phrase {8^D)
but on closer examination they could have been put together
in about an hour.  No continuity, very flashy.  Judging
the science fair came down to searching for research
projects that contained some actual research.

A major headache for teachers is that not all students
have access to the internet.  As time goes on, the
disparity between haves and have-nots increases to
such an extent that grading the student's performance
is becoming ever harder.  Often teachers become more
concerned about equality and fairness than in having
their top students achieve excellence, so they spend
much or most of their time helping the slower students.
How do you help someone who has no internet connection?
They are missing the most basic tool of the 21st
century.

My burden is for my own neices, aged 11 and 13.  Their 
parents do not allow them any access to the internet
because of... well, you can imagine any number of reasons
why not.  These girls are polite, honest, upstanding
citizens, excellent students and excellent readers.
But their vast cluelessness knows no bounds.  They are 
so naive, so very unaware of the world in which they will 
soon enter, it worries me.  What happens when they enter
college without internet research skills?  They will know
all about American history (sort of) from their wide
reading about how children lived in past decades.  But
they will know almost nothing about the things that
matter for prosperity in our world.  This latest adventure
with the pastor telling my in-laws that the internet is
evil didn't help matters at all.

spike 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Jan  1 04:06:26 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hyperbole
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031231230547.024ffff8@mail.comcast.net>

Read the quote from the judge.  Even for our hyperbolic age, it's impressive.


-- David Lubkin.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3358627.stm
>Brazil to fingerprint US citizens
>
>A Brazilian judge has announced that US citizens will be fingerprinted and 
>photographed on entering the country.
>
>Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva was reacting to US plans to do the same to 
>Brazilians entering the United States.
>
>He made the order after a Brazilian government office filed a complaint in 
>a federal court over the new US immigration measures.
>
> From 5 January, travellers from all countries which need a visa to enter 
> the US will undergo the same checks.
>
>"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating 
>human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the 
>Nazis," Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva said in the court order.
>
>The new security measures will come into effect on 1 January unless Mr Da 
>Silva's ruling is challenged by the justice system.
>
>Anti-terrorism
>
>Washington's new rules are part of increased anti-terrorism measures.
>
>They aim to identify people who have violated immigration controls, have a 
>criminal record or belong to groups that Washington has on its list of 
>"terrorist" organisations.
>
>An official from the US Department of Homeland Security said at least two 
>of the 19 hijackers in the 11 September 2001 attacks could have been 
>stopped if this security system had been in place.
>
>It will not apply to citizens of 27 nations who do not require a visa to 
>enter the US.




From thespike at earthlink.net  Thu Jan  1 04:34:41 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:34:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312311555210.16128-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <027801c3d020$97187840$a7994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:59 PM


>   http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/24/0633205
>
> Esp. my comments and Howard's response.  The picture does not
> have Smalley replaced by the Schmirk.

Howard's presentation on December 23

http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_12_21_nanobot_archive.html#1072204344654620
87

was a *repost* of:

From: J. Storrs Hall, PhD. (josh at blast.net)
Subject: How the Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Date: 2003-12-17 03:35:26 PST

which of course, being vanilla text, had no illustration. I assume JoSH did
not create the morphed photo, so no insight can be gained by learning who
was replaced.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jan  1 05:14:13 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:14:13 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <027801c3d020$97187840$a7994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <005001c3d026$18b16740$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


Robert Bradbury wrote on slashdot:

Now we know nanotech is going to be disruptive and if one carefully
reviews the NBA supporters they include some very old companies (e.g.
GE, Catepillar, Lockheed) so one has to wonder whether they are involved
to promote nanotech development or delay it (so as to protect their
current markets)...


I can answer that one: promote it, bigtime.  They will
promote nanotech to *enhance* current markets.  Note that
the nanotech that is being developed at Lockheeed, et.al.
is not true bottom-up Drexlerian nanotech, but rather
the next technical steps in miniaturization, top-down.  
They all want to know how we keep going down after 
photolithography gives out, which appears to be soon,
perhaps in the next 10-15 years.

Very old companies don't get to be very old companies
unless they continually embrace and develop the latest
and most promising new technologies.

spike



From riel at surriel.com  Thu Jan  1 08:34:12 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 03:34:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Best place to live in USA
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031231105329.01c54380@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031231105329.01c54380@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0401010332060.5927@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, David Lubkin wrote:
> At 11:31 AM 12/31/2003 +0000, BillK wrote:
>
> >Money Magazine's Hottest Towns
> >         :
> >Now the question is: Why no places in New Hampshire in the top 81?
> >Too much snow? ;)
>
> I'm not sure how much their assessment criteria vary year-to-year but
> Nashua, New Hampshire was chosen twice by Money Magazine as the best
> town in America, in 1987 and 1997.

I moved here in march and it's just a wonderful city.
Lots of stuff to do; property prices high, but still
at less than half of Boston. Lots of space and pretty
good food.

> (Which reminds me:  Nashua has two great sushi restaurants -- one we
> have used to take visiting Japanese VIPs to, the other has French bistro
> desserts.)

Which would those be ?

I haven't yet found a sushi place in Nashua that
comes close in quality to Sakura in Chelmsford ;)

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 samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jan  1 09:56:40 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:56:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20031231203649.65653.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031231183958.62717.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031231203649.65653.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040101015640.066fe667.samantha@objectent.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would a vehicle search be a civil rights violation?
> > Yup. Does it
> > matter? Nope. Why? Because national security is not
> > bound by civil
> > rights laws.
> 
> Yes it is.

Yes.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes exceptions except an actual suspension of the Constitution. 

> 
> > Your civil rights being violated is
> > only grounds to
> > exclude incriminating evidence from trial, it is not
> > a "get out of
> > Guantanamo Free card".
>

Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you by your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by government officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be properly limited by it.   
 
> No, civil rights also impose limits on government
> behavior even when no trial will come of it.
> Otherwise, it would be perfectly acceptable to, say,
> put a male Arab American under indefinite
> investigation - and publicize the fact - just because
> he was running for elected office, or because he dared
> to vote: "He obviously must be trying to weaken our
> defenses against terrorism!"
> 
> Ironic that you should use that example, BTW.  Wasn't
> it civil rights which was why a bunch of those in
> Guantanamo, who otherwise faced indefinite detention
> (theoretically pending a military trial, but said
> trial showed no signs of being organized in the near
> future - result, life in prison w/out trial), were
> ordered either into the civil court system (if and
> only if formal charges, with evidence, could be
> brought in a certain short time frame) or set free?
>

There is no place for a Guantanamo in any society that dares claim it stands for human freedom and rights or dares pretend to be the "good".    Guantanomo is a lawless travesty, a great mark of infamy weighing upon America.  
 
> > The SCOTUS has ruled on a
> > number of occasions
> > that violtions of your civil rights taken in defense
> > of national
> > security are quite acceptable.
>

Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.   

The government can always *claim* National Security to take away whatever rights of whomever whenever it wants by this thinking.   That is clearly not part of the intent and makes on one safe from government whatsoever.
 

> > Terrorism is NOT a
> > civil crime, it is a
> > military or war crime, and is properly subject to
> > military law, not
> > civillian law.
> 

Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying it is this or that category of crime is virtually meaningless.  Its definition is arbitrary so any acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to exercise.  This is clearly dead wrong.  It is so wrong it acts like a Big Lie stopping the thinking of even many liberty loving folks.

> Even when it becomes an excuse to override civilian
> law under any circumstances, and effectively place all
> citizens under military law - which can be altered by
> those in power at whim?  (Effectively, if not in
> statement.  For instance, consider what happens if, at
> any time, your rights could be suspended and any
> action taken against you for the most tenuous, or even
> made up, charges of potential terrorism.  This becomes
> a universal excuse whenever anyone in the government
> disapproves of your actions.  Running against the
> incumbent in an election, and stand a good chance of
> winning?  You're a terrorist.  Refuse an office
> holder's sexual advances?  You're a terrorist.
> Decline to pay the 90% tax rate?  You're not guilty of
> tax evasion, since that would require actually
> bothering to figure out how much you supposedly owe;
> instead, you're just another terrorist.  Get
> rear-ended by a drunk police officer?  You're the
> terrorist, so you're at fault.  Try researching
> biotech, so as to discover a cure for cancer?  Only
> terrorists would do that - and it doesn't matter what
> you say or what evidence you have, since you're a
> terrorist everyone knows you were actually researching
> biological weapons.  Refuse to pledge allegiance to
> someone else's God?  God damn, are you ever a
> terrorist!  And so forth.)
> 

Yes.  Well said. 

-s


From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jan  1 10:06:31 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:06:31 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040101014109.92950.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031231163221.7fa9cf47.samantha@objectent.com>
	<20040101014109.92950.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040101020631.09f0c153.samantha@objectent.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > Not one of us
> > is safe by the hands, stated intentions, written
> > policies and practices of our own government.
> 
> Well..._maybe_ by the stated intentions, if those were
> what actually got put into practice.  

When it comes to rights in the street, faced with representatives of the State, or in your home in the dead of night, or in court, those intentions, especially what is written down, can matter one hell of a lot.  It has been common practice to dismiss Constitutional arguments in most courts even high courts for some time.  Juries are commonly instructed to merely vote on whether the law was literally broken and never advised it is their right as citizens to vote whether the law makes sense or its application in a particular case makes sense.  They become the rubber stamp of what the judge wants and the validity of the law and its application gets simply assumed.

> A large part of
> the problem is that the new powers get abused in ways
> not anticipated by the statements, but easily forseen
> by students of history. 

Some of the statements are pretty darn obvious.  

> Whether or not the speakers
> of said statements also forsee the abuses is not
> provable; it is easy to imagine that they do, but it
> seems more often the case that they don't, and turn a
> deaf ear to any naysayers.  (In some cases, they so
> vigorously tune out dissent that people think they're
> doing it to justify the abuses.  I'm not exactly sure
> what their real reason is - mere pride and arrogance
> seem insufficient - but in my experience, deliberate
> covering up is usually not it.)

It is really irrelevant if the effect of leading these folks keep power and respecting their statements and believing their good intent is that millions of us are run over brutally by the State.  The power and disbelief or suspension of disbelief need to be removed.  It is not only the perps who engage in massive rationalization.  They are greatly outdone in both unconcious and willed blindness by their victims.

- samantha


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jan  1 10:31:05 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:31:05 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?
References: <20031230165731.96224.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01db01c3d052$5c988160$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

In Nanomedicine Vol 1, Chapter 2, Paths to Molecular Manufacturing
(published 1999) Sect. 2.1   Is Molecular Manufacturing possible?
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/2.1.htm   Robert Freitas writes -

" Nearly 40 years after Feynman's famous "Plenty of Room at the Bottom"
speech, and a decade after Drexler's original proposal for a bottom-up 
approach to machine building using molecular assemblers, Nobel chemist
Richard Smalley also largely agreed that this objective should prove
feasible. 

Noted Smalley:  [2389]  "On a length scale of more than one
nanometer, the mechanical robot assembler metaphor envisioned by 
Drexler almost certainly will work..."

There is a citation (below) but the link no longer finds a page.

[2389]. R.E. Smalley, "Chemistry on the Nanometer Scale -- 
Introductory Remarks," 1996 Welch Conference in Chemistry,
at: http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html


Did Smalley change his mind about Molecular Manufacturing being
possible ?   When was the above page removed? 

Does anyone have an  e-copy of the original remarks?  It would be
*very* interesting to see what Smalley actually said. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Jan  1 12:17:44 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:17:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many worlds and Hugh Everett 
In-Reply-To: <015c01c3ceea$1d1e4ce0$e3fe4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGEEKBCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

MWI does not privilege a single reality, physically instantiated in a "real
world", over possible realities equally consistent with physics. Two
macroscopically different outcomes of a microscopic event to which the laws
of physics only assign a probability are treated as equally valid
projections of reality. I always thought that MWI is conceptually simpler
than other interpretations. We only have to do without the assumption of a
reality that allows itself to be completely described by our language, and
the mathematics of the theory flow beautifully without paradoxes. There is
one wavefunction (reality) evolving in time according to precise laws, only
it does not describe a world of bricks. Conceptual problems only arise when
we try separating out a projection of the wavefunction and using a language
meant for bricks to describe it. Since there is usually interference between
different projections of reality, it is impossible to separate one out as a
stand alone reality. Too bad that brick languages are the only languages
that evolution has developed for us so far.
What happened to Liz after she killed herself? Well since there were
countless version of her in different projections of reality, and since the
closest ones shared a large part of her personality and memories, it seems
reasonable to assume that her consciousness continued in the versions that
had not killed themselves.
Of course this must be a brick-like approximation, perhaps consciousness is
a property of the complete wavefunction that does not allow itself to be
associated to a specific projection.



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of John K Clark
Sent: martes, 30 de diciembre de 2003 16:32
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many worlds and Hugh Everett


There is a new online biography of Hugh Everett, the man who started the
many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics at
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/everett/ . One thing I didn't know was that
Everett's daughter believed in it and killed herself because she thought she
would be living in a better parallel world with her father. Apparently she
thought if all the unhappy versions of herself died her consciousness would
remain only in the happy ones. There may be a certain amount of logic to
that but before you do something that drastic you had better be very very
sure the theory is correct. I don't know about you but I'm not THAT certain.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 15:56:08 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040101015640.066fe667.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040101155608.70817.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Would a vehicle search be a civil rights violation?
> > > Yup. Does it
> > > matter? Nope. Why? Because national security is not
> > > bound by civil
> > > rights laws.
> > 
> > Yes it is.
> 
> Yes.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes exceptions
> except an actual suspension of the Constitution. 

Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing treaties
with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and THEY
specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated and
ajudicated differently from civil crimes.

> 
> > 
> > > Your civil rights being violated is
> > > only grounds to
> > > exclude incriminating evidence from trial, it is not
> > > a "get out of
> > > Guantanamo Free card".
> >
> 
> Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you by
> your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by government
> officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be properly
> limited by it.   

With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have natural
rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed to
*recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a slightly
lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it, you
STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....

> > > The SCOTUS has ruled on a
> > > number of occasions
> > > that violtions of your civil rights taken in defense
> > > of national
> > > security are quite acceptable.
> >
> 
> Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the
> Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final
> arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.  

You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the militia
bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come, but
never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
 
> 
> > > Terrorism is NOT a
> > > civil crime, it is a
> > > military or war crime, and is properly subject to
> > > military law, not
> > > civillian law.
> > 
> 
> Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying it is this or that
> category of crime is virtually meaningless.  Its definition is
> arbitrary so any acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to exercise.  This
> is clearly dead wrong.  It is so wrong it acts like a Big Lie
> stopping the thinking of even many liberty loving folks.

It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the Geneva Conventions.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From charlie at antipope.org  Thu Jan  1 16:44:04 2004
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:44:04 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20031231164026.2a6911bb.samantha@objectent.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312301354160.23039-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<2C2FD451-3B18-11D8-B6F6-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
	<20031231164026.2a6911bb.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <B6040563-3C79-11D8-8B98-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 1 Jan 2004, at 00:40, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>> You bet. Which is why the latest news in the UK is that BALPA (the
>> British Air Line Pilots' Association) is telling their members that
>> they don't need to fly if they believe there's an armed stranger on
>> their flight.
> I would give a lot to have had an armed and trained person, marshall 
> or civilian, on the planes involved in 9/11.   The dangers listed 
> above are small relative to the actual tragedy that resulted at least 
> in part from having no such person on board.

News update: BALPA apparently reached an agreement with at least one 
British airline. The arrangement is simple: the identity, armament, and 
seat location of the sky marshall is known to the captain (who may at 
their discretion inform other crew members), the captain and the sky 
marshall discuss in advance how they're going to work together, and the 
sky marshall acts under the captain's orders and authority at all times 
*except* when a hijacking is in progress.

What worries me isn't the possibility of sky marshalls on board planes 
but the fact that BALPA had to kick up a fuss to get these arrangements 
agreed. (Because the alternative -- sky marshalls not talking to the 
air crew, unidentified folks waving guns around on airliners, and so on 
-- doesn't bear thinking about. In the worst case we get hijackers 
masquerading as sky marshalls and the passengers and crew *believing* 
them, up until the last minute. Right?)

>> BALPA want attention focussed instead on heightening security checks
>> before passengers board the aircraft, and point to the poor quality of
>> many security staff as the biggest problem. Unfortunately it costs a
>> *LOT* more to have well-paid, professional, highly-trained airport
>> security staff than minimum wage drones plus one or two sky marshalls.
>>
>
> And what if they miss something?  Are the passengers and the potential 
> direct and secondary victims on the ground to have no additional 
> security?  How is this reasonable?   How does the cost of a trained 
> security on planes compare to the staggering and still growing costs 
> of a single incident like 9/11?

A little thought-experiment for you: how many hijackings have taken 
place since 9/11? Compared to hijackings before 9/11? And if you 
thought a lunatic on your flight was about to try to hijack it, what 
would you do (before and after)?

As I believe Bruce Schneier pointed out, 9/11 was made possible by a 
security design flaw: the general assumption that hijackers weren't 
suicidal. It was a self-correcting problem -- corrected within an hour 
of the first hijackings, as the fate of Flight 93 demonstrates. Since 
9/11, everyone's been so jumpy that at the first sign of trouble cabin 
crew *and* passengers have piled on the trouble-maker.

(Here's a tentative answer to my earlier question: I'm about as 
non-violent as folks come. I do *not* get into or start fights. I don't 
own a gun or a knife or know how to use either or have any self-defense 
training. But if I thought some guy on my flight was going to march up 
to the flight deck and hijack the plane, he'd literally have to go 
through my dead body to get there -- because while I *might* survive a 
fight with an armed hijacker I *wouldn't* survive a 
terrorist-controlled flight into terrain. How about you?)

I think we have far more to worry about from other directions. Bombs in 
unscreened hold baggage, hijackers mailing themselves via FedEx to get 
aboard a freighter aircraft, nut-jobs under the final-approach flight 
line at a major airport with an SA-16, that sort of thing.


-- Charlie



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Jan  1 16:45:51 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:45:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A scaldic tale, in prose
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040101101543.02d61d00@mail.comcast.net>

In the days since lost Sasha, Bostropians have gathered infrequently. 
Extropians of the Boston region, that is, not followers of Nick 
Bostrom.  Which we might be as well, but I think one such would be called a 
Bostromian, although Bostrompian has more of the flavour of Swift and 
brings to mind Modest Proposals.

So we met on Boxing Day, we fellowship of nine, in the grey afternoon of 
the north lands. Two of the Wise, Steve Witham and Simon! Levy, from the 
First Age of Extropians, had stepped out of primordial time and memory to 
lend their counsel.  Simon! did not bring his fiddle, as promised, but 
other minstrels fretted and plucked.

Unexpectedly, the ranger Lorrey joined our encampment as we sat to our 
spicy string beans and skittles. We cheered his fine tales, grateful we'd 
provisioned enough food to stoke his mighty girth.

We all concluded that northmen should not be so long apart, and vowed to 
bring our clan together with each new moon or, at least, as the season 
changes. And extend a greeting to our cousins in the western lands and over 
the sea to send word of their travels hither, that we might have further 
occasion to feast.

The party main broke after a dozen hours, all but Mike, who remained until 
just before dawn, when he slipped into the last traces of frozen night.


-- Your Chronicler.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jan  1 18:29:05 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?
In-Reply-To: <01db01c3d052$5c988160$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011017500.29388-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> [2389]. R.E. Smalley, "Chemistry on the Nanometer Scale --
> Introductory Remarks," 1996 Welch Conference in Chemistry,
> at: http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html

Interesting.  The WayBack machine does have copies.

The full quote is:
"On a length scale of more than one nanometer, the mechanical robot
 assembler metaphor envisioned by Drexler almost certainly will work,
 but within the 1 nm3 volume surrounding the reaction site there is a
 subtlety and complexity that is often not fully appreciated even by
 practicing chemists."

He then goes on to complain about the small volume and the need to
control the motion of the atoms (similar to his Sci. Am. and C&EN
positions) and ends with:
"Since the manipulator "fingers" of the robot would have to be made
 of atoms as well, there appears to be at least one fatal problem
 with the concept of a universal assembler: there simply is not enough
 room inside the 1 nm3 reaction volume both for the atoms desired in the
 final structure and the atomic fingers necessary to control their movement."

So we are back to the fat fingers problem again.  It is an interesting
article.

One of the WayBack URLs is:
  http://web.archive.org/web/20020127070232/http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html

It existed in their archives from:
  Jan. 9, 1998 to Jan. 27, 2002

So it is interesting that Robert F. is selectively quoting Smalley with respect
to what works and ignoring what Smalley thinks will not work.  I think this
may be due to the fact that Smalley has a mental framework that is based
entirely on solution phase chemistry (as do almost all chemists) and have
not done their homework to see whether it really is possible to have the
positional accuracies that are discussed in Nanosystems without having to
grab onto each and every atom at the assembly site.  The entire process
of mechanosynthesis is almost antiethical to what chemists normally do
which is to heat things up to get them to move faster to increase the
probabilities that things will come into proper alignment to react
at some reasonable rate.

One thing I don't know is whether the assembler chemistry, esp. free radical
chemistry, changes with temperature.  If it doesn't then the obvious counter
argument to Smalley is simply to cool everything to a few degrees K.

Robert




From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jan  1 18:51:31 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:51:31 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] martian measurement units
In-Reply-To: <027801c3d020$97187840$a7994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <006701c3d098$45927b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

GIANT AIRBAGS WILL GIVE ROVERS' LANDINGS A BOUNCE
-------------------------------------------------
If all goes well, Mars rover "Spirit" will slam into the atmosphere of
the
Red Planet on Saturday night, at an angle of 11.5 degrees, an altitude
of
about 80 miles and a velocity of 12,000 mph. Eight seconds before
touchdown, giant airbags will suddenly inflate, encapsulating the
spacecraft in a protective cocoon.

  http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/031231landing.html

Entry, descent and landing timeline:
  http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/031231edl.html




Miles.  Miles per hour.  {8-[

Seems we yanks have failed to learn our lesson
from the bitter experience of 23 September 1999.

spike

ps Actually this might be just a news media thing.
I would be surprised if NASA still uses English
units anywhere.  Good luck and evolutionspeed Spirit!



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 18:54:54 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] martian measurement units
In-Reply-To: <006701c3d098$45927b60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040101185454.98001.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> GIANT AIRBAGS WILL GIVE ROVERS' LANDINGS A BOUNCE
> -------------------------------------------------
> If all goes well, Mars rover "Spirit" will slam into the atmosphere
> of the Red Planet on Saturday night, at an angle of 11.5 degrees, an
> altitude of about 80 miles and a velocity of 12,000 mph. Eight
> seconds before touchdown, giant airbags will suddenly inflate,
> encapsulating the spacecraft in a protective cocoon.
> 
>   http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/031231landing.html
> 
> Miles.  Miles per hour.  {8-[
> 
> Seems we yanks have failed to learn our lesson
> from the bitter experience of 23 September 1999.

Well, what we really need is a Martian system of measurement, just to
make things interesting... I believe Edgar Rice Burroughs developed one
for his John Carter series. I hereby propose that in all future list
discussions, that ERB specced Martian units of measure be used...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 19:12:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] martian measurement units
In-Reply-To: <20040101185454.98001.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040101191238.46693.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, what we really need is a Martian system of measurement, just to
> make things interesting... I believe Edgar Rice Burroughs developed
> one
> for his John Carter series. I hereby propose that in all future list
> discussions, that ERB specced Martian units of measure be used...

Sorry, I meant discussions about Mars.

Ah, I was right:
http://www.scarlet-tower.com/heroes-of-mars/adventures/measures.html

In which case, the probe will enter the Barsoomian atmosphere at an
angle of 11.5 karads, at an altitude of 217 Haads and at a velocity of
80,297 haads per zode.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Jan  1 20:12:06 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:12:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?
In-Reply-To: <01db01c3d052$5c988160$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <006f01c3d0a3$8a9c4690$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Brett Paatsch wrote,
> There is a citation (below) but the link no longer finds a page.
> 
> [2389]. R.E. Smalley, "Chemistry on the Nanometer Scale -- 
> Introductory Remarks," 1996 Welch Conference in Chemistry,
> at: http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html
> 
> 
> Did Smalley change his mind about Molecular Manufacturing being
> possible ?   When was the above page removed? 
> 
> Does anyone have an  e-copy of the original remarks?  It would be
> *very* interesting to see what Smalley actually said. 

Nothing can be removed from the Internet!

This page persisted unchanged since before Jan. 9, 1998 through sometime
after Jan. 27, 2002.  Dated archives can be found at
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html>.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jan  1 21:17:20 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:17:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <20040101185454.98001.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

The M/D approach to Fermi's Paradox

Over the years we extropians have pondered the question Fermi so
eloquently posed in three words: Where are they?  Carl Sagan speculated
in the 1970s that evidently intelligent life was short-lived, ordinarily
self-destructing soon after reaching the technology to communicate over
cosmic distances.  That argument gradually becomes less compelling as
humanity manages to survive into a seventh decade with nukes in our
midst.

As a result of our discussion of Sbrains last week, I have stumbled upon
another explanation for the cosmic silence: we aren't worth the mass to
send us signals.  I will call this argument the M/D approach to Fermi's
paradox.  It works like this:

Suppose that life manages to evolve, and thru some torturous path, makes
it to sentience.   Certainly this is a trivial treatment, few words for
a stunningly difficult phenomenon, however it is evidently possible, for
clearly it happened on this planet.  In this vast universe, with its
hundreds of billions of visible galaxies, each with its hundreds of
billions of stars, each with planets, everything that can happen must
happen.  We have shown that intelligent life can happen.

Today there is no convincing mechanism that would cause technological
progress to stop.  Gray goo is something to worry about, but nature has
had billions of years to stumble upon it.  During that time, she has
derived so many wonderfully complex designs.  It is reassuring that gray
goo was never present in this vast cornucopia of life.  Perhaps there is
some fundamental reason why it cannot happen, some reason why goo cannot
compete with current lifeforms, or is somehow incorporated into current
lifeforms, like mitochondria.   

Even if we nuke ourselves into the stone age, recall that the stone age
lasted until only a few thousand years ago.  Humans are tremendously
adaptable, and many already live in places that would not be worth a
nuke, should all the nuke capable powers let loose with all they have.
Africans would survive, Aborigines would survive, there would be pockets
of humanity everywhere that would carry on.   Even if that horrifying
loss of life and technology nightmare scenario were to come to pass,
recall that all the really important technological advances occurred in
just the past few hundred years.  All-out thermonuclear war would merely
be a temporary setback for the singularity.

If a singularity, then an MBrain.

This is my contention: that artificial intelligence wants to THINK.  It
lives to think.  It is smart enough to make things happen: it knows how
to build things.  If it likes to think, then it wants to get all the
available material thinking, so it builds an MBrain.  It gathers all the
metals in orbit about the star and converts it all to whatever form
maximizes thought.  It is not clear to me what that form is, however if
we assume there is an optimal use for metals, some minimum energy-use
and materials-use configuration (define this as computronium), then the
AI would convert all the metals available into computronium.

So far, all this has been argued before.  The new thought is that the
computronium is optimized by having it collocated as close as possible,
but not more so.  A Sandbergian JBrain is a Jupiter sized sphere of
computronium that exists as a planet.  This would seem to require that
some of the material is under tremendous heat and pressure, even if the
JBrain is spun rapidly and formed into a flattened disk.  At the other
extreme is a Bradburian MBrain, which is computronium that exists as a
large number of particles in orbit about a star, in such a way as to
collect as much of the energy from that star as possible.  This may be
less than optimal for it separates the nodes over greater distances,
thus increasing the latency, or time required to communicate between
nodes.

The M/D approach argues that there is a configuration somewhere between
the JBrain and the MBrain wherein the computronium is separated, but not
by too much.  So it exists as a planet, like a JBrain, but is
technically an MBrain: all SBrains are Mbrains.  A given star system
could even have more than one SBrain.  Commentator Lorrey has suggested
that the proposed SBrain looks like a nautilus shell.  Very well, SBrain
means Shell Brain.  SBrains form to allow all of the available material
to be computroniumized, and M/D simultaneously is maximized, thus
optimizing thought potential.

The SBrain is more specific than the MBrain.  The insight here is that
in optimized computronium, energy is no longer the critical resource,
this being a diffuse form of matter indeed.  Matter and time are the
most valuable resources.  Energy from the star can be allowed to escape,
wasted, lost forever into the cosmos, for there is plenty of that.  But
time cannot be wasted, for heat death is coming to all. 

To an SBrain, the existence of another Sbrain in another orbit is a
valuable resource: the other SBrain might have nodes that are thinking
about some of the same things that are being pondered by one's own
nodes.  Therefore, communication between SBrains would be mutually
beneficial, as communication between humans is considered valuable
enough that we build expensive satellites to make it happen.

If the other SBrain is far away, then of course the communications are
restricted.  The time delay for trading ideas increases linearly with
distance, and the energy required to send the signal increases as the
square of the distance.  So one can speculate that the value of signals
from another SBrain is proportional to the other SBrain's mass and
inversely proportional to the square of its distance.  If two SBrains
managed to form in orbit about the same star, they would soon see the
benefit of merging.  By this argument, the smaller SBrain would move to
join the larger, for the value of signals from the larger is greater
than the reverse.

We wondered if current instruments would able to detect an SBrain.
Current exo-planet detection is based on gravitational wobble caused by
massive planet.  Of course, we could not distinguish between an SBrain
and an ordinary gas giant, or even a large dead rocky planet.  We can
imagine a situation where a star system like ours had an SBrain of mass
about 3 earths with the gas giants unused.  With Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Luna, Mars and the asteroids, we have around 3 earth masses of rocky
material to make an SBrain, but the gas giants, being largely hydrogen
and helium, may not be as useful in building such structures.  So our
instruments would not be able to find the small wobble from a 3-earth
mass, the signal being swamped by a 300 earth-mass gas giant.

Early in this post, I promised to suggest a solution to Fermi's paradox.
Enough background has now been presented.  If there is an energy cost to
sending a signal that is inversely proportional to some function of the
distance, and the value of the incoming signal is proportional to the
mass of the distant SBrain, then it could be that the distant SBrain
would decide that communication between star systems is not worth the
cost of sending the signal.  It would take mass or material to collect
the energy and create a transmitter of some sort.  This is material that
is no longer optimized for computronium, so thought potential is lost.
So talk isn't cheap: it has its cost.  The M/D argument calls upon
Robert Bradbury's question about the value of present thought versus the
possibility of a greater amount of future thought.  When we calculate
the potential of computronium, perhaps the value of present thought far
outweighs the value of potential future thought from a distant star
system, whose maximum mass can be bounded and whose distance is known to
be very large.  The M/D, and thus the potential value of the
communication, is very small, whereas the cost is large.  Transmitting
is a poor investment of valuable resources.

The M/D approach to Fermi's Paradox suggests that the reason the cosmic
abyss is silent is that we are not worth the mass to talk to us.

spike



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jan  1 21:40:01 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <005001c3d026$18b16740$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011059390.30362-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:

Quoting me...
-- Actually spike I think my quote/question was on nanodot, not /.
  http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/24/0633205

> I can answer that one: promote it, bigtime.  They will
> promote nanotech to *enhance* current markets. [snip]

Well I'm glad to hear that.

> Note that the nanotech that is being developed at Lockheeed, et.al.
> is not true bottom-up Drexlerian nanotech, but rather
> the next technical steps in miniaturization, top-down.
> They all want to know how we keep going down after
> photolithography gives out, which appears to be soon,
> perhaps in the next 10-15 years.

At least one answer appears to be self-assembly.  The recent
assembly of a nanoscale transistor in Israel and IBM's progress
on self-assembly of micro-domains for data storage plus the
work being promoted by Zettacore suggest that there is going
to be a fair amount of self-assembly being done [also see 1.].
Not the approach I would pick but it seems to be the one that can
be done now using the tools we have available at this time.

Robert

1. For further discussion see my comments in:
 http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/01/021236





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Jan  1 21:55:27 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:55:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <007901c3d0b1$fad5f2e0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Spike wrote,
> As a result of our discussion of Sbrains last week, I have 
> stumbled upon another explanation for the cosmic silence: we 
> aren't worth the mass to send us signals.  I will call this 
> argument the M/D approach to Fermi's paradox.  It works like this:

This is a very strong possibility.  We are not advanced enough yet to be
interesting.

Although I have always assumed that we just haven't discovered the galactic
internet yet.  Our sub-light speed communications are too slow and weak.
Anybody actually communicating over interstellar distances would be using
faster-than-light speeds if possible, so we don't know how to read their
signals yet.  Another point is that they wouldn't be broadcasting in the
clear or promiscuously to everybody.  They probably are using point-to-point
communications that only go to the intended recipient.

In terms of radio-waves, we are the spammers of the galaxy.  We are sending
our stuff everywhere to everyone constantly, whether they want it or not.
They probably hate us.  They probably have tried to reply, but virtually
none of out broadcasters can receive return signals.  We may be on
everybody's spam-blocker list already.  We may need to move to a new planet
and start communicating under a new species name before anybody will answer
us.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jan  1 22:54:24 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:54:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <007901c3d0b1$fad5f2e0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000001c3d0ba$33f64d60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
> 
> Spike wrote,
> > ...another explanation for the cosmic silence: we 
> > aren't worth the mass to send us signals.  I will call this 
> > argument the M/D approach to Fermi's paradox.  It works like this...
 
> Although I have always assumed that we just haven't 
> discovered the galactic internet yet...

The internet is a useful metaphor in the M/D model.  We
are nodes, each of us.  Before the internet, we had
face to face communications, publications in magazines,
scientific conferences and personal letters available
as communication devices.  But when the internet came
along, the distance between us suddenly decreased by
orders of magnitude, which brought together such wonderful
examples of spontaneous order as extropians, the math and
science chat groups, the parallel computing efforts and
so on.  The M/D suddenly decreased to the point where
I personally found it worthwhile to spend a large percentage
of my free time exchanging memes online.  

>  Our sub-light speed communications are too 
> slow and weak.
> Anybody actually communicating over interstellar distances 
> would be using
> faster-than-light speeds if possible, so we don't know how to 
> read their
> signals yet...  Harvey

While recognizing this as possible, I am always interested
in examining the grim possibility that the speed of light *really is*
the cosmic speed limit, for everyone everywhere always, forever
and ever, amen.  {8-[

Another scary thought is the possibility that there really 
isn't any magic physics yet to be discovered: that we have
found most of the important limits already, and that they
really are universal limits.  The whole M/D approach to
Fermi's paradox depends on this pessimistic supposition.  

Of course I am eager to be talked out of it, or to be given a 
feasible alternative such as Harvey's we-are-on-the-universal-
spam-blocker-list notion.  However I must say that I find
little comfort in the suggestion that Earth is the
galactic Nigeria.

spike 




From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jan  1 23:21:52 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:21:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many worlds and Hugh Everett 
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGEEKBCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <000301c3d0be$2b1891e0$f0c7fea9@scerir>

From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0"

> Of course this must be a brick-like approximation, perhaps consciousness
> is a property of the complete wavefunction that does not allow itself to
> be associated to a specific projection.

Suppose that the "universal" quantum state can be expressed as gigantic
sum of tensor products of states of subsystems.

If a measurement with a probabilistic outcome is undertaken, the world
splits into several worlds, and each possible outcome of the observations
appears in the fraction of the new worlds given by the quantum-mechanical
probability of that outcome.

If we define two kinds of reality (as E.P.Wigner did, and Descartes also
did) the first kind of reality would be the immediate content of the
subject's consciousness, and it is "absolute" in the sense of not
depending upon inference from anything other than itself, in contrast
with all instances of the second kind of reality.

Suppose that in the "universal" quantum state expressed as gigantic
sum of tensor products of states of subsystems there is a term which
correctly describes an item of consciousness of the subject reading a
pointer (of some apparatus). This term represents an instance of the 
first kind of reality (as defined above).

The problem is now that the terms, in the sum of tensor products of 
states of subsystems, which attributes a different sensation 
to the subject, fails to represent this reality. 

Consequently, the enormous set of different worlds designated by the 
terms, in the sum of tensor products of states of subsystems, cannot 
have the same ontological standing. 

We can reformulate the above Wigner's argument about (and against) MWI
in different terms. That is to say, the question is left unanswered
why in any measurement an observer finds himself in one, and not in
other branches. Is MWI perhaps introducing a large-scale indeterminism
which moreover includes the observer himself?

s.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  1 23:56:56 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d0ba$33f64d60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040101235656.39290.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> as communication devices.  But when the internet came
> along, the distance between us suddenly decreased by
> orders of magnitude, which brought together such wonderful
> examples of spontaneous order as extropians, the math and
> science chat groups, the parallel computing efforts and
> so on.  The M/D suddenly decreased to the point where
> I personally found it worthwhile to spend a large percentage
> of my free time exchanging memes online.  
> 
> >  Our sub-light speed communications are too 
> > slow and weak.
> > Anybody actually communicating over interstellar distances 
> > would be using
> > faster-than-light speeds if possible, so we don't know how to 
> > read their
> > signals yet...  Harvey
> > 
> Of course I am eager to be talked out of it, or to be given a 
> feasible alternative such as Harvey's we-are-on-the-universal-
> spam-blocker-list notion.  However I must say that I find
> little comfort in the suggestion that Earth is the
> galactic Nigeria.

Considering that our system is located in deep space between galactic
arms, not only are we Nigeria, worse yet, we are Chad: full of
ignorance  and supertition, fighting all the time, lacking in high tech
infrastructure, no highways, and far from the nearest seaport. Galactic
Nigeria would be scifi paradise compared to Earth.

What other planet calls itself 'dirt'???? ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 01:51:42 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CATO: Friedman Prize nomination
Message-ID: <20040102015142.20253.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/prize/friedmanprize.html

Free Staters are trying to get the founder of the FSP, Dr. Jason
Sorens into serious consideration for the Friedman Prize, awarded by
the Cato Institute to individuals who have accomplished much for
liberty in the past year. I encourage everyone to go to the above
page and lend your nomination, and to tell others of this campaign.
 


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 03:01:47 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <014501c3d0dc$c5bd35c0$d2994a43@texas.net>

FWIW:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/01/1072908849778.html

A tenth of the stars in the Milky Way may have planets that support advanced
life, Australian scientists have said.

Astronomers have plotted a ring-shaped region of the galaxy where there
might be Earth-like worlds old enough for life to have reached a high level
of evolution.

The sun exists in this "Galactic Habitable Zone", which contains about 10
per cent of all the Milky Way's stars.

Stars within the band have enough heavy elements to form Earth-like planets,
are a safe distance from catastrophic supernova explosions, and have existed
for at least four billion years.

The Australian team, led by Charles Lineweaver from the University of NSW,
used a chemical evolution model of the galaxy to identify the region.

Three-quarters of the stars in the zone were older than the sun, ranging in
age between four and eight billion years.

[etc]



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 03:15:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <007901c3d0b1$fad5f2e0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011908400.5960-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> In terms of radio-waves, we are the spammers of the galaxy.  We are sending
> our stuff everywhere to everyone constantly, whether they want it or not.

I'm not sure Harvey.  Radio in general is such a low-bandwidth carrier.
I can't see the advanced civilizations using it for anything.  Anyway
there are natural sources of radiowaves that are spamming the galaxy.
Can't easily do much about them.

Direct point-to-point communications using wavelength division multiplexing
(WDM) is probably the way to go.  You could get thousands of frequencies.
You would like to push it up into the UV frequencies or higher but UV
photons at the mid-UV and higher would tend to damage the atomic bonds
of the receivers.  Now that may be quite ok if the additional information
received can be justified by using some energy and a bunch of nanorobots
to recycle and rebuild the receivers on an ongoing basis.

If the above speculations are true, then we might have receivers that
could detect signals but they are probably so tightly focused that our
chances of running into one are probably slim to nill.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 03:37:22 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011922430.5960-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Spike wrote:

[snipping a lot of spikes intro material]

> The M/D approach to Fermi's Paradox suggests that the reason the cosmic
> abyss is silent is that we are not worth the mass to talk to us.

I'm assuming M=mass and D=distance (correct if otherwise).

Well, I'm not sure you can discard Energy so easily -- due to E=MC^2.
It takes minimal amounts of mass to harvest all that energy (less than
the mass of Mercury if I recall).  And with all that energy you can
dismantle the Gas Giants (though it takes hundreds of years).
>From the GG you get another couple of dozen Earth masses of
metals most likely.  So it seems probable that even if you want
to optimize the computronium there is a period when it makes
sense to take the star dark to harvest all the metals in the
solar system.  After that it gets a little more interesting
as one is going to think about where and when nearby encounters
with Brown Dwarfs may occur and/or whether you should attempt
to bring them back whole, dismantle them using their own
H and send back a matter stream, etc.

Now getting back into the communication aspect -- I started a paper
on how much information an advanced civilization probably has at
its disposal -- I stopped after I got to 2^50+ bits (even though
I thought I could push it quite a bit further).  There isn't any
way you can push even a small fraction of that across interstellar
distances.  The only way you can share that much information is
when you get two civilizations *very* close to each other because
you have to set up highly parallel communication channels.  One
would like multi-meter diameter fiber bundles made out of 50 nm
fibers (we have 50 nm fibers *now* no telling how much smaller
we might go).  That is a *lot* of fiber capacity, particularly
if you use WDM on each cable to get thousands of carriers.

Now, I'm somewhat doubtful that you can get 2 JBrains much less
2 MBrains close enough to string the cable but one never knows
what their capabilities might be.  If not, then in a pinch
you resort to lots of lasers to send CCD arrays to receive.
Remember Spike -- an advanced civilization can have 100 billion
telescopes of lunar diameter using on ~1% of the available mass.
So there will be times when close encounters and very high
bandwidth communications opportunities may justify turning a
fairly large amount of material into transmitters and receivers.
When you are done with your phone call you just turn the mass
back into computronium.

Robert





From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 04:12:29 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:12:29 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011922430.5960-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <018301c3d0e6$a62369a0$d2994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 9:37 PM

> When you are done with your phone call you just turn the mass
> back into computronium.

Hey, that mass was somebody's mother!

Damien Broderick



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jan  2 06:49:42 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:49:42 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011017500.29388-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <037601c3d0fc$9a780a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > [2389]. R.E. Smalley, "Chemistry on the Nanometer Scale --
> > Introductory Remarks," 1996 Welch Conference in Chemistry,
> > at: http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.html
>
> Interesting.  The WayBack machine does have copies.

Thanks Robert (and Harvey).

> One of the WayBack URLs is:
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20020127070232/http://cnst.rice.edu/NanoWelch.htm
l
>
> It existed in their archives from:
>   Jan. 9, 1998 to Jan. 27, 2002
>
> So it is interesting that Robert F. is selectively quoting Smalley
> with respect to what works and ignoring what Smalley thinks
> will not work.

Yes. Ouch !

Regards,
Brett



From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Jan  2 10:59:33 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 02:59:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <014501c3d0dc$c5bd35c0$d2994a43@texas.net>
References: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<014501c3d0dc$c5bd35c0$d2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20040102025933.536de531.samantha@objectent.com>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:47 -0600
"Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:

> FWIW:
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/01/1072908849778.html
> 
> A tenth of the stars in the Milky Way may have planets that support advanced
> life, Australian scientists have said.
> 
>It would be more accurate to say that 10% of the planets in the milky way pass one rough cut filter for possibly supporting advanced (should be intelligent?) life.

- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Jan  2 11:09:59 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:09:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040101155608.70817.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040101015640.066fe667.samantha@objectent.com>
	<20040101155608.70817.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040102030959.3feec5fc.samantha@objectent.com>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
> > Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Would a vehicle search be a civil rights violation?
> > > > Yup. Does it
> > > > matter? Nope. Why? Because national security is not
> > > > bound by civil
> > > > rights laws.
> > > 
> > > Yes it is.
> > 
> > Yes.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes exceptions
> > except an actual suspension of the Constitution. 
> 
> Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing treaties
> with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and THEY
> specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated and
> ajudicated differently from civil crimes.

As I understand it the Constitution prohibits entanglements with foreign nations that threaten the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the American people.  If it doesn't I strongly suggest we work for such an Amendment.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Your civil rights being violated is
> > > > only grounds to
> > > > exclude incriminating evidence from trial, it is not
> > > > a "get out of
> > > > Guantanamo Free card".
> > >
> > 
> > Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you by
> > your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by government
> > officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be properly
> > limited by it.   
> 
> With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
> constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have natural
> rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed to
> *recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a slightly
> lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
> bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it, you
> STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....
> 

The Constitution does not specify that only American citizens have human rights acknowledged and protected by our form of government.   I do not recognize "illegal combatant" as being a very precise category or as somehow removing one's human rights as soon as some government slaps the label (with or without evidence and a hearing) on.   I bet after two years of these exchanges that you still don't get that the Geneva Conventions are actually largely irrelevant to the central issue.



> > > > The SCOTUS has ruled on a
> > > > number of occasions
> > > > that violtions of your civil rights taken in defense
> > > > of national
> > > > security are quite acceptable.
> > >
> > 
> > Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the
> > Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final
> > arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.  
> 
> You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the militia
> bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come, but
> never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
>

Hell, the claim was made by Jefferson.  So I wouldn't mind being included in that "bunker" type mentality.

> > Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying it is this or that
> > category of crime is virtually meaningless.  Its definition is
> > arbitrary so any acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> > be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to exercise.  This
> > is clearly dead wrong.  It is so wrong it acts like a Big Lie
> > stopping the thinking of even many liberty loving folks.
> 
> It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
> consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the Geneva Conventions.
> 


Hell.  Read the Patriot Act and tell me it is well-defined.

- samantha


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 11:34:49 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <018301c3d0e6$a62369a0$d2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401020321590.13692-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Damien Broderick responding to my comments wrote:

> Hey, that mass was somebody's mother!

Perhaps.  But only if advanced civilizations inhabit stars that
turn into supernovas or if the civilization developed early enough
that the mass has been recycled in some way.  If it has been
recycled that implies that they either didn't hit the singularity
before a civilization destroying event (GRBs, SN, etc.) or they
evolved themselves into a form where matter was not important.

Spike's M/D perspective leaves out computronium where there
are very high fractions of electrons, positrons, neutrinos
or photons.

Didn't Moravec speculate at some point on matter composed
of muons?  Just because there may be some limits now doesn't
mean that in the future one will not be able to construct
essential computer elements faster than they decay.
(Though I'll admit that seems like a long shot.)

R.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 11:49:55 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Did Smalley change his mind?
In-Reply-To: <037601c3d0fc$9a780a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401020336130.13692-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> > So it is interesting that Robert F. is selectively quoting Smalley
> > with respect to what works and ignoring what Smalley thinks
> > will not work.
>
> Yes. Ouch !

Not so much -- Robert F. could not really get into extensive
discussions of the Drexler v. Smalley debates in NM V. I.
There was too much material that needed to be covered.
There is a complex balance that is required between depth
and breadth.

Of critical importance is precisely *where* anything Smalley
says contradicts what Drexler says in Chapter 8 of Nanosystems.

I strongly suspect Smalley hasn't even read Chapter 8 of NS.
If he cannot point to a place where Eric's assumptions or
conclusions are wrong then he doesn't have a strong leg
to stand on.

While I'm not going to go through Smalley's papers tonight
I seem to recall at some conference that researchers said
that they had created nanotubes a decade or more before Smalley
ever encountered them.  I also don't seem to recall
any evidence that Smalley ever actually set out to
create buckyballs or buckytubes.  He just may have been
sufficiently observant to have discovered something that
was always there.  If so I would question whether this
is something that deserves a Nobel prize.  It seems
to belong more in the class of the fellow who discovered
gold in some creek in California.

In contrast it would seem that the Wright brothers or
even Lindburgh put a lot more effort into their
accomplishments.

Someone correct me if the can find evidence that this
perspective is flawed.

I have no doubt that Smalley is a good chemist -- but
I would love to stack up Smalley's PhD thesis against
Nanosystems and see just how well they compare.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 12:06:34 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 04:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <20040102025933.536de531.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401020352230.13692-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/01/1072908849778.html [snip]

At least with respect to the age of the planets, Charlie has been pointing this out
since the Blois conference which I think was in 2000.  He and his students have
been extending the results since then -- but for some of us the implications
are old news.

This may be from Samantha [the nesting attributions are confusing]:
> >It would be more accurate to say that 10% of the planets in the milky way pass one
> > rough cut filter for possibly supporting advanced (should be intelligent?) life.

Its a bit more complex than that.  Closer to the galactic center you have more star
formation, more supernovas, faster metal accumulation, faster development of a
galactic habitable zone, perhaps faster evolution of complex life forms.  There
may be more planets (of various sizes) in locations where the metal content is
greater.  At the same time due to GRB, nearby SN, etc. the hazard function may
be greater and so in order to survive one has to evolve more quickly to survive.

The further out you go in the galaxy the less metal, the fewer GRB, SN, etc. so both
development rates and hazard function rates may be slower.  Over time it is likely the
galactic habitable zone moves from the inner to the outer portions of the galaxy.
But this assumes no intergalactic collisions which could significantly upset
rates and locations of star formation, the rates of metal creation, GRB, SN, etc.

Soooo....  While I admire Charlie & Co's work -- I think we are going to have to
run a number of backward simulations of the creation of the Milky Way as it exists
today in order to understand fully what took place in our galaxy and how that
impacted its evolution (and as a result the probable evolution of intelligence).

Robert




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 16:48:35 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:48:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for Immortality
Message-ID: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>

Hi -

I thought I'd ask if anyone has *up-to-date* answers for these 2 questions
of the interview - just in case any of you have insights that are broader
and more spot on than my own. :-)

1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

You can email me privately.

Thanks,
Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 16:55:45 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <018301c3d0e6$a62369a0$d2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20040102165545.63409.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 9:37 PM
> 
> > When you are done with your phone call you just turn the mass
> > back into computronium.
> 
> Hey, that mass was somebody's mother!

Nah, that was some masshole... ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 16:57:46 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:57:46 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <000001c3d0ba$33f64d60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach


>
> While recognizing this as possible, I am always interested
> in examining the grim possibility that the speed of light *really is*
> the cosmic speed limit, for everyone everywhere always, forever
> and ever, amen.  {8-[

Recall reading a paper a few years ago that showed that FTL is equivalent to
'sliding' across worlds in the MWI

> Another scary thought is the possibility that there really
> isn't any magic physics yet to be discovered: that we have
> found most of the important limits already, and that they
> really are universal limits.  The whole M/D approach to
> Fermi's paradox depends on this pessimistic supposition.

I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation Argument.
However, here's another posibility.
That the fall into a Black Hole creates infinite computing resources as one
approaches the singularity.
All advanced civilisations opt for such 'extinction'.

> Of course I am eager to be talked out of it, or to be given a
> feasible alternative such as Harvey's we-are-on-the-universal-
> spam-blocker-list notion.  However I must say that I find
> little comfort in the suggestion that Earth is the
> galactic Nigeria.

What would ET want from us?
Science is pretty much irrelevent.
I suggest that what is valuable is art, religion, philosophy  etc and all
those things that are *not* universal.
In which case making contact now would simply poison the well from their POV

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 17:07:29 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:07:29 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
References: <004b01c3d015$89b90300$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <00d901c3d152$e7ac7b70$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 3:15 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet



>
> My burden is for my own neices, aged 11 and 13.  Their
> parents do not allow them any access to the internet
> because of... well, you can imagine any number of reasons
> why not.  These girls are polite, honest, upstanding
> citizens, excellent students and excellent readers.
> But their vast cluelessness knows no bounds.  They are
> so naive, so very unaware of the world in which they will
> soon enter, it worries me.  What happens when they enter
> college without internet research skills?  They will know
> all about American history (sort of) from their wide
> reading about how children lived in past decades.  But

Learning to use the Net is no big deal once one hits google.
As for their future prospects, I think Frank Zappa wrote a song about
something similar with 'Catholic Girls'

> they will know almost nothing about the things that
> matter for prosperity in our world.  This latest adventure
> with the pastor telling my in-laws that the internet is
> evil didn't help matters at all.


SDAs are, IMO, one of the most retard of Xian sects.
[Just thought I'd add that gratuitous religious insult to round off the
discussion...]

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 17:15:35 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:15:35 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <00e701c3d154$08d523f0$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Cc: <advisors at alcor.org>; <a-grg at wild98.com>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for Immortality


> Hi -
>
> I thought I'd ask if anyone has *up-to-date* answers for these 2 questions
> of the interview - just in case any of you have insights that are broader
> and more spot on than my own. :-)
>
> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"
>
> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

The obvious answer to both is 'not dying'.
However...

1. Overpopulation in the medium term
2. Stem cell research. We need to be kept alive long enough for other
technologies to become available.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 17:21:32 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040102030959.3feec5fc.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040102172132.5915.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing
> treaties
> > with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and
> THEY
> > specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated
> and
> > ajudicated differently from civil crimes.
> 
> As I understand it the Constitution prohibits entanglements with
> foreign nations that threaten the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom
> of the American people.  If it doesn't I strongly suggest we work for
> such an Amendment.

Wrong again. There is no such prohibition. George Washington warned
against getting involved in foreign entanglements, but the context of
that is getting involved in wars that in no way relate to our national
interest (like the Balkans). Protecting our nations oil supply IS in
our national interest and thus is not a foreign entanglement, but that
is a separate issue. Signing a treaty about ajudicating proper behavior
of people engaged in military action is not an 'entanglement', and it
has served to protect our boys on a number of occasions.
 
> > > Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you
> by
> > > your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by
> government
> > > officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be
> properly
> > > limited by it.   
> > 
> > With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
> > constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have
> natural
> > rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed
> to
> > *recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a
> slightly
> > lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
> > bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it,
> you
> > STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....
> > 
> 
> The Constitution does not specify that only American citizens have
> human rights acknowledged and protected by our form of government.  
> I do not recognize "illegal combatant" as being a very precise
> category or as somehow removing one's human rights as soon as some
> government slaps the label (with or without evidence and a hearing)
> on.   I bet after two years of these exchanges that you still don't
> get that the Geneva Conventions are actually largely irrelevant to
> the central issue.

On the contrary, you still don't seem to get that they are the central
issue. An illegal combatant loses all rights in the country he is
caught in, and loses any expectation that his home government will do
anything for him. This is well settled law both here in the US and
elsewhere, even in the Hague.

The US is being extremely tolerant of these fellows in Gitmo. Under the
Geneva Conventions, they can all be summarily executed, and could have
been from the time they were captured.
 
> > > 
> > > Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the
> > > Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final
> > > arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.  
> > 
> > You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the
> militia
> > bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come,
> but
> > never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
> >
> 
> Hell, the claim was made by Jefferson.  So I wouldn't mind being
> included in that "bunker" type mentality.

The only authority over the Supreme Court is that the Congress can
impeach a justice. In that sense, there is a higher authority, but that
only applies to truly criminal behavior by a justice, not just a mere
difference of opinion. Otherwise there would have been a lot more
impeachements in our history.

> > > 
> > It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
> > consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the
> Geneva Conventions. 
> 
> Hell.  Read the Patriot Act and tell me it is well-defined.

That is changing the subject.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 17:41:41 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:41:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] embryo research status in Oz
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401020352230.13692-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <004901c3d157$b22a9180$d6ef9a40@texas.net>

[No multi-donor embryos (3 or more sources) permitted, no clones to be
implanted, etc]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911785.html

Embryo research go-ahead in weeks
By Tom Noble
Health Editor
January 3, 2004


The Federal Government will approve the first experiments on "excess" IVF
embryos within weeks following applications from universities, research
institutes and private companies.

And in an effort to counter concerns over the controversial research, the
Government is employing two inspectors to ensure that its new laws on
cloning and embryo use are not broken.

Prominent scientists believe as many as 15 different groups could be vying
for licences.

...
Melbourne IVF would grow embryos to about six days old, then extract the
inner cell mass - up to 40 cells from an embryo of about 160 cells. The
process destroys the embryo. The extracted embryonic stem cells would
multiply indefinitely and be used for experiments.

...
The nine-member licensing committee can decide the period of any licence
issued, impose conditions and revoke licences.

Dr Morris said the inspectors' work would not be limited to people holding a
licence. "They will be working, where necessary, with the state or federal
police if there's a suspicion people are undertaking human cloning, or
something similar."

Laws that allow experiments on "excess" IVF embryos - which can be used only
under strict conditions - were passed by Federal Parliament 12 months ago
after an emotional and sometimes bitter debate about the ethics of
experimenting and killing days-old human embryos.

Only embryos created before April 5, 2002, can be used and they must be
regarded as "spare" - in other words, they would have been destroyed if not
used for experiments. The parents of the embryos must give written
permission for their use.

Anyone who uses an excess embryo without a licence faces five years' jail,
plus fines of $165,000 for a company and $33,000 for an individual. A
licence holder that breaks the law loses its licence.

The laws ban human cloning, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years' jail
and fines of $495,000 for a company and $99,000 for an individual.



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  2 18:00:14 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:00:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox:
	m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Dirk Bruere wrote,
> I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation 
> Argument.

I find the Simulation Argument violates Occam's Razor.  It adds complexity
that is not needed.  It does not help explain any observable phenomenon.  It
also seems to reject all science.  If everything we observe is a simulation,
then the simulation does not have to be constrained to known physical laws.
Everything we think we know is wrong.  Anything is possible, whether science
thinks it is or not.  The acceptance of the Simulation Argument seems to
require a rejection of science.

I also find the statistical analysis of the Simulation Argument to be
suspect.  The claim seems to be that there are more simulations than real
universes because more than one simulation can fit into each universe.  That
is about as useful as claiming we must be inside an atom because there are
so many more atoms than universes.  Any simulation within a universe is
incomplete.  A complete simulation of the entire universe would expand to
take resources in the real universe until a 100% utilization of resources
could produce a 100% perfect simulation of the real universe.  Any lesser
simulation is really a fraction of the size/duration/complexity of the real
universe and should count proportionately less.  In fact, the sum total of
all simulations within a real universe should be less that of the containing
universe.  

The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is larger than the
size/duration/complexity of all their simulations put together.  Unless
simulations tend to take over 100% of a universe's total resources before
the universe's lifespan is half over, real unconsumed resources outnumber
simulated resources.  Even going with the Simulation Argument's faulty
premise, the statistics still don't seem to support the conclusion.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 18:14:07 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox:
	m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040102181407.17216.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Dirk Bruere wrote,
> > I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation 
> > Argument.
> 
> I find the Simulation Argument violates Occam's Razor.  It adds
> complexity that is not needed.  It does not help explain any
> observable phenomenon.  It also seems to reject all science. 
> If everything we observe is a simulation, then the simulation
> does not have to be constrained to known physical laws. 
> Everything we think we know is wrong.  Anything is possible,
> whether science thinks it is or not.  The acceptance of the
> Simulation Argument seems to require a rejection of science.

Heard of a lecture by Hawking several years ago about what sort of
phenomena one could expect around black holes, and he dumbfounded the
audience by suggesting that ANYthing could be expected to pop out of a
black hole: Thor, Barney the Dinosaur, you name it, if it can be
imagined, it has a potential to come out of a black hole via warping.

Science is only useful for describing what is normal and consistent for
this universe. Its ability to predict what exists outside this
universe, or what may intrude here from other realities (via
singularities) is hamstrung by the fact that science relies on a body
of data from observation, none of which we have regarding these things.

Hawking Radiation is about as close as you can get to penetrating the
veil of the boundary of this universe.


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 18:16:55 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:16:55 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] embryo research status in Oz
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401020352230.13692-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<004901c3d157$b22a9180$d6ef9a40@texas.net>
Message-ID: <01b701c3d15c$9aa46f90$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] embryo research status in Oz


> [No multi-donor embryos (3 or more sources) permitted, no clones to be
> implanted, etc]
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911785.html
>
> Embryo research go-ahead in weeks
> By Tom Noble
> Health Editor
> January 3, 2004
>
>
> The Federal Government will approve the first experiments on "excess" IVF
> embryos within weeks following applications from universities, research
> institutes and private companies.


I think we are beginning to see that the US Xian fundie influence is not
exportable.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 18:18:23 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
In-Reply-To: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021005420.18927-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:

> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

Boredom.  In the *first* place immortality is probably impossible
unless one can assert that protons do not decay -- and in the
current standard model of physics they probably do decay
(though this takes a *very* long time and has yet to be proven
experimentally to the best of my knowledge).

So you have a terminology problem with the question as stated.

The boredom problem will probably lead to people taking increasing
risks (extreme extreme sports -- e.g. Fear Factor with no safeties)
or perhaps committing suicide after a few hundred years.

Population growth is not a problem in "achieving" immortality.
Its a moral problem as to whether one devotes more resources
towards helping many people live better -- but shorter, non-immortal
lives or whether one devotes the resources towards helping fewer
people live longer lives (which will eventually help everyone still
alive live longer lives).

Its also true that if the singularity arguments hold -- then the
population growth ("Club of Rome") arguments are all ca-ca.
We *know* that nanotech -- and extremely advanced biotech
(significantly changing the food and energy equations) are
going to be available before 2050 (the standard point where
everyone says everything from famine to global warming are
going to start destroying humanity).

> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

I'd tend to agree with the stem cells perspective.  After that
I'd say "whole genome engineering".  After that I'd say organogenesis
based on synthetic genomes.  After that I'd say nanorobotic
enhancment from respirocytes to vasculoid systems.

Robert




From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 18:23:07 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:23:07 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox: m/d approach)
References: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <01c201c3d15d$780d5810$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
To: "'Dirk Bruere'" <dirk at neopax.com>; "'ExI chat list'"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox: m/d approach)


> Dirk Bruere wrote,
> > I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation
> > Argument.

> I find the Simulation Argument violates Occam's Razor.  It adds complexity
> ...thinks it is or not.  The acceptance of the Simulation Argument seems
to
> require a rejection of science.

I do not think Occam's Razor applies, or if it does, it favours the
Simulation Argument.
The only premise required is that simulations of the complexity we see
around us are possible using modest resources.

> I also find the statistical analysis of the Simulation Argument to be
> suspect.  The claim seems to be that there are more simulations than real

Well, I'm not getting into a stats argument.
They are never ending and never resolvable.

> universes because more than one simulation can fit into each universe.
That
> is about as useful as claiming we must be inside an atom because there are
> so many more atoms than universes.  Any simulation within a universe is
> incomplete.  A complete simulation of the entire universe would expand to
> take resources in the real universe until a 100% utilization of resources
> could produce a 100% perfect simulation of the real universe.  Any lesser
> simulation is really a fraction of the size/duration/complexity of the
real
> universe and should count proportionately less.  In fact, the sum total of
> all simulations within a real universe should be less that of the
containing
> universe.

It all depends on the scale of the simulation.
The simplest, a Matrix style simulation, requires very little processing
power (but IMO is ruled out by the effects of hallucinogens).
I doubt whether any sane creator would opt for a Planck  level simulation of
an entire universe across 13.7b yrs - it's just unnecessary

> The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is larger than the
> size/duration/complexity of all their simulations put together.  Unless
> simulations tend to take over 100% of a universe's total resources before
> the universe's lifespan is half over, real unconsumed resources outnumber
> simulated resources.  Even going with the Simulation Argument's faulty
> premise, the statistics still don't seem to support the conclusion.

Stats are only as good as the assumptions.
Consider 'The Golden Age' entertainments.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 18:27:29 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox:
	m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021019360.18927-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is larger than the
> size/duration/complexity of all their simulations put together. [snip]

I'm not sure how you justify this Harvey.  It would seem to assume
that the universes in which the sims are run are playing by the same
laws of physics as our universe.  I don't see how that has to hold.
For example -- if we develop femtotech (sub-atomic engineering)
or photon-tech (massless engineering) I could see us setting up
significant simulations of universes limited to nanotech.  Since
we have no clue as to what technology is being used to host
a simulation of our universe (if such is the case) I don't
see how you can argue limits based on "all real universes".
The sims could be running a variety of what we consider to
be "real universes" based on various physical laws, after
that they will run another set of sims, and so on and so
forth.  There may be no beginning, no end, no heat death
and a completly different set of rules in whatever (one
hesitates to call it a universe) is hosting the sims
(again -- if that is the case).

Robert



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  2 18:32:15 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:32:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <20040102181407.17216.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011901c3d15e$c2a155b0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Science is only useful for describing what is normal and 
> consistent for this universe. Its ability to predict what 
> exists outside this universe, or what may intrude here from 
> other realities (via singularities) is hamstrung by the fact
> that science relies on a body of data from observation,
> none of which we have regarding these things.

Agreed.  But in that case, we shouldn't be calling the Simulation Argument
scientific.  It is pure speculation of what might occur outside our
universe.  Any attempt to bring it into our universe with statistical
certainly enough to claim it "proves" that we are inside a simulation is
unfounded.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  2 18:53:06 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:53:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021019360.18927-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <012601c3d161$ac2d2ae0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is 
> > larger than the size/duration/complexity of all their
> > simulations put together. [snip]
> 
> I'm not sure how you justify this Harvey.  It would seem to 
> assume that the universes in which the sims are run are 
> playing by the same laws of physics as our universe.

No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any universe, the
simulations within it are subject to those laws.  They cannot break their
own local physics to store more information per unit of matter/energy than
is possible in their real universe.  Whatever laws exist in any universe,
the simulations still are a smaller subset of their universe.  Even by
consuming all of their universe's resources, they cannot simulate more than
their own universe with greater detail.  Therefore, I am saying that the
total simulation units available in any universe is less than the total
reality units of its parent universe.  If every real universe is larger than
the sum total of all its simulations, then the total of all real universes
is larger than the sum total of all simulations.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jan  2 19:06:53 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:06:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:- Biggest Hope for Immortality
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021005420.18927-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <3FF5C14C.C91AA5D7@sasktel.net>

Might not the biggest hope and also the rate limiting step be the
computational and programming capabilities required to interact with the
chemistry of the genome, the
epignome and the dynamics of whole body systems and continue to solve
ever more complex  problems to sustain and then to modify the organism as
its lifespan potential increases and its level of degradation decreases;
Then to understand and direct new
whole system architectures on an ongoing basis.

"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"
>
> Boredom.  In the *first* place immortality is probably impossible
> unless one can assert that protons do not decay -- and in the
> current standard model of physics they probably do decay
> (though this takes a *very* long time and has yet to be proven
> experimentally to the best of my knowledge).
>
> So you have a terminology problem with the question as stated.
>
> The boredom problem will probably lead to people taking increasing
> risks (extreme extreme sports -- e.g. Fear Factor with no safeties)
> or perhaps committing suicide after a few hundred years.
>
> Population growth is not a problem in "achieving" immortality.
> Its a moral problem as to whether one devotes more resources
> towards helping many people live better -- but shorter, non-immortal
> lives or whether one devotes the resources towards helping fewer
> people live longer lives (which will eventually help everyone still
> alive live longer lives).
>
> Its also true that if the singularity arguments hold -- then the
> population growth ("Club of Rome") arguments are all ca-ca.
> We *know* that nanotech -- and extremely advanced biotech
> (significantly changing the food and energy equations) are
> going to be available before 2050 (the standard point where
> everyone says everything from famine to global warming are
> going to start destroying humanity).
>
> > 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"
>
> I'd tend to agree with the stem cells perspective.  After that
> I'd say "whole genome engineering".  After that I'd say organogenesis
> based on synthetic genomes.  After that I'd say nanorobotic
> enhancment from respirocytes to vasculoid systems.
>
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Fri Jan  2 19:13:47 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:13:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
Message-ID: <3FF5C2EB.2010304@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:18 am Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"
>
> I'd tend to agree with the stem cells perspective. After that
> I'd say "whole genome engineering". After that I'd say organogenesis
> based on synthetic genomes. After that I'd say nanorobotic
> enhancement from respirocytes to vasculoid systems.
>

Phew! That was close. Lucky you stopped there.
The next sentence would probably have crashed the spellchecker and
caused temporary blackouts down the East Coast.  ;)

BillK








From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  2 19:12:59 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:12:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
References: <012601c3d161$ac2d2ae0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE65OUuFmwWrf0001d776@hotmail.com>

That is only assuming that their laws of physics do not allow for a particle
to exist in two places at once. It also assumes that each particle can only
represent one piece of data at a time and that time itself cannot be
manipulated to change the amount of data represented by a single particle.
Whoa....My head is about to bust.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)


> Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is
> > > larger than the size/duration/complexity of all their
> > > simulations put together. [snip]
> >
> > I'm not sure how you justify this Harvey.  It would seem to
> > assume that the universes in which the sims are run are
> > playing by the same laws of physics as our universe.
>
> No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any universe, the
> simulations within it are subject to those laws.  They cannot break their
> own local physics to store more information per unit of matter/energy than
> is possible in their real universe.  Whatever laws exist in any universe,
> the simulations still are a smaller subset of their universe.  Even by
> consuming all of their universe's resources, they cannot simulate more
than
> their own universe with greater detail.  Therefore, I am saying that the
> total simulation units available in any universe is less than the total
> reality units of its parent universe.  If every real universe is larger
than
> the sum total of all its simulations, then the total of all real universes
> is larger than the sum total of all simulations.
>
> -- 
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec
Manager,
> NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 19:23:35 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MDIA: Microsoft does it again...
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021057350.19595-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


New Worm Spreads VIa MSN Messenger
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/02/0356230&mode=thread

Interestingly -- it seems probable that this should
get through firewalls -- so those avoiding I.E.
and Outlook and who happen to have picked MSNM
may be screwed.

While it may be safe for now, previous experience has
demonstrated that such holes may be exploited into
sending SPAM.  Note the following:
  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/02/1625224&mode=thread
where the SPAMers are using "chained open proxies".
These are combination of people running software that
isn't securely configured as well as machines that
have been compromised by viruses.  And then of course
there is "bulletproof hosting in India".  Simple to
resolve -- accept no communications from IP addresses
in India (the problem is implementing it on the poorly
managed machines that function as open relays).

I ran across an interesting debate the other day.  Apparently
a number of people in the EU, esp. the UK, had created a
petition for the EU to boycott Israel until it began to
implement the UN resolutions on borders and the requirements
by a number of peace plans to engage in discussions.  In
response a counter petition was generated against this.
>From what I read the signatures on the first petition were
50-75, while on the second petition were 15,000+.  Now
obviously one can get a petition with 15,000+ signatures
of non-Israeli Jews to sign a petition supporting any
position that Israel takes.  (I am *not* anti-Jewish
having worked with a number of people of Jewish faith
in New York City in my younger days and having admired
their values, commitment, etc.  I am anti-irrationalism --
wherein Jews assert they are entitled to the entire "state"
of what they believe Israel should be -- based in large
part on the perspective that "God" gave it to them.)

Now, it occured to me that there might be a private or
semi-public action that could be taken that governments
would never take -- Cut them off until they decide to
get realistic.  (I.e. I could deny access to the
aeiveos.com web site to all incoming requests from
Israeli IP addresses -- I could lobby with Google
that they do the same -- after all Google doesn't
probably make much money from Israeli queries.)
The point would be that the methods used to block
SPAMers could similarly be used to exert pressure
on populations and governments to get their acts
together in the age of information technology.
(Yes I realize there are ways around such restrictions
but the point would be to heighten an already active
debate.)

Just some thoughts.
Robert






From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  2 19:25:59 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:25:59 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
References: <012601c3d161$ac2d2ae0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <01e801c3d166$40d02cc0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)


> Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is
> > > larger than the size/duration/complexity of all their
> > > simulations put together. [snip]
> >
> > I'm not sure how you justify this Harvey.  It would seem to
> > assume that the universes in which the sims are run are
> > playing by the same laws of physics as our universe.
>
> No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any universe, the
> simulations within it are subject to those laws.  They cannot break their
> own local physics to store more information per unit of matter/energy than
> is possible in their real universe.  Whatever laws exist in any universe,
> the simulations still are a smaller subset of their universe.  Even by
> consuming all of their universe's resources, they cannot simulate more
than
> their own universe with greater detail.  Therefore, I am saying that the
> total simulation units available in any universe is less than the total
> reality units of its parent universe.  If every real universe is larger
than
> the sum total of all its simulations, then the total of all real universes
> is larger than the sum total of all simulations.


But their 'real universe' may (for example) be a truly continuum one with
infinite computing power.
In which case we are comparing degrees of infinity.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 19:33:07 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <012601c3d161$ac2d2ae0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040102193307.33022.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is 
> > > larger than the size/duration/complexity of all their
> > > simulations put together. [snip]
> > 
> > I'm not sure how you justify this Harvey.  It would seem to 
> > assume that the universes in which the sims are run are 
> > playing by the same laws of physics as our universe.
> 
> No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any universe, the
> simulations within it are subject to those laws.  

This is patently false. The only limitations that laws are subject to
are the processing limits of the operating substrate. In many ways, it
is *easier* to simulate LESS physical constraints. Simulating a highly
restrictive set of physical laws takes a lot more processing power.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 19:35:48 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:35:48 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <00f701c3d167$a3242ec0$d6ef9a40@texas.net>


> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

Just a terminological aside: Robert keeps pointing out that we can't get
literal immortality, because eventually the cosmos will perish. That's
strictly true, but I think it's entirely irrelevant to what we're actually
discussing, which is *negligible or repairable senescence or `aging'*.

Obviously we can't stop aging *literally*, since that would mean halting all
atomic activity. We need to remind people that `aging' is just the
traditional word contingently associated with physical decay due to the
breakdown of cellular maintenance mechanisms, accumulated unrepaired damage,
etc. It's a shame the word `senescence' isn't known to most people, but
maybe it will spread as the idea gets better known.

The other problem with `immortality' as a term is that religious doctrines
long ago appropriated it to connote some sort of blissful `spiritual' state
beyond the reach of space and time. There's no need to fight this, if we can
come up with an alternative which means indefinitely extended youthful
fitness of mind and body without loss of memory and accumulated wisdom.

Robert might be right that boredom, cafard, ennui is the likely downside of
extended youthfulness--but that assumes longevous humans will retain our
current limitations, which as most here agree is very unlikely. Moreover, a
person so afflicted could either seek treatment (as the depressed are urged
to do nowadays) or choose to relinquish life. If someone hands you a hundred
billion dollars, but you wonder anxiously whether you should accept it
because eventually you might become jaded by being so wealthy, you can
always give it away... (I'll take it off your hands).

Damien Broderick



From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Fri Jan  2 19:35:50 2004
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:35:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
In-Reply-To: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <3FF5C816.8050405@mydruthers.com>

> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

The biggest problem is that it isn't a single problem.  You have to 
remove all the causes of mortality in order to achieve immortality. 
For extremely long life, you only have to solve all the systemic causes.

> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

For me, the answer is Aubrey de Gray's effort to Engineer Negligible 
Senescence (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/).  Aubrey seems to be 
addressing enough of the disparate causes to push lifespan out a long way.

Chris
-- 
C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings:
       "A sense of age, of profound truths.  Respect for something
       hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time.
       It persuades us that things we do may last and matter."

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  2 19:57:14 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:57:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <20040102193307.33022.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <012b01c3d16a$9e9e7830$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any 
> > universe, the simulations within it are subject to those laws.
> 
> This is patently false. The only limitations that laws are 
> subject to are the processing limits of the operating 
> substrate. In many ways, it is *easier* to simulate LESS 
> physical constraints. Simulating a highly restrictive set of 
> physical laws takes a lot more processing power.

This is what I meant.  The operating substrate is in the real physical
universe.  It is subject to those laws.  I did not mean that one couldn't
simulate something impossible in their own physical universe.  But the
amount of information stored to do so takes as much or more physical
universe resources than it really would in the physical universe.  You
either map incompletely with less detail, or you consume as much resources
to store the information as the real universe takes.  One can't store more
information in the simulation than would fit in their real universe, because
the storage medium is in the real universe and takes real resources.

Kevin Freels wrote,
> That is only assuming that their laws of physics do not allow 
> for a particle to exist in two places at once. It also 
> assumes that each particle can only represent one piece of 
> data at a time and that time itself cannot be manipulated to 
> change the amount of data represented by a single particle. 
> Whoa....My head is about to bust.

No.  If a universe is warped so that it can represent two pieces of
information per particle, than each simulated particle has two pieces of
information to store.  Each particle can therefore store a sum total of one
particle's information.  (Again, unless you make an incomplete simulation.)
If a particle can be in two places at once, then it must be simulated in two
places at once in the simulation to be a complete simulation.  Whatever you
invent to give the real universe more storage, that creates more storage
requirement for that same item in the simulation.  It's like a mirror.
Whatever you invent in the real universe, appears that complex in the
simulation.  The only way out is if the simulated universe has reduced
complexity compared to the real universe, which was my point.  You have to
leave out complexity and details to make room for other complexity or
details, so the net total is still the size of the enclosing universe.  An
object inside a universe cannot contain more information than the enclosing
universe can hold, or else the object is not really contained inside the
enclosing universe.  This is a tautology of definitions.  No universe can
hold more than it can hold.  Anything it holds must be the same size or
smaller.

Dirk Bruere wrote,
> But their 'real universe' may (for example) be a truly
> continuum one with infinite computing power. In which case
> we are comparing degrees of infinity.

Perhaps, but I am willing to do so!  Imagine an infinite space one inch by
one inch by infinity.  Now imagine a space twice as large, one inch by two
inches by infinity.  Despite complaints about comparing infinities, it seems
obvious that the second object can hold exactly two of the smaller objects.
When comparing similar magnitudes or dimensions of infinities, it is
possible to do math and compare them.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 20:01:49 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <01e801c3d166$40d02cc0$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040102200149.33317.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> But their 'real universe' may (for example) be a truly continuum one
> with infinite computing power.
> In which case we are comparing degrees of infinity.

Depends on what you mean by infinity. If U-Prime has any sort of speed
of light limitation, then it is limited to a section of its universe
bounded by their light cone. While there may be exemptions, or no
limits at all, there must be some mechanism to muffle instant heat
death which is what c does, but this is assuming that such a universe
has something like nuclear fusion to begin with.

Here are some proposed laws of simulated universes:

1) it is easier (less programming and processing) to simulate fewer and
less complex physical laws than more and more complex physical laws.
2) as universes mature and increase in extropy, the laws bounding them
will increase in complexity and quantity as more programming and
processing is dedicated to such universes.
3) the observational results in any given universe of insufficient
programming and/or processing are indistinguishable from magic.

The results of these proposed rules are:

a) younger universes will appear to be more 'magical'
b) older universes will have greater physical limitations and will
become more technological.
c) like high traffic internet sites, universes with increasing age and
popularity will require increasing amounts of programming and
processing to maintain increasing user value and to prevent the veil of
artificiality from becoming punctured.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  2 20:06:32 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:06:32 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] graphic books of related interest, maybe
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
	<00f701c3d167$a3242ec0$d6ef9a40@texas.net>
Message-ID: <013101c3d16b$edaab780$d6ef9a40@texas.net>

http://www.sfsite.com/01a/tc167.htm

I haven't seen these yet.

< A review by Cindy Lynn Speer

Bisso and Geaza are two young men sent three million years back into the
past -- to our present -- in order to become a catalyst in the evolutionary
chain of events. In this future, humans have attained all possible things,
they have evolved as far as they can go and they want more, they feel that
they can become more. So they create these two, genetically engineering men.
If they live at least 150 years, the chemicals that they shed through their
pores will give humanity the evolutionary shot it needs to fulfill a greater
promise. Bisso and Geaza are living quiet, if boring, lives, not knowing if
they've succeeded or failed, until a strange looking creature finds them. He
bears a message: that they've succeeded beyond humanity's hopes, and that
the future people of the Earth thanks them for their sacrifice. But as they
learn of the nature of this visitor, they are forced to wonder if they
really did succeed, or if they failed in the most horrific way. [etc] >




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jan  2 20:09:35 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:09:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040101015640.066fe667.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040102200935.27048.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying
> it is this or that category of crime is virtually
> meaningless.  Its definition is arbitrary so any
> acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to
> exercise.

You know, I had to laugh at that.  But I think you'll
find yourself chuckling too, at least if you like dark
humor about serious situations.

Terrorism has a definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
version:

> The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> intimidation.

Now, contrast this to the fact that a lot of these
laws and policies we're objecting to are getting
passed on the fear, also known as terror, that
"terrorists" might otherwise harm us or those we care
about; and/or by intimidating those who would stand up
to abuses.

Also, from Wikipedia, terrorism...

> [...]is the term commonly used to refer to the
> calculated use of violence or the threat of
> violence, against the civilian population, usually
> for the purpose of obtaining political or religious
> goals.

Arrest and imprisonment is a form of violence, no?
Though, granted, it's more "threat of" than the real
thing.

> Although the exact meaning of the term is disputed,
> it is commonly held that the distinctive nature of
> terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific
> selection of civilians as targets, a choice designed
> to attract wide publicity and cause extreme levels
> of public shock, outrage and fear.  Terrorists
> believe these conditions will help to bring about
> the political or religious changes that they seek.

Civilians don't stop being civilians even under
military-grade high security alerts, especially when
the alerts stay active enough to become status quo.

I believe you should see the parallels I'm seeing by
now.


From humania at t-online.de  Fri Jan  2 20:24:06 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:24:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope forImmortality
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
	<00f701c3d167$a3242ec0$d6ef9a40@texas.net>
Message-ID: <001a01c3d16e$608e4490$5b91fea9@kwasar>

Damien:

> It's a shame the word `senescence' isn't known to most people, but
> maybe it will spread as the idea gets better known.

I especially like the German version "Seneszenz". It's a bit sharper and
sounds more final ("endgueltig").

And, of course, if you pronounce it with relish, you hiss and hit the word
"Sense" at the same time, which is the most important tool of Death,
"scythe" in English. As we use to say: "It's scythe now!" instead of 
"That's enough!"



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 20:39:19 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040102200935.27048.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040102203919.51519.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> You know, I had to laugh at that.  But I think you'll
> find yourself chuckling too, at least if you like dark
> humor about serious situations.
> 
> Terrorism has a definition.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
> cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
> version:
> 
> > The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> > terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> > intimidation.

This is an irrelevant definition. The only important one is that
defined in the Geneva Conventions:

a) engaging in acts of violence or threats of violence against
civilians, while,
b) not wearing a uniform that distinguishes the combatant from a
civilian, and/or,
c) seeking shelter in civilian communities or facilities (except for
seeking health care in hospitals).

Similarly civilians or civilian facilities which are used as shelter by
illegal combatants become legitimate military targets under the GCs.

The fact that McVeigh didn't wear a recognisable uniform made him an
illegal combatant, but not a terrorist. Under the Geneva Conventions,
McVeighs attack on the Murrah Federal Building was only a terrorist act
in that he purposely set off his bomb when he knew there would be
children in the day care center. The deaths of all federal agents and
employees, and the bombing of the building itself, were legitimate acts
of war. 

Conversely, the actions of the ATF and FBI against the Davidian
compound in Waco were terrorism because the ATF initiated violence.
While Koresh violated unconstitutional laws, he did not preach the
overthrow of any government, he only predicted what did happen, would
happen.

Israeli attacks on Hamas militants are legitimate acts of war. The
bulldozing of buildings used for shelter by Palestinian combatants are
legimitate acts of war, as is the bulldozing of homes paid for with
bounty money paid for homicide bombings. Such bounties are not normal
military pay, nor are they legitimate death benefits, they are paid
specifically for the act of blowing ones self up in an act of terrorism
against civilians, which is not an act of war. Paying rewards for war
crimes is itself a war crime, as is accepting such rewards.

Now, you may say, "but everything you say seems to give the advantage
to the more powerful military forces." This is exactly so. This was
partly the intent of the Geneva Conventions, originally, to maintain
the eminence of the Powers of the 19th century and help prevent the
emergence of new powers strictly as a result of military conquest and
sponsorship of insurgencies. It forced nations to become Powers through
peaceful economic development, as the United States did in the 1890's,
as Japan did a few years later.

The other intent of the GCs was to try to isolate military action from
civilian action, so that a nation's infrastructure would not be
destroyed by conflict. This has come under serious attack by the 20th
century history of Total War and Revolutionary Insurgency. The only way
to put the genie back in the bottle is to be very severe about the
enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, demanding nations have strictly
enforced military codes, and taking to task those nations that do not.

We need to put that genie back in the bottle, or the case for
individual liberty in the future is severely threatened.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From aperick at centurytel.net  Fri Jan  2 21:12:14 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (aperick at centurytel.net)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:12:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dirtlings
In-Reply-To: <200401021707.i02H7fE31698@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8072489.1073077954758.JavaMail.teamon@b111.teamon.com>

Darn you Mike Lorrey, now I can't stop thinking how the whole universe may
be pointing and laughing at we dirtlings :)



From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Jan  2 22:09:26 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:09:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040102203919.51519.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040102200935.27048.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040102203919.51519.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040102140926.01b8725a.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > You know, I had to laugh at that.  But I think you'll
> > find yourself chuckling too, at least if you like dark
> > humor about serious situations.
> > 
> > Terrorism has a definition.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
> > cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
> > version:
> > 
> > > The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> > > terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> > > intimidation.
> 
> This is an irrelevant definition. The only important one is that
> defined in the Geneva Conventions:
> 
> a) engaging in acts of violence or threats of violence against
> civilians, while,
> b) not wearing a uniform that distinguishes the combatant from a
> civilian, and/or,
> c) seeking shelter in civilian communities or facilities (except for
> seeking health care in hospitals).
> 

By this definition all militia sans uniforms everywhere are terrorists.  How exactly is this helpful?  For that matter, any organized group of citizens defending their own lives and property against other groups would be terrorists. 

The military of a country threatening the imminent demise of citizens of another country could never be considered terrorist no matter how foul its acts.  

> Similarly civilians or civilian facilities which are used as shelter by
> illegal combatants become legitimate military targets under the GCs.
> 
> The fact that McVeigh didn't wear a recognisable uniform made him an
> illegal combatant, but not a terrorist. Under the Geneva Conventions,
> McVeighs attack on the Murrah Federal Building was only a terrorist act
> in that he purposely set off his bomb when he knew there would be
> children in the day care center. The deaths of all federal agents and
> employees, and the bombing of the building itself, were legitimate acts
> of war. 
> 

> Conversely, the actions of the ATF and FBI against the Davidian
> compound in Waco were terrorism because the ATF initiated violence.
> While Koresh violated unconstitutional laws, he did not preach the
> overthrow of any government, he only predicted what did happen, would
> happen.

But wait, the ATF and FBI did not meet the second or third supposed criteria for being considered terrorist.  They were wearing uniforms and they did not shelter with civilians.

> 
> Israeli attacks on Hamas militants are legitimate acts of war. The
> bulldozing of buildings used for shelter by Palestinian combatants are
> legimitate acts of war, as is the bulldozing of homes paid for with
> bounty money paid for homicide bombings. Such bounties are not normal
> military pay, nor are they legitimate death benefits, they are paid
> specifically for the act of blowing ones self up in an act of terrorism
> against civilians, which is not an act of war. Paying rewards for war
> crimes is itself a war crime, as is accepting such rewards.
>

Whether it is a "legitimate act of war" or not it is not legitimate to destroy entire towns, villages and cities when the people rise up against years of oppression.   The characterization of homes, many of them quite poor, as being paid for with bounty money for suicide bombings, is beneath contempt.  
 
> Now, you may say, "but everything you say seems to give the advantage
> to the more powerful military forces." This is exactly so. This was
> partly the intent of the Geneva Conventions, originally, to maintain
> the eminence of the Powers of the 19th century and help prevent the
> emergence of new powers strictly as a result of military conquest and
> sponsorship of insurgencies. It forced nations to become Powers through
> peaceful economic development, as the United States did in the 1890's,
> as Japan did a few years later.
>

Good.  You admit that the GC is not the arbiter of what is reasonable but is rather, in part, a tool of oppresion. 
 
> The other intent of the GCs was to try to isolate military action from
> civilian action, so that a nation's infrastructure would not be
> destroyed by conflict. This has come under serious attack by the 20th
> century history of Total War and Revolutionary Insurgency. The only way
> to put the genie back in the bottle is to be very severe about the
> enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, demanding nations have strictly
> enforced military codes, and taking to task those nations that do not.
>

The better way to put the genie back into the bottle is to remove much of the oppression and conditions leading to armed conflict in the first place.
 
- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Jan  2 22:18:43 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:18:43 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox: m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040102141843.3b352b63.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:00:14 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote,
> > I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation 
> > Argument.
> 
> I find the Simulation Argument violates Occam's Razor.  It adds complexity
> that is not needed.  It does not help explain any observable phenomenon.  It
> also seems to reject all science.  If everything we observe is a simulation,
> then the simulation does not have to be constrained to known physical laws.
> Everything we think we know is wrong.  Anything is possible, whether science
> thinks it is or not.  The acceptance of the Simulation Argument seems to
> require a rejection of science.

It would be a pretty poor simulation if it did not follow well defined and consistent internal laws.  From the point of view of beings within the simulation those laws are the "known physical laws".   Within the simulation they are not in the least wrong.  Nothing is possible except what the simulation (local reality) was designed to make possible unless something from outside interferes.   There is no necessary rejection of science.

- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Jan  2 22:22:53 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:22:53 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <011901c3d15e$c2a155b0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <20040102181407.17216.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<011901c3d15e$c2a155b0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040102142253.6d7628cc.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:32:15 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Science is only useful for describing what is normal and 
> > consistent for this universe. Its ability to predict what 
> > exists outside this universe, or what may intrude here from 
> > other realities (via singularities) is hamstrung by the fact
> > that science relies on a body of data from observation,
> > none of which we have regarding these things.
> 
> Agreed.  But in that case, we shouldn't be calling the Simulation Argument
> scientific.  It is pure speculation of what might occur outside our
> universe.  Any attempt to bring it into our universe with statistical
> certainly enough to claim it "proves" that we are inside a simulation is
> unfounded.
> 


I don't get that argument.  If we are in a simulation then our science, used to study *what is* may be able to determine that fact.  It is a speculation about the overall nature of our universe.  If your argument held then we should also include singularities like black holes from science.

- samantha


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jan  2 22:45:07 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040102203919.51519.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040102224507.52112.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Terrorism has a definition.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
> > cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,
> 1998
> > version:
> > 
> > > The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> > > terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> > > intimidation.
> 
> This is an irrelevant definition. The only important
> one is that
> defined in the Geneva Conventions:

Terrorism, and its definition, have changed over the
years.

> a) engaging in acts of violence or threats of
> violence against
> civilians, while,
> b) not wearing a uniform that distinguishes the
> combatant from a
> civilian, and/or,
> c) seeking shelter in civilian communities or
> facilities (except for
> seeking health care in hospitals).

Hmm.  You know, technically, President Bush and
certain members of his Cabinet (and some members of
Congress)...
a) make speeches that could be interpreted as threats
of violence (by police, uniformed or otherwise)
against civilians (by threatening that the civilians
could be labelled "terrorists", "illegal combatants",
or whatever else would incite others to take away
their rights by potentially violent means),
b) more often than not, do not wear uniforms while
making these speeches (unless business suits are
"uniforms"; they definitely don't typically classify
people as combatants), and
c) seek to be in civilian communities and facilities a
fair amount of the time (unless the Secret Service, by
following the President et al around, automatically
makes wherever they are a non-civilian community or
facilitiy for the duration of their presence).

> Conversely, the actions of the ATF and FBI against
> the Davidian
> compound in Waco were terrorism because the ATF
> initiated violence.
> While Koresh violated unconstitutional laws, he did
> not preach the
> overthrow of any government, he only predicted what
> did happen, would
> happen.

As has been pointed out, the ATF and FBI were wearing
uniforms at the time.  The same argument applies to
all uniformed police officers.  One could very well
argue that the police, at least while in uniform, are
closer to military status legally than most
civilians.  (And note that on-duty police usually do
not seek shelter in civilian facilities; they may do
business there, but they're on duty, going where their
duty calls them to be.  They "seek shelter" in marked
cars and buildings designated as police stations.)


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jan  2 23:02:27 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:02:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
	(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
References: <012601c3d161$ac2d2ae0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<Law10-OE65OUuFmwWrf0001d776@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c3d184$7ed9d840$f0c7fea9@scerir>

From: "Kevin Freels"

> That is only assuming that their laws of physics do not allow for a
> particle to exist in two places at once.

Hey. You knew that. Don't you?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310091
www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/talks/QELS03-3box.ppt

> It also assumes that each particle can only
> represent one piece of data at a time and that time itself cannot be
> manipulated to change the amount of data represented by a single particle.

Manipulate time itself?
You must choose a very 'unusual' time, which has to be a dynamical
variable, like tau, the 'proper' time of a particle. In this case you
could write, safely enough, an uncertainty relation like
        Delta tau x Delta mass of the particle =/> h
which should be, more or less, the target of any serious space-time
quantization program. Note that if you measure, or impose, a small
Delta tau, the Delta mass of the particle becomes very large, and
viceversa.
Not much different from the usual position vs. momentum relation
            Delta position x Delta momentum >/= h
by which, changing continuously Delta position you reveal the
particle-like nature, or the wave-like nature, of the 'thing'.

The other classical possibility, given the SR metric, is represented
by the weird uncertainty relation space vs. time, like
        (dx/dt + ds/dt) x (dx/dt - ds/dt) = 1/c^2

Not to mention what would be a Universe dependent on the
Banach-Tarski paradox on unmeasurable sets for its operation!
(But this would really be magic).






From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  2 23:19:41 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:19:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <20040102142253.6d7628cc.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <016701c3d186$e997ac00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> I don't get that argument.  If we are in a simulation then 
> our science, used to study *what is* may be able to determine 
> that fact.  It is a speculation about the overall nature of 
> our universe.  If your argument held then we should also 
> include singularities like black holes from science.

Actually, I agree with you.  I was countering Mike's argument that science
doesn't hold in other universes.  I said in that case, we can't call
speculation about these areas outside science "scientific".  I was objecting
to using the claim that science doesn't work in some cases as part of the
scientfiic argument!  I actually do agree that science can speculate about
what is outside our universe.  But throwing out the requirements of science
is not part of scientific speculation.

> It would be a pretty poor simulation if it did not follow
> well defined and consistent internal laws.  From the point
> of view of beings within the simulation those laws are the
> "known physical laws".   Within the simulation they are not
> in the least wrong.  Nothing is possible except what the
> simulation (local reality) was designed to make possible
> unless something from outside interferes.   There is no
> necessary rejection of science.

I didn't say that it "couldn't" be true.  But science doesn't lead to
speculatation about what "might" be true that we can't detect.  That is more
properly the realm of religion.  Science leads to explanations about what is
observed.  If we haven't observed it and someone dreamed up the idea without
observation or evidence, this is religion, not science.  Likewise, God might
be true.  But discussions about God are religion, not science.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jan  2 23:28:34 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:28:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to apply to
	superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <3FF5FEA2.8040900@pobox.com>

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell at digitalkingdom.org> writes:
> 
>>>Myself, though, I will make a strong prediction -- which is that
>>>the laws of physics and the rules of math don't cease to apply.
>>>That leads me to believe that evolution doesn't stop. That further
>>>leads me to believe that nature -- bloody in tooth and claw, as
>>>some have termed it -- will simply be taken to the next level. I
>>>don't fear this particularly, but it isn't consistent with the
>>>"everything is going to turn up roses" viewpoint.
>>
>>You've taken one sample set, Earth, and implied from the course of
>>evolution on Earth that it is a *law of physics* that violent
>>conflict occur.

> Evolution isn't something you can avoid. Deep down, all it says is
> "you find more of that which survives and spreads itself", which is so
> close to a tautology that it is damn hard to dispute. There is no
> moral superiority to a bacterium that minds its manners over one that
> overwhelms its competition. The universe on a deep level doesn't care
> which one you find more of. However, almost axiomatically, the second
> one is the one you'll find in every soil sample and the first will be
> rare or extinct.

The replicator dynamics, like all math equations, generally are provable
and hence what people would call "tautological" when applied to the real
world.  The question is whether the variables take on any interesting
values.  Price's Equation is a tautology, and, therefore, always true; the
question is whether it usefully applies.  You can apply it to pebbles on
the seashore, for example, and lo, the change in the mean value of the
"blue" characteristic for the pebbles will equal the covariance of the
"blue" characteristic with the proportional change (fitness) of each color
category of pebbles.  That is, it will be precisely, numerically equal, if
you do the calculation.  But the correlation will end up being slight, and
will probably change sign from generation to generation, because the
covariance is noise and not the causal result of physically perseverant
properties of the pebbles; and whatever categories you parse the pebbles
into, it will be a function of an arbitrary classification system, and not
physically copied genes.  And yet the math will still, technically, add up.

Although the math holds true tautologically for any consistent set of
variable definitions, it is not at all trivial to show that the math
*applies* to some physical system in the sense of the variable definitions
corresponding to simple physical properties, rather than being produced
arbitrarily.

And when the variable definitions in a replicator equation do correspond
to simple physical properties, there is still the question of whether one
is dealing with infinitesimal quantities that obey a replicator equation,
or large quantities; small handful of generations, or millions of
generations; whether there is enough selection pressure, over a long
enough period of time, to produce complex information of the sort we're
used to seeing in biology.

To sum up, natural selection *as we know it*, which is to say, natural
selection in any noticeable quantity, is not an automatic consequence of
physics.  It applies to butterflies, but not pebbles, even though the math
can be defined for both cases.  Even if blue pebbles survive some tiny
amount better, it doesn't mean that in 20,000 years all the pebbles on the
seashore will be intensely blue.

We are more likely to see the longest-burning stars, and if you were to
stretch the term far enough, you could insist that stars have
"generations" because the debris of a nova ends up being incorporated into
new stars, and so on, but because the "heritable" capacity is noise (even
though it can still be defined as a mathematical quantity) and the number
of generations so few, we do not see stars that are optimized to burn for
trillions of years, even though we can expect that the stars we see will
have been selected so as to exclude ones that fail to ignite or explode
immediately.

Correspondingly, we can expect that any SI we deal with will exclude the
set of SIs that immediately shut themselves down, and that whichever SI we
see will be the result of an optimization process that was capable of
self-optimization and preferred that choice.  But this does not imply that
any SI we deal with will attach a huge intrinsic utility to its own survival.

If you have an optimization system, and that optimization system behaves
something at least roughly like the expected utility equation, then,
regardless of the particulars of the utility function, it seems
straightforward to derive instrumental expected utility for the continued
operation of an optimization system similar to the one doing the
calculation, and the expected instrumental utility calculated in the
present time will increase with the expected fidelity of the utility
function.  This will hold true of a very large class of optimizers.

It follows that we have no reason to expect any SI we deal with to attach
a huge intrinsic utility to its own survival.  Why?  Because that's an
extremely specific outcome within a very large class of outcomes where the
SI doesn't shut itself down immediately.  There is, in other words, no
Bayesian evidence - no likelihood ratio - that says we are probably
looking at an SI that attaches a huge intrinsic utility to its own
survival; both hypotheses produce the same prediction for observed behavior.

Similarly, for any optimization process that can configure matter in ways
that it reckons will create instrumental utility, or fulfill intrinsic
utility, or avoid expected negative utility, with respect to any possible
aspect of its goal system, we should expect that optimization process to
optimize all available matter, since that action will be perceived as more
desirable than the alternative, assuming the entity implements some kind
of expected utility equation for ordering preferences over choices.

For an extremely large class of SIs, they will *all* choose to absorb all
nearby matter.  So there is no reason to suppose that they would need a
particular desire to reproduce.

I expect that most any optimization process including a Friendly SI, and
certainly including myself, would choose to defend itself from a hostile
optimization process - as an instrumental utility.  So there is no reason
to suppose that any SI we see must have a particular desire to engage in
combat.

And finally, there is no reason to suppose that the process whereby SIs
absorb matter, optimize matter, or in other ways do things with matter,
would create subregions with (a) large heritable changes in properties,
that (b) correlate to large differences in the rate at which these regions
spread or transform other matter, and that (c) this process will continue
over the thousands or millions of generations that would be required for
the natural selection dynamic to produce optimized functional complexity.

This last point is particularly important in understanding why replicator
dynamics are unlikely to apply to SIs.  At most, we are likely to see one
initial filter in which SIs that halt or fence themselves off in tiny
spheres are removed from the cosmic observables.  Almost any utility
function I have ever heard proposed will choose to spread across the
cosmos and transform matter into either (1) *maximally high-fidelity
copies* of the optimization control structure or (2) configurations that
fulfill intrinsic utilities.  If the optimization control structure is
copied at extremely high fidelity, there are no important heritable
differences for natural selection to act on.  If there were heritable
differences, they are not likely to covary with large differences in
reproductive fitness, insofar as all the optimization control structures
will choose equally to transform nearby matter.

Natural selection operates on the *covariance* between heritable
quantities and reproductive fitness, not the *correlation*, which means
that the *amount* of variation is relevant.  (When you calculate the
correlation you take the covariance between the two quantities and divide
by the product of the two standard deviations of each quantity.)  If
there's only a small amount of heritable variation, the covariance goes
down.  If there's only a small amount of variation in reproductive
fitness, the covariance goes down.  If you don't have thousands of
generations, the amount of genetic information generated by the iteration
of this covariance will be tiny, certainly not enough to account for
complex adaptations.

In short, under scenarios of the type I have seen discussed so far,
replicator dynamics do not apply to SIs.

Natural selection is not a binary thing that switches on or off depending
on whether anything that can be called "replication" occurs.  Selection
pressure can be quantified - and it is a surprisingly small optimization
effect by our standards; for example, if each couple has an average of 8
children then there can be *at most* 2 bits of information produced by
natural selection per generation, to be shared among all the quantities
subject to optimization.  With the scenarios extrapolated as usual, and
the variable definitions that are usually offered, the amount of selection
pressure that applies to SIs is infinitesimal, barring a possible initial
selection filter.

> So what sort of strategies does evolution favor? Quite a number of
> them, actually, but none of them can be characterized as "pacifist".

None of them can be characterized as conscientious objectors, barring
those that are physically invulnerable.  I don't see that Friendliness
requires being a conscientious objector to a generic optimization process
that's trying to eat you, and I certainly don't see why a generic
optimization process would choose to be a conscientious objector as an
instrumental utility, barring an exotic utility function.

Anyway, there's a heck of a difference between natural selection *building
a goal system from scratch*, like where humans come from, and applying a
anti-suicide filter to the set of SIs that are likely to pop up from
ancestral civilizations (mostly the result of runaway recursive
self-improvement, I expect, perhaps a Friendlyoid SI here and there if
someone in the ancestral civilization was implausibly competent).

> The struggle for resources is unlikely to end, because the amount of
> resource you can have in any finite volume remains finite.

Replicator dynamics assume a (large, frequent) death rate.  If
optimization processes compete to absorb *available* resources but hang on
permanently to all resources already absorbed, the replicator dynamics are
not iterated across thousands of generations.

> That leads
> me to assume that we'll continue to see evolution take place as life
> spreads through the cosmos.

If so, it will be because Friendly SIs (Friendliness being an exotic
utility function created by the intervention of humans) contain
environments with social scenarios to which replicator dynamics apply.
Even this is not a necessary assumption, and replicator dynamics might
apply to some social quantities and not others.  For example, if
sociolegal dynamics fix the maximum number of children at, say, two
children per couple, or one child every hundred years, and motivational
variations are heritable, then natural selection might apply as a floor
function that minimizes the number of sentient entities who want to have
*less* children than that.  But natural selection would be powerless to
optimize variables within the very large class of minds that chose to use
their full allotment.

On the other hand, *memes* might be around for a long, long time.

> That, in turn, leads me to assume that
> we'll continue to see "nature bloody in tooth and claw", although
> perhaps it will become "nature bloody in assembler and particle beam"
> or other gadgetry far beyond our understanding.

It looks to me like, whether humanity survives or fails, the era of
natural selection as we know it - "bloody in tooth and claw" - is ending.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jan  2 23:36:52 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:36:52 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for
	Immortality
References: <191690-22004152164835994@M2W033.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <04c801c3d189$4ce97980$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Natasha wrote:

> I thought I'd ask if anyone has *up-to-date* answers for
> these 2 questions of the interview - just in case any of you
> have insights that are broader and more spot on than my
> own. :-)
> 
> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

[Sorry the following is a bit of a rant. I can't spare time to
fix it. So I'm opting to post less than optimal. ] 

Theres a definitional problem. When would you know you'd
gotten to immortality? Its like having successfully counted to
infinity. You can't. There always tomorrow that hasn't happened
yet and the next number you haven't counted too. First you'd
need to operationalise the objective into something specific.

>From an engineering/logical standpoint its possible to think 
about travelling to the moon, mars, jupiter etc as problems 
with apparently achievable objects, and then they become
tractable. They can be broken down into a series of steps and
subproblems. Uncertainties can be managed. Its possible to 
start to think about what it would take to achieve *effective*
'immortality' - like a life expectancy of X many hundreds or
thousand of years. But even to do that well its necessary
to scope the problem properly, making some assumptions,
including assumptions about things that are currently 
unknowable.

The asssumptions then get revisited as more is known. 
There could be an assumption that one has that seems
reasonable in the beginning when less is known (either
because that is the state of knowledge of humankind
at that time - or more often because its the state of
knowledge of the person or group doing the planning 
exercise). Sometimes reasonable assumptions made at
the start (on current knowledge) turns out to be 
unreasonable in light of what is learned later. Good engineers
and investors and entrepreneurs save time by looking for the
fatal flaw first. (They seldom apply this device to their deep
beliefs and hopes pertaining to immortality so far as I can
tell). There is always another project or another investment
that they can direct their time and resources to if one path 
or approach fail. 

But this is not what believers do. Believers don't change their 
assumptions in light of new evidence they reinterpret or spin 
the evidence so as to preserve their assumption. Thats natural
enough but it doesn't get very far in practical terms. The human
desire to not die, an investor or entrepreneur can pretty much
take to the bank. So they do. 

People will buy mirage water if there is no real water to be had.
If both real and illusory solutions are available those who don't
know the difference will still go for the illusory ones just as 
readily as the real ones. 
 
> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

Depends where one is starting from personally. Operationally no
one actually dies of old age. There is always something cellular
that goes first. A heart attack has a cellular basis. A bullet through
the brain has a cellular basis. Cancer will kill a person when a critical
organ fails somewhere, and organismic failure will be a cell failure.
The biggest *hope* for immortality for a person on their deathbed
with an incurable condition and no time to find a cure is a religious 
repreive from the laws of contingency. The biggest *hope* is some
sort of religion. That's not the most practical solution (sometimes
there are no practical solutions) but it is their biggest hope. It has 
been historically, it still is today. But the forms of religion and the
forms of belief change. 

This is as true in 2004 as it was in earlier times. That someway, 
somehow the contingent nature of the universe as we understand
can be suspended in our case. Those with particularly detailed
understandings of the way the universe works and of their own
biology will have a harder time finding hope in assumptions based
on ignorance that they don't share. They may find hope in
ignorance. What igorance they retain and in having the capacity 
to approach problems that threaten their hope for assumptions
they can innovate and improve the quality of life for themselves 
and others whilst they do. But as they learn the shallow illusions
of others will not work for them anymore as they will be turning
on lights. For them hope for immortality always recedes into
the shaddows of what remains unknown. But the products of 
their searching solve lots of problems that are more tractable
than immortality. Cures for diseases. Life saving and labor
saving devices. Of course these don't come in time for 
everybody and how they are dispersed is a function of the 
political systems too. 

Say cryonics and molecular nanotechnology were impossible but 
we didn't know it yet, the person on their deathbed's *hope* for
immortality by that 'method' would be retained.  They wouldn't
achieve it of course (if it was impossible) but they could at least
die hoping. And with hope they'd die happy. 

I think it is actually extremely difficult to remove a persons hope
for immortality because each of us doesn't know something and
most of us *hope* the surprises in the unknowns will be pleasant
not unpleasant. 

I am not concerned that I will persuade or remove hope from 
anyone, by adopting a practical or engineering approach because
I am confident that believers will not stop believing and will find
hope in whatever way is necessary for them. But those who can
intellectually and emotionally work the practical and logical problems
like an engineering exercise can improve the human condition for
themselves and for me.

For me, age 37 and in good health, the best hope for me is to 
perhaps to persuade and coordinate efforts to acquire the
understanding to be able to replace all the organs in the body below
the neck (the brain is harder - so I figure get to it later -but I don't
have a brain disease).  Technologically I think this could be done
in the next 30 years - translation I don't know any reason at the
time of writing this why it could not be done in the next 30 years
(if politics was not an issue).  Technologically my state of ignorance
or understanding is such that I think the organs below the neck 
could be replaceable in the next 30 years - I think technologically
that would be a tractable problem (were it to be set as a goal).
And meanwhile substantial progress would be made in 
understanding the brain as well even without setting it as a goal.  

But of course that is the rub. Setting it as a goal politically. It is
very possible (heck I reckons its a virtual certainty) that politics
will prohibit setting that as a goal.  

This is because most people would find that goal abhorrent.
They will find their hope in different places. Conventional
religions offer easy off-the-shelf minimal-customisation-required
forms of hope-for-immortality. Goals that are abhorrent to the
majority cannot be set in democracies. Even if they are ethical
goals.  Even if they would be technologically possible. But
not everyone starts from the same position. Not everyone is 
37 and in good health. That of itself is enough for people to
prioritise differently and for politics to become a factor separate
to technological considerations. 

Apologies again for the rant. I think you wanted technological
answers - hence *up to date* but technological aspects are only
a part - and in my opinion they are not even the main 
impediment. 

Regards,
Brett 




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Jan  2 23:42:54 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:42:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <016701c3d186$e997ac00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <00c501c3d18a$24d05170$3f80e40c@NANOGIRL>

The Nanogirl News
January 2, 2004

Homeland Security Gets Small. How Nanotechnology May Aid Anti-Terrorism.
Ultimately, fighting the war on terrorism may have less to do with giant
aircraft carriers and more to do with atomic-scale detection and prevention
systems. Nanotechnology, which is expected to transform everything from
computer processors to drug delivery systems, may also be the key to
homeland security, argues a new book. In Nanotechnology and Homeland
Security: New Weapons for New Wars, Mark A. Ratner, a professor of chemistry
at Northwestern University and a noted expert in molecular electronics, and
his son Daniel Ratner, a high-tech entrepreneur, claim that current research
in nanotechnology will lead to intelligent sensors, smart materials, and
other methods for thwarting biological and chemical attacks. (ABC News
12/29/03)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/nanotech_security_pcmag_031229.ht
ml

The National Science Foundation has awarded to a 13-university consortium
the designation as the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network and at
least $70 million to share their facilities with qualified users for a
five-year period. Sandip Tiwari, director of the Cornell Nanoscale Facility,
will lead NNIN. (Cornell 12/22/03)
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec03/Nano.net.hrs.html

Hitachi Set to Plant It's Own 'Nanostamp' on the Medical Market. Hitachi's
Advanced Research Laboratory (ARL) is getting ready to commercialize a
low-cost "nanostamp" technology for medical applications. Hitachi's process
creates "nanopillars" with extremely high aspect ratios (narrow relative to
height), a feature that the company believes will prove useful for biochips
and other applications, according to Akihiro Miyauchi, a senior researcher
at Hitachi. The technology uses a silicon "stamp" that presses onto a
polystyrene-based polymer film, producing nanopillars that are extremely
long and thin, about 3 microns in height.
(Smalltimes 12/30/03) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?documen
t_id=7147

Entering the Nano-Age? By Glenn Reynolds. Last week, I wrote about the EPA
Science Advisory Board meeting where nanotechnology was discussed. I learned
a lot of interesting things there, but one of the things that I learned is
that, even for people like me who try to keep up, the pace of nanotechnology
research is moving much too fast to catch everything.
One of the documents distributed at that meeting was a supplement to the
President's 2004 budget request, entitled National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Research and Development Supporting the Next Industrial
Revolution. I expected it to be the usual bureaucratic pap, but in fact, it
turned out to contain a lot of actual useful information, including reports
of several nanotechnology developments that I had missed. The most
interesting, to me, was the report of "peptide nanotubes that kill bacteria
by punching holes in the bacteria's membrane." You might think of these as a
sort of mechanical antibiotic. (TechCentral Station 12/23/03)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/122303C.html

Through thick and thin. Pair's Work has made HP a Leader in
Nanotechnology...Williams and his team of 30 work in a building that houses
the preserved offices of HP founders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. In these
hallowed halls they are researching ways to make computer chips at the
atomic level, smaller than a bacteria or a virus. If they succeed in their
mission, HP could begin deploying a new manufacturing technique within the
next three to five years. This technique allows an entire wafer of circuits
to be stamped out quickly and cheaply from a master mold. (San Jose Mercury
News 12/29/03)
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/7563605.htm

Nanowire a Superior Disease Detector. A wire thinner than a human hair has
proven to be 1,000 times more sensitive at detecting disease, producing
results in minutes rather than days. Charles Lieber of Harvard University in
Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues developed and tested the silicon
nanowire in what they say is the first example of direct electrical
detection of DNA using nanotechnology. "This tiny sensor could represent a
new future for medical diagnostics," says Lieber, a professor of chemistry
at Harvard and a cofounder of nanotechnology company NanoSys. (Betterhumans
12/18/03)
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-12-18-3

The next high-tech frontier? For Donn Tice, the path to the new world of
nanotechnology leads through the old world of apparel manufacturing.
Nano-Tex's chief executive officer has traveled the globe this year selling
his Emeryville, Calif., company's nanotechnology chemical formula that makes
fabrics stain-resistant...Nano-Tex's Nano-Care product is more than just a
coating that repels stains. It changes the fabric itself on a molecular
level, embedding it with tiny, floppy, hair-like fibers that themselves are
attached to a common spine. Just as hair keeps rain from penetrating a dog's
coat, the "nano whiskers" in Nano-Care's chemical mix keeps stains from
soaking into clothing. Spill a glass of Merlot on a white blouse made with
Nano-Care and the wine beads up into harmless blobs. (Rutland Herald
12/29/03) http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Business/Story/76515.html

Tiny nanotube antennas may yield better signals in cell phones, televisions.
In the future, your cell phone calls and television pictures could become a
lot clearer thanks to tiny antennas thousands of times smaller than the
width of a human hair. At least that's the speculation of a University of
Southern California scientist who has been investigating nanotube
transistors. The researcher has demonstrated for the first time that
minuscule antennas, in the form of carbon nanotube transistors, can
dramatically enhance the processing of electrical signals. (Eurekalert
12/30/03)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/acs-na123003.php

Can Art Make Nanotechnology Easier to Understand? The old adage "seeing is
believing" hardly applies to nanoscience, which operates on a scale of atoms
and molecules. So how do you make something so miniscule and abstract appear
real to the ordinary eye? Why not through art? A new exhibition at the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, called "nano," merges the art and the atom.
Through art-making exhibits, visitors can experience what it's like to move
molecules and manipulate atoms one by one.
(National Geographic 12/23/03)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1223_031223_nanotechnology.h
tml#main

Argonne researchers explore confinement of light with metal nanoparticles.
Optical engineering has had a tremendous impact on our everyday lives,
providing us with fiber optic communications and optical data storage.
However, manipulating light on the nanoscale level can be a Herculean task,
since the nanoscale level is so incredibly tiny - less than one tenth the
wavelength of light. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory are making
strides towards understanding and manipulating light at the nanoscale by
using the unusual optical properties of metal nanoparticles, opening the
door to microscopic-sized devices such as optical circuits and switches.
(Eurekalert 12/23/03)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/dnl-are122303.php

Extremely cold molecules created by Sandia and Columbia University
researchers. Using a method usually more suitable to billiards than atomic
physics, researchers from Sandia National Laboratories and Columbia
University have created extremely cold molecules that could be used as the
first step in creating Bose-Einstein molecular condensates. The work is
published in the Dec. 12 Science. (Sandia 12/11/03)
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/physics-astron/cold.htm
l

Nanofabrication achieved on a biological substrate. Dip-pen nanolithography,
a process being developed for ultrasmall feature definition on semiconductor
ICs, may blaze new trails in medicine as well, if preliminary work reported
at the fall meeting of the Materials Research Society can be turned into
practical procedures. Albena Ivanisevic, a bioengineer at Purdue
University's Bindley Bioscience Center (West Lafayette, Ind.), described a
process in which amino acid-based nanostructures were assembled on retinal
tissue. The structures might be useful to surgeons trying to correct
blindness caused by macular degeneration.
(EETimes 12/11/03) http://www.eet.com/at/n/news/OEG20031211S0028

Nanotechnology: What is there to fear from something so small?  Next March,
Mark Welland's laboratory at the University of Cambridge, UK, will gain an
unusual member of staff. Welland's team works on nanometre-dimension wires
and tubes that could form the future of electronics, but the new recruit
won't be an engineer or a physicist - he or she will be a social scientist.
The appointment - a two-year position that will include running regular
meetings with everyone from industry representatives to green activists -
acknowledges public fears about the possible effects of nanotechnology on
human health and the environment. Although Welland may not subscribe to
long-standing scare stories about a 'grey goo' of nanometre-sized robots
taking over the planet, he realizes that scientists need to address this and
other concerns head on. (Nature 12/18/03)
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v426/n6968/f
ull/426750a_fs.html

Israel's big plan for a tiny science...Now Shimon Peres, a winner of the
Nobel Peace Prize and a former prime minister, is trying to ensure Israel's
place in nanotechnology, the emerging science of matter measured in
one-billionth of a meter...With that goal in mind, Peres, who turned 80 in
September, and his son, Chemi Peres, a venture capitalist, are aiming to
raise $300 million from American Jewish donors to ensure that Israel can
become a global nanotechnology developer. Right now the Israeli government
has about $150 million invested in nanotechnology research, according to
Einat Wilf, managing director of the Israeli Nanotechnology Trust.
(ContraCostaTimes 12/26/03)
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/business/7574247.htm

UW receives $5M grant to link nanotech, medicine. The University of
Washington will get about $5 million to support nanotechnology research as
part of a $70 million nationwide grant. The National Science Foundation
grant will establish a National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network to
assist research and education in nanoscale science, engineering and
technology, said a UW statement. (Puget Sound Business journal 12/26/03)
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/12/22/daily21.html

(Computer Game) Review of Deus Ex: Invisible War for Xbox. The main
character uses nanotechnology for special powers within the game
plot.(GamePro.com)
http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox/games/reviews/31870.shtml

IBM's Millipede May Challenge Flash Memory. Some say The Information Age
began with the invention of the PC. For others, it's the birth of the
Internet, the development of the silicon chip or the global crisscrossing of
fiber-optic cable that shifted our societal pivot from goods-production to
information management. In a couple of years, IBM's Millipede data storage
system might also enter the debate. (Forbes 12/24/03)
http://www.forbes.com/2003/12/24/1224ibmpinnacor_ii.html?partner=my_yahoo&re
ferrer=

Viet Nam produces first nano material. Viet Nam has succeeded in making nano
coal, the first material, based on nano technology, said Nguyen Chanh Khe,
director of the Research and Development Center under the Saigon Hi-Tech
Park (SHTP). (VietnamEconomy 1/3/04)
http://www.vneconomy.com.vn/en_index.php?action=preview&cat=03&id=0312241032
55

Cardiff University is Creating Designer Molecules Against Cancer. Welsh
researchers are working on developing ultrasmall nanoparticles to tackle
breast and prostate cancers more effectively. It could allow higher doses of
more toxic drugs to be used without fear that widespread damage to tissues
will be caused. The work is being carried out by the recently established
Centre for Polymer Therapeutics established within the Welsh school of
Pharmacy at Cardiff under the direction of Professor Ruth Duncan. (Small
Times 12/23/03)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=45&document_id=712
2

Zyvex Expands Nanomanipulation Product Line. Zyvex Corporation [profile]
today announced the A100 Assembly System, a manipulation and assembly tool
which can be used with either a scanning electron or optical microscope to
assemble microscale components. "The A100 Assembly System represents a
significant product line extension for Zyvex," said Robert Folaron, Director
of Product Development at Zyvex. "Customers will not only benefit from
Zyvex's industry leading nanomanipulation capabilities for assembling
complex MEMS structures, but will also benefit from the microassembly
techniques we've developed through our NIST-ATP program." (NanoInvestorNews
12/25/03)
http://www.nanoinvestornews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2144

Light frozen in place. Researchers at Harvard University have trapped and
held a light pulse still for a few hundredths of a millisecond. The
experiment extends previous research that showed it is possible to store a
light pulse by imprinting its characteristics into gas atoms, and to
reconstitute the pulse using a second beam. The Harvard researchers went a
step further by briefly holding the reconstituted light pulse in place. (TRN
12/31/03)
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/123103/Light_frozen_in_place_123103.html

Chemists Grow Nano Menagerie. Researchers from Sandia National Laboratories
have found a simple way to make tiny, complicated shapes from zinc oxide,
including arrays of vertically-aligned rods, flat disks, and columns that
resemble stacks of coins. The researchers grew the structures, which are
similar to those found in biomaterials, by seeding a solution with zinc
oxide nanoparticles. They were able to produce different shapes by changing
the amount of citrate in the solution at different points during particle
growth. (Technology Review 12/24/03)
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/rnb_122403.asp

TV series unravels the saga of 'DNA'. A half-century of science and
all-too-human conflicts. James Watson, who rocked the human race a
half-century ago by discovering the DNA molecule's double-helix structure,
has only one complaint about "DNA," a documentary series in which he serves
as the overarching presence. I wish they had shot it 20 years ago when I
didn't look so old," the 75-year-old Watson says with a rueful laugh. "It's
not the view I have of myself." Still, a big part of his view of himself -
also clearly visible to the outside world - is that of someone who likes to
rock the boat and create waves. And that part seems impervious to age.
(MSNBC 12/31/03) http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3848587&p1=0

2003: The Year of the Straw NanoMan. Ronald Bailey, in his very reasonable
piece about the "growing peril" of a nanotechnology moratorium," asserts
that anti-nano activists "cannot be lightly dismissed."I agree to a point,
having made similar assertions myself, but after speaking and listening to a
number of business and government leaders, I can't help but think that
activists like Pat Mooney of the ETC Group might be the best thing that's
happened to the nanotech industry. When it comes to the environmental
debate, the handful of people who call for a moratorium on nano research
conveniently play the role of the straw enemy of nanoprogress, since their
pseudoscience can easily be attacked. That is what I was thinking as I
listened to Phil Bond, the U.S. Commerce Department's undersecretary for
technology, give an eloquent speech recently in Chicago. (Howard Lavoy's
Nanobot 12/24/03)
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_12_21_nanobot_archive.html#1072287574695510
87

(Humor) Santa's speed? It must be gas. Scientists explain how Santa Claus
zips around the world on Christmas Eve depositing presents without breaking
the laws of physics. -Apparently Santa uses nanotechnology to turn cookies
into toys!- (Herald 12/24/03)
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7561195.htm

Happy New Year!

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  2 23:59:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's
	paradox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <20040102142253.6d7628cc.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021543260.24006-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Harvey, Mike and others are discussing the possibility
of sims and I think I see where there may be a misunderstanding.

For example On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I don't get that argument.  If we are in a simulation then our
> science, used to study *what is* may be able to determine that fact.

The point of misunderstanding may be whether or not we are discussing
simulations of "this" universe (or something very close to this
universe) and whether we could sim this universe from within this
universe -- *or* whether we are within a sim of "a" universe which
is simply one of many possible universes.  Dyson may have been
one of the first people to discuss why certain physical constants
happen to be "just right" for this universe to work -- but I think
others have discussed it and there may even now be a couple of
books about it.

So the question really seems to revolve around whether one wants
to create universes similar to ones own (e.g. The Matrix series
or The Truman Show or perhaps even Groundhog Day).  Or whether
one is playing "GOD" and universes (as we perceive them) are
toys where one is simply saying "I wonder what happens when
I change this?".  If one creates a universe where intelligent
life develops and and the physical laws don't form a complete picture
(one could argue we have this now with quantum electrodynamics, gravity
and string theory) then one is going to end up with some pretty
frustrated subjects to study.  (This is a psych experiment with
very intelligent lab rats...).

On the other hand if one is running sims to see if there is an
alter-universe that might be created that one could somehow
transfer into (because the mega-universe has a limited lifetime
perhaps) then things may be a bit trickier.  In that case one
presumably wants the laws to hold together because one is
planning on living in it.  So one wants to run an unflawed
simulation with as few corners cut as possible.

Doesn't this relate to some degree to Permutation City?
(which by now I've largely forgotten).

Robert




From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Jan  3 00:02:45 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:02:45 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <016701c3d186$e997ac00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<00c501c3d18a$24d05170$3f80e40c@NANOGIRL>
Message-ID: <023c01c3d18c$ed8d6880$d6ef9a40@texas.net>

< Viet Nam produces first nano material. Viet Nam has succeeded in making
nano coal, the first material, based on nano technology, said Nguyen Chanh
Khe, director of the Research and Development Center under the Saigon
Hi-Tech Park (SHTP). (VietnamEconomy 1/3/04)
http://www.vneconomy.com.vn/en_index.php?action=preview&cat=03&id=0312241032
55 >

This will be very good news for those Brits still warming their frozen New
Year fingers in front of the traditional coal fire. Nano coal is much
lighter to carry home. On the down side, it's going to take a *tremendous*
number of briquettes to build up a good blaze, and most of them are likely
to blown straight up the chimney.

Damien Broderick
["nano coal... is made from calcium carbide, coconut fiber or oil coal"]



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan  3 01:07:50 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: A piece of the Universe
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021629390.25493-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


For those of you who don't know Stardust has successfully passed
through the halo of the comet Wild-2 and is on its way back
home with some of the dust from which our Solar System was
formed.  More along with the closest picture of a comet
I've ever seen are here:
  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stardust-04d.html
and more details are here:
  http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/

We will have to wait a couple of years to get our hands on the
material but my hat is off to those folks at Lockheed who
constructed the Stardust and the folks at Boeing who built
the rocket that launched it and the folks at JPL that built
some of the instruments).  [If you know any of those
folks Spike -- give them my best regards.]

For those of you don't know -- Stardust had some camera
problems with blurry vision early on in the mission --
the solution reminds me of...

   Harry: Come on! You're NASA for Christ's sake!
      You're the ones who come up with this shit!
      Why I bet you have a bunch of guys sitting
      around somewhere right now just thinking shit up,
      and somebody backing them up.
      What's your contingency plan?
   Truman: Our contingency plan?
   Harry: Yeah, your back up plan. You've gotta have a back up plan.
   Truman: No, we don't have a back up plan.

Also -- as a frame of reference ~200 Lockheed engineers
were involved in creating Stardust -- suggests one needs
an Extropic community at least 10x but more probably between
100x and 1000x bigger than the current community if one is
ever to hope to get lots of us out of harms way (be it
asteroids, comets or luddites).

Robert



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  3 02:14:40 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:14:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
In-Reply-To: <00d901c3d152$e7ac7b70$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <001c01c3d19f$58a576f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> SDAs are, IMO, one of the most retard of Xian sects.
> [Just thought I'd add that gratuitous religious insult to 
> round off the discussion... Dirk

Be good to them Dirk, they may save your life some day.  Follow me:

A few weeks ago I referenced the hapless Baptists, who have a notion in
their basic teachings that all goodness comes from god, therefore all
legitimate ethical notions are found in the bible, therefore since
slavery is not specifically forbidden in the bible, it must be OK.  This
is among other absurdities that follow from the flawed premise.

The Seventh Day Adventist has a somewhat related situation. They have a
long and specific list of taboos, revealed directly to the modern
prophet Ellen G. White.  

But anything that is not on that forbidden list is allowed.

Over the years I have witnessed a number of attempts to add new taboos
to this long and specific list.  I find it remarkable that *not one* of
those attempts has been successful, not a single one.

This has some interesting consequences, for the SDAs have a modern
medical facility: Loma Linda University in southern
Taxifornia.  It is well known that if you have some wacky research idea,
Loma Linda has a notoriously open-minded ethics board: they will allow
anything that does not conflict with the previously mentioned long list
of taboos.  An example is the Baby Fae experiment that you may recall
from the 1980s in which a baboon heart was transplanted into a human
infant.  Done at Loma Linda.  There is nothing in the sacred texts that
specifically forbid it.  

This read-my-lips-no-new-no-nos concept results in the Seventh Day
Adventists being the *only* xian church (that I know of) that holds an
official pro-choice stance.  There are other churches that hold no
position perhaps, but SDA stands alone in being officially and
specifically pro-choice.  Good for them.  

Cloning?  Adventists stand alone among xian denominations as coming out
officially in favor.  Stem cell research?  Sure.  Genetic manipulation?
The more the merrier, for they do this research with calm confidence,
knowing that biblical and Ellen-White-ical prophecy says nothing about
the world being devoured by goo of any color.  The girl I dated before I
met my wife is as staunch SDA as anyone you will ever meet.  She got her
PhD in biology from Purdue and is now a researcher in genetic
engineering, with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.  Hey, the
prophetess didn't say it was wrong, so it must be right.  Right?

Several of my computer science friends that went to SDA colleges were
discussing artificial intelligence way back in the early 80s, before
there was an extropian list or the internet.  We even discussed the
singularity, even tho we did not call it by that name.  We speculated
that computers would eventually reach human level intelligence and
rewrite their own software, causing an open loop feedback system.

Loma Linda University follows the tradition of SDA Doctor John Harvey
Kellogg, the inventor of corn flakes and other vegetarian foods, who was
always experimenting with new techniques to treat his patients.  Dirk,
if you or I get prostate cancer, we can go to Loma Linda to be treated
in their proton accelerator, which painlessly radiates the tumor,
leaving us able to copulate and not piss on ourselves.  In my admittedly
very limited statistical sample, the three prostate cancer patients I
know personally who had their tumors cut out are all dead.  The two I
know personally who had their tumors irradiated at LLU are alive and
well.  Think about it.

As for being the "most retard of the xian sects", I think the better
adjective might be the most *retro* of the xians.  This is
understandable, for the 20th century was not supposed to happen, never
mind the 21st.  There are plenty of good SDAs that are in some ways
retrogressing to the 19th century,  for this century is not their home.
In this at least, most of us here share their discomfort, for our
extropian hearts and minds belong in the 22nd century.

SDA is your friend, Dirk.

spike



     



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  3 02:29:57 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:29:57 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] netscape news article
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401021629390.25493-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <002101c3d1a1$7afce600$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

Hey cool, check this.  It isn't too late.  {8-]  spike

http://channels.netscape.com/new/html/live/scoop/nn/10.html




From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Jan  3 02:32:34 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
In-Reply-To: <20040102200935.27048.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040103023234.98660.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:

> Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying
> it is this or that category of crime is virtually
> meaningless.  Its definition is arbitrary so any
> acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to
> exercise.

The term "terrorism" is the purest of propaganda.  It
doesn't so much have a definition as it has a purpose.
 It's purpose is to demonize and delegitimize anyone
who uses force to oppose the established order.  It
also seeks to obscure the underlying issues, the
usually legitimate grievances which provoke violent
opposition.  

As propaganda, the term "terrorism" presumptively
convicts the "terrorists" as "evildoers"--defines them
as such--using the targeting of "innocent civilians"
as proof. But warfare is the ultimate incivility,
which elevates victory to the highest moral good,
allowing any tactic--"all's fair in love and war"--no
matter how atrocious (to the other side, of course).
if seen as a path to victory.  The wanton destruction
and deliberate killing of civilians--to which, by
comparison, deaths from terrorism are but a
speck--seems a feature of all modern wars, from all
sides: Sherman's march to the sea, the Turks to the
Armenians, the rape of Nanking, the London blitz, the
firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear
obliteration of H & N, the free-fire zones of the
peasant farming villages of Vietnam and Laos, the
Turks to the Kurds, Saddam to the Kurds, just to
mention a few.  

Also the concept of the "innocent civilian" is a bit
thin.  There are very few 'neutral'--and in that sense
'innocent'--civilians.  Farmers feed the troops. 
Factory workers build the weapons.  Everyone who is a
taxpayer pays for the implementation of foreign
policy.  As to little Billy and little Susie, just a
few short years away from their own contribution to
the death machine/war, better to exterminate them in
their cribs than face their fully-developed productive
capacity on the battlefield.  The pragmatism of war is
the ultimate psychosis.  

And leave us not forget that in a putatively
democratic political system, the "governed" through
their "consent", ie their vote, acquire a large degree
of responsibility for the actions of their "public
servants".  In a democracy, everyone who votes for the
perp, or who pays taxes (even given the gun to the
head) loses any claim to innocence.  

But there's more.  Beyond the deliberate, egregious,
mass civilian slaughter, cynically shunted away from
moral inspection (if committed by YOUR side), is the
separate, the so-called 'justifiable' killing of
civilians.  Killings sanitized and made palatable (so
long as it isn't YOUR loved one who is savaged
indescribably) by the term "collateral damage".

But what of the Geneva Convention, the so-called rules
of war, as a moral metric for the conduct of war? 
Give me a break.  Is that the smell of the turnip
truck I detect wafting off your raiment?  The Geneva
Convention is a set of bogus 'limits' made by those
with substantial military resources, to "outlaw"
techniques of unconventional war-making which might be
of use to adversaries of lesser military resources. 
There is only one rule in war: win.

Best, Jeff Davis

"For centuries our race has built on false
assumptions.  If you build a fantasy based on a false
assumptions and continue to build on such a fantasy,
your whole existence becomes a lie which you implant
in others who are too lazy or too busy to question
it's truth." - Michael Moorcock






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jan  3 02:44:10 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:44:10 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] netscape news article
References: <002101c3d1a1$7afce600$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <059601c3d1a3$7712c8a0$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Spike wrote:

> Hey cool, check this.  It isn't too late.  {8-]  spike
> 
> http://channels.netscape.com/new/html/live/scoop/nn/10.html

In silly moments I wonder if what might motivate calorie restricted
critters to live longer is the single minded desire to live long enough
to turn the tables on the specific rotter that put them on a starvation
diet. 

Prob'ly not ;-)  

Brett





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  3 02:40:01 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:40:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
In-Reply-To: <001c01c3d19f$58a576f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <002201c3d1a2$e2bf97a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

spike:

> But anything that is not on that forbidden list is allowed.
> ... This read-my-lips-no-new-no-nos concept results in the Seventh Day
> Adventists being the *only* xian church (that I know of) that holds an
> official pro-choice stance...
> Cloning?  Adventists stand alone among xian denominations as 
> coming out officially in favor.  Stem cell research?  Sure.  Genetic 
> manipulation? The more the merrier... spike

I forgot an important one: cryonics.  I have spoken
to a number of SDAs, and never has any of them come
up with any reason why cryonics should be discouraged.
This is remarkable in that most xians feel that 
cryonics is in some way against their religion.  In
SDA, an intuition of wrongness counts for nothing.  For
something to be wrong, it must have a *specific*
chapter and verse, and it cannot be vague or indirect.

spike

 



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 02:42:54 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 02:42:54 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
References: <20040103023234.98660.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <03d001c3d1a3$49c02730$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs


> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>
> > Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying
> > it is this or that category of crime is virtually
> > meaningless.  Its definition is arbitrary so any
> > acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> > be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to
> > exercise.
>
> The term "terrorism" is the purest of propaganda.  It
> doesn't so much have a definition as it has a purpose.
>  It's purpose is to demonize and delegitimize anyone
> who uses force to oppose the established order.  It
> also seeks to obscure the underlying issues, the
> usually legitimate grievances which provoke violent
> opposition.


Agreed - in general.
However, I think a far better definition of 'terrorism' is the deliberate
targetting of non-combatants for political purposes.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 02:44:41 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 02:44:41 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] netscape news article
References: <002101c3d1a1$7afce600$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<059601c3d1a3$7712c8a0$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <03d801c3d1a3$89f70e90$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] netscape news article


> Spike wrote:
> 
> > Hey cool, check this.  It isn't too late.  {8-]  spike
> > 
> > http://channels.netscape.com/new/html/live/scoop/nn/10.html
> 
> In silly moments I wonder if what might motivate calorie restricted
> critters to live longer is the single minded desire to live long enough
> to turn the tables on the specific rotter that put them on a starvation
> diet. 

You don't even have to live longer to get the benefits.
A lifetime of starvation will seem endless. 

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jan  3 02:47:37 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:47:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d0ac$a5231d00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <20040101185454.98001.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040102205906.029b6008@mail.comcast.net>

At 01:17 PM 1/1/2004 -0800, Spike wrote:

>Even if we nuke ourselves into the stone age, recall that the stone age
>lasted until only a few thousand years ago.  Humans are tremendously
>adaptable, and many already live in places that would not be worth a
>nuke, should all the nuke capable powers let loose with all they have.
>Africans would survive, Aborigines would survive, there would be pockets
>of humanity everywhere that would carry on.

The worst-case scenario with current or near-term technology is not 
nuclear, it is biological.

A few months ago, I watched Dr. Ann Reid of the Armed Forces Institute of 
Pathology being interviewed on C-SPAN. (Disclosure:  I *think* it was her; 
it could have been another woman researcher, with the CDC.  Irrelevant to 
the discussion.)

She was discussing the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918, which she has devoted 
her career to studying.  You may recall that it was one of the worst 
pandemics in history, killing about 40 milllion people in a few months.

Which is bad enough.

I had always assumed that the epidemic had been self-limiting, as they 
generally are.  The jaw-dropping part for me was when she reported the 
conclusion from their studies that, within ten years or so, everyone on the 
planet had been exposed to the virus.  There was no place so remote that 
they did not detect indications the virus had reached there.

So imagine something a little more virulent, perhaps engineered.

We've been lucky so far, that bad stuff is self-limiting or some people 
have the right mix to be naturally immune.  I'm not convinced it has to be 
that way, particularly if the agent has been designed to be nasty.

This leads me to two thoughts pertinent to this discussion.

(1)  Your S/M brain could certainly result from AI.  But the upload route 
to an S+M brain, anyway, seems to require a comparable understanding of 
biology as would be needed to create an extinction-class biological weapon.

(2)  I will sleep better at night when our DirtWorld life has spread to 
self-sufficient, biologically isolated backups.


-- David Lubkin.




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jan  3 03:49:03 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:49:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs
References: <20040103023234.98660.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017001c3d1ac$8804c560$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>

[snip]
> Also the concept of the "innocent civilian" is a bit
> thin.  There are very few 'neutral'--and in that sense
> 'innocent'--civilians.  Farmers feed the troops.
> Factory workers build the weapons.  Everyone who is a
> taxpayer pays for the implementation of foreign
> policy.
[snip]
> And leave us not forget that in a putatively
> democratic political system, the "governed" through
> their "consent", ie their vote, acquire a large degree
> of responsibility for the actions of their "public
> servants".  In a democracy, everyone who votes for the
> perp, or who pays taxes (even given the gun to the
> head) loses any claim to innocence.

Aaaah, yes, taxes:

"The Republican Study Committee's Money Monitor keeps track of how
Washington spends your money. And is Washington ever on a spending spree
this year compared with last.

"Here's year-to-date totals of net one-year costs of House-passed
appropriations:

   Fiscal year 2003: $476,378,900,000.00
   Fiscal year 2004: $873,990,730,000.00"

Source:   http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Very good post, Jeff, thanks.

Olga






From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Jan  3 04:41:35 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:41:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <20040101185454.98001.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040102205906.029b6008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <005801c3d1b3$df8396c0$99cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, January 02, 2004 9:47 PM David Lubkin
extropy at unreasonable.com wrote:
> (2)  I will sleep better at night when our
> DirtWorld life has spread to self-sufficient,
> biologically isolated backups.

Same here, though, of course, I mean "sleep" in the metaphorical sense.

Cheers!

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  3 04:37:55 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:37:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] random new years thoughts
In-Reply-To: <059601c3d1a3$7712c8a0$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <000001c3d1b3$5ba33680$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

As I was reading a science site on today's comet fly-by and tomorrow's
Mars landing, it occurred to me that most people on this backward planet
are more interested in the competition aspect of tomorrow's landing than
in the science: the yanks lost both our last two Mars landers in a most
ignominious way, the Japanese lost theirs, the Europeans lost theirs.
Now lets see if the yanks can get it right this time.

We are cats.  If you place a stuffed mouse in front of a cat, she will
ignore it.  Tie a string to the mouse and pull it across the floor,
watch that cat pounce.  Its just a cat's nature: she doesn't care about
the actual mouse, she wants to ATTACK something.  Its human nature: most
people care little about Mars, they want to see whose team WINS the
GAME.  Hey, that got us to the moon.

In this new year, let us be thankful both for what we have and what we
do not have.  I just got off the phone with a biker buddy who is having
trouble with an inner-ear condition I had never heard of until he got
it.  It causes the rate sensor gyros in the ears to suddenly send
erroneous signals to the brain.  When the brain receives signals which
disagree, it knows not which way is up.  My friend can be walking down
the hall and suddenly bump into the wall or weave and stagger like a
drunkard.  These attacks come on utterly without warning.  He must sit
down immediately, wherever he is, or risk falling to the floor.

Problem: he isn't sure what would happen should this occur while he is
on the bike, or worse still heeled way over in a high speed curve.  He
cannot go with us tomorrow.  The guy is a worse fanatic than I am: he
has six motorcycles, delectable pieces all.  There is real fear that if
he cannot get this condition under control he must call it a day on the
old biking hobby.  The poor chap was nearly in tears, and I was at a
loss to find adequate words of comfort.  I was sure it would get better
soon and yakkity yak and bla bla, but in fact I am not sure at all: I
know nada of this.  Im a biker, not a doctor.

Last week when that earthquake hit, I did not at first realize what it
was, for the S wave was parallel to the load-bearing walls in my house.
For that reason, the house did not creak as it normally does on such
occasions, tipping me off to what was happening, and there was no
rumble.  The house merely swayed, messing up my equilibrium.  My very
first thought was OY VEY its that ear thing that Bill has, and now I
won't be able to RIIIIIDE, holy SHIT, waaaaah!

How shallow of me.  Two women perished in Paso Robles from falling
masonry.  In another quake of nearly the same magnitude a few days later
in Iran, 30,000 souls perished from falling stonework, and I was
fretting over my PRECIOUS motorcycles.  {8-[

May the singularity free us from the more untoward aspects of our human
nature.

Congratulations Stardust team!

Good luck and evolutionspeed Spirit and Opportunity!

Watch it live tomorrow on NOVA.  

{8-]  spike








From aperick at centurytel.net  Sat Jan  3 03:38:21 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:38:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
In-Reply-To: <200401022226.i02MQ0E26405@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d1ab$0a521470$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>Imagine an infinite space one inch by one inch by infinity.  Now
imagine a space twice as large, one inch by two inches by infinity.
Despite complaints about comparing infinities, it seems obvious that the
second object can hold exactly two of the smaller objects. When
comparing similar magnitudes or dimensions of infinities, it is possible
to do math and compare them.
/>

Many things will/do seem obvious to many people. So called common sense
has many times lead to error. My sense reckons that one infinite three
dimensional space is volumetrically equivalent to any other infinite
three dimensional space. And, I suggest that most math PhD's may
agree??? But this paradox may only be the result of our having imagined
the existence of a concept which lacks any physical referent. We have
little or no evidence that anything can be infinite -- not if we accept
the big bang. 

RE: the simulation conjecture: You'll just have to trust me on this one,
but when I designed and built the system which implements the simulation
that is currently running I only implemented a handful of sentient
players -- myself, and a few of the other entities on this list (you
each know who you are). So, the simulation only has to generate the
sensory inputs and minds of we few -- a very small computational task
indeed. I would tell the rest of you that you don't exist except as
artificially intelligent sounding boards which lack self awareness but,
of course, none of the rest of you exists to hear me :) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed Atheist, radical
thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed singular authority on
the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we few lack. Happy
Happy, Joy Joy. http://home.centurytel.net/rickw aperick at centurytel.net




From riel at surriel.com  Sat Jan  3 04:59:42 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:59:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>
References: <000001c3d0ba$33f64d60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0401022358460.5927@imladris.surriel.com>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> What would ET want from us?
> Science is pretty much irrelevent.

If the ET is intelligent, chances are it's also curious.

Lets face it, what else could be the motivation to build
an MBrain ?

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 samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jan  3 05:32:48 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:32:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was
	fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <016701c3d186$e997ac00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <20040102142253.6d7628cc.samantha@objectent.com>
	<016701c3d186$e997ac00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040102213248.4c191a2a.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:19:41 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote,
> > I don't get that argument.  If we are in a simulation then 
> > our science, used to study *what is* may be able to determine 
> > that fact.  It is a speculation about the overall nature of 
> > our universe.  If your argument held then we should also 
> > include singularities like black holes from science.
> 
> Actually, I agree with you.  I was countering Mike's argument that science
> doesn't hold in other universes.  I said in that case, we can't call
> speculation about these areas outside science "scientific".  I was objecting
> to using the claim that science doesn't work in some cases as part of the
> scientfiic argument!  I actually do agree that science can speculate about
> what is outside our universe.  But throwing out the requirements of science
> is not part of scientific speculation.
> 
> > It would be a pretty poor simulation if it did not follow
> > well defined and consistent internal laws.  From the point
> > of view of beings within the simulation those laws are the
> > "known physical laws".   Within the simulation they are not
> > in the least wrong.  Nothing is possible except what the
> > simulation (local reality) was designed to make possible
> > unless something from outside interferes.   There is no
> > necessary rejection of science.
> 
> I didn't say that it "couldn't" be true.  But science doesn't lead to
> speculatation about what "might" be true that we can't detect.  That is more
> properly the realm of religion.  Science leads to explanations about what is
> observed.  If we haven't observed it and someone dreamed up the idea without
> observation or evidence, this is religion, not science.  Likewise, God might
> be true.  But discussions about God are religion, not science.

Thinking creatures with imagination will certainly think about what "might be".  From this "might be" thinking much of our philosophy and many of our scientific discoveries sprang.  Science gives us the means of teasing out the truth from our "might be" scenarios.   There are many things in science today that were not observed but were posited as "might be" explanations or even as pure thought experiments.  A "might be" does not relegate its content to belonging to religion.  I am surprised by the characterization. 
 
- s


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jan  3 05:50:44 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: NH Liberty Index
Message-ID: <20040103055044.9457.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

As an advance in political intelligence, various FSP members have been
researching the bills sponsored and passed by various NH legislators,
and grading legislators, in both the House and Senate, as well as
Governor Benson, on their practice of voting for liberty. This has
resulted in the NH Liberty Index.

http://lfod.org/2003/

I would highly recommend that libertarians in other states make similar
efforts to publish evaluations of the pro-liberty performance of all
state politicians in their own states, and that Pro-Act should
formulate a similar index to evaluate the pro-extropy stance of
national politicians, to allow pro-technology, pro-extropy individuals
around the nation make more informed election decisions.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan  3 06:38:13 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0401022358460.5927@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401022220130.31352-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> > What would ET want from us?
> > Science is pretty much irrelevent.
>
> If the ET is intelligent, chances are it's also curious.

I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in...
MBrains can have:
- 100 billion telescopes the diameter of the moon
  (plenty of information to process)
- The ability to simulate all human thought that has been
  done since Australopithecines in ~0.25 microseconds.
  (And that is probably conservative since it doesn't
   take into account the quality of thought of pre-modern
   humans or the population bottlenecks that humans
   probably went through.)

   [Figures are back-of-the envelope of course but provide
    a way of thinking about the scaling that most people
    simply fail to grasp.]

You can satisfy your curiosity in significantly less
time than it takes to go to lunch.

> Lets face it, what else could be the motivation to build
> an MBrain ?

Figuring out how to survive?

R.




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan  3 07:46:10 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:46:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
In-Reply-To: <002201c3d1a2$e2bf97a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000001c3d1cd$a7e37b30$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> > But anything that is not on that forbidden list is allowed...
> I forgot an important one: cryonics... spike

Oh yes, Loma Linda U broke the record for the oldest
mother when Arceli Keh of Highland, CA gave birth on
On November 7, 1996, at age 63 yr. 9 mo. after
having fertility treatments at Loma Linda University 
Medical Center.  Most fertilization specialists would 
refuse to even consider assisting such a risky 
pregnancy, but the open minded folks at LLU could
find no rule forbidding it.

My own mother is younger than that.  It is hard for 
me to imagine her giving birth now, but the medical 
magicians at LLU made it happen for Mrs. Keh.  

They are good.  And open minded.  Great combination.

{8-]  spike



From amara at amara.com  Sat Jan  3 11:27:21 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:27:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stardust update
Message-ID: <p05100300bc1c57431c45@[10.0.1.5]>

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/040102.html

MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov

DC Agle (818) 393-9011
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Donald Savage (202) 358-1547
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

News Release: 2004-001                         January 2, 2003




NASA Spacecraft Makes Great Catch...Heads for Touchdown

[Comet Wild 2 is shown in this image taken by the Stardust
navigation camera during the spacecraft's closest approach to the
comet on January 2. The image was taken within a distance of 500
kilometers (about 311 miles) of the comet's nucleus with a
10-millisecond exposure.]

Team Stardust, NASA's first dedicated sample return mission to a
comet, passed a huge milestone today by successfully navigating
through the particle and gas-laden coma around comet Wild 2
(pronounced "Vilt-2"). During the hazardous traverse, the
spacecraft flew within 240 kilometers (149 miles) of the comet,
catching samples of comet particles and scoring detailed pictures
of Wild 2's pockmarked surface.

"Things couldn't have worked better in a fairy tale," said Tom
Duxbury, Stardust project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

"These images are better than we had hoped for in our wildest
dreams," said Ray Newburn of JPL, a co-investigator for Stardust.
"They will help us better understand the mechanisms that drive
conditions on comets."

"These are the best pictures ever taken of a comet," said Principal
Investigator Dr. Don Brownlee of the University of Washington,
Seattle. "Although Stardust was designed to be a comet sample
return mission, the fantastic details shown in these images greatly
exceed our expectations."

The collected particles, stowed in a sample return capsule onboard
Stardust, will be returned to Earth for in-depth analysis. That
dramatic event will occur on January 15, 2006, when the capsule
makes a soft landing at the U.S. Air Force Utah Test and Training
Range. The microscopic particle samples of comet and interstellar
dust collected by Stardust will be taken to the planetary material
curatorial facility at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas,
for analysis.

Stardust has traveled about 3.22 billion kilometers (2 billion
miles) since its launch on February 7, 1999. As it closed the final
gap with its cometary quarry, it endured a bombardment of particles
surrounding the nucleus of comet Wild 2. To protect Stardust against
the blast of expected cometary particles and rocks, the spacecraft
rotated so it was flying in the shadow of its "Whipple Shields." The
shields are named for American astronomer Dr. Fred L. Whipple, who,
in the 1950s, came up with the idea of shielding spacecraft from
high-speed collisions with the bits and pieces ejected from comets.
The system includes two bumpers at the front of the spacecraft --
which protect Stardust's solar panels -- and another shield
protecting the main spacecraft body. Each shield is built around
composite panels designed to disperse particles as they impact,
augmented by blankets of a ceramic cloth called Nextel that further
dissipate and spread particle debris.

"Everything occurred pretty much to the minute," said Duxbury. "And
with our cometary encounter complete, we invite everybody to tune
in about one million, 71 thousand minutes from now when Stardust
returns to Earth, bringing with it the first comet samples in the
history of space exploration."

Scientists believe in-depth terrestrial analysis of the samples
will reveal much about comets and the earliest history of the solar
system. Chemical and physical information locked within the
cometary particles could be the record of the formation of the
planets and the materials from which they were made. More
information on the Stardust mission is available at

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov .

Stardust, a part of NASA's Discovery Program of low-cost, highly
focused science missions, was built by Lockheed Martin Space
Systems, Denver, Colo., and is managed by JPL for NASA's Office of
Space Science, Washington, D.C. JPL is a division of the California
Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin



From amara at amara.com  Sat Jan  3 11:50:17 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:50:17 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: A piece of the Universe
Message-ID: <p05100301bc1c5c3b477e@[150.146.134.133]>

Robert Bradbury:

>Also -- as a frame of reference ~200 Lockheed engineers
>were involved in creating Stardust --

Don't forget the scientific component of the mission too (another
few hundred, I would guess). A significant proportion of the dust
community have been involved with this mission.

>the solution reminds me of...

>Harry: Come on! You're NASA for Christ's sake!
>You're the ones who come up with this shit!
>Why I bet you have a bunch of guys sitting
>around somewhere right now just thinking shit up,
>and somebody backing them up.
>What's your contingency plan?
>Truman: Our contingency plan?
>Harry: Yeah, your back up plan. You've gotta have a back up plan.
>Truman: No, we don't have a back up plan.


I suggest to keep a close watch on Rosetta. ESA lost their
opportunity to launch it on a Russian Proton rocket (ESA deemed it
too 'risky' with the fuel transfer), leaving them with the same
risky Ariane 5 plan as before and a new, much dustier target comet.
The launch window opens on February 26. No backup plan, and a very
real possibility of ten years of developing, planning, building with
~thousand scientists and engineers being scrapped.

Amara
-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, INAF - ARTOV,
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA
tel: +39-06-4993-4375       |fax:  +39-06-4993-4383
Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it  | http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps
************************************************************************
I'M SIGNIFICANT!...screamed the dust speck. -- Calvin


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jan  3 15:00:30 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:00:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] random new years thoughts
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d1b3$5ba33680$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c3d1b3$5ba33680$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401031557200.26577@hercules>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Spike wrote:

>As I was reading a science site on today's comet fly-by and tomorrow's
>Mars landing, it occurred to me that most people on this backward planet
>are more interested in the competition aspect of tomorrow's landing than
>in the science: the yanks lost both our last two Mars landers in a most
>ignominious way, the Japanese lost theirs, the Europeans lost theirs.
>Now lets see if the yanks can get it right this time.

I'm not interested in the competition aspect in the least, and will gladly
cheer for the yankee probe it it makes it.
On a side note, I have suspects that the failing of the Beagle2 is some
oscure punishment to the UK for sending the Blur song on Mars, and
repeating that on *every* news release. Oh please.

Alfio


From mark at permanentend.org  Sat Jan  3 16:07:48 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:07:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
Message-ID: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>

In case anyone is interested, I have a first draft of a paper on physical
immortality.  http://www.permanentend.org/immortality.html It was written
rather rapidly over the holiday season and so it suffers a little from WUI
(writing under the influence). As always, comments are appreciated. The
abstract is below:

Abstract: Killing mortal humans is wrong primarily because it inflicts upon
individuals one of the greatest losses they can experience: the loss of
their future. It is argued that this same analysis applies to those who
would deny access to life extension technology. To deny access to radical
life extension technology?technology that would greatly extend or permit
physical immortality?is wrong primarily because it inflicts upon those who
desire this technology one of the greatest losses they can experience: the
loss of their future. Recognition of this loss makes a strong presumptive
case for the moral impermissibility of prohibiting access to radical life
extension technology.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Jan  3 16:39:17 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:39:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
	(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <20040102213248.4c191a2a.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> There are many things in science
> today that were not observed but were posited as "might be" 
> explanations or even as pure thought experiments.  A "might 
> be" does not relegate its content to belonging to religion.  
> I am surprised by the characterization. 

That doesn't make it science.  If anyone ever develops a scientific theory,
scientific proof, scientific investigation, scientific explanation or
anything using the scientific method relating to the Simulation Argument,
then it might become science.  Right now it is a religious belief, a fantasy
story or maybe even a philosophical musing.  It seems that most people here
don't have a good definition for what is science or not.  Arguing that it
"might be true" or "hasn't been disproved" doesn't make it science any more
than "Creation Science" is science.  

The simulation argument is almost identical to the creation science
argument.  Instead of evolving by itself, the universe was created
mid-stream with history already in place, and an external entity directing
its actions.  We cannot detect that the history of carbon-dating or old
light from other stars was simulated by God instead of really coming from
those stars.  This makes much of the Creation Science universe a simulation.
The intervention by God sometimes is like tweaking of the simulation.  

I don't see how anybody can believe in the simulation argument without
believing in most religions.  I don't see how anybody can claim the
simulation argument is science without including most religions as science.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Jan  3 18:21:34 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:21:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
Message-ID: <005601c3d226$6c7b0e60$b0cd5cd1@neptune>

On atlantis_II, Dennis May responded to Spike's post with the following.
(To find out more about atlantis_II, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/ )

Enjoy!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/

From: Dennis May <determinism at hotmail.com>
To: <atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach: cross-post
from Extropians


Daniel Ust forwards from Spike at [extropy-chat]:

"...we aren't worth the mass to send us signals. I will
call this argument the M/D approach to Fermi's
paradox."

A civilization worth uncountable trillions of dollars but
the cost of an interstellar cell-phone is too much?

Spike wrote:

"Today there is no convincing mechanism that would
cause technological progress to stop. Gray goo is
something to worry about, but nature has had billions
of years to stumble upon it."

Gray goo has to obey the same thermodynamic and
chemical laws as living creatures.  Some of the capabilities
ascribed to gray goo have ignored these laws.  In any
case gray goo has to compete for resources and avoid
predators/parasites just like anyone else.  Paisley goo is
sure to run them out of many niches :-).  Nano-bacteria
exist at the  borderline of what is too small to be alive -
and might not be life but simply the remains.  Can
gray-goo exist with even smaller parasites eating off of it?

Spike wrote:

"This is my contention: that artificial intelligence wants to
THINK. It lives to think. It is smart enough to make things
happen: it knows how to build things. If it likes to think,
then it wants to get all the available material thinking, so
it builds an MBrain. It gathers all the metals in orbit about
the star and converts it all to whatever form maximizes
thought."

Not a very smart brain if it wants to put all its resources
into one place - ready to be destroyed by WoMD.  What
is to be gained by having a massive brain?  Is anything of
survival value added beyond a certain size?

Spike wrote:

"Energy from the star can be allowed to escape,
wasted, lost forever into the cosmos, for there is plenty
of that. But time cannot be wasted, for heat death is
coming to all."

If you believe in a model of thermodynamics including the
"Big Bang Theory".  I do not.

I support the WoMD cause of the Fermi Paradox.  Stealth,
mobility, and dispersion are the secrets to survival with space
WoMD.  Advertise your presence and expose yourself to WoMD.

Dennis May



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jan  3 19:33:32 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040103193332.82096.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I have a first draft of a paper on
> physical immortality.  http://www.permanentend.org/immortality.html
> It was written rather rapidly over the holiday season and so it
> suffers a little from WUI (writing under the influence).
> As always, comments are appreciated. The abstract is below:
> 
> Abstract: Killing mortal humans is wrong primarily because it
> inflicts upon individuals one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future. It is argued that this
> same analysis applies to those who would deny access to life
> extension technology. To deny access to radical life extension
> technology?technology that would greatly extend or permit physical
> immortality?is wrong primarily because it inflicts upon those who
> desire this technology one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future. Recognition of this loss
> makes a strong presumptive case for the moral impermissibility of
> prohibiting access to radical life extension technology.

Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent others from
gaining access to radical life extension technology, to such a degree
as to cause death. Is it wrong to kill such humans or not?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Jan  3 19:43:19 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:43:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d
	approach)
References: <018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <006301c3d231$d7ffc580$70ce5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:39 AM Harvey Newstrom
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
>> There are many things in science
>> today that were not observed but
>> were posited as "might be"
>> explanations or even as pure
>> thought experiments.  A "might
>> be" does not relegate its content
>> to belonging to religion.   I am
>> surprised by the characterization.
>
> That doesn't make it science.  If
> anyone ever develops a scientific theory,
> scientific proof, scientific investigation,
> scientific explanation or anything using
> the scientific method relating to the
> Simulation Argument, then it might
> become science.

I agree with you here.  Of course, I read Samatha as trying to be
open-minded not anti-scientific.

> Right now it is a religious belief, a fantasy
> story or maybe even a philosophical
> musing.  It seems that most people here
> don't have a good definition for what is
> science or not.  Arguing that it "might be
> true" or "hasn't been disproved" doesn't
> make it science any more than "Creation
> Science" is science.

Granted.

> The simulation argument is almost
> identical to the creation science
> argument.  Instead of evolving by
> itself, the universe was created
> mid-stream with history already in
> place, and an external entity directing
> its actions.  We cannot detect that
> the history of carbon-dating or old
> light from other stars was simulated
> by God instead of really coming from
> those stars.  This makes much of the
> Creation Science universe a simulation.
> The intervention by God sometimes
> is like tweaking of the simulation.
>
> I don't see how anybody can believe
> in the simulation argument without
> believing in most religions.  I don't
> see how anybody can claim the
> simulation argument is science
> without including most religions as
> science.

I would reword that last paragraph because I distinguish between belief
and justification.  You might believe something to be the case -- e.g.,
we are living in a simulation or the Bible is literally true -- but be
unable to justify it in terms of logic, coherence, or experience.
(Also, granted, something might be true but the justification for it
might be invalid.  Someone might believe, e.g., that the Earth is round
(true) because people walking on it molded it into that shape (wrong).)

I bring up this distinction because there are so many things anyone
believes that one has not validated in any meaningful way.  Some of
those beliefs might be validated or invalidated when one gets into a
bind -- such as when there's someone who disagrees with the belief or
when one finds some contradiction between the belief and other beliefs
one holds.  However, I doubt anyone has done this with each and every
belief she or he has.  Each person's totality of beliefs is much too big
for that.

Instead, I kind of adopt Pierce's model -- IIRC, maybe it was Dewey; it
was one of the pragmatists:) -- of rationally reconstructing beliefs.
You work on them piecemeal, slowing changing the totality, but not all
at once.  I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical thing is
usually to change those beliefs that cause the most immediate trouble...

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Jan  3 20:00:51 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:00:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein merriment
References: <000001c3d1b3$5ba33680$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <001c01c3d234$4c30ba20$a4994a43@texas.net>

Public libraries are wonderful. Here's a San Antonio catalogue entry:

Title    For us, the living : a comedy of customs / by Robert A. Heinlein ;
with an introduction by Spider Robinson ; and an afterword by Robert James.
Author   Heinlein, Robert A. (Robert Anson), 1907-
Call Number    SCIENCE FICTION HEINLEIN
Publisher   New York : Scribner, c2004.
Description   xvii, 263 p. ; 24 m.
Subject(s)    Traffic accident victims Fiction.




From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 20:04:22 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:04:22 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401022220130.31352-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00ac01c3d234$c7d7b200$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach


> 
> 
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> > > What would ET want from us?
> > > Science is pretty much irrelevent.
> >
> > If the ET is intelligent, chances are it's also curious.
> 
> I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in...
> MBrains can have:
> - 100 billion telescopes the diameter of the moon
>   (plenty of information to process)
> - The ability to simulate all human thought that has been
>   done since Australopithecines in ~0.25 microseconds.
>   (And that is probably conservative since it doesn't
>    take into account the quality of thought of pre-modern
>    humans or the population bottlenecks that humans
>    probably went through.)
> 
>    [Figures are back-of-the envelope of course but provide
>     a way of thinking about the scaling that most people
>     simply fail to grasp.]
> 
> You can satisfy your curiosity in significantly less
> time than it takes to go to lunch.

Which is why we are being left alone until we become interesting.
And 'interesting' does not refer to universally discoverable things.
 
> > Lets face it, what else could be the motivation to build
> > an MBrain ?
> 
> Figuring out how to survive?
 
Surviving other MBrains most likely.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 20:05:06 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:05:06 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
References: <000001c3d0ba$33f64d60$6501a8c0@SHELLY><00c101c3d151$8bd0d0e0$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<Pine.LNX.4.55L.0401022358460.5927@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <00b201c3d234$e22761f0$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rik van Riel" <riel at surriel.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach


> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> > What would ET want from us?
> > Science is pretty much irrelevent.
> 
> If the ET is intelligent, chances are it's also curious.
> 
> Lets face it, what else could be the motivation to build
> an MBrain ?

The only area we know of that is truly infinite in scope is mathematics.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Jan  3 23:02:02 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:02:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040103193332.82096.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent 
> others from gaining access to radical life extension 
> technology, to such a degree as to cause death. Is it wrong 
> to kill such humans or not?

I think this is obviously wrong.  This is a classic example of choosing the
lesser of two evils.  Both choices are evil.  Choosing the lesser evil is
still evil.  I think it confuses the issue to compare them and say that the
lesser evil is "good" compared to the worse evil.  I think it makes more
sense to clearly state that they are both evil.  

The question of whether we should choose the lesser of two evils depends on
there not being any other possibilities.  But how do you prove a negative?
I think it can never be proven that there is not a better alternative and
that we have to choose one of these evils.  We can contrive more complicated
scenarios with specific time-limits and artificial constraints, but these
seem further and further removed from reality the more we simplify them.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 23:13:50 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:13:50 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent
> > others from gaining access to radical life extension
> > technology, to such a degree as to cause death. Is it wrong
> > to kill such humans or not?
>
> I think this is obviously wrong.  This is a classic example of choosing
the
> lesser of two evils.  Both choices are evil.  Choosing the lesser evil is
> still evil.  I think it confuses the issue to compare them and say that
the
> lesser evil is "good" compared to the worse evil.  I think it makes more
> sense to clearly state that they are both evil.
>
> The question of whether we should choose the lesser of two evils depends
on
> there not being any other possibilities.  But how do you prove a negative?
> I think it can never be proven that there is not a better alternative and
> that we have to choose one of these evils.  We can contrive more
complicated
> scenarios with specific time-limits and artificial constraints, but these
> seem further and further removed from reality the more we simplify them.

Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
Does it mean speaking against?
Speaking against pursuasively?
Legislating against in a democracy?
If any of the above you are talking about justifying terrorism and
oppression.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan  3 23:17:40 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (wasfermi'sparadox:m/d
	approach)
In-Reply-To: <018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031509060.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> I don't see how anybody can believe in the simulation argument without
> believing in most religions.  I don't see how anybody can claim the
> simulation argument is science without including most religions as science.

How about these reasons:
1) In a SIM you might be able to bend the reality.  In most religions
   you can't.
2) In a SIM you might escape from the reality.  In most religions
   you can't change the rules.
3) In a SIM you might be able to detect you are in a SIM (e.g. The
   Truman Show).  In most religions by assertion this is impossible
   (i.e. you can never tell that the God(s) are frauds).

Now interestingly this would seem to put string & brane theory
in the category of religions (from Harvey's perspective I think)
because they can probably never be tested.  I think this leads
into some very very subtle distinctions, e.g.:
a) What can never be proven;
b) What can be proven only by mathematics;
c) What can be proven only by mathematics with certain assumptions;
d) What can be proven by experiment.

Feel free to throw stones -- I'm just thinking out loud and have
some other emails that require attention.

:-)
R.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan  3 23:21:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d
	approach)
In-Reply-To: <006301c3d231$d7ffc580$70ce5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031519550.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Technotranscendence wrote:

> I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical thing is
> usually to change those beliefs that cause the most immediate trouble...

Daniel, these are words of wisdom.  Jeff, you should add this
to your list of sig quotes!

R.




From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 23:32:42 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:32:42 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument
	critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/dapproach)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031519550.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <015d01c3d251$e2718420$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument
critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/dapproach)


>
>
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> > I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical thing is
> > usually to change those beliefs that cause the most immediate trouble...
>
> Daniel, these are words of wisdom.  Jeff, you should add this
> to your list of sig quotes!


And eliminate progress.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan  3 23:33:35 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <00ac01c3d234$c7d7b200$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031527520.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> > > Lets face it, what else could be the motivation to build
> > > an MBrain ?
> >
> > Figuring out how to survive?
>
> Surviving other MBrains most likely.

Probably not.  I was thinking in terms of individuals wanting
to build a large enough distributed intelligence that it
would be impossible for natural hazards to destroy their mind.

If MBrains have disputes they probably have to be settled
by hurling black holes across interstellar distances at
great expense -- one isn't going to bother with that unless
one is really convinced that another MBrain's survival in
some way seriously threatens your own survival.  If you are
both faced with the ultimate threat of the decay of all the
protons in the universe it might be better to pool resources
and determine whether there is a way out.  If there isn't
a way out -- well being at the top of the heap as it all
goes "poof" isn't very satisfying.

Robert




From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jan  3 23:34:25 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:34:25 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d
	approach)
References: <018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <016501c3d252$1f90f250$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument
critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d approach)


> Samantha Atkins wrote,
> > There are many things in science
> > today that were not observed but were posited as "might be"
> > explanations or even as pure thought experiments.  A "might
> > be" does not relegate its content to belonging to religion.
> > I am surprised by the characterization.
>
> That doesn't make it science.  If anyone ever develops a scientific
theory,
> scientific proof, scientific investigation, scientific explanation or
> anything using the scientific method relating to the Simulation Argument,
> then it might become science.  Right now it is a religious belief, a
fantasy
> story or maybe even a philosophical musing.  It seems that most people
here
> don't have a good definition for what is science or not.  Arguing that it
> "might be true" or "hasn't been disproved" doesn't make it science any
more
> than "Creation Science" is science.


The only question worth asking to determine whether it is scientific is 'Is
it falsifiable?'
Nobody knows.
A bit like the Many Worlds Hypothesis of QM at present.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan  4 00:10:57 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
	(wasfermi'sparadox:m/dapproach)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031509060.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <01af01c3d257$3a512510$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> > I don't see how anybody can believe in the simulation argument without 
> > believing in most religions.  I don't see how anybody can claim the 
> > simulation argument is science without including most religions as 
> > science.
> 
> How about these reasons:
> 1) In a SIM you might be able to bend the reality.  In most religions
>    you can't.
> 2) In a SIM you might escape from the reality.  In most religions
>    you can't change the rules.
> 3) In a SIM you might be able to detect you are in a SIM (e.g. The
>    Truman Show).  In most religions by assertion this is impossible
>    (i.e. you can never tell that the God(s) are frauds).

I do not understand this response.  Are you saying that you believe in a SIM
and not in religions because you prefer the SIM outcomes?  Are you saying
that neither has more scientific evidence, but you choose one over the other
because of your personal preferences for what you hope to be true?  Is this
an explanation for what you call "science" and what you call "religion"?  Or
are you answering some other question?

> Now interestingly this would seem to put string & brane 
> theory in the category of religions (from Harvey's 
> perspective I think) because they can probably never be 
> tested.  I think this leads into some very very subtle 
> distinctions, e.g.:
> a) What can never be proven;
> b) What can be proven only by mathematics;
> c) What can be proven only by mathematics with certain assumptions;
> d) What can be proven by experiment.
> 
> Feel free to throw stones -- I'm just thinking out loud and 
> have some other emails that require attention.

I agree with this hierarchy.  I someone who believes in "a" believes in a
religion.  Someone who believes in "d" is a scientist.  Someone who believes
in "b" or "c" is a theoretician.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jan  4 00:38:20 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:38:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:13 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com wrote:
> Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> Does it mean speaking against?
> Speaking against pursuasively?
> Legislating against in a democracy?
> If any of the above you are talking about
> justifying terrorism and oppression.

I haven't read Mark's essay, but just from reading this thread, I fear
some might interpret it very broadly to mean even such things as not
subsidizing other people's life extension program.  For strict
egalitarians, this might mean my failure to fund everyone else's life
extension program constitutes my "deny[ing them] access to radical life
extension technology."

I would hope that's not what Mark intended, but I can imagine others
taking the argument in that direction.

However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
"terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
it being justly carried out.

I mean here that if the government of, say, Ruritania outlaws
supplements, it is not wrong for Ruritanian life extensionists to
disobey that law.  However, it would be wrong to, say, bomb Ruritania's
whole population.  Specific acts against Ruritanian legislators and law
enforcement agents, though, might not be un-libertarian and would have
to measured against their justness and their likely consequences.

To drive this point home, imagine CPR were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would
not the Ruritanian government be the one using "terrorism and
oppression" in this case against people needing CPR, their relatives,
their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act by a democratic government
okay?

Cheers!

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jan  4 01:02:54 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:02:54 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <009001c3d25e$7c303a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>


Mark Walker wrote:

> In case anyone is interested, I have a first draft of a paper
> on physical immortality.  http://www.permanentend.org/immortality.html

Good the more the merrier.

I am sorry I haven't the time to go to the whole paper. You posted
the abstract so I'll respond with an impression on the abstract.

>The abstract is below:

>Abstract: Killing mortal humans is wrong primarily because
> it inflicts upon individuals one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future.

Hmm. I guess it could reduce down to that but if so thats
unfortunate as a logical case might be based on it but not a
widely resonately compelling one I suspect. You'd have just
a narrow but perhaps valid case of interest to a relatively
small audience, is my impression.

>  It is argued that this same analysis applies to those who
> would deny access to life extension technology.

Ok

> To deny access to radical life extension technology?technology
> that would greatly extend or permit physical immortality
> ?is wrong primarily because it inflicts upon those who
> desire this technology one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future.

Looks like a suboptimal moral argument to run. Why not
run instead:

On what basis does *any* human individual *presume* to
*ration* the lifespan of any other human individual?

Religious? Economic? Bizarre utilitarian where nonexistent or
potential beings are weighted against actual ones in a calculus
that balances imaginary against real? - If so then more rope
for the opponent please! :-)

A lot of good existing moral arguments can be enlisted in the
service of challenging those who would presume to ration
others lives.

> Recognition of this loss  makes a strong presumptive case
> for the moral impermissibility of prohibiting access to radical
> life extension technology.

Life extension technology is fuzzy stuff to most people. Where
does something like penicillin or gm food grown in poor farmland
fit in for instance - these could be life extension technologies.

I much prefer scenarios where those who would argue the merits
of death are more closely revealed for what they are trying to do
- that is ration other peoples lives based on their own worldview.

I prefer to see them (Kass etc) have to make their case with the
world looking and wondering how they (Kass etc) got to
consider that their particular worldview should be particularly
priviledged. How is it that Kass presumes the wisdom and moral
judgement to ration other peoples lives... Let Kass etc **make**
their case if they can - whilst having to *conspicuously* carrying
the full burden of their prejudice.

While my impression is that the ground you are choosing to fight
may be suboptimal, I haven't read more than your abstract, and I
certainly commend doing something as better than doing nothing.

Good luck.

Regards,
Brett




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Jan  4 01:30:49 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:30:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Not enough TNOs
Message-ID: <3FF76CC9.531EF216@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.

Science Frontiers, No. 151, Jan-Feb, 2004, p. 1
< http://www.science-frontiers.com >

ASTRONOMY

Not enough TNOs

TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects*) are large lumps of dirty ice orbiting the
sun in the so-called Kuiper Belt just beyond Neptune.  The Kuiper Belt with
its inventory of TNOs was not even recognized by astronomers until a few
decades ago.  By then, it was obvious to the comet-counters that the large
number of short-period (less than 20 years) comets they were tallying could
not come from the hypothesized Oort Cloud at the far fringes of the Solar
System.

Sure enough, when astronomers searched the Kuiper Belt region, they found
some fairly large objects, some almost planet-size.  Pluto, in fact, may
be a TNO.

A problem that has now arisen derives from a faint-object search of a small
section of the Kuiper Belt with the Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys by
a team led by G.M. Bernstein and D.E. Trilling.  What they saw and counted
is "wildly inconsistent" with the number of short-period comets that are
observed.  In fact, the team found only 4% of the number of objects that
theory had predicted.

Conclusion: the size distribution of TNOs deviates from theory because the
many expected larger TNOs were pulverized by some unrecognized event or
process at some time in the Solar System's long history.  Another possibility
is that the missing large TNOs were once merely loose rubble piles of ice
chunks that were gravitationally torn apart and dispersed.

A survey for even fainter TNOs may decide what really did happen.  In any case,
the history of that region of the Solar System needs some radical rewriting.

(Schilling, Govert; "Comet 'Factory' Found to Have Too Little Inventory,"
*Science*, 301:1304, 2003.  Cowen, R.; "Hubble Highlights a Riddle," *Science
News*, 164:148, 2003.)

*TNOs = KBOs (Kuiper-Belt Objects)


[Science Frontiers is a bimonthly collection of digests of scientific
anomalies in the current literature.  Published by the Sourcebook Project,
P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057.  Annual subscription: $8.00.]


-- 
"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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Jan  4 02:01:02 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:01:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Was the Big Bang Dodecahedral?
Message-ID: <3FF773DE.99E050CD@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.

Science Frontiers, No. 151, Jan-Feb, 2004, pp. 1 & 2
< http://www.science-frontiers.com >

ASTRONOMY

Was the Big Bang Dodecahedral?

A decade ago, in SF#93, we reported seismographical data suggesting that the
solid iron core of the earth was crystalline in nature.  It is thought that
this iron is a high-pressure phase of iron organized in close-packed
hexagonal geometry.  Now, there are data supporting the idea that the
*universe as a whole* is dodecahedral; that is, organized as a regular
12-sided figure with pentagonal faces---this being the highest order regular
solid in geometry.  If this is all verified, nature obviously prefers
orderliness on all scales.

The observations suggesting that the debris from the Big Bang explosion was
nicely geometrical came from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).
One's expectation from terrestrial experience, though, is that explosions
do not produce highly organized debris patterns.

Contrary to such naive expectations, the WMAP data seem to show that the
universe's temperature correlations vanish at large scales.  In non-technical
terms, the implications are that the universe is *not* infinite and,
furthermore, *does* possess regular structure.  The geometrical shape that
best accounts for the missing long waves is a dodecahedron.  Of course, this
is still all very tentative and under review.

But we cannot refrain from mentioning two amusing effects dictated by a
dodecahedral universe.

   *Photons, spaceships, and other objects passing through decadehral[sic] space
would experience a twist.  The universe-as-a-whole would, therefore, possess
handedness.  Could this be related to the handedness (chirality) exhibited
in all terrestrial biochemistry?

   *If a spaceship crossed one of the twelve faces of the postulated
dodecahedron, it would appear *instantly* outside the opposite face of the
dodecahedron.

Sure, this is all counterintuitive, but so is quantum mechanics.

(Luminet, Jean-Pierre, et al; "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation
for Weak Wide-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave
Background," *Nature*, 425:593, 2003.  Seife, Charles; "Polyhedral Model
Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," *Science*, 302:209, 2003)


Some 2,500 years ago, sans WMAP, Timaeus of Locri, noting the *mystical*
correspondence between the four "elements* of nature (fire, air, earth, and
water) and the four other regular solids (tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, and
icosahedron), ventured that the remaining fifth regular solid, the
dodecahedron, *must* envelope the universe.

(Giomini, Claudio; "Timaeus's Insight on the Shape of the Universe," *Nature*,
425:899, 2003)



[Science Frontiers is a bimonthly collection of digests of scientific
anomalies in the current literature.  Published by the Sourcebook Project,
P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057.  Annual subscription: $8.00.]


-- 
"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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From reason at exratio.com  Sun Jan  4 03:32:15 2004
From: reason at exratio.com (Reason)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:32:15 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] the most modern conception of wizard as transhumanist
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIELJEAAA.reason@exratio.com>

Those of you who delight in items of esoteric cultural interest might like
this one. I was reading a very engaging campaign log from a game of Dungeons
and Dragons (D&D):

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58227&page=1&pp=25

It's long, and makes we wonder why I can no longer find smart people to game
with who are interested in character, story, conversation and whatnot over
the roll of dice. Full of nice, witty stuff relating to the role of religion
and faith, nature of power, character driven conflict, etc, etc, and has a
strong underpinning of transhumanist ideals in regards to the motivations
and actions of its mages.

I can't say I've given a lot of thought to transhumanism vis a vis the very
modern concept of the fantasy mage that has become widespread in the last
half decade or so, but it fits very nicely within the rarified limits of D&D
canon. In a way, it's very amusing that the pulp culture fantasy mage is now
a concept completely informed and based upon D&D, itself initially lifted
from Vance (who may yet be able to lay claim to being more influential than
Tolkien); the most widespread pulp fantasy novels (like Eddings) started the
avalanche, and the rocks are now mostly composed of computer "role-playing"
(in quotes for a reason) games that individually outsell all of Eddings
works. The occasional movie too. The tropes and cliches for the modern
fantasy mage concept are set in stone, but very open to reinterpretation.

(Personally, I think it's a bit of a loss when compared with, say, The King
of Elfland's Daughter, or even Greg Stafford's Glorantha, but what do I
know? I'm outvoted by readers of pulp. In a way, I suppose it's encouraging
that human nature is to take the mystical and apply rules to it, come hell
or high water. You end up with modern theology, corrupt legal systems and
other horrors, but you also get science, come hell or high water).

So we have the fantasy mage as transhumanist: recursive intelligence
enhancement, transcending natural limits, life goals akin to vastening,
creation of intelligent servants, power and responsibility, etc, etc. All
quite interesting.

Reason
http://www.exratio.com




From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 03:44:39 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:44:39 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <022401c3d275$14a04440$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> On Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:13 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com wrote:
> > Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> > Does it mean speaking against?
> > Speaking against pursuasively?
> > Legislating against in a democracy?
> > If any of the above you are talking about
> > justifying terrorism and oppression.
>
> I haven't read Mark's essay, but just from reading this thread, I fear
> some might interpret it very broadly to mean even such things as not
> subsidizing other people's life extension program.  For strict
> egalitarians, this might mean my failure to fund everyone else's life
> extension program constitutes my "deny[ing them] access to radical life
> extension technology."
>
> I would hope that's not what Mark intended, but I can imagine others
> taking the argument in that direction.
>
> However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
> Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
> person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
> "terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
> it being justly carried out.

So it is legitimate to use force to overthrow any law you don't agree with
in a democratic society?

> I mean here that if the government of, say, Ruritania outlaws
> supplements, it is not wrong for Ruritanian life extensionists to
> disobey that law.  However, it would be wrong to, say, bomb Ruritania's
> whole population.  Specific acts against Ruritanian legislators and law
> enforcement agents, though, might not be un-libertarian and would have
> to measured against their justness and their likely consequences.
>
> To drive this point home, imagine CPR were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would
> not the Ruritanian government be the one using "terrorism and
> oppression" in this case against people needing CPR, their relatives,

No.

> their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act by a democratic government
> okay?

In general, yes, provided one is allowed freedom of speech (as well as the
ability to leave).

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 03:46:36 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:46:36 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet
References: <001c01c3d19f$58a576f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <023c01c3d275$5a351260$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:14 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] that bad old internet


> 
> > SDAs are, IMO, one of the most retard of Xian sects.
> > [Just thought I'd add that gratuitous religious insult to 
> > round off the discussion... Dirk
> 
> Be good to them Dirk, they may save your life some day.  Follow me:
> 
> A few weeks ago I referenced the hapless Baptists, who have a notion in
> their basic teachings that all goodness comes from god, therefore all
> legitimate ethical notions are found in the bible, therefore since
> slavery is not specifically forbidden in the bible, it must be OK.  This
> is among other absurdities that follow from the flawed premise.
> 
> The Seventh Day Adventist has a somewhat related situation. They have a
> long and specific list of taboos, revealed directly to the modern
> prophet Ellen G. White.  
> 
> But anything that is not on that forbidden list is allowed.
> 
> Over the years I have witnessed a number of attempts to add new taboos
> to this long and specific list.  I find it remarkable that *not one* of
> those attempts has been successful, not a single one.
> 
> This has some interesting consequences, for the SDAs have a modern
> medical facility: Loma Linda University in southern
> Taxifornia.  It is well known that if you have some wacky research idea,
> Loma Linda has a notoriously open-minded ethics board: they will allow
> anything that does not conflict with the previously mentioned long list
> of taboos.  An example is the Baby Fae experiment that you may recall
> from the 1980s in which a baboon heart was transplanted into a human
> infant.  Done at Loma Linda.  There is nothing in the sacred texts that
> specifically forbid it.  
> 
> This read-my-lips-no-new-no-nos concept results in the Seventh Day
> Adventists being the *only* xian church (that I know of) that holds an
> official pro-choice stance.  There are other churches that hold no
> position perhaps, but SDA stands alone in being officially and
> specifically pro-choice.  Good for them.  
> 
> Cloning?  Adventists stand alone among xian denominations as coming out
> officially in favor.  Stem cell research?  Sure.  Genetic manipulation?
> The more the merrier, for they do this research with calm confidence,
> knowing that biblical and Ellen-White-ical prophecy says nothing about
> the world being devoured by goo of any color.  The girl I dated before I
> met my wife is as staunch SDA as anyone you will ever meet.  She got her
> PhD in biology from Purdue and is now a researcher in genetic
> engineering, with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.  Hey, the
> prophetess didn't say it was wrong, so it must be right.  Right?
> 
> Several of my computer science friends that went to SDA colleges were
> discussing artificial intelligence way back in the early 80s, before
> there was an extropian list or the internet.  We even discussed the
> singularity, even tho we did not call it by that name.  We speculated
> that computers would eventually reach human level intelligence and
> rewrite their own software, causing an open loop feedback system.
> 
> Loma Linda University follows the tradition of SDA Doctor John Harvey
> Kellogg, the inventor of corn flakes and other vegetarian foods, who was
> always experimenting with new techniques to treat his patients.  Dirk,
> if you or I get prostate cancer, we can go to Loma Linda to be treated
> in their proton accelerator, which painlessly radiates the tumor,
> leaving us able to copulate and not piss on ourselves.  In my admittedly
> very limited statistical sample, the three prostate cancer patients I
> know personally who had their tumors cut out are all dead.  The two I
> know personally who had their tumors irradiated at LLU are alive and
> well.  Think about it.
> 
> As for being the "most retard of the xian sects", I think the better
> adjective might be the most *retro* of the xians.  This is
> understandable, for the 20th century was not supposed to happen, never
> mind the 21st.  There are plenty of good SDAs that are in some ways
> retrogressing to the 19th century,  for this century is not their home.
> In this at least, most of us here share their discomfort, for our
> extropian hearts and minds belong in the 22nd century.
> 
> SDA is your friend, Dirk.
 

Well, I'll just have to reappraise my view of the SDA.
It was based upon my experience of the type of people it attracts.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jan  4 04:50:19 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:50:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Not enough TNOs
References: <3FF76CC9.531EF216@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <011a01c3d27e$4216ab40$afcd5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:30 PM Terry W. Colvin
fortean1 at mindspring.com wrote:
> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.
>
> Science Frontiers, No. 151, Jan-Feb, 2004, p. 1
> < http://www.science-frontiers.com >
[snip]
> A survey for even fainter TNOs may decide what really did happen.  In
any case,
> the history of that region of the Solar System needs some radical
rewriting.

A recent article in _Nature_ covered the same and proposed that Neptune
scattered many TNOs.  That model looked quite convincing, though I would
stay the jury still out on this one.  I will look up the article if
anyone's interested...

Cheers!

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jan  4 05:21:39 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:21:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis><00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
	<022401c3d275$14a04440$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <016601c3d282$a2becaa0$afcd5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:44 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com
wrote:
>> However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here
>> about the last instance.  Legislating
>> against something usually means
>> initiating force.  Once a person or a
>> group has initiated force, retaliating
>> against such is not "terrorism and
>> oppression" per se, but a just
>> response -- depending on it being
>> justly carried out.
>
> So it is legitimate to use force to
> overthrow any law you don't agree with
> in a democratic society?

Note:  I did not say all laws were unjust or un-libertarian.  However,
the imposition of legislation is usually the initiation of force.  In
such cases, it is legitimate, by libertarian standards, to retaliate.
Whether it's prudent is another matter.

To answer your question more directly -- and I'll assume you mean
"disobey" where you write "overthrow"; please let me know if that
differs from your intended meaning -- it depends on the law in question.
In the context of this debate, the particular laws you were talking
about -- and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you -- would be ones
aimed at prohibiting life extension technology.  I assumed you meant
something like parliament outlawing conventional supplements.  In that
case, I see no reason to obey the law.  Merely that one group of people
decided for all people that they can or cannot use a certain substance
to me is unjust and constitutes the initiation of force.

BTW, just to be clear here, I'm not for democracy.  When democracy
conflicts with individual liberty, then democracy must go.  I think such
conflicts will always happen in democracies -- and I include republics
under this term (I'm relying on Hoppe's analysis here; he differentiates
between no government, privately owned government, and publicly owned
government (no government means some form of anarchism (or no _monopoly_
in law making, AKA polycentric legal orders); privately owned government
means monarchy; publicly owned government means republics, conventional
democracies, and various non-monarchical dictatorships (even many extant
monarchies are really either publicly owned or a mixture of public and
private))) -- so I'm basically anti-democratic.

>> To drive this point home, imagine CPR
>> were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would not
>> the Ruritanian government be the one
>> using "terrorism and oppression" in
>> this case against people needing CPR,
>> their relatives,
>
> No.

Then you appear to be a democratic absolutist.  You see democracy as
legitimizing anything, right?  As long as one can line up enough votes,
you seem to be saying, the government can do what it will.

>> their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act
>> by a democratic government okay?
>
> In general, yes, provided one is allowed
> freedom of speech (as well as the ability
> to leave).

IIRC, Frederick the Great -- an absolute monarch, no? -- used the
slogan, "You can argue, but you must obey" -- meaning you can debate all
you want as long as you bow down and kiss the ring in the end.  (Well,
at least, this is what I got from reading Kant on one of the Prussian
leaders...)  What do you mean by "the ability to leave"?  Would that
include secession?  By that I mean the ability to no longer be under the
juridiction of a particular government -- not leaving the territory
itself.  If you agree with this, then you should see the ultimate end
state would be anarchy, since any minority or individual would be
allowed to break away from a democracy.

If you don't mean that [secession], then I think what you advocating
would be oppressive.  After all, this would be forcing people to leave
their homes because a government will otherwise trample them.  In the
context of today's world, since there are basically only democracies of
different shades and the planet is pretty much carved up by them, where
would one go?  That would be like telling someone in prison they can
have their choice of cell blocks.

Cheers!

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jan  4 05:22:05 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040104052205.53343.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent 
> > others from gaining access to radical life extension 
> > technology, to such a degree as to cause death. Is it wrong 
> > to kill such humans or not?
> 
> I think this is obviously wrong.  This is a classic example of
> choosing the lesser of two evils.  Both choices are evil. 
> Choosing the lesser evil is still evil.  I think it confuses the
> issue to compare them and say that the
> lesser evil is "good" compared to the worse evil.  I think it makes
> more sense to clearly state that they are both evil.  

So, you are dying of a disease. I use the law to prevent you from
obtaining the treatment you need to live. You WILL die, if you don't
get this treatment. Are you justified in using ANY means to prevent my
actions or not?

Others have already died from my actions, so it is demonstrably true
that you will die as well if I am not stopped. At what point is any
action against me acceptable in defense of your life? Why is this not
plain and simple and morally acceptable self defense on your part?

Self defense is not evil. Why is this not self defense?


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 05:56:09 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:56:09 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] the most modern conception of wizard as
	transhumanist
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIELJEAAA.reason@exratio.com>
Message-ID: <025101c3d287$73b8e1a0$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Reason" <reason at exratio.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>;
<wta-talk at transhumanism.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 3:32 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] the most modern conception of wizard as
transhumanist


> Those of you who delight in items of esoteric cultural interest might like
> this one. I was reading a very engaging campaign log from a game of
Dungeons
> and Dragons (D&D):
>
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58227&page=1&pp=25
>
> It's long, and makes we wonder why I can no longer find smart people to
game
> with who are interested in character, story, conversation and whatnot over
> the roll of dice. Full of nice, witty stuff relating to the role of
religion
> and faith, nature of power, character driven conflict, etc, etc, and has a
> strong underpinning of transhumanist ideals in regards to the motivations
> and actions of its mages.
>
> I can't say I've given a lot of thought to transhumanism vis a vis the
very
> modern concept of the fantasy mage that has become widespread in the last
> half decade or so, but it fits very nicely within the rarified limits of
D&D
> canon. In a way, it's very amusing that the pulp culture fantasy mage is
now
> a concept completely informed and based upon D&D, itself initially lifted
> from Vance (who may yet be able to lay claim to being more influential
than
> Tolkien); the most widespread pulp fantasy novels (like Eddings) started
the
> avalanche, and the rocks are now mostly composed of computer
"role-playing"
> (in quotes for a reason) games that individually outsell all of Eddings
> works. The occasional movie too. The tropes and cliches for the modern
> fantasy mage concept are set in stone, but very open to reinterpretation.
>
> (Personally, I think it's a bit of a loss when compared with, say, The
King
> of Elfland's Daughter, or even Greg Stafford's Glorantha, but what do I
> know? I'm outvoted by readers of pulp. In a way, I suppose it's
encouraging
> that human nature is to take the mystical and apply rules to it, come hell
> or high water. You end up with modern theology, corrupt legal systems and
> other horrors, but you also get science, come hell or high water).
>
> So we have the fantasy mage as transhumanist: recursive intelligence
> enhancement, transcending natural limits, life goals akin to vastening,
> creation of intelligent servants, power and responsibility, etc, etc. All
> quite interesting.

Some 20yrs ago friends of mine rans a business doing D&D 'for real' in a
genuine 200 room castle.
It was quite fun.
However, what did puzzle me was the effort that some people put into
developing their character. They literally spend every weekend (and
presumably most of their spare time) memorizing spells, rituals etc

At the time I wondered why when they could be doing it 'really' for real.
Their activity (commitment, time, energy, money, intellect) did not impinge
upon this world (except to swell the coffers of the business).

I'm doing it for real (sigline).
Far longer odds, but the payoff is not imaginary.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From aperick at centurytel.net  Sun Jan  4 05:22:54 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:22:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
In-Reply-To: <200401040344.i043ilE05193@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d282$cf62b580$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
>Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent others from
gaining access to radical life extension technology, to such a degree as
to cause death. Is it wrong to kill such humans or not?
/>

That would depend on whether there is anyone left who is reckless enough
to judge it as wrong -- and speak his mind. Good and bad are concepts
that beg the questions: good for who, and bad for who. Woops, my Rand
roots are showing -- I'm sooo embarrassed. 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jan  4 06:27:17 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:27:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] spirit a success
In-Reply-To: <023c01c3d275$5a351260$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <001901c3d28b$cd050050$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

I just got back from a Spirit party.  Looks like
NASA has the right stuff, eh?  {8-]

Ahhhh, life is gooooood.  spike



From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jan  4 10:08:26 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:08:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Was the Big Bang Dodecahedral?
References: <3FF773DE.99E050CD@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <000301c3d2aa$cde9a2e0$b4b51b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Terry W. Colvin"

> Some 2,500 years ago, sans WMAP, Timaeus of Locri, noting the *mystical*
> correspondence between the four "elements* of nature (fire, air, earth,
> and water) and the four other regular solids (tetrahedron, cube, 
> octahedron, and icosahedron), ventured that the remaining fifth regular 
> solid, the dodecahedron, *must* envelope the universe.
> (Giomini, Claudio; "Timaeus's Insight on the Shape of the Universe,"
> *Nature*, 425:899, 2003)

Plato wrote (Timaeus, 55)
about the dodecahedron:
"There was yet a fifth combination
which God used in the delineation
of the universe."

But Plato forgot to mention that God
used dodecahedra in constructing
quantum reality, as sir Penrose
showed some years ago.
http://users.wpi.edu/~paravind/penrosedodec.pdf








From humania at t-online.de  Sun Jan  4 13:00:27 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:00:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <002d01c3d2c2$bb166000$5b91fea9@kwasar>

Mark Walker  wrote:

> In case anyone is interested, I have a first draft of a paper on physical
> immortality.  http://www.permanentend.org/immortality.html It was written
> rather rapidly over the holiday season and so it suffers a little from WUI
> (writing under the influence). As always, comments are appreciated.

I have read your draft. I don't know what kind of influence you mean with
WUI, but - well, here are my comments.

I strongly advice you to delete the "introductory" completely. If it would
not have been for immortality I would have stopped reading after the first
page. An example: In the following short paragraph you use "permissible"
7 times and "morally" 6 times which is tiring and aesthetically inexcusable.
Academic readers might be used to this kind of style, a bunch of lawyers
maybe, but for normal readers this is indigestible:

"So, if X is ?murdering an innocent child? then it is not morally
permissible to do X, and it is morally permissible to prevent X. It is
permissible to prevent the murder of a child by whisking the child out of
the path of a car driven by someone intent on murdering. If X is ?reading
the morning paper? then X is morally permissible, and likewise, it would not
be morally permissible to prevent someone from reading her morning paper.
Sometimes answers to these questions do not dovetail so neatly, e.g., it has
sometimes been argued that, while euthanasia is morally permissible, it is
morally permissible to prevent euthanasia . . ."

What follows until "Global Triage" are exhausting examples about "Kill
Bill". Anyone who is not familiar with your character and your altruistic
aims might think you are obsessed with killing. I guess you are probably
not, but one can gain this impression. I believe the scenarios you discuss
here at length are obvious to anybody who has at least 5 ounces of common
sense in his brain. That's why I believe three or four short paragraphs
would have been enough.Once again: maybe academics enjoy this kind
of reading, but don't expect that a broader clientele reads any further
than the first page.

If I were your editor I would advice you to cut it down to one third of the
original volume and at least to do without abortion and euthanasia in the
introductory, if you don't want to delete the introductory as a whole.

I like your proposals concerning overpopulation though. This is something
worth to be discussed on a more detailed level with available statistics,
etc.

Hubert Mania








From mark at permanentend.org  Sun Jan  4 14:12:38 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:12:38 -0500
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
Message-ID: <222c01c3d2cc$cf6267c0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>

> From: "Hubert Mania"
> I strongly advice you to delete the "introductory" completely. If it would
> not have been for immortality I would have stopped reading after the first
> page. An example: In the following short paragraph you use "permissible"
> 7 times and "morally" 6 times which is tiring and aesthetically
inexcusable.
> Academic readers might be used to this kind of style, a bunch of lawyers
> maybe, [snip]
>

Indeed, it is an academic paper. I would have a thought that the references
are all to academic papers might have been a give away. Perhaps, I should
append a warning at the top of the paper that it is an academic paper. That
said, I agree that it could be written better.

>
> What follows until "Global Triage" are exhausting examples about "Kill
> Bill". Anyone who is not familiar with your character and your altruistic
> aims might think you are obsessed with killing. I guess you are probably
> not, but one can gain this impression. I would I believe the scenarios you
discuss
> here at length are obvious to anybody who has at least 5 ounces of common
> sense in his brain.

Well, I do like Edvard Munch and Nick Cave, but I wouldn't call it an
obsession. I agree that one might think the scenarios are obvious, but I am
not sure they are. I taught a course last semester on the ethics of emerging
biomedical technologies and one of the things we discussed was physical
immortality. Like the general population, most of the class was apprehensive
about issues such as cloning, genetic engineering, etc. So, I wasn't
surprised when most of said they would decline the opportunity for physical
immortality if it were offered to them. Nor was I surprised that they
thought that others should not have the opportunity either. What made me
write the paper, however, was the fact that most seem to have little regret
for refusing access to life extension technology. Their reasons for not
granting access were typically of the sort described in the global triage
section, which I understand even though I don't agree. In refusing access to
radical life extension technology they seem to think that they were merely
depriving individuals of a narcissistic (to use Kass' word) luxury. At the
time I challenged them to show the difference between refusing access to the
sorts of life extending procedures we now condone like blood transfusions,
and those of radical life extension. The analysis of killing that they seem
to presuppose is that killing is wrong if it ends a "normal" life span, and
so what they are proposing is not wrong or to be regretted because it is not
like killing or letting die mortal humans. If the argument I make is
correct, this analysis is wrong because what is primarily wrong with killing
has little to do with one's past and has more to do with one's potential
future. In any event, I think that most people think there is a big
difference between not permitting access for mortal humans to blood
transfusions, and not permitting access to radical life extension
technology. So, I think it is a worthwhile project to show that this is not
the case.

Thanks for comments--much appreciated!

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jan  4 14:27:14 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:27:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] spirit a success
References: <001901c3d28b$cd050050$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <004f01c3d2ce$d9eeaee0$aecd5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:27 AM Spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote:
> I just got back from a Spirit party.  Looks like
> NASA has the right stuff, eh?  {8-]

Apparently.  Too bad, the ESA lander appears to be a failure.  I guess
we'll know for certain in a few days.

> Ahhhh, life is gooooood.  spike

One down, one to go!

But my big hope is that someone wins the X-Prize in the next few
months...

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jan  4 14:37:49 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <002d01c3d2c2$bb166000$5b91fea9@kwasar>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401040556430.9622-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Hubert Mania wrote:

> I strongly advice you to delete the "introductory" completely. If it would
> not have been for immortality I would have stopped reading after the first
> page.  [snip]

> If I were your editor I would advice you to cut it down to one third of the
> original volume and at least to do without abortion and euthanasia in the
> introductory, if you don't want to delete the introductory as a whole.

Hubert -- I believe Mark is intending this as an academic paper, not
for general consumption.  And I can state from having attended at
least one bioethics conference and having had a couple of college
level courses in philosophy this stuff of rights, shoulds, oughts,
cans and can'ts does get discussed in styles similar to that that
Mark is using.

I thought your comment about these things being "obvious" to people
with an ounce of common sense was interesting.  In my reading of the
paper (I'm about 2/3 of the way through) it seems clear that Mark
is trying to present a response to Kass -- that it is immoral
to attempt to prevent people from having access to life extending
technologies.  Throwing down the overpopulation argument as well
as others it becomes clear that there are some who lack the
"common sense" that attempting to interfere with an individual's
access to such technologies might be immoral.

It was only the use of the term "immortality" that I got stuck on.
We really need to come up with a better word -- making one up
if necessary -- to get to the point where the word means exactly
what we want it to mean -- nothing more and nothing less.
I thought of hyperlongevity and superlongevity but playing around
with the dictionary they don't seem quite right.  I managed
to come up with "itlongveos" - literally to go for long life
or close there to.  But I suspect someone with a better grasp
of latin or greek could come up with something better.
What I would really like is a word for something involving
an indefinitely long healthy life or life without limits.

Robert




From support at imminst.org  Sun Jan  4 14:48:47 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:48:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update
Message-ID: <3ff827cfc50a7@imminst.org>

CHAT: The Economics of the Singularity
***********************
What might happen when? Assistant professor of economics 
at George Mason University, Robin Hanson joins ImmInst to 
discuss how long-term trends in economic growth may reveal 
a coming Singularity within this century.

Chat Time: Sunday Jan 4 @ 8 PM Eastern
More: http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=2601 


SUPPORT IMMINST
***********************
As a member supported nonprofit organization, ImmInst 
is totally dependent on the generous support of its members 
to fulfil its goals and to reach its mission to end the blight 
of involuntary death around the world. 

We need your help in order to continue such projects: 

1. ImmInst - Book Project: 
The ongoing book project will provide a focus for what ImmInst is about.  The books will comprise essays by respected authors concerning the consequences of physical immortality. The first book will release within the next six months. http://www.imminst.org/book

2. ImmInst - "Why Die?" Conference: 
Bioethicists, scientists and futurists debate the positive and negative consequences of extended human lifespans.  Participants will answer the question - how long should we live? The conference will be held in Atlanta in Oct 2005. http://www.imminst.org/conference

3. ImmInst Threats To Life Council (TTLC): 
ImmInst's long-term global risk assessment and awareness initiative to save lives.  TTLC will create easily understood reports that will determine the most dangerous risks to human and posthuman life going forward. http://www.imminst.org/ttlc

4. Other Important Projects: 
a.) ImmInst hosts an active discussion/research forum - http://www.imminst.org/forum 
b.) ImmInst hosts a weekly online chat - http://www.imminst.org/chat
c.) ImmInst hosts the Infinite Females - http://www.imminst.org/if
d.) ImmInst host an archive of more than 80 original member articles http://www.imminst.org/archive/imminst_writers.php
e.) ImmInst reaches out to help other like-minded organizations: 
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=142

We need your help in order to continue these projects. 
***********************
SUPPORT IMMINST: http://imminst.org/index_join.php





To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From mark at permanentend.org  Sun Jan  4 15:12:29 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:12:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<009001c3d25e$7c303a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <226e01c3d2d5$2be17a10$2ee4f418@markcomputer>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brett Paatsch" <

> Looks like a suboptimal moral argument to run. Why not
> run instead:
>
> On what basis does *any* human individual *presume* to
> *ration* the lifespan of any other human individual?
>
The answer to this question is in the paper itself. Opponents of radical
life extension may agree that one should not ration the "normal" lifespan of
individuals but radical life extension goes beyond this. For example,
opponents might think that the former follows from a "right to life" but
disagree that a right to life implies a "right to an immortal life".  Thus,
I think our opponents will see a principled distinction between rationing
mortal lives and immortal lives whereas we don't. I'm trying to offer an
argument against such a principled distinction. So, I think at least some of
our opponents will say that your sketch of an argument begs one of the main
questions.

> I prefer to see them (Kass etc) have to make their case with the
> world looking and wondering how they (Kass etc) got to
> consider that their particular worldview should be particularly
> priviledged. How is it that Kass presumes the wisdom and moral
> judgement to ration other peoples lives... Let Kass etc **make**
> their case if they can - whilst having to *conspicuously* carrying
> the full burden of their prejudice.
>
I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see that Kass is saying that his
worldview is privileged in any untoward way. He offers arguments for the
ethical conclusions that he makes--if this is what you mean by a privileged
world view then I am equally guilty. Furthermore, as far as I can tell Kass
doesn't say that we should ration the lives of others, what he argues is
that it is morally impermissible to seek physical immortality. These claims
are distinct--as I point out in the paper.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org









From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jan  4 16:32:07 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: Ordering Pizza under TIA
Message-ID: <20040104163207.45341.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Ordering Pizza under Total Information Awareness

Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your..." 

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to order." 

Operator: "May I have your NIDN first, sir?" 

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's
6102049998-45-54610." 

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland
Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at
Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Which
number are you calling from, sir?" 

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?" 

Operator: "We're wired into the system, sir." 

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your
All-Meat Special pizzas..." 

Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir." 

Customer: "Whaddya mean?" 

Operator: "Sir, your medical records indicate that you've got very high
blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health
Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice." 

Customer: "Dang . What do you recommend, then?" 

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Yogurt Pizza. I'm sure
you'll like it." 

Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?" 

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your
local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion." 

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then.
What's the damage?" 

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids,
sir. The 'damage,' as you put it, heh, heh, comes to $49.99." 

Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number." 

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash.
Your credit card balance is over its limit." 

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your
driver gets here." 

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's
overdrawn." 

Customer: "Never mind. Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready.
How long will it take? 

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45
minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while
you're out getting the cash, but carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be
a little awkward." 

Customer: "How the heck do you know I'm riding a bike?" 

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your
car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid up, so I just assumed that
you'd be using it." 

Customer: "@#%/$@&?#!" 

Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a
July 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop." 

Customer: (Speechless) 

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?" 

Customer: "No, nothing. Oh, yeah, don't forget the two free liters of
Coke your ad says I get with the pizzas." 

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us
from offering free soda to diabetics." 

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From humania at t-online.de  Sun Jan  4 17:37:51 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:37:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401040556430.9622-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c3d2e9$7b5fe180$5b91fea9@kwasar>

Robert said:

> Hubert -- I believe Mark is intending this as an academic paper, not
> for general consumption.....this stuff of rights, shoulds, oughts,
> cans and can'ts does get discussed in styles similar to that that
> Mark is using.

Well, you're right, particularly as Mark has meanwhile stated himself. That
style of writing and talking was one reason why I fled from University
(German; Anglistics) and never choose an academic career. It would be an
interesting job though to rewrite Mark's article in a way that satisfies
academics and interested laymen, too.

> I thought your comment about these things being "obvious" to people
> with an ounce of common sense was interesting.  In my reading of the
> paper (I'm about 2/3 of the way through) it seems clear that Mark
> is trying to present a response to Kass -- that it is immoral
> to attempt to prevent people from having access to life extending
> technologies.

Maybe my own thinking lacks depth and thoroughness, but I think we might
never get into a situation where we have this conflict, that people deny us
access to life extending technologies. We either get it or we don't get it
at all. The situation in Germany for example seems to lead to the point
where all social forces of the country have to agree on techniques that
might lead to immortality.

The former President of the Max Planck societies for example said in an
interview about uploading techniques, he had no fear about these things. He
trusted in the social coordination process, a slow development that might
lead to a solution that is acceptable for everybody.

Well, slow enough probably to see all of us rotting away slowly under Alcor
ice or a bit faster covered with damn ole Mother Earth. 

> It was only the use of the term "immortality" that I got stuck on.
> We really need to come up with a better word -- making one up
> if necessary

What about *relative immortality* for the time being? It's simple enough,
no sophisticated Greek required and relatively clear that you can still die
in an accident or being caught and eaten up by a contemporary cannibal.

Hubert






From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jan  4 19:38:16 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:38:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER:  Canada Conference Query
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104112746.0338e590@pop.earthlink.net>


The Directeur du Centre de Recherche en Biologie de la Reproduction in the 
D?partement de Sciences Animales, Universit? Laval asked me to suggest a 
French-speaking ExI member  to deliver  a comprehensive talk  for both 
molecular scientists, ethicists and maybe a few journalist on 
"posthumans."   It is large, multi-sciences meeting ( ACFAS , about 5000 
delegates) that takes place in Montreal, Canada.

If you speak French and can deliver an informative speech, please let me 
know soonest.

Thanks,

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040104/28e10f45/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 18:28:54 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:28:54 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis><00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
	<022401c3d275$14a04440$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<016601c3d282$a2becaa0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <00c401c3d2f0$9c1bfdd0$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> >
> > So it is legitimate to use force to
> > overthrow any law you don't agree with
> > in a democratic society?
>
> Note:  I did not say all laws were unjust or un-libertarian.  However,
> the imposition of legislation is usually the initiation of force.  In
> such cases, it is legitimate, by libertarian standards, to retaliate.
> Whether it's prudent is another matter.
>
> To answer your question more directly -- and I'll assume you mean
> "disobey" where you write "overthrow"; please let me know if that
> differs from your intended meaning -- it depends on the law in question.

It does.
Disobedience, or ignoring a law is one thing.
The article compares denial of immortality treatment to murder.
It's only a very short step from that to 'killing in self defence'.

> In the context of this debate, the particular laws you were talking
> about -- and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you -- would be ones
> aimed at prohibiting life extension technology.  I assumed you meant
> something like parliament outlawing conventional supplements.  In that
> case, I see no reason to obey the law.  Merely that one group of people
> decided for all people that they can or cannot use a certain substance
> to me is unjust and constitutes the initiation of force.

It may be far more than simply denying what already exists. It may be
denying the possibility of ever developing the technology in the first
place.
Which would be the next logical justification for 'self defence' to some.

>
> >> To drive this point home, imagine CPR
> >> were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would not
> >> the Ruritanian government be the one
> >> using "terrorism and oppression" in
> >> this case against people needing CPR,
> >> their relatives,
> >
> > No.

> Then you appear to be a democratic absolutist.  You see democracy as
> legitimizing anything, right?  As long as one can line up enough votes,
> you seem to be saying, the government can do what it will.

Pretty much so.
As soon as people view their cause as the exception it's a recipe for war.

> >> their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act
> >> by a democratic government okay?
> >
> > In general, yes, provided one is allowed
> > freedom of speech (as well as the ability
> > to leave).

> leaders...)  What do you mean by "the ability to leave"?  Would that
> include secession?  By that I mean the ability to no longer be under the

In the political context, I'd say yes.

> juridiction of a particular government -- not leaving the territory
> itself.  If you agree with this, then you should see the ultimate end
> state would be anarchy, since any minority or individual would be
> allowed to break away from a democracy.

And any democracy would be free to boycott and embargo the new state until
it was starved into submission (unless it was truly viable). Better make
sure they have some coastline or a friendly neighbour. Which rules out my
home town seceding.
Viability would be the major criterion.

> If you don't mean that [secession], then I think what you advocating
> would be oppressive.  After all, this would be forcing people to leave
> their homes because a government will otherwise trample them.  In the
> context of today's world, since there are basically only democracies of
> different shades and the planet is pretty much carved up by them, where
> would one go?  That would be like telling someone in prison they can
> have their choice of cell blocks.

That's the way the world is.
Your alternative is simply offering them the right to start a war in their
own democracy.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 18:31:50 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:31:50 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer><009001c3d25e$7c303a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<226e01c3d2d5$2be17a10$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <00ca01c3d2f1$04a21bf0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Walker" <mark at permanentend.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> >
> I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see that Kass is saying that
his
> worldview is privileged in any untoward way. He offers arguments for the
> ethical conclusions that he makes--if this is what you mean by a
privileged
> world view then I am equally guilty. Furthermore, as far as I can tell
Kass
> doesn't say that we should ration the lives of others, what he argues is
> that it is morally impermissible to seek physical immortality. These
claims
> are distinct--as I point out in the paper.


I think the whole idea of immortality should be downplayed as far as public
consumption is concerned.
The emphasis should be on Kass and co. preventing the development of medical
technologies that could help tens of millions of ageing citizens.
Maybe even to the point of propaganda - 'Kass aims to block cancer cure!'

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:02:38 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:02:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
	(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d approach)
In-Reply-To: <018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <20040102213248.4c191a2a.samantha@objectent.com>
	<018a01c3d218$26d04fa0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040104110238.19314cd1.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:39:17 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote,
> > There are many things in science
> > today that were not observed but were posited as "might be" 
> > explanations or even as pure thought experiments.  A "might 
> > be" does not relegate its content to belonging to religion.  
> > I am surprised by the characterization. 
> 
> That doesn't make it science.  If anyone ever develops a scientific theory,
> scientific proof, scientific investigation, scientific explanation or
> anything using the scientific method relating to the Simulation Argument,
> then it might become science.  Right now it is a religious belief, a fantasy
> story or maybe even a philosophical musing.  It seems that most people here
> don't have a good definition for what is science or not.  Arguing that it
> "might be true" or "hasn't been disproved" doesn't make it science any more
> than "Creation Science" is science.  

It is mere assertion to claim the simulation notion is a religious belief.  Currently I consider it an intelliectual curiousity that certain types of (mainly statiscal and future assumptive) arguments lend some possibility to.  I don't know if it can be scientifically tested at some future time or not or if rigourous scientific evidence will ever become available for it.  I certainly don't find the current supporting argument compelling enough to believe it is true.  But I think calling it "religious" is sloppy, prejudicial and uninteresting.

> 
> The simulation argument is almost identical to the creation science
> argument.  Instead of evolving by itself, the universe was created
> mid-stream with history already in place, and an external entity directing
> its actions.  We cannot detect that the history of carbon-dating or old
> light from other stars was simulated by God instead of really coming from
> those stars.  This makes much of the Creation Science universe a simulation.
> The intervention by God sometimes is like tweaking of the simulation.  
> 

Analagous reasoning is supposed to be more firmly "scientific".  Come now.  Why are we wasting our precious time bickering over something so small?   Sure, sure in a sim you can set up whatever you wish within the limits of some level of self-consistency.  But that by itself does not argue we are not in a sim or argue that even considering the possibility of being in a sim is itself "religious".

> I don't see how anybody can believe in the simulation argument without
> believing in most religions.  I don't see how anybody can claim the
> simulation argument is science without including most religions as science.
> 

I will grant you that the simulation argument is the only way I could consider many religious notions as remotely corresponding to reality.  But that doesn't make the simulation idea or considering it itself "religious". 

- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:07:42 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:07:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040103193332.82096.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<20040103193332.82096.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040104110742.54751bbd.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent others from
> gaining access to radical life extension technology, to such a degree
> as to cause death. Is it wrong to kill such humans or not?
> 

It would be more ideal to contain, stop or in practice defeat their intentions while leaving them time enough to reconsider.   This may not always be possible in practice though.  So yes, it is wrong.  Like many wrongs there can be circumstances where it is the lesser of evils. 

- s


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:11:54 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:11:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040104111154.326367d3.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:13:50 -0000
"Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:


> 
> Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> Does it mean speaking against?
> Speaking against pursuasively?
> Legislating against in a democracy?
> If any of the above you are talking about justifying terrorism and
> oppression.

I lost you.  None of the things listed are terrorism or justification for terrorism.  What were you intending to get across? 

-s


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jan  4 21:27:05 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:27:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <00ca01c3d2f1$04a21bf0$d2256bd5@artemis>
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<009001c3d25e$7c303a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<226e01c3d2d5$2be17a10$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104132433.02e14710@pop.earthlink.net>

At 06:31 PM 1/4/04 +0000, Brett wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Walker" <mark at permanentend.org>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 3:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
>
>
> > >
> > I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see that Kass is saying that
>his
> > worldview is privileged in any untoward way. He offers arguments for the
> > ethical conclusions that he makes--if this is what you mean by a
>privileged
> > world view then I am equally guilty. Furthermore, as far as I can tell
>Kass
> > doesn't say that we should ration the lives of others, what he argues is
> > that it is morally impermissible to seek physical immortality. These
>claims
> > are distinct--as I point out in the paper.
>
>
>I think the whole idea of immortality should be downplayed as far as public
>consumption is concerned.

Journalists - in the media or print - prefer to use the term "immortality" 
rather than indefinite life span, because of the nature of the word 
imortality.  It is eye-catching, has a history of symbols, myths and 
metaphors attached to it, and implies the impossible.

>The emphasis should be on Kass and co. preventing the development of medical
>technologies that could help tens of millions of ageing citizens.
>Maybe even to the point of propaganda - 'Kass aims to block cancer cure!'

I agree.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040104/0d944e44/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:19:28 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:19:28 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique
	(wasfermi'sparadox:m/dapproach)
In-Reply-To: <01af01c3d257$3a512510$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401031509060.13725-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<01af01c3d257$3a512510$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040104111928.5ad63905.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:57 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Now interestingly this would seem to put string & brane 
> > theory in the category of religions (from Harvey's 
> > perspective I think) because they can probably never be 
> > tested.  I think this leads into some very very subtle 
> > distinctions, e.g.:
> > a) What can never be proven;
> > b) What can be proven only by mathematics;
> > c) What can be proven only by mathematics with certain assumptions;
> > d) What can be proven by experiment.
> > 
> > Feel free to throw stones -- I'm just thinking out loud and 
> > have some other emails that require attention.
> 
> I agree with this hierarchy.  I someone who believes in "a" believes in a
> religion.  Someone who believes in "d" is a scientist.  Someone who believes
> in "b" or "c" is a theoretician.
> 

Well, there is a bit of a problem here.  It can never be proven that X can never be proven except for a very few highly tuned impossibile statements.   We have no valid algorithm for determining (a).  Nor is it clear than only mathematics and experiment qualify notions as being outside of "religion".  Nor is it clear what this evil and ambiguous "religon" cloud includes in your view.  It seems it includes an awful lot.

-s


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:26:36 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:26:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040104112636.27e300ef.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:38:20 -0500
"Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:13 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com wrote:
> > Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> > Does it mean speaking against?
> > Speaking against pursuasively?
> > Legislating against in a democracy?
> > If any of the above you are talking about
> > justifying terrorism and oppression.
> 
> I haven't read Mark's essay, but just from reading this thread, I fear
> some might interpret it very broadly to mean even such things as not
> subsidizing other people's life extension program.  For strict
> egalitarians, this might mean my failure to fund everyone else's life
> extension program constitutes my "deny[ing them] access to radical life
> extension technology."
> 

The flipside is more positive.  Ideally we can invent life extension technology that can be made available to all people.  It is good to work in this direction. But *any* life extension is better than none.

> I would hope that's not what Mark intended, but I can imagine others
> taking the argument in that direction.
> 
> However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
> Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
> person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
> "terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
> it being justly carried out.
> 
> I mean here that if the government of, say, Ruritania outlaws
> supplements, it is not wrong for Ruritanian life extensionists to
> disobey that law.  However, it would be wrong to, say, bomb Ruritania's
> whole population.  Specific acts against Ruritanian legislators and law
> enforcement agents, though, might not be un-libertarian and would have
> to measured against their justness and their likely consequences.
>

But having a first choice of killing said legislators and law enforcemnent would be wrong.   That they are highly mistaken or corrupt or whatever on this subject at the moment does not mean they should automatically forfeit immortality.   The big change is that we see all people as potential immortals, not immortalization of their current positions, but potentially immortal beings with capacity to learn, grow and self-perfect like ourselves.  If we really *get* this, I think we will begin to behave a bit differently.

 
- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:35:59 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:35:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <022401c3d275$14a04440$d2256bd5@artemis>
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<00de01c3d25b$0e2887e0$afcd5cd1@neptune>
	<022401c3d275$14a04440$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040104113559.72522dd0.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:44:39 -0000
"Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:


> > However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
> > Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
> > person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
> > "terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
> > it being justly carried out.
> 
> So it is legitimate to use force to overthrow any law you don't agree with
> in a democratic society?
> 

Not *any* but laws that are odds with the arguable very basic premises of the society are far game for circumvention by whatever means.  Laws that cause self-immolation if obeyed are a case in point.  Democracy is not a higher value than life itself or a higher value than human rights or freedom.   Legislators can err and err terribly.  Just because they arrived at their error by democratic means does not make it less erroneous or more rational to go along with the error.

> 
> > their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act by a democratic government
> > okay?
> 
> In general, yes, provided one is allowed freedom of speech (as well as the
> ability to leave).
> 

This is patently false.  Freedom of speech but not freedom to act against an erroneous and evil law is no freedom at all.  Leave?  That is only practical in the first instance if there is somewhere else better to go to.  And why should one leave one's home because of the error of merely human legislators?

- s


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:41:34 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:41:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040104052205.53343.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<20040104052205.53343.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040104114134.5386ee34.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:


> So, you are dying of a disease. I use the law to prevent you from
> obtaining the treatment you need to live. You WILL die, if you don't
> get this treatment. Are you justified in using ANY means to prevent my
> actions or not?
>

I am justified in using any means not worse than the existing situation that have a likelihood of working.  Killing you in the above scenario will not chance the law although it would satisfy an urge to revenge.
 
> Others have already died from my actions, so it is demonstrably true
> that you will die as well if I am not stopped. At what point is any
> action against me acceptable in defense of your life? Why is this not
> plain and simple and morally acceptable self defense on your part?
>

The most likely good action is to expose your evil and remove you from any position where you can do much harm until (hopefully) you learn better.  Killing you is not the first alternative, it is the last and only then if it will actually improve the situations you have perpetuated.
 
> Self defense is not evil. Why is this not self defense?
> 


Self defense can take many forms.  Some forms are more than what is necessary for rational defense.

- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jan  4 19:50:56 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:50:56 -0800
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <222c01c3d2cc$cf6267c0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
References: <222c01c3d2cc$cf6267c0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:12:38 -0500

I agree with some of Hubert's points.  I would also remove the notion that abortion is morally impermissable as that begs a few questions and throws a controversy in that is not necessary to your point.

Not addressing the moral permissibility of using life extension technology is a major hole in your argument in my view.  It cannot be morally not permitted to stop others from doing that which is not morally permitted if that act in question has serious repurcussions on others.  

I am sorry I commented before reading.  The general question could be much better addressed than by using some specious abortion argument.  Please try again.

-s


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan  4 20:08:41 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:08:41 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <01ad01c3d24d$99dbcee0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><015001c3d24f$3fc79680$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<20040104111154.326367d3.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <011a01c3d2fe$8c3d0040$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha at objectent.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:13:50 -0000
> "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> > Does it mean speaking against?
> > Speaking against pursuasively?
> > Legislating against in a democracy?
> > If any of the above you are talking about justifying terrorism and
> > oppression.
>
> I lost you.  None of the things listed are terrorism or justification for
terrorism.  What were you intending to get across?


I'm lost as well.
The bandwidth whiners have forced us to cut context to the point where there
is no point anymore.
Look as the immediately preceding mail if you can be bothered (I can't).


Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan  4 20:46:40 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:46:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040104052205.53343.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002401c3d303$ddf501d0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> So, you are dying of a disease. I use the law to prevent you
> from obtaining the treatment you need to live. You WILL die, 
> if you don't get this treatment. Are you justified in using 
> ANY means to prevent my actions or not?

I will obtain treatment for myself even if it is illegal.  No action against
the luddites who brought about the law is necessary.

> Others have already died from my actions, so it is
> demonstrably true that you will die as well if I am not 
> stopped. At what point is any action against me acceptable in 
> defense of your life? Why is this not plain and simple and 
> morally acceptable self defense on your part?

Self defense is hiding from the authorities, getting treatment anyway,
lobbying to get the law changed, etc.  Killing the person who championed the
law won't change the law.  Killing congress members until I get my way is
called terrorism and probably won't get me justice.  Killing the police
person coming to get me won't lessen the resources allocated to capture me.
I really don't see how killing people trying to enforce this law helps me
get my treatment in any way.  This is a poor example of having to choose the
lesser of two evils, because my goal is not directly served by harming
anyone.

> Self defense is not evil. Why is this not self defense?

People with guns often confuse killing someone with self-defense.  Killing
is an offensive act.  It only protects you if you have a lone assailant and
you can wipe out the entire opposing team in one shot.  I do not believe
killing a police officer, congress member, or luddite will help.  You will
make them a martyr, and more will join their cause to fight you.  I see no
net gain, only net losses, in using violence under this scenario.  That is
why I am opposed, not for mere political reasons, but for more pragmatic
reasons that I don't think this "solution" solves anything.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jan  4 21:00:50 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I agree with some of Hubert's points.  I would also remove the notion
> that abortion is morally impermissable as that begs a few questions and
> throws a controversy in that is not necessary to your point.

Well this isn't really Mark's point -- he is simply pointing out that if
the objection to preventing access to life extending technologies
is based on the right to a future -- then abortion is going to
come up in the minds of critics.

I'm going to raise this topic in my comments to him -- it twists
extensively in which rights trump other rights.  For example being
forced to have and care for an unwanted child may significantly
damage the futures of both the child and mother.  Or giving
the child up for adoption may produce similar results.  But
all of this has probably been extensively examined in the abortion
debates.

IMO, the key question may revolve around -- when precisely does one
have a "future"?  A human fetus or an infant have no capability for
self-enabled survival without depending upon their society or
parent(s).  This is in contrast to many newborn animals
have a reasonable chance at survival (having a future)
from the time they are born/hatched/etc.

There is also the fundamental problem that given cloning technology,
many of the cells in your body have the potential for producing
another human being.  So the cells of your stomach, intestine,
skin, etc. (e.g. cells with any turnover) are effectively
performing abortions on a daily basis.

> Not addressing the moral permissibility of using life extension
> technology is a major hole in your argument in my view.  It cannot be
> morally not permitted to stop others from doing that which is not
> morally permitted if that act in question has serious repurcussions on
> others.

This gets into how philosophers and ethicists debate these
topics.  Its been more than a decade since I've studied these
so my memory may be a bit fuzzy -- but it comes down to
cases where one is morally obligated not to interfere and
cases where one is morally obligated to take action.  Mark
is dealing just with the first and not with the second.
To deal with the second effectively one has to argue strongly
for something like a socialistic or communistic environment
or programming all humans to be completely altruistic, etc.
That is a much harder argument to make (and would certainly
cause a number of people on this list to get really PO :-)).

> I am sorry I commented before reading.  The general question could be
> much better addressed than by using some specious abortion argument.
> Please try again.

I think Mark only uses the abortion argument in passing -- simply pointing
out there is a value to "future life" -- be it for a fetus, an infant,
a normal human, or a human with an extended life.

What is missing (from my perspective as an extropian) is any
comment (from what I have read thus far) on the fact that there
may be an inherent value (and right to preserve) to accumulated
information/knowledge.  I.e. the past of a 1000 year old
individual is greater than the past of a 100 y.o. individual
is greater than the past of a 3 month old fetus.  At an
extremely gross level Extropians (vs. say transhumanists)
might argue that there is a very concrete scale in terms
of the value of information or experience content and so
one adjusts the "right to life" based on that.  Of course
after one grants that one immediately gets into a discussion
of the actual extropic value of the information.  I think
this gets into areas related to what one thinks when one
cleans ones closet or ones garage.  What is *really* worth
something?

Robert




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan  4 21:08:18 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:08:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401040556430.9622-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <002501c3d306$e092afc0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> It was only the use of the term "immortality" that I got
> stuck on. We really need to come up with a better word -- 
> making one up if necessary -- to get to the point where the 
> word means exactly what we want it to mean -- nothing more 
> and nothing less.

Actually, I like using normal terms like "life-saving".  The technology we
want is simply "life-saving".  It doesn't matter if the people we want to
save are old or have already lived a long enough life by someone else's
standards.  They still don't want to die and want to be saved.  The same
technology can save a child with premature aging as well as an old person
with natural aging.  We don't need different and special terms.  I think it
is simpler to keep the terms similar.

I don't think we need any special technologies to reach indefinite
immortality.  I think the same technologies that cure aging diseases will
postpone aging death.  We keep curing our current ailments within our
lifetimes, and we push away death further and further.   I think we can drop
the idea of immortality altogether (in these arguments) and just push for
better healthcare.  Cure wrinkle-lines on my face.  Cure DNA damage as I get
older.  Cure Alzheimer's and brain malfunctions.  Cure cancer.  Simply work
toward curing diseases, including age-related diseases, and we will keep
stalling death.  We don't need to focus just on curing diseases for people
who have reached a ripe old age.  These cures work for everyone of all ages.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From xllb at rogers.com  Sun Jan  4 21:08:01 2004
From: xllb at rogers.com (xllb at rogers.com)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:08:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
Message-ID: <20040104210801.CIPN430912.fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost>



Robert J. Bradbury wrote 
> It was only the use of the term "immortality" that I got stuck on.
> We really need to come up with a better word -- making one up
> if necessary -- to get to the point where the word means exactly
> what we want it to mean -- nothing more and nothing less.
> I thought of hyperlongevity and superlongevity but playing around
> with the dictionary they don't seem quite right.  I managed
> to come up with "itlongveos" - literally to go for long life
> or close there to.  But I suspect someone with a better grasp
> of latin or greek could come up with something better.
> What I would really like is a word for something involving
> an indefinitely long healthy life or life without limits.
> 
> Robert
> 


How about "sempiternal"?

xllb

"Dogma blinds."
"Hell is overkill."



From thespike at earthlink.net  Sun Jan  4 21:41:31 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:41:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401040556430.9622-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c3d30b$872425e0$bd994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 8:37 AM

> What I would really like is a word for something involving
> an indefinitely long healthy life or life without limits.

As several of us have said previously, Brian Stableford's `emortality' is
excellent. Without the *necessity* of death. It *might* happen eventually by
accident, cosmic disaster, or by free choice, but it isn't any longer part
of an inevitable contingently-evolved design or destiny (where such
`destiny' is nothing more than the previously inevitable outcome of
innumerable and unrepairable small shocks and insults to the body over
time).

Damien Broderick



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jan  4 21:50:37 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:50:37 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <003901c3d213$bbf6ef80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<009001c3d25e$7c303a00$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<226e01c3d2d5$2be17a10$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <00f901c3d30c$c9fbda60$2d242dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Mark Walker wrote:

> > From: "Brett Paatsch" <
>
> > Looks like a suboptimal moral argument to run. Why not
> > run instead:
> >
> > On what basis does *any* human individual *presume* to
> > *ration* the lifespan of any other human individual?
> >
> The answer to this question is in the paper itself.

Ok. But the answer to the question in general is not the same as
having other people ask it of Kass in particular.

I don't know if you seen the Movie Inherit the Wind about the Scopes
Monkey Trial? If you haven't its worth a look. Anyone that tries
to impose their morality on other people places themselves in a position
of separation from all other people. The challenge is how to tease that
out. The lawyer defending Scopes in the monkey trial (in the movie)
does it well. He shows that its not the Bible per se (in Kass case
- perhaps instead of the bible its conventional morality (but as *he*
see's it) and his interpretation is only one interpretation) - what still
remains unclear (and dangerous) is why one interpretation gets to
be priviledged.

Perhaps I can't make this point - in this manner. To obtuse. If not
sorry.

> Opponents of radical  life extension may agree that one should not
> ration the "normal" lifespan of individuals but radical life extension
> goes beyond this.

Yes. What is normal though? That the pivot point. Some of your
class will have a concept of normal as 3 score and 10, but they
know there is a range around that.

Explore how they feel if their life expectancy was to be halved
as a result of some rationing decision. A policy decision. Related
to health economics or something. Old people are too expensive
etc. Or the too sick young are too expensive to treat and so don't
get the normal life expectancy because the treatments haven't been
developed. Get your class to examine what happens when normal
is investigated closer. Normal has shifted greatly if the WHO life
expectancy figures are tracked. Who'd want to go back to what
was normal say 100 years ago as opposed to now. Or 50. On what
basis?  - That sort of thing.

>  For example, opponents might think that the former
> follows from a "right to life" but disagree that a right to life implies a
> "right to an immortal life".

Immortal is going to be a problem in a philosophical discussion I'd think
as its not real.

> Thus,  I think our opponents will see a principled distinction between
> rationing  mortal lives and immortal lives whereas we don't.

I'm sure you are right on this if you leave "normal" and "immortal" alone.

> I'm trying to offer an argument against such a principled distinction.

I understand.

>So, I think at least some of  our opponents will say that your sketch
> of an argument begs one of the main questions.

Yes. I'm sorry it was only a sketch.


> > I prefer to see them (Kass etc) have to make their case with the
> > world looking and wondering how they (Kass etc) got to
> > consider that their particular worldview should be particularly
> > priviledged. How is it that Kass presumes the wisdom and moral
> > judgement to ration other peoples lives... Let Kass etc **make**
> > their case if they can - whilst having to *conspicuously* carrying
> > the full burden of their prejudice.

> I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see that Kass is saying that
> his worldview is privileged in any untoward way.

Kass is good. I.e Effective. I don't know him to be immoral. To beat
his arguments will not be easy. You can't afford (we can't afford) to
let him have exclusive right to all that is perceived as normal and also
argue for something as intractable (unrealistic) as immortality
ourselves.

>He offers arguments
> for the ethical conclusions that he makes--if this is what you mean
> by a privileged world view then I am equally guilty.

I know. Some of his arguments are good ones. That's not what I
meant. The best I can offer is the Inherit the Wind business.

You will not be able to beat Kass if Kass is right. :-)

>Furthermore, as far as I can tell Kass  doesn't say that we
>should ration the lives of others, what he argues is that it is morally
> impermissible to seek physical immortality. These claims
> are distinct--as I point out in the paper.

I accept that having not read the paper my comments are
largely gratuitous. Sorry for that. I will read it later if I get
time.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch








From mark at permanentend.org  Sun Jan  4 21:45:13 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:45:13 -0500
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <222c01c3d2cc$cf6267c0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <23f801c3d30c$0f4feb70$2ee4f418@markcomputer>

-
From: "Samantha Atkins" >
> I agree with some of Hubert's points.  I would also remove the notion that
abortion is morally impermissable as that begs a few questions and throws a
controversy in that is not necessary to your point.
>
I don't claim that abortion is morally impermissible. Nor does Marquis claim
that his argument on its own is sufficient to prove abortion is morally
impermissible.

> Not addressing the moral permissibility of using life extension technology
is a major hole in your argument in my view.  It cannot be morally not
permitted to stop others from doing that which is not morally permitted if
that act in question has serious repercussions on others.
>
I do consider repercussions on others, e.g., overpopulation and
considerations of distributive justice. If my argument is correct the
repercussions for others will have to be pretty serious in order to trump
the value of a future-like-ours.


> I am sorry I commented before reading.  The general question could be much
better addressed than by using some specious abortion argument.  Please try
again.
>
Thanks for your comments.

Mark  Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From xllb at rogers.com  Sun Jan  4 21:49:13 2004
From: xllb at rogers.com (xllb at rogers.com)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:49:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
Message-ID: <20040104214913.CTGA430912.fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote
> Hi,
> 
> > How about "sempiternal"?
> 
> Could you break it down for the list -- my books on Greek
> terms (if it is derived from Greek) aren't good enough
> to parse it.
> 
> Thanks,
> R.

sem?pi?ter?nal

Enduring forever; eternal.

[Middle English, from Old French sempiternel, from Late Latin sempitern lis, from Latin sempiternus : semper, always; see sem-1 in Indo-European Roots + aeternus, eternal; see aiw- in Indo-European Roots.]

from dictionary.com

regards

xllb


"Dogma blinds."
"Hell is overkill."



From mark at permanentend.org  Sun Jan  4 22:30:28 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:30:28 -0500
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <241b01c3d312$5c6d87e0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury"
>
> I'm going to raise this topic in my comments to him -- it twists
> extensively in which rights trump other rights.  For example being
> forced to have and care for an unwanted child may significantly
> damage the futures of both the child and mother.  Or giving
> the child up for adoption may produce similar results.  But
> all of this has probably been extensively examined in the abortion
> debates.
>
> IMO, the key question may revolve around -- when precisely does one
> have a "future"?  A human fetus or an infant have no capability for
> self-enabled survival without depending upon their society or
> parent(s).  This is in contrast to many newborn animals
> have a reasonable chance at survival (having a future)
> from the time they are born/hatched/etc.
>
Marquis thinks that individuals have a future-like-ours once they are a
zygote. He is NOT saying that they are a person, only that the fetus has a
future-like-ours. I don't think the capacity for self-enabled survival is
key since then it would be morally permissible to kill adults or children
who do not possess self-enabled survival. That said, clearly the value of
the fetus' future must be weighed against the value of women to do in and to
their body what they want. Perhaps ectogenesis will allow us to sidestep the
whole abortion debate.


> There is also the fundamental problem that given cloning technology,
> many of the cells in your body have the potential for producing
> another human being.  So the cells of your stomach, intestine,
> skin, etc. (e.g. cells with any turnover) are effectively
> performing abortions on a daily basis.
>
Yes, this brings up the question of how far one should count something as
having a future-like-ours. Should we lament the lost future-like-ours of
sperm in a condom? (Marquis says no).


> > Not addressing the moral permissibility of using life extension
> > technology is a major hole in your argument in my view.  It cannot be
> > morally not permitted to stop others from doing that which is not
> > morally permitted if that act in question has serious repurcussions on
> > others.
>
> This gets into how philosophers and ethicists debate these
> topics.  Its been more than a decade since I've studied these
> so my memory may be a bit fuzzy -- but it comes down to
> cases where one is morally obligated not to interfere and
> cases where one is morally obligated to take action.  Mark
> is dealing just with the first and not with the second.
> To deal with the second effectively one has to argue strongly
> for something like a socialistic or communistic environment
> or programming all humans to be completely altruistic, etc.
> That is a much harder argument to make (and would certainly
> cause a number of people on this list to get really PO :-)).
>

This is the sort of distinction I am trying to draw. Suppose you ask a group
of people whether abortion is morally permissible and you get a 50/50
divide. Now ask the same group whether it is morally permissible to deny
access to abortions through public policy or other means. Now you'll get
something like an 80/20 split with the same group with the 80 believing that
it is not permissible to prevent access. So although there is an even split
on the "theoretical" question the pro-abortion debate wins on the
"practical" question. It would be nice to win on both accounts but I only
address the "practical" question. I think we have a real chance of getting
an even better split than the abortion debate if we can show that preventing
access to radical life extension technology is morally equivalent to denying
access to "traditional" life extension technology like blood transfusions.
This is of course the point of a value of a future-like-ours.

> > I am sorry I commented before reading.  The general question could be
> > much better addressed than by using some specious abortion argument.
> > Please try again.
>
> I think Mark only uses the abortion argument in passing -- simply pointing
> out there is a value to "future life" -- be it for a fetus, an infant,
> a normal human, or a human with an extended life.
>
Exactly.

> What is missing (from my perspective as an extropian) is any
> comment (from what I have read thus far) on the fact that there
> may be an inherent value (and right to preserve) to accumulated
> information/knowledge.  I.e. the past of a 1000 year old
> individual is greater than the past of a 100 y.o. individual
> is greater than the past of a 3 month old fetus.  At an
> extremely gross level Extropians (vs. say transhumanists)
> might argue that there is a very concrete scale in terms
> of the value of information or experience content and so
> one adjusts the "right to life" based on that.  Of course
> after one grants that one immediately gets into a discussion
> of the actual extropic value of the information.  I think
> this gets into areas related to what one thinks when one
> cleans ones closet or ones garage.  What is *really* worth
> something?
>
>
I agree this is worth exploring. I briefly in hint at this near the end
where I talk about an obligation to immortality. If we suppose that
knowledge and achievement of goals have intrinsic worth (as do many
"perfectionist" ethicists), and one's ability to realize these values
increases with age then we have an argument for a (prima facie) duty to
immortality.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org







From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan  4 22:41:34 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:41:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <00d601c3d30b$872425e0$bd994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Damien Broderick wrote,
> As several of us have said previously, Brian Stableford's 
> `emortality' is excellent. Without the *necessity* of death. 

I really hate made-up words because they convey nothing to people who hear
them for the first time.  While jargon is useful as shorthand for lengthy
conversations, it is not useful for short soundbites and PR purposes.

How about "ageless" as a word?  We aren't growing older toward dying of
old-age.  But it implies nothing about living forever or not dying by some
other means.  Or how about wanting "ongoing health" as a phrase?  We want
our health to continue without falling into an inevitable decline with no
recourse.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mark at permanentend.org  Sun Jan  4 23:02:40 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:02:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Newstrom"

> How about "ageless" as a word?  We aren't growing older toward dying of
> old-age.  But it implies nothing about living forever or not dying by some
> other means.  Or how about wanting "ongoing health" as a phrase?  We want
> our health to continue without falling into an inevitable decline with no
> recourse.
>
I like 'ageless'. It is descriptive and doesn't look like an attempt to hide
behind jargon. It is noteworthy too that Kass uses it in the title of one of
his papers: 'Ageless bodies and Happy Souls'.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  5 01:27:52 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:27:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Was: Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104172428.02c0e170@pop.earthlink.net>


>From: "Harvey Newstrom"
>
> > How about "ageless" as a word?  We aren't growing older toward dying of
> > old-age.  But it implies nothing about living forever or not dying by some
> > other means.

"Ageless Thinking"  talk I presented at Alcor Technology Conference, and 
essay in my book (1996).

http://www.natasha.cc/ageless.htm




From thespike at earthlink.net  Sun Jan  4 23:27:39 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:27:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality (terminology)
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Walker" <mark at permanentend.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:02 PM

> From: "Harvey Newstrom"
> > How about "ageless" as a word?

> I like 'ageless'. It is descriptive and doesn't look like an attempt to
hide
> behind jargon.

It's good by itself, better than, say, `antiagathic' (James Blish's 50-year
old term). But it leads to the horrid eye- and mouthful of `agelessness',
compared to the nifty `emortal' => `emortality'.

We have the same trouble with `deathless' (`deathlessness') , unless the
general condition is `deathlessanity'. :)

Harvey mentioned his dislike of made-up words, but it didn't seem to stand
in the way of laser, television, telephone, car, xerox, google...

(True, most of these items already existed and were on the market, so it was
convenient to embrace the term.)

I know this seems trivial, but selling the message crisply is often as
important as having the right message.

Besides, when it happens the common word will emerge over the top of our
heads. It'll probably be something like `zombies' or `ghouls' or `snakes'...

Damien Broderick



From jcorb at iol.ie  Mon Jan  5 00:03:38 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:03:38 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: US mission lands safely on Mars
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040104235452.027c1ba0@pop.iol.ie>

A good day to be human! ;

>US mission lands safely on Mars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3365371.stm

>A US space agency probe has sent back its first images of Mars within 
>hours of arriving on the planet.
>The Spirit rover survived the perilous plunge through the Martian 
>atmosphere after a seven-month voyage from Earth.
>The six-wheeled robot will seek signs that Mars was once capable of 
>supporting life.
>A second rover, named Opportunity, is expected to land on the other side 
>of the planet at the end of January.
>The pictures show the barren, rock-strewn landscape around the rover.
>"The images are outstanding," science manager John Callas said. "The 
>quality [is] the best that has been taken. This is incredible. This could 
>not be better."

Here's hoping Opportunity goes just as well.  Also, there's a further 
chance for Beagle 2 now that Mars Express will be overhead soon.




James....




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan  4 23:58:08 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:58:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Was: Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104172428.02c0e170@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <002e01c3d31e$9d6d6e20$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Natasha Vita-More wrote,
> "Ageless Thinking"  talk I presented at Alcor Technology 
> Conference, and essay in my book (1996).
> <http://www.natasha.cc/ageless.htm>

Perfect!  That's what I want to be: "ageless".  

I don't know if immortality is possible or even desirable.  I may change my
mind in a million years.  But I do no that I want to undo aging damage right
now.  "Ageless" seems to be what I want to be.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Jan  5 00:18:45 2004
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:18:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to apply to
	superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <3FF5FEA2.8040900@pobox.com>
References: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>
	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>

On 1/2/2004, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Was this on this list?  If so, when?  I didn't see this message.

>>>>the laws of physics and the rules of math don't cease to apply.
>>>>That leads me to believe that evolution doesn't stop. That further
>>>>leads me to believe that nature -- bloody in tooth and claw, ...
>>>>will simply be taken to the next level. ...
>>>You've taken one sample set, Earth, and implied from the course of
>>>evolution on Earth that it is a *law of physics* that violent
>>>conflict occur.
>>Evolution isn't something you can avoid. Deep down, all it says is
>>"you find more of that which survives and spreads itself", which is so
>>close to a tautology that it is damn hard to dispute. ...
>
>The replicator dynamics, like all math equations, generally are provable
>and hence what people would call "tautological" when applied to the real
>world.  The question is whether the variables take on any interesting
>values.  Price's Equation is a tautology, ... can apply it to pebbles on
>the seashore, for example, ... the question of whether one
>is dealing with infinitesimal quantities that obey a replicator equation,
>or large quantities; small handful of generations, or millions of
>generations; whether there is enough selection pressure, over a long
>enough period of time, to produce complex information of the sort we're
>used to seeing in biology. ... Even if blue pebbles survive some tiny
>amount better, it doesn't mean that in 20,000 years all the pebbles on the
>seashore will be intensely blue.
>Correspondingly, we can expect that any SI we deal with will exclude the
>set of SIs that immediately shut themselves down, and that whichever SI we
>see will be the result of an optimization process that was capable of
>self-optimization and preferred that choice.  But this does not imply that
>any SI we deal with will attach a huge intrinsic utility to its own survival.
>If you have an optimization system, ... like the expected utility equation,
>then, ... instrumental expected utility for the continued operation of an
>optimization system similar to the one doing the calculation, ...
>Similarly, ... we should expect that optimization process to
>optimize all available matter, ... they will *all* choose to absorb all
>nearby matter.  ... most any optimization process ... defend itself from
>a hostile optimization process - as an instrumental utility. ...
>And finally, there is no reason to suppose that the process whereby SIs
>absorb matter, optimize matter, or in other ways do things with matter,
>would create subregions with (a) large heritable changes in properties,
>that (b) correlate to large differences in the rate at which these regions
>spread or transform other matter, and that (c) this process will continue
>over the thousands or millions of generations that would be required for
>the natural selection dynamic to produce optimized functional complexity.
>This last point is particularly important in understanding why replicator
>dynamics are unlikely to apply to SIs.  At most, we are likely to see one
>initial filter in which SIs that halt or fence themselves off in tiny
>spheres are removed from the cosmic observables.  Almost any utility
>function I have ever heard proposed will choose to spread across the
>cosmos and transform matter into either (1) *maximally high-fidelity
>copies* of the optimization control structure or (2) configurations that
>fulfill intrinsic utilities.  If the optimization control structure is
>copied at extremely high fidelity, there are no important heritable
>differences for natural selection to act on.  If there were heritable
>differences, they are not likely to covary with large differences in
>reproductive fitness, insofar as all the optimization control structures
>will choose equally to transform nearby matter. ...
>Anyway, there's a heck of a difference between natural selection *building
>a goal system from scratch*, like where humans come from, and applying a
>anti-suicide filter to the set of SIs that are likely to pop up from
>ancestral civilizations (mostly the result of runaway recursive
>self-improvement, I expect, perhaps a Friendlyoid SI here and there if
>someone in the ancestral civilization was implausibly competent). ...
>Replicator dynamics assume a (large, frequent) death rate.  If
>optimization processes compete to absorb *available* resources but hang on
>permanently to all resources already absorbed, the replicator dynamics are
>not iterated across thousands of generations.

The general question of how much we can expect variation and selection to
determine the nature of the future is extremely important, so I'm sorry
I didn't see more follow-up to this post.  But I have a lot of trouble
figuring out where you (Eliezer) are coming from here.

Let's see, if there are lots of "SIs" that pop up from ancestral
civilizations, we might expect variation and selection among them.  You
seem to be arguing that there won't be enough of them varying enough
over time for this to happen much, at least within the posited class of
SIs that are maximally capable and quickly grab all the resources they
can, until they run into a (by assumption equally capable) neighbor, at
which point they make peace with that neighbor.  If so, the distribution
of what happens at various places in the future would be largely
determined by the distribution of preferences that SIs begin with.

It seems to me that your key assumption is one of very cheap defense -
once one SI has grabbed some resources you seem to posit that there is
little point in some other SI, or even a large coalition of them, trying
to take it from him.  Given this, I suppose the rest of your scenario might
plausibly follow, but I'm not
sure why you believe this assumption.



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 natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  5 02:29:28 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:29:28 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Was: Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <002e01c3d31e$9d6d6e20$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104172428.02c0e170@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104182746.02750290@pop.earthlink.net>

At 06:58 PM 1/4/04 -0500, you wrote:
>Natasha Vita-More wrote,
> > "Ageless Thinking"  talk I presented at Alcor Technology
> > Conference, and essay in my book (1996).
> > <http://www.natasha.cc/ageless.htm>
>
>Perfect!  That's what I want to be: "ageless".

I hadn't read this paper in quite a while, and it was fun reading it 
again.  Thanks for putting a buzz in my ear :-).  The conceptual product 
design company that has been marketing "Primo Posthuman" over the years is 
just called "Ageless."

>I don't know if immortality is possible or even desirable.  I may change my
>mind in a million years.  But I do no that I want to undo aging damage right
>now.  "Ageless" seems to be what I want to be.

Me too.

N

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040104/f2dbbcb1/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jan  5 02:30:27 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:30:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to apply
	to	superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <3FF8CC43.2010304@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> 
> Let's see, if there are lots of "SIs" that pop up from ancestral 
> civilizations, we might expect variation and selection among them.  You
> seem to be arguing that there won't be enough of them varying enough 
> over time for this to happen much, at least within the posited class of
> SIs that are maximally capable and quickly grab all the resources they
> can, until they run into a (by assumption equally capable) neighbor,
> at which point they make peace with that neighbor.  If so, the
> distribution of what happens at various places in the future would be
> largely determined by the distribution of preferences that SIs begin
> with.

Yup.

> It seems to me that your key assumption is one of very cheap defense - 
> once one SI has grabbed some resources you seem to posit that there is 
> little point in some other SI, or even a large coalition of them,
> trying to take it from him.

I agree that this is a key assumption.  However, the assumption can fail 
and still bar natural selection, if there is little variation in 
preferences or little variation in resource-grabbing capacity or little 
correlation between the two.  Since I suspect that intelligence would use 
up almost all the potential variation before what we ordinarily think of 
as heritable capacities had the chance to operate, natural selection would 
not automatically follow even if there were frequent combats.

> Given this, I suppose the rest of your
> scenario might plausibly follow, but I'm not sure why you believe this
> assumption.

I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, combat will 
be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed resources, and will 
produce negative externalities relative to surrounding agents.  Let us 
assume that loss aversion (not just in the modern human psychological 
sense of aversion to losses as such, but in the sense of loss aversion 
emergent in diminishing marginal utility) does not apply, so that a 50/50 
chance of winning - which goes along with the argument of intelligent 
optimization using up variation - does not automatically rule out combat. 
  However, there would still be a fixed cost of combat, probably extremely 
high; and if we assume variation in preferences, there would probably be 
negative externalities to any nearby SIs, who would have a motive to 
threaten punishment for combat.  Negotiations among SIs are, I think, out 
of my reach to comprehend - although I do have some specific reasons to be 
confused - but I still suspect that they would negotiate.  The point about 
large coalitions devouring single cells is interesting (although my 
current thoughts about SI negotations suggest that *the choice to form a 
predatory coalition* might be viewed as tantamount to starting a war).  If 
we do have coalitions eating smaller cells, then we have a filterish 
selection pressure that rules out all unwillingness or hesitation to form 
coalitions - not necessarily natural selection unless there is heritable 
variation, which correlates, etc.  But beyond that point, it would 
essentially amount to gambling, more than combat - will you be part of the 
latest coalition, or not?  Something like a tontine, perhaps, until there 
are only two entities left standing?  But where does the non-random 
selection come in?  What does it correlate to?

The stringency of the conditions for natural selection as we know it to 
apply are not widely appreciated; you need, not just limited resources, 
but limited resources
AND frequent death to free up resources
AND multiple phenotypes with heritable characteristics
AND good fidelity in transmission of heritable characteristics
AND substantial variation in characteristics
AND substantial variation in reproductive fitness
AND persistent correlation between the variations
AND this is iterated for many generations
THEN you have a noticeable amount of selection pressure

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From naddy at mips.inka.de  Mon Jan  5 03:29:59 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ETHICS: What You Can't Say
Message-ID: <btalnn$2tgu$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

I picked this up on Slashdot.  Recommended.

----

Paul Graham
What You Can't Say

(This essay is about heresy: how to think forbidden thoughts, and what
to do with them. The latter was till recently something only a small
elite had to think about. Now we all have to, because the Web has made
us all publishers.)

[...]

Full Article:
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

----

It ties in with a thought I have been entertaining for a while now:
that many things we believe to be true must be crap.  Just pick up
some old non-fiction books or encyclopedias.

"It is of utmost importance that the woman enters marriage as a
virgin."  From the sex section of some 1950s marriage advice book.
It didn't even bother to give a reason, it merely stressed what
apparently was a self-evident truth at the time.

I have a German encyclopedia from 1939.  As you can imagine, the
entries on topics such as "race" or "Jews" are considered to be
evilly wrong today.  Back then they were socio-scientific consensus.

So what ideas do we entertain today that will be considered ridiculous
or even despicable in the future?  Do you really think we are the
first perfect generation to be free from such flaws?  Not likely.

Representational democracy is a holy cow.  It is the pinnacle of
political systems, the best one possible.  Just why do I have this
nagging suspicion that every other political system received the
same judgment at the time when it happened to be in vogue?

Alas, it seems I'm much too conformist a person.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 03:34:23 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:34:23 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to
	applyto	superintelligence
References: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com><5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
	<3FF8CC43.2010304@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <039201c3d33c$d001c020$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
superintelligence


>
> I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, combat will
> be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed resources, and will
> produce negative externalities relative to surrounding agents.  Let us

That's assuming scientific and technological prowess levels out early on.
Otherwise a difference of as little as 100yrs will mean that the advanced
intelligence would wipe the floor with the lesser at almost no cost and it
becomes the optimum strategy.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  5 05:54:12 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:54:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>


Max and I spent the evening reading preposterous statements made by a 
uniformity of anti-biotech advocates.  Geez. :-)

Damien (Broderick) - or someone - what is the most collectable, flagrant 
anti-progress statement you've seen quoted?

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040104/c44b45f7/attachment.html>

From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 04:14:55 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 22:14:55 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <027e01c3d342$7b6932e0$bd994a43@texas.net>



> Damien (Broderick) - or someone - what is the most collectable, flagrant
> anti-progress statement you've seen quoted?

Well, just in the last hour or so... :)

< The earth's immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of the
human species and is starting to kick in. The earth is attempting to rid
itself of an infection by the human parasite.

Richard Preston, 1994 >

Cited in http://www.dieoff.com/page224.htm :

< The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and
world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states
that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to
100 years: 1930-2030. >

(Thanks to Mark Plus for fwd-ing)

Damien Broderick





From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jan  5 04:18:39 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:18:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <008f01c3d342$ff2edf30$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: Natasha Vita-More

> Max and I spent the evening reading preposterous statements made by a
uniformity of anti-biotech advocates.  Geez. :-)

> Damien (Broderick) - or someone - what is the most collectable, flagrant
anti-progress statement you've seen quoted?

Sometimes they're so loony, I wonder if the statements are intended to be
satirical.  While certainly not *the most* flagrant, this is characteristic
of some of the ones I've read from PETA:

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." -
Phyllis Newkirk, co-founder and president of PETA

http://www.animalscam.com/

Olga




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 04:30:53 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
In-Reply-To: <008f01c3d342$ff2edf30$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20040105043053.67767.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
>  While certainly not *the most* flagrant, this is
> characteristic
> of some of the ones I've read from PETA:
> 
> "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
> -
> Phyllis Newkirk, co-founder and president of PETA

I'm left wondering what their position would be if animals could catch
AIDS.... "free needles for chihuahuas", featuring the Kibbles n' Bits
dogs, and "free condoms for cats". Sex-ed for siamese kittens.



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 04:36:05 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:36:05 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
	<027e01c3d342$7b6932e0$bd994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <03df01c3d345$6e5ba5d0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:14 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements


>
> < The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and
> world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It
states
> that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal
to
> 100 years: 1930-2030. >
>
> (Thanks to Mark Plus for fwd-ing)

Probably correct, but for the wrong reasons.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 04:37:38 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:37:38 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
	<008f01c3d342$ff2edf30$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <03e701c3d345$a5e04b50$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olga Bourlin" <fauxever at sprynet.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>;
<thespike at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements


>
> "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." -
> Phyllis Newkirk, co-founder and president of PETA
>
> http://www.animalscam.com/

I'll second that.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jan  5 04:40:55 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:40:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <00fc01c3d346$1b8b20a0$6600a8c0@brainiac>


From: Natasha Vita-More
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 9:54 PM

> Damien (Broderick) - or someone - what is the most collectable, flagrant
anti-progress statement you've seen quoted?

There's a lot out there (sigh ...).  Leading the charge of the Luddite
Brigade:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=72:

Olga




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 06:47:06 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 22:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040104214340.01eb4820@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20040105064706.29184.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

"All of Medieval Europe was organized collectively. Sustainable
agriculture. Generation after generation, the serfs, the landlords,
they farmed the same lands, trod the same path, and they organized
themselves communally in order to sustain their existence. It may not
have been the best of all possible worlds, but it was a sustainable
form of life for six centuries." - Jeremy Rifkin,
http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/rifkin.html

Other quotes of The Jeremy:
"The ozone hole is now so gaping, we are being subjected to massive
doses of ultraviolet radiation, millions of additional skin cancers ...
our immune systems and all the other creatures on the chain, are so
compromised, read the paper this morning, so compromised from the UV,
that we are now prone to traditional diseases we had eradicated long
ago, and a whole new host of diseases that cross species boundaries, to
which we know no antidote or cure." 

"These crises cannot be dealt with or addressed until we are willing to
do battle with the world view that gave rise to them."

"Efficiency. How important is that? ...Efficiency is the prescription
for disaster for this Earth. Efficiency is destroying the planet."

Also:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=2239

Quotes by Jerry Mander:
"I do not tell do-gooders or other people working on Public Media
Center activities not to use television. What I say is that we should
have no television at all. The same could be said of computers. I argue
that life would be better, power systems would be more egalitarian, we
would have a more even playing field in terms of information flow, and
our media would be more democratic, if there were no television. We'd
also have a less-alienated population, less pacified, less inundated by
other people's imageries. But I also recognize that you can't just
remove television and keep everything else in place. It's the nervous
system of the technological machine. It's part of a very integrated
system, so we have to talk about all of technology when we talk about
television." 

"Corporations will advertise whatever isn't true because if it were
true they wouldn't have the image problem in the first place. If the
corporation were a good citizen it wouldn't need to say it is. The
truth is that corporations generally act in direct opposition to nature
because profit is based on the transmogrification of raw materials into
a new, more salable form." 

an admission:
"I have lots of modern technologies. It's impossible to function and
not have some relationship to technology."
turns into a protest:
"My feeling is that computers really strongly change the way we think.
I think computers are changing the world more rapidly and more
negatively than any other around. So I would really like to maintain a
disconnection from that."

A great page of Jerry Mander's aphorisms:
http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~mcphee/Courses/Readings/Manders_aphorisms.html

Kirkpatrick Sale on the Unabomber and his manifesto:
"I'm sure he makes good bombs, but grading  him on his intellect I
wouldn't give him more than a C+. I venture to  say he didn't make it
to his senior year."

The New Luddite:
"Many New Luddites are uncomfortable with using Email. There has been
concern that Email is both exclusive and ultimately puts people like
post-persons out of a job."

Prince Charles Windsor:
"Laboratory tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the United
States caused damage to caterpillars of the monarch butterfly provide
the latest cause for concern." (after it has been shown that the
reverse, in fact, was the case)

"I believe that we have now reached a moral and ethical watershed
beyond which we venture into realms that belong to God, and to God
alone. Apart from certain medical applications, what actual right do we
have to experiment, Frankenstein-like, with the very stuff of life? We
live in an age of rights  - it seems to me that it is about time our
Creator had some rights too ..."

"science should be used to understand how nature works, but not to
change what it is" 

"We only have one planet. There are lots of people out there busily
trying to find other ones. Some people think that when we have finished
with this one we can simply start again somewhere else. But I'm not
prepared personally to find another one."


Baron Melchett, Director of Greenpeace, on Prince Charles:
"it is about time somebody pointed out how bereft of humanity and human
values it is for people to claim that they can take decisions simply on
the basis of what they call 'sound science'."









--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> 
> Max and I spent the evening reading preposterous statements made by a
> 
> uniformity of anti-biotech advocates.  Geez. :-)
> 
> Damien (Broderick) - or someone - what is the most collectable,
> flagrant 
> anti-progress statement you've seen quoted?
> 
> Natasha
> 
> 
> Natasha Vita-More
> http://www.natasha.cc
> ----------
> President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
> Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
> http://www.transhuman.org
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jan  5 08:06:16 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:06:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
	superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <039201c3d33c$d001c020$d2256bd5@artemis>
References: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>
	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
	<3FF8CC43.2010304@pobox.com>
	<039201c3d33c$d001c020$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040105000616.553f608e.samantha@objectent.com>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:34:23 -0000
"Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
> superintelligence
> 
> 
> >
> > I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, combat will
> > be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed resources, and will
> > produce negative externalities relative to surrounding agents.  Let us
> 
> That's assuming scientific and technological prowess levels out early on.
> Otherwise a difference of as little as 100yrs will mean that the advanced
> intelligence would wipe the floor with the lesser at almost no cost and it
> becomes the optimum strategy.
> 


Why would it want to?  If the younger is rational and can gauge the abilities of the elder, why would it wish to engage in conflict?  

-s


From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jan  5 08:16:54 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:16:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <002401c3d303$ddf501d0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <20040104052205.53343.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<002401c3d303$ddf501d0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040105001654.0cf58063.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:46:40 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > So, you are dying of a disease. I use the law to prevent you
> > from obtaining the treatment you need to live. You WILL die, 
> > if you don't get this treatment. Are you justified in using 
> > ANY means to prevent my actions or not?
> 
> I will obtain treatment for myself even if it is illegal.  No action against
> the luddites who brought about the law is necessary.
> 
> > Others have already died from my actions, so it is
> > demonstrably true that you will die as well if I am not 
> > stopped. At what point is any action against me acceptable in 
> > defense of your life? Why is this not plain and simple and 
> > morally acceptable self defense on your part?
> 
> Self defense is hiding from the authorities, getting treatment anyway,
> lobbying to get the law changed, etc.  Killing the person who championed the
> law won't change the law.  Killing congress members until I get my way is
> called terrorism and probably won't get me justice.  Killing the police
> person coming to get me won't lessen the resources allocated to capture me.
> I really don't see how killing people trying to enforce this law helps me
> get my treatment in any way.  This is a poor example of having to choose the
> lesser of two evils, because my goal is not directly served by harming
> anyone.

Generally I would agree.  However, I sometimes think that part of the reason the first Prohibition failed was that it was opposed not only in genteel ways but even up to violence against its enforcement.   It also helped that it was so near-universally violated.   The results were often not pretty but the madness was rescinded.  Government didn't learn a durn thing except to remove as much of the citizen firepower as possible apparently.   

> 
> > Self defense is not evil. Why is this not self defense?
> 
> People with guns often confuse killing someone with self-defense.  Killing
> is an offensive act.  It only protects you if you have a lone assailant and
> you can wipe out the entire opposing team in one shot.  I do not believe
> killing a police officer, congress member, or luddite will help.  You will
> make them a martyr, and more will join their cause to fight you.  I see no
> net gain, only net losses, in using violence under this scenario.  That is
> why I am opposed, not for mere political reasons, but for more pragmatic
> reasons that I don't think this "solution" solves anything.
>

I own guns but I don't confuse self-defense with killing someone.  I also don't confuse killing someone in true self-defense with an offensive act.   Are you actually saying that if someone comes in my home with the intent to kill me and takes actions to that end that if I shoot the perp I have committed an offensive act?   

It isn't time to shoot the bastards as long as there is a chance for freedom to win or to live despite them reasonably well.  But I don't agree there is never such a time.  I agree that this isn't that time.
 
- samantha


From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jan  5 08:28:46 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:28:46 -0800
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040105002846.7553cdd2.samantha@objectent.com>

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:00:50 -0800 (PST)
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 
> > I agree with some of Hubert's points.  I would also remove the notion
> > that abortion is morally impermissable as that begs a few questions and
> > throws a controversy in that is not necessary to your point.
> 
> Well this isn't really Mark's point -- he is simply pointing out that if
> the objection to preventing access to life extending technologies
> is based on the right to a future -- then abortion is going to
> come up in the minds of critics.

The abortion argument, or one variant of an answer, was used as the spine of the argument presented from what I saw.  Using a somewhat strained argument about a different manner in an even more strained way doesn't seem optimal.

> 
> I'm going to raise this topic in my comments to him -- it twists
> extensively in which rights trump other rights.  For example being
> forced to have and care for an unwanted child may significantly
> damage the futures of both the child and mother.  Or giving
> the child up for adoption may produce similar results.  But
> all of this has probably been extensively examined in the abortion
> debates.
>

A foetus IS NOT a child.  Ridding oneself of a biological accident before it is a human being with rights in order to have reasonable control of one's own life and wellbeing is not a case of the mother's rights trumping the "child"'s rights.  There is not child.  This is the specious and weak form of the argument in its original context of abortion.  
 
> IMO, the key question may revolve around -- when precisely does one
> have a "future"?  A human fetus or an infant have no capability for
> self-enabled survival without depending upon their society or
> parent(s).  This is in contrast to many newborn animals
> have a reasonable chance at survival (having a future)
> from the time they are born/hatched/etc.
> 

Confusing an infant with a fetus gives plenty of ammunition to the opposition.  Why do this?

> There is also the fundamental problem that given cloning technology,
> many of the cells in your body have the potential for producing
> another human being.  So the cells of your stomach, intestine,
> skin, etc. (e.g. cells with any turnover) are effectively
> performing abortions on a daily basis.
>

Yeah, by the above logic.  Which underlines just how bogus it is.
 
> > Not addressing the moral permissibility of using life extension
> > technology is a major hole in your argument in my view.  It cannot be
> > morally not permitted to stop others from doing that which is not
> > morally permitted if that act in question has serious repurcussions on
> > others.
> 
> This gets into how philosophers and ethicists debate these
> topics.  Its been more than a decade since I've studied these
> so my memory may be a bit fuzzy -- but it comes down to
> cases where one is morally obligated not to interfere and
> cases where one is morally obligated to take action.  Mark
> is dealing just with the first and not with the second.
> To deal with the second effectively one has to argue strongly
> for something like a socialistic or communistic environment
> or programming all humans to be completely altruistic, etc.
> That is a much harder argument to make (and would certainly
> cause a number of people on this list to get really PO :-)).
>

I don't really see what that has to do with this topic.  Please explain.
 
> > I am sorry I commented before reading.  The general question could be
> > much better addressed than by using some specious abortion argument.
> > Please try again.
> 
> I think Mark only uses the abortion argument in passing -- simply pointing
> out there is a value to "future life" -- be it for a fetus, an infant,
> a normal human, or a human with an extended life.
>

If he uses a fetus in this category then he has punched a huge and unnecessary hole in his argument.  "Future life" is not the issue with life-extension.  It is continuing existing life or more precisely, avoiding death indefinitely.  No one complains about some life-saving therapy generally.  I think it is much more fruitful to go at the subject along these lines than on some weaker and dangerous right to "future life". 
 
> What is missing (from my perspective as an extropian) is any
> comment (from what I have read thus far) on the fact that there
> may be an inherent value (and right to preserve) to accumulated
> information/knowledge.  I.e. the past of a 1000 year old
> individual is greater than the past of a 100 y.o. individual
> is greater than the past of a 3 month old fetus.  At an
> extremely gross level Extropians (vs. say transhumanists)
> might argue that there is a very concrete scale in terms
> of the value of information or experience content and so
> one adjusts the "right to life" based on that.  Of course
> after one grants that one immediately gets into a discussion
> of the actual extropic value of the information.  I think
> this gets into areas related to what one thinks when one
> cleans ones closet or ones garage.  What is *really* worth
> something?
> 

True.  But I think you have the seed of something quite important.  Human society loses a lot through death and that at a very early age.  We lose a lot of skills, knowledge and experience and not just through death but through bodily and mental deterioration starting all too young.  This is a real loss to all of us.  We do not capture well the knowledge of one generation and it is not taken up well by the next.  Having people live much longer means that knowledge would be accumulated and refined longer by each individual thus enriching us all.

-s


From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Mon Jan  5 11:00:42 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:00:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to
	applytosuperintelligence
In-Reply-To: <20040105000616.553f608e.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d37b$2d9fee80$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Emotions:
-Hope. 
-Hatred.  
-Desire to be Free
-Religious-based call to arms (not just Jihad, but anyone fighting a
conlfict over religion).

Expected Reward > 0. 
-Unrealistic Expectations (skew of probability of belief vs state of
nature).
-Idealism (reward balloons exponentially high).

Generally all good reasons to take on somebody thats out of your league.
More importantly, why would you as a super-intelligence, want to risk
it? :)
Nothing is a sure thing.

omard-out


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha
Atkins
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:06 AM
To: Dirk Bruere; ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to
applytosuperintelligence


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:34:23 -0000
"Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
> superintelligence
> 
> 
> >
> > I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, 
> > combat will be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed 
> > resources, and will produce negative externalities relative to 
> > surrounding agents.  Let us
> 
> That's assuming scientific and technological prowess levels out early 
> on. Otherwise a difference of as little as 100yrs will mean that the 
> advanced intelligence would wipe the floor with the lesser at almost 
> no cost and it becomes the optimum strategy.
> 


Why would it want to?  If the younger is rational and can gauge the
abilities of the elder, why would it wish to engage in conflict?  

-s
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Jan  5 13:13:32 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:13:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
In-Reply-To: <20040105001654.0cf58063.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <004701c3d38d$b8785850$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> Are you actually saying that if someone comes in my home
> with the intent to kill me and takes actions to that end
> that if I shoot the perp I have committed an offensive act?   

No.  I was responding to the proposed "self-defense" argument that we should
kill legislators or luddites who are trying to block our access to
life-extending technologies.  I was not addressing the scenario you just
presented above.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mark at permanentend.org  Mon Jan  5 13:31:16 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:31:16 -0500
Subject: Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality
References: <20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040105002846.7553cdd2.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <26fe01c3d390$326706f0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins"

> > Well this isn't really Mark's point -- he is simply pointing out that if
> > the objection to preventing access to life extending technologies
> > is based on the right to a future -- then abortion is going to
> > come up in the minds of critics.
>
> The abortion argument, or one variant of an answer, was used as the spine
of the argument presented from what I saw.  Using a somewhat strained
argument about a different manner in an even more strained way doesn't seem
optimal.
>
> >

While I appreciate your efforts to understand the issues, what you say here
is conceptually and historically mistaken. The first step of Marquis'
argument is to provide an  analysis of what is wrong with killing us (adult
humans). His answer is that in the typical case it deprives us of the value
of our futures. The next step in his argument is to say that this same
analysis applies to fetuses. My argument requires only agreeing with him
about the first step. I go on to apply the analysis to immortal (or emortal
or ageless--there ya go Damien and Harvey--) individuals. Clearly there is
at least the logical possibility of agreeing with the analysis of why it is
wrong to kill us mortal adults, and yet disagree that the analysis applies
to fetuses. So, there are two conceptually distinct parts of Marquis'
argument. My argument shares with him only the first step. The first step is
not an abortion argument by any stretch of the imagination, so you have not
understood the argument. Historically, the first step of Marquis' argument
was heavily influenced by Glover and Young, and so it is the least original
part of his paper.

You have called my argument 'strained', 'suboptimal' and so on. I can't see
that you have provided any reason for believing this. I realize that you
don't like the anti-abortion position, but as I have said (and as Robert has
also in effect pointed out) the issues are logically independent.


>
> A foetus IS NOT a child.  Ridding oneself of a biological accident before
it is a human being with rights in order to have reasonable control of one's
own life and wellbeing is not a case of the mother's rights trumping the
"child"'s rights.  There is not child.  This is the specious and weak form
of the argument in its original context of abortion.
>

This is a gross misrepresentation of his argument. He explicitly denies (at
least for the sake of the argument) that a fetus or newborns are persons,
human beings, etc. His argument rests on the claim that a fetus (if
unharmed) has a future like ours (if we are unharmed). Again you call an
argument weak and specious without demonstrating even an elementary grasp of
its basic structure.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From mark at permanentend.org  Mon Jan  5 13:37:34 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:37:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality (terminology)
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <270401c3d391$13cf7eb0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Broderick"
>
> > I like 'ageless'. It is descriptive and doesn't look like an attempt to
> hide
> > behind jargon.
>
> It's good by itself, better than, say, `antiagathic' (James Blish's
50-year
> old term). But it leads to the horrid eye- and mouthful of `agelessness',
> compared to the nifty `emortal' => `emortality'.
>
> We have the same trouble with `deathless' (`deathlessness') , unless the
> general condition is `deathlessanity'. :)
>
> Harvey mentioned his dislike of made-up words, but it didn't seem to stand
> in the way of laser, television, telephone, car, xerox, google...
>
> (True, most of these items already existed and were on the market, so it
was
> convenient to embrace the term.)
>
> I know this seems trivial, but selling the message crisply is often as
> important as having the right message.
>
> Besides, when it happens the common word will emerge over the top of our
> heads. It'll probably be something like `zombies' or `ghouls' or
`snakes'...
>

I agree that it is worthwhile to think about how to sell the message right.
For myself I may use both 'emortal' and 'ageless'. It is nice to have
synonyms and the slightly different connation of these terms may appeal to
different "market segments".

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jan  5 15:24:43 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:24:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Outrageous Anti-Biotech Statements 
References: <20040105064706.29184.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001001c3d3a0$141d04a0$18ff4d0c@hal2001>

Jeremy Rifkin Wrote:

>All of Medieval Europe was organized collectively. Sustainable
>agriculture. Generation after generation, the serfs, the landlords,
>they farmed the same lands, trod the same path, and they organized
>themselves communally in order to sustain their existence. It may not
>have been the best of all possible worlds, but it was a sustainable
>form of life for six centuries."

It might interest Mr. Rifkin to know that most of the beautiful windswept
moors of Great Britton got to be the way they are because the forests that
were once there were cut down during this period. There may be other reasons
why the dark ages were not really the good old days, so I can't say I share
Mr. Rifkin's enthusiasm to emulate them.

John K Clark     jonkc at att.net




From max at maxmore.com  Mon Jan  5 15:23:55 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:23:55 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040105080609.03941420@mail.earthlink.net>


Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


>When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic 
>require quotation marks around it?
>
>To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming 
>controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in 
>the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to 
>a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer 
>model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in 
>themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data 
>from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were 
>themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. 
>There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only 
>model runs.
>
>This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. 
>Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if 
>you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the 
>complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
>
>Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked 
>to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make 
>financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their 
>minds?



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________




From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Jan  5 16:53:19 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:53:19 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040105080609.03941420@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040105080609.03941420@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401051751460.25265@hercules>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Max More wrote:

>
>Aliens Cause Global Warming
>
>A lecture by Michael Crichton
>Caltech Michelin Lecture
>January 17, 2003
>http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

I hate
reading
those
narrow
columns.
When
will web
journalists
learn that
screens
are not
paper?


Ciao,
Alfio



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jan  5 17:15:38 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <005601c3d226$6c7b0e60$b0cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050848540.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:26 AM Dennis May wrote:

> A civilization worth uncountable trillions of dollars but
> the cost of an interstellar cell-phone is too much?

Yep.  The present value of using the resources locally is
likely to significantly exceed the communications value
of sending energy/mass (i.e. electromagnetic waves or
probes) across interstellar distances.

The cost of sending a bit across interstellar distances
is relatively cheap.  The cost of sending any quantity
of information worth something across interstellar
distances is quite expensive.  The solar systems
of advanced civilizations can probably contain >2^50
bits and one doesn't transmit a useful fraction of
that across interstellar distances cheaply.

> Gray goo has to obey the same thermodynamic and
> chemical laws as living creatures.  Some of the capabilities
> ascribed to gray goo have ignored these laws.

Not any serious proposals by people who know what they
are talking about (Drexler, Freitas, etc.)

> In any case gray goo has to compete for resources and avoid
> predators/parasites just like anyone else.

Gray goo based on nanotech easily trumps any preexisting life
forms based on biotech.  This is due to the fact that it is
stronger, more energy efficient, travels faster, faster to evolve, etc.

Which is not to say that gray goo cannot be trumped.  It
is trumped by the same things that trump green (bio) goo.
Radiation, heat, perhaps cold, perhaps strong acids or
bases, "drugs" or "shields" that interfere with their
collection of materials or energy, etc.  The defenses
have to be significantly heftier than existing defenses
against green goo however.

> Can gray-goo exist with even smaller parasites eating off of it?

It would be extremely difficult for existing smaller parasites
(nanobacteria [if such exist which is significantly open to question]
or viruses to evolve fast enough to interfere with rapidly
replicating and self-evolving nanorobots.  The only hope
would be the creation of nanoparasites and in this situation
the cure might be worse than the disease.

> Not a very smart brain if it wants to put all its resources
> into one place - ready to be destroyed by WoMD.

MBrains are the size of solar systems and have the power of
stars at their disposal.  The only things that could
potentially destroy them are most likely to be very clever
viruses (that presumably have to get through multiple levels
of firewalls, isolated defense systems, etc.) or black holes
hurled across interstellar space.  I'm doubtful that either
of those options is really workable.  As has been discussed
on the ExI list -- one has to make sure that one totally
eliminates every last component of an MBrain or risk a
berserker response (i.e. intelligence not interested in
self-evolution but the destruction of whom or whatever
threw the first punch).

> What is to be gained by having a massive brain?
> Is anything of survival value added beyond a certain size?

The point is that there are limits imposed by the laws
of physics on intelligence and survival.  What is to be
gained is to understand whether these are hard limits or
whether by clever engineering and creative exploitation
of the laws one can figure out ways around the limits
(e.g. lengthening the lifetime of stars, the creation of
alternate universes and tunneling into them, preventing
all of the protons from decaying, etc.)

> If you believe in a model of thermodynamics including the
> "Big Bang Theory".  I do not.

It would seem that it is the best we can do thus far (thus
pointing out how a massive brain might be useful for coming
up with better theories...).  But I'd like to see an
explanation as to what you would replace the BBT with.

> I support the WoMD cause of the Fermi Paradox.  Stealth,
> mobility, and dispersion are the secrets to survival with space
> WoMD.  Advertise your presence and expose yourself to WoMD.

The conclusions of myself, Milan Cirkovic and a number of
others is that the limits of known physics and computational
architectures drives civilizations to produce MBrains or
other similar architectures that migrate outside galaxies
where they can radiate heat at close to the CMB temperature
(~4 deg K).  Thus they are very difficult to detect and
very difficult to target with WoMD (incoming black holes
are relatively easy to detect due to gravitational disruptions,
microlensing, X-ray radiation, etc.)

(Side Note: Dennis -- these topics have been discussed for ~5 years
on the ExI list and there are multiple academic papers that have
been written on the topic as well as hundreds of email postings
so Daniel is putting you at a slight disadvantage by introducing
the conversation to the Atlantis list without informing you
with respect to some of the background materials.)

Robert Bradbury



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 17:18:24 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:18:24 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
	superintelligence
References: <8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com><20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org><3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net><20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org><87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com><20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org><8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com><5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu><3FF8CC43.2010304@pobox.com><039201c3d33c$d001c020$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<20040105000616.553f608e.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <007201c3d3af$ece05c10$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha at objectent.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to applyto
superintelligence


> > > I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, combat
will
> > > be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed resources, and
will
> > > produce negative externalities relative to surrounding agents.  Let us
> >
> > That's assuming scientific and technological prowess levels out early
on.
> > Otherwise a difference of as little as 100yrs will mean that the
advanced
> > intelligence would wipe the floor with the lesser at almost no cost and
it
> > becomes the optimum strategy.
>
> Why would it want to?  If the younger is rational and can gauge the
abilities of the elder, why would it wish to engage in conflict?

It wouldn't.
That cannot be said of the more able of the two.
As for why, the usual Darwinian reasons.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jan  5 17:18:48 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401051751460.25265@hercules>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050916130.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> I hate
> reading
> those
> narrow
> columns.
[snip]

Alfio, I believe that it has been shown that humans
either read faster and/or have better comprehension with
narrow columns -- perhaps having to do with the fact
that the eye may be able to read narrow columns without
scanning while longer columns require scanning and
a retrace time to get to the start of the next line
(like electron guns in TVs).

Robert




From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jan  5 17:43:02 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:43:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality-overpopulation problem
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>
	<270401c3d391$13cf7eb0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <3FF9A226.F9369AEA@sasktel.net>

Haven't checked the last 2 days posts but the immediate problem of
overpopulation as well as genetic renewal may be to generate stem cells that are
hybrids , not offspring but the stem cell equivalent of couples  and merge the
neural systems of the 2 people into a composite of both.  The result might be
genetic renewal for en entire equivalent of an extended life cycle and
(depending on the cultural willingness to trade off shared consciousness for
biological renewal) 25-40% reduction in population.

If the renewed biosystem was able to move from a life cycle max of 110 to say
250, then there would be 150 or more years to perfect and deal with other
methods as well as allow for procreation by each shared consciousness with no
net increase in world population?

...MFJ


Mark Walker wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Damien Broderick"
> >
> > > I like 'ageless'. It is descriptive and doesn't look like an attempt to
> > hide
> > > behind jargon.
> >
> > It's good by itself, better than, say, `antiagathic' (James Blish's
> 50-year
> > old term). But it leads to the horrid eye- and mouthful of `agelessness',
> > compared to the nifty `emortal' => `emortality'.
> >
> > We have the same trouble with `deathless' (`deathlessness') , unless the
> > general condition is `deathlessanity'. :)
> >
> > Harvey mentioned his dislike of made-up words, but it didn't seem to stand
> > in the way of laser, television, telephone, car, xerox, google...
> >
> > (True, most of these items already existed and were on the market, so it
> was
> > convenient to embrace the term.)
> >
> > I know this seems trivial, but selling the message crisply is often as
> > important as having the right message.
> >
> > Besides, when it happens the common word will emerge over the top of our
> > heads. It'll probably be something like `zombies' or `ghouls' or
> `snakes'...
> >
>
> I agree that it is worthwhile to think about how to sell the message right.
> For myself I may use both 'emortal' and 'ageless'. It is nice to have
> synonyms and the slightly different connation of these terms may appeal to
> different "market segments".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Walker, PhD
> Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
> University of Toronto
> Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
> 15 Devonshire Place
> Toronto
> M5S 1H8
> www.permanentend.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jan  5 18:07:13 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:07:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality -economics of access
References: <20040104115056.51c05500.samantha@objectent.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0401041235390.16635-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040105002846.7553cdd2.samantha@objectent.com>
	<26fe01c3d390$326706f0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <3FF9A7D0.219C0F4F@sasktel.net>

The live or let die theme is practiced already in terms of pharmacoeconomic
criteria for drug plan access to drugs and priorization of surgeries and other
life saving therapies.  If I recall right, dialysis stops at 65 unless the
client ponies up the cash in Oregon.

The scenario is  that those with the ability and willingness to spend say 100
million will demand and get immediate access to radical life extension and the
middle class will dissallow such costs for their peers is likely an already
accepted fact.

What Kass and Rifkin are doing is using the issue of  banning of potential
radical life extension technologies  for even the rich to hide the fact that the
policy makers have chosen to deny it for the middle class as well.
To allow the  Gates family to live to 250 would incite Joe Public to want the
same right.



Mark Walker wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Samantha Atkins"
>
> > > Well this isn't really Mark's point -- he is simply pointing out that if
> > > the objection to preventing access to life extending technologies
> > > is based on the right to a future -- then abortion is going to
> > > come up in the minds of critics.
> >
> > The abortion argument, or one variant of an answer, was used as the spine
> of the argument presented from what I saw.  Using a somewhat strained
> argument about a different manner in an even more strained way doesn't seem
> optimal.
> >
> > >
>
> While I appreciate your efforts to understand the issues, what you say here
> is conceptually and historically mistaken. The first step of Marquis'
> argument is to provide an  analysis of what is wrong with killing us (adult
> humans). His answer is that in the typical case it deprives us of the value
> of our futures. The next step in his argument is to say that this same
> analysis applies to fetuses. My argument requires only agreeing with him
> about the first step. I go on to apply the analysis to immortal (or emortal
> or ageless--there ya go Damien and Harvey--) individuals. Clearly there is
> at least the logical possibility of agreeing with the analysis of why it is
> wrong to kill us mortal adults, and yet disagree that the analysis applies
> to fetuses. So, there are two conceptually distinct parts of Marquis'
> argument. My argument shares with him only the first step. The first step is
> not an abortion argument by any stretch of the imagination, so you have not
> understood the argument. Historically, the first step of Marquis' argument
> was heavily influenced by Glover and Young, and so it is the least original
> part of his paper.
>
> You have called my argument 'strained', 'suboptimal' and so on. I can't see
> that you have provided any reason for believing this. I realize that you
> don't like the anti-abortion position, but as I have said (and as Robert has
> also in effect pointed out) the issues are logically independent.
>
> >
> > A foetus IS NOT a child.  Ridding oneself of a biological accident before
> it is a human being with rights in order to have reasonable control of one's
> own life and wellbeing is not a case of the mother's rights trumping the
> "child"'s rights.  There is not child.  This is the specious and weak form
> of the argument in its original context of abortion.
> >
>
> This is a gross misrepresentation of his argument. He explicitly denies (at
> least for the sake of the argument) that a fetus or newborns are persons,
> human beings, etc. His argument rests on the claim that a fetus (if
> unharmed) has a future like ours (if we are unharmed). Again you call an
> argument weak and specious without demonstrating even an elementary grasp of
> its basic structure.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Walker, PhD
> Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
> University of Toronto
> Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
> 15 Devonshire Place
> Toronto
> M5S 1H8
> www.permanentend.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Jan  5 18:12:03 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:12:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050916130.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050916130.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401051908050.25265@hercules>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
>On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>
>> I hate
>> reading
>> those
>> narrow
>> columns.
>[snip]
>
>Alfio, I believe that it has been shown that humans
>either read faster and/or have better comprehension with
>narrow columns -- perhaps having to do with the fact
>that the eye may be able to read narrow columns without
>scanning while longer columns require scanning and
>a retrace time to get to the start of the next line
>(like electron guns in TVs).

Maybe, but I feel physically constrained when reading a 2 inches column on
a totally white screen. And I don't detect any better speed, on the
contrary. My eye has already picked up momentum, turning right, and it has
to stop abruptly and go down. Let it flow for a while :)

Alfio


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Jan  5 18:17:12 2004
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:17:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to apply	to
	superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <3FF8CC43.2010304@pobox.com>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>
	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org>
	<8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20040104171912.020ca520@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040105130905.02158cd8@mail.gmu.edu>

On 1/4/2004, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>>It seems to me that your key assumption is one of very cheap defense - 
>>once one SI has grabbed some resources you seem to posit that there is 
>>little point in some other SI, or even a large coalition of them, trying 
>>to take it from him.
>
>I agree that this is a key assumption.  However, the assumption can fail 
>and still bar natural selection, if there is little variation in 
>preferences or little variation in resource-grabbing capacity or little 
>correlation between the two.

Variation in preferences alone, even with no variation in ability to grab 
resources, can result in evolutionary selection.  Preferences can be 
selected for, even without being correlated with other features.

>>Given this, I suppose the rest of your scenario might plausibly follow, 
>>but I'm not sure why you believe this assumption.
>
>I tend to suspect that between two similar intelligent agents, combat will 
>be too uncertain to be worthwhile, will consume fixed resources, and will 
>produce negative externalities relative to surrounding agents.  Let us 
>assume that loss aversion (not just in the modern human psychological 
>sense of aversion to losses as such, but in the sense of loss aversion 
>emergent in diminishing marginal utility) does not apply, so that a 50/50 
>chance of winning - which goes along with the argument of intelligent 
>optimization using up variation - does not automatically rule out 
>combat.  However, there would still be a fixed cost of combat, probably 
>extremely high; and if we assume variation in preferences, there would 
>probably be negative externalities to any nearby SIs, who would have a 
>motive to threaten punishment for combat.  Negotiations among SIs are, I 
>think, out of my reach to comprehend - although I do have some specific 
>reasons to be confused - but I still suspect that they would 
>negotiate.  The point about large coalitions devouring single cells is 
>interesting (although my current thoughts about SI negotations suggest 
>that *the choice to form a predatory coalition* might be viewed as 
>tantamount to starting a war).  If we do have coalitions eating smaller 
>cells, then we have a filterish selection pressure that rules out all 
>unwillingness or hesitation to form coalitions - not necessarily natural 
>selection unless there is heritable variation, which correlates, etc.  But 
>beyond that point, it would essentially amount to gambling, more than 
>combat - will you be part of the latest coalition, or not?  Something like 
>a tontine, perhaps, until there are only two entities left standing?  But 
>where does the non-random selection come in?  What does it correlate to?

A lot of words here, but still hard to follow.  We must distinguish 
assumptions about the immediate physical consequences of combat from 
assumptions about what the resulting behavioral equilibrium is.  In the 
above you seem to mix these up.  I was trying to paraphrase you in terms of 
assumptions about physical consequences.



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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 18:19:34 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050916130.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040105181934.45664.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> 
> > I hate
> > reading
> > those
> > narrow
> > columns.
> [snip]
> 
> Alfio, I believe that it has been shown that humans
> either read faster and/or have better comprehension with
> narrow columns -- perhaps having to do with the fact
> that the eye may be able to read narrow columns without
> scanning while longer columns require scanning and
> a retrace time to get to the start of the next line
> (like electron guns in TVs).

Yes, but you have to structure the text so that
 they are organized in continguous phrases.

Chopped phrases take more time to read than scanning
because you have to double back and forth
to establish context.


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 18:28:28 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:28:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CLONE: Seeking contacts for organ cloning
In-Reply-To: <3FF9A7D0.219C0F4F@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20040105182829.78544.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

As many of you know, my mother has had a rather rough year with a
botched gastro bypass operation. Her current condition is that she has
4' of small intestine, 1/3 of her original colon, with a colostomy bag,
and requires 24 hour care. She is also developing an increasing
encephalopathy condition that is likely tied to the lack of intestines
providing insufficient nutrition for her brain, despite supplements and
thrice daily injections of protien nutrient mix through a G tube into
the lower stapled off area of her stomach.
Her mental condition is spotty memory, a lack of ability to maintain a
consistent train of thought, language problems in selecting the wrong
words, lethargy, depression, phantom pain in her gut (like amputees
experience), and when her electrolytes get off she hallucinates living
in a different house with a different family, her dead father, among
other things.
I am increasingly of the opinion that she is going to need an
intestinal transplant to regain her ability to digest sufficient
nutrition, possibly get her intestine cloned. Can anyone point to
researchers working in this area, such as those growing cloned organs
in pigs or in a dish, etc.???

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From gingell at gnat.com  Mon Jan  5 18:39:35 2004
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:39:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050848540.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <005601c3d226$6c7b0e60$b0cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0401050848540.2281-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <16377.44903.71147.907333@nile.gnat.com>

Robert J. Bradbury writes:
 >  The solar systems of advanced civilizations can probably contain
 > >2^50 bits and one doesn't transmit a useful fraction of that
 > across interstellar distances cheaply.

 This is a really evocative and interesting way of putting it. It
 immediately raises the question "how compressible is an advanced
 civilization?" I'd suggest the answer, for sufficiently large values
 of advanced, is not at all:

 We can think about the problem of optimally utilizing all the
 resources available to a civilization as a data encoding problem. The
 goal is to most efficiently transmit into the future whatever content
 it is that distinguishes your civilization from vacuum across mass
 and energy modeled as bandwidth on a Shannon-style noisy channel.
 (Noise in this analogy would be be quantum effects and classical
 uncertainty at various scales.) The solution is necessarily not
 compressible, necessarily completely impenetrable to reductive
 analysis.

 Delta some sophisticated error recovery mechanisms, the idea of a
 civilization completely free of redundancy (in both the conventional
 and Kolmogorov senses) completely boggles my mind. That any
 sufficiently advanced culture is indistinguishable from random noise
 has implications I can't seem to wrap my mind around... How does one
 relate to stellar masses of algorithmically irreducible "Stuff."


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 19:02:55 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <16377.44903.71147.907333@nile.gnat.com>
Message-ID: <20040105190255.82482.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Matthew Gingell <gingell at gnat.com> wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury writes:
>  >  The solar systems of advanced civilizations can probably contain
>  > >2^50 bits and one doesn't transmit a useful fraction of that
>  > across interstellar distances cheaply.
> 
>  We can think about the problem of optimally utilizing all the
>  resources available to a civilization as a data encoding problem.
> The goal is to most efficiently transmit into the future whatever
> content it is that distinguishes your civilization from vacuum across
> mass and energy modeled as bandwidth on a Shannon-style noisy
channel.
>  (Noise in this analogy would be be quantum effects and classical
>  uncertainty at various scales.) The solution is necessarily not
>  compressible, necessarily completely impenetrable to reductive
>  analysis.

This describes the conundrum that Spike was talking about. A particular
civilization may get itself into an informational bottleneck in
transmitting its population out into the universe, just as we risk a
material resources bottleneck in this century in getting our carcasses
off the planet. If the singularity sputters, the future is doomed to a
luddites collectivist agrarian fantasy. If an Mbrain civilization
expands its demands for processing resources faster than its ability to
build transmission resources, it will eventually trap itself in its own
solar system by informational overpopulation.

Thus, I foresee this Mbrain dillemma as a possible Second
Singularity... the prophet Mike has spoken...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003


From kekich at transvio.com  Mon Jan  5 19:23:28 2004
From: kekich at transvio.com (David A. Kekich)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:23:28 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] CLONE: Seeking contacts for organ cloning
In-Reply-To: <20040105182829.78544.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BOEGJOGABPNCAEFOFMBEGECMFJAA.kekich@transvio.com>

My recommendation is Dr. Anthony Atala. Please email me directly at
kekich at transvio.com, or call me at 310-265-8644.

Thanks,
Dave

*****************************
David A. Kekich
TransVio Technology Ventures, LLC
Tele. 310-265-8644/Fax 310-544-9684
http://www.TransVio.com
*****************************


> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:28 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] CLONE: Seeking contacts for organ cloning
>
>
> As many of you know, my mother has had a rather rough year with a
> botched gastro bypass operation. Her current condition is that she has
> 4' of small intestine, 1/3 of her original colon, with a colostomy bag,
> and requires 24 hour care. She is also developing an increasing
> encephalopathy condition that is likely tied to the lack of intestines
> providing insufficient nutrition for her brain, despite supplements and
> thrice daily injections of protien nutrient mix through a G tube into
> the lower stapled off area of her stomach.
> Her mental condition is spotty memory, a lack of ability to maintain a
> consistent train of thought, language problems in selecting the wrong
> words, lethargy, depression, phantom pain in her gut (like amputees
> experience), and when her electrolytes get off she hallucinates living
> in a different house with a different family, her dead father, among
> other things.
> I am increasingly of the opinion that she is going to need an
> intestinal transplant to regain her ability to digest sufficient
> nutrition, possibly get her intestine cloned. Can anyone point to
> researchers working in this area, such as those growing cloned organs
> in pigs or in a dish, etc.???
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>                                        - Mike Lorrey
> Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 19:49:52 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:49:52 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org><004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension>
	<007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <013101c3d3c5$27dc6880$d2256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal at smigrodzki.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> I just finished reading the third part of John C. Wright's Golden Age
> trilogy, and I am awed. As I suspected, Wright allows humanity an escape

I have just finished the first two books, and agree with you.
Does the author have a website?

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jan  5 19:56:44 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <20040105190255.82482.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401051135410.4676-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> If an Mbrain civilization
> expands its demands for processing resources faster than its ability to
> build transmission resources, it will eventually trap itself in its own
> solar system by informational overpopulation.

The outer layer of an MBrain is constrained by the temperature it wants
to radiate at.  But that doesn't prevent one from constructing orbiting
data storage devices, perhaps with onboard fusion reactors -- just enough
energy to occasionally read and restore data bits that get wiped by cosmic
rays.  So long as you have a supply of brown dwarfs or molecular clouds
to consume the quantity of data stored can get quite large (>> 2^50 bits).
The only problem is the access time.  Instead of waiting milliseconds
for the data you need to rotate around on a disk drive spindle (and
that is *fast* compared to the rotational delay on early drum storage
devices), you have to wait hundreds to thousands of years for your
data to become available for read access again (*much* slower than
offsite tape access now-a-days).  Perhaps you could setup laser
access and have the data in light-hours to light-days but this
is going to require much more energy be consumed in the orbiting
data storage units.  If you opt for the low-energy cost data
storage approach and the access is hundreds to thousands of years
there is probably a significant chance that the data will be obsolete
by the time it gets back to where it can be read.  In that much
time a MBrain can obviously recreate a significant amount of data
if necessary.

I toyed around with considering different compression approaches
and then realized this can get *very* complex.  One could think
of Chinese where one has a variety of icons with specific meanings.
One could imagine MBrain alphabets where strings of N bits each
have a different meaning but only the active mental state of
an MBrain knows how to interpret that set of bits.  So each
string is effectively "overloaded" with a meaning -- just as
when I say "red" this brings to mind a whole set of images,
experiences and comprehensions within the mind of the listener.
The agreed upon meaning of "red" is only required for our
interpersonal communication requirements.  If an MBrain is only
communicating within itself it seems resonable to allow "red" to
mean the entire set of overloaded qualities.  In a way this
seems similar to object-oriented programming where one is
passing around objects with a variety of qualities.

Robert




From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 20:12:13 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:12:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality (terminology)
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer><014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>
	<270401c3d391$13cf7eb0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <008d01c3d3c8$389ae0e0$8c994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Walker" <mark at permanentend.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:37 AM

> I agree that it is worthwhile to think about how to sell the message
right.
> For myself I may use both 'emortal' and 'ageless'. It is nice to have
> synonyms and the slightly different connation of these terms may appeal to
> different "market segments".

Indeed. I should stress that I have absolutely no stake in `emortal/ity'; it
just seems like a workable compromise.

Incidentally, Brian Stableford tells me that he didn't coin the term
(although he's used it in a series of recent novels). He attributes it to
biologist Alvin Silverstein, in CONQUEST OF DEATH (Macmillan, 1979). I find
this interesting summary at the useful site
http://biomatics.kaist.ac.kr/Research/Gerontology/glossary.html :

=====

Emortality -- Indefinite life expectancy for individuals of a sexually
reproducing species without death secondary to cellular senescence. However,
an emortal individual may still die secondary to environmental trauma or an
accident. Etymology: This term was first coined by Alvin Silverstein, Ph.D.,
Professor of Biology at College of Staten Island/CUNY (2800 Victory Blvd.;
Staten Island, NY 10314; E-mail: silverstein at postbox.csi.cuny.edu or
DrASilverstein at aol.com ) to distinguish it from the more usual term of
immortality and thereby avoid all of its religious connotation. He states,
"I was using it among colleagues and friends back in the 1950's, although it
did not appear "in print" until my book, Conquest of Death: The Prospects
for Emortality in Our Time (Macmillan, NY; 1979).

======

Damien Broderick



From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 20:20:47 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:20:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org><004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension><007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension>
	<013101c3d3c5$27dc6880$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <00c001c3d3c9$69231560$8c994a43@texas.net>

From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:49 PM

> Does the author have a website?

Yes.



From bjk at imminst.org  Mon Jan  5 20:38:12 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:38:12 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality (terminology)
In-Reply-To: <008d01c3d3c8$389ae0e0$8c994a43@texas.net>
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer><014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>	<270401c3d391$13cf7eb0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<008d01c3d3c8$389ae0e0$8c994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3FF9CB34.6030902@imminst.org>

Till Noever has composed four articles for
ImmInst concerning 'Emortalism'

Emortalism 101 - Introduction
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=1752&s=

Emortalism 102 - Meaning, Context, Identity, Sex and Other Curiosities
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=67&t=1764&hl=noever

Emortalism 103 - Scenarios
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=67&t=1811

Emortalism 104 - Emortalist Ethics
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=66&t=1928

Bruce Klein
Chairman, ImmInst.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 21:13:05 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 21:13:05 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org><004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension><007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension><013101c3d3c5$27dc6880$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<00c001c3d3c9$69231560$8c994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <01a601c3d3d0$b5d0e390$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:49 PM
> 
> > Does the author have a website?
> 
> Yes.
 

What's the URL?

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Jan  5 22:09:24 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:09:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
Message-ID: <3FF9E094.3050807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Jan 05, 2004 02:13 pm Dirk Bruere queried:
> What's the URL?
>

Heh. :)

Damien is poking you with a pointed stick.

It is a trivial task and quicker to find the URL by Google than to post
to the list. And Google will give you other associated interesting sites
as well.

BillK





From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 22:13:20 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:13:20 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org><004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension><007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension><013101c3d3c5$27dc6880$d2256bd5@artemis><00c001c3d3c9$69231560$8c994a43@texas.net>
	<01a601c3d3d0$b5d0e390$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <002701c3d3d9$22740a60$8c994a43@texas.net>


> > From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:49 PM
> >
> > > Does the author have a website?
> >
> > Yes.

> What's the URL?
>
> Dirk
>
> The Consensus:-
> The political party for the new millennium

Forgive my bluntness, but...

You're planning to run the United Kingdom, and you can't get Google to work?




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 22:17:43 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:17:43 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <3FF9E094.3050807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <01b901c3d3d9$bd7792c0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BillK" <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> On Mon Jan 05, 2004 02:13 pm Dirk Bruere queried:
> > What's the URL?
> >
>
> Heh. :)
>
> Damien is poking you with a pointed stick.
>
> It is a trivial task and quicker to find the URL by Google than to post
> to the list. And Google will give you other associated interesting sites
> as well.


Wow! google!
I'd never have thought of that in a million tears! <sarcasm>
Problem is, I get vast numbers of books, reviews, interviews and no doubt
somewhere in there is something call 'the website of John C Wright'
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wright+golden+transcendence
1680 hits

Hey! let's really get this thread running by playing 'guess the keywords'.
Over to you.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 22:36:15 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:36:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <3FF9E094.3050807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<01b901c3d3d9$bd7792c0$d2256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <00b101c3d3dc$56ef6020$8c994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:17 PM

> Hey! let's really get this thread running by playing 'guess the keywords'.
> Over to you.


Jesus wept. Go to Google. Type in ""john c. wright" homepage"

The third entry down shows (and you don't even need to open the page):

>Author's Homepage: http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/index.html

which gives his @:

  john-c-wright at sff.net



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Jan  5 22:44:25 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:44:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
Message-ID: <3FF9E8C9.8060305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Jan 05, 2004 03:17 pm Dirk Bruere screamed in panic:
> Problem is, I get vast numbers of books, reviews, interviews and no
> doubt somewhere in there is something call 'the website of John C
> Wright'
> wright+golden+transcendence
> 1680 hits
>
> Hey! let's really get this thread running by playing 'guess the
> keywords'.
> Over to you.
>
> Dirk
>

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet. You don't HAVE to respond when
somebody gets levitatious with you. ;)

I googled on "John C Wright"
(seemed obvious to me).

The top site returned is full of useful links including interviews,
reviews, his agents' site, Tor Books site, even his own site and his
email address.


BillK





From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 22:44:09 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:44:09 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <3FF9E094.3050807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk><01b901c3d3d9$bd7792c0$d2256bd5@artemis>
	<00b101c3d3dc$56ef6020$8c994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <01f301c3d3dd$6f1cfdf0$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:17 PM
>
> > Hey! let's really get this thread running by playing 'guess the
keywords'.
> > Over to you.
>
>
> Jesus wept. Go to Google. Type in ""john c. wright" homepage"
>
> The third entry down shows (and you don't even need to open the page):
>
> >Author's Homepage: http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/index.html

Seen it and discounted it before I asked the original question.

> which gives his @:
>
>   john-c-wright at sff.net

ie it's not his website.
So, the answer is 'he has no website of his own'.
If you can remember far enough back, the question was 'Does the author have
a website?'
Try and be less of a smart arse when someone asks a question in future.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jan  5 22:54:43 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:54:43 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <3FF9E8C9.8060305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <01fd01c3d3de$e88ab230$d2256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BillK" <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> On Mon Jan 05, 2004 03:17 pm Dirk Bruere screamed in panic:
> > Problem is, I get vast numbers of books, reviews, interviews and no
> > doubt somewhere in there is something call 'the website of John C
> > Wright'
> > wright+golden+transcendence
> > 1680 hits
> >
> > Hey! let's really get this thread running by playing 'guess the
> > keywords'.
> > Over to you.
> >
> > Dirk
> >
>
> Sometimes it is better to keep quiet. You don't HAVE to respond when
> somebody gets levitatious with you. ;)
>
> I googled on "John C Wright"
> (seemed obvious to me).
>
> The top site returned is full of useful links including interviews,
> reviews, his agents' site, Tor Books site, even his own site and his
> email address.


Except nowhere in the returned list of websites does it inform one that he
has no website (which is a deduction).
His homepage is listed, but that was NOT the question I asked.
Now, I may be wrong about that because I have not done a WHOIS on the actual
owner but I don't expect to be.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Jan  5 23:14:57 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:14:57 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
References: <3FF9E8C9.8060305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <012501c3d3e1$be9d7b80$8c994a43@texas.net>

Have just got *For Us, the Living*, Heinlein's rediscovered first novel.
Opened first page, read:

< He glanced back at the girl. She was still catching the beach ball. As she
settled back on her feet, he drifted clear of the car and turned in the air
away from her. Facing him were the rocks at the foot of the bluff. They
approached as he watched them, separated and became individuals. One rock
selected him and came straight toward him. It was a handsome rock, flat on
one side and brilliant while in the sunshine. A sharp edge faced him and
grew and grew and grew until it encompassed the whole world. >

Surely that's a typo for `brilliant white'? Since he's falling straight at
it, he has no reason to muse that it would look darker away from the sun (or
whatever).

Doesn't bode terribly well for the acuity of the editors...

Damien Broderick



From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Jan  6 04:32:22 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:32:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
Message-ID: <00bc01c3d40e$14a823a0$0cca5cd1@neptune>

Dennis replied to Robert's post with:

From: Dennis May determinism at hotmail.com
To: atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach


Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"The present value of using the resources locally is
likely to significantly exceed the communications value
of sending energy/mass (i.e. electromagnetic waves or
probes) across interstellar distances."

No investment in discovery?  A singular thought pattern
which doesn't experiment or take risks?  No diversity
of opinion concerning value.  Again it doesn't sound like
much of a brain.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"The cost of sending a bit across interstellar distances
is relatively cheap. The cost of sending any quantity
of information worth something across interstellar
distances is quite expensive. The solar systems
of advanced civilizations can probably contain >2^50
bits and one doesn't transmit a useful fraction of
that across interstellar distances cheaply."

Worth something?  Whole libraries can be sent on
a laser signal for next to nothing.  What makes you
think those >2^50 bits aren't mainly archives of
Alien Slug Porn at high resolution or something
equally useless to someone else.  Value is in the
eye of the beholder.

I wrote:

>Gray goo has to obey the same thermodynamic and
>chemical laws as living creatures. Some of the capabilities ascribed to
>gray goo have ignored these
>laws.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"Not any serious proposals by people who know what they
are talking about (Drexler, Freitas, etc.)"

I can only go by what little I have read.  No doubt the
fantastic unrealistic claims get more press than those
who are serious.  I will have to read more by those who
are thought to be serious.

I wrote:

>In any case gray goo has to compete for resources and avoid
>predators/parasites just like anyone else.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"Gray goo based on nanotech easily trumps any preexisting
life forms based on biotech. This is due to the fact that it is
stronger, more energy efficient, travels faster, faster to
evolve, etc."

I would think that all these claims depend on the efficient
mining of resources from the environment to enable
self-replication. Something yet to be demonstrated and
unlikely to be as simple as postulated.  Some of the more
fantastic claims I've heard clearly ignored the necessity of
mining diverse resources and the actual energy costs and
heat losses incurred in doing so.  There are many biological
systems which are extremely efficient.

I wrote:

>Not a very smart brain if it wants to put all its resources
>into one place - ready to be destroyed by WoMD.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"MBrains are the size of solar systems and have the power of
stars at their disposal. The only things that could
potentially destroy them are most likely to be very clever
viruses (that presumably have to get through multiple levels
of firewalls, isolated defense systems, etc.) or black holes
hurled across interstellar space."

Or simply: enough hydrogen bombs hurled at them fast
enough for long enough, or swarms of pellets fired at them
for long enough from all directions, or enough anti-matter
hurled long enough, or destroying it while it is small by
any number of means, or setting off nearby stars to create
lethal neutrino showers, or orienting parts of the blast from
supernovas, or hitting it again and again with solid objects
traveling near the speed of light, and so on.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"...one has to make sure that one totally
eliminates every last component of an MBrain or risk a
berserker response"

Exactly my point - WoMD will destroy the big buck brain
before it gets very big.  Who says berserkers of one kind
or another aren't already out there causing the
Fermi Paradox?

I wrote:

>I support the WoMD cause of the Fermi Paradox. Stealth,
>mobility, and dispersion are the secrets to survival with space
>WoMD. Advertise your presence and expose yourself to WoMD.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>...MBrains or other similar architectures that migrate outside galaxies
>where they can radiate heat at close to the CMB temperature (~4 deg K).
>Thus they are very difficult to detect and very difficult to target
with
>WoMD.

Everything is visible to spread spectrum impulse E&M.  You
can't hide anything of that size if someone cares to look.
If I send out trillions of spread spectrum impulse probes I
will find anything I care to look for.  If you are large and
lumbering once your found your dead - given sufficient
time.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"(Side Note: Dennis -- these topics have been discussed for ~5 years
on the ExI list and there are multiple academic papers that have
been written on the topic as well as hundreds of email postings
so Daniel is putting you at a slight disadvantage by introducing
the conversation to the Atlantis list without informing you
with respect to some of the background materials.)"

I would enjoy being informed in those areas you feel I behind in.
I have had similar discussions before and found the defense
of the Mbrain concept still lacking.  The other question is: why
is my solution to the Fermi Paradox less plausible - since it does
not depend on new science, big brains, or unknown
nanotechnology?

Dennis May

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/




From cryoofan at mylinuxisp.com  Tue Jan  6 14:32:47 2004
From: cryoofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:32:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
In-Reply-To: <012501c3d3e1$be9d7b80$8c994a43@texas.net>
References: <3FF9E8C9.8060305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<012501c3d3e1$be9d7b80$8c994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <pkhlvvo4tmg44sidholpiqjjv8vuj0r5cc@4ax.com>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:14:57 -0600, you wrote



> One rock
>selected him and came straight toward him. It was a handsome rock, flat on
>one side and brilliant while in the sunshine. A sharp edge faced him and
>grew and grew and grew until it encompassed the whole world. >


Geez, someone's been reading a bit too much Hemingway....

I guess RAH got the Hemingway out of his system with this book, cuz I
have never before noticed the similarity....


-------------



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jan  6 17:02:14 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:02:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
Message-ID: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>

A colleague at work sent this to me.  It's silly, but what the hell?

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington
chemistry mid-term exam. The answer by one student was so? profound" that
the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of
course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

 Bonus Question:

 " Is " Hell " exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic(absorbs heat)? "

 Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas
cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some
variant, but fell short in producing a demonstration argument. One student
however wrote the following:

 First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are
leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell,
it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls
are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the
world today.

 Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these
religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can
project that all souls go to Hell.  With birth and death rates as they are,
we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

 Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's
Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay
the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are
added. This gives two possibilities:

 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until
all Hell breaks loose.

 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

 Considering then the postulate presented to me by Teresa K. during my
Freshman year: that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you"
and taking into account the fact that over two years later, I still have
not succeeded in having relations with her; then, #2 cannot be true, and
thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

 The student received the only "A" given."


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Jan  6 17:12:31 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:12:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Templeton prize for dialogue between science and
	religion
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGOEKBCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the Ledger Online: Every March, the winner of the most lucrative award
on Earth -- about $1 million -- is announced. The Templeton Prize is given
not to artists or peace activists but to "entrepreneurs" who have
contributed to the dialogue between science and religion, working to "expand
human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine
creativity," In 2003, the prize was given to the Rev. Holmes Rolston, a
pioneer in the field of religion and ecology.
Not everyone admires what the foundation -- and its benefactor -- are trying
to accomplish. Sir John Templeton believes that humans should endeavor
through scientific study to learn more about God. He also advocates what he
calls "humility theology," which disregards doctrine in favor of a complete
openness to ideas about God. Some Templeton Prize winners, such as Freeman
Dyson, have proposed concepts long considered heretical to monotheistic
traditions.
The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to pursue new insights at
the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded
and empirically focused methodology, drawing together talented
representatives from a wide spectrum of fields of expertise. Using "the
humble approach," the Foundation typically seeks to focus the methods and
resources of scientific inquiry on topical areas which have spiritual and
theological significance ranging across the disciplines from cosmology to
healthcare.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040106/001d0928/attachment.html>

From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Jan  6 17:13:37 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:13:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE141E9GQvnbE00023caa@hotmail.com>

>  Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these
> religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can
> project that all souls go to Hell.

This just happens to be my initial reasoning behind becoming an atheist! lol


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 17:18:14 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
In-Reply-To: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040106171814.52961.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Poor Teresa K, doomed forever to a reputation of prudery, or maybe just
a reputation of no taste for smart and smartass fellows... I wonder if
this A got the fellow some action... ;)

--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> A colleague at work sent this to me.  It's silly, but what the hell?
> 
> The following is an actual question given on a University of
> Washington chemistry mid-term exam. The answer by one student was so
> ?profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
> Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of.
> enjoying it as well.
snip...
>  Considering then the postulate presented to me by Teresa K. during
> my Freshman year: that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
> with you" and taking into account the fact that over two years later,
> I still have not succeeded in having relations with her; then, #2
> cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will
> not freeze."
> 
>  The student received the only "A" given."

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 17:21:11 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
In-Reply-To: <pkhlvvo4tmg44sidholpiqjjv8vuj0r5cc@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20040106172111.82340.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- randy <cryoofan at mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:14:57 -0600, you wrote
> 
> 
> 
> > One rock
> >selected him and came straight toward him. It was a handsome rock,
> flat on
> >one side and brilliant while in the sunshine. A sharp edge faced him
> and
> >grew and grew and grew until it encompassed the whole world. >
> 
> 
> Geez, someone's been reading a bit too much Hemingway....
> 
> I guess RAH got the Hemingway out of his system with this book, cuz I
> have never before noticed the similarity....

What I want to know is how an edge can encompass a whole world. An edge
is a line, i.e. it has only one dimension. What sort of non-euclidean
trick was used to make a one dimensional geometric object encompass all
of 3 dimensional space???

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue Jan  6 17:31:05 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:31:05 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
In-Reply-To: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401061828340.3311@hercules>


I once found this, somewhere on Usenet:

EAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

  "The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our
authority is the Bible:

Isaiah 30:26 reads, "Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light
of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of
seven days."

Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does
from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much
as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we
receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from
the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the
temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the
point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received
by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the
earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for
radiation:

     (H/E)^4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the earth,
     300 degrees K (273+27). This gives H, the absolute temperature
     of heaven, as 798 degrees absolute (525 degrees C).

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than
444.6 degrees C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from
a liquid to a gas.

Revelations 21:8: "But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at
or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees C. (Above that point,
it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525 degrees C (977 degrees F).
Temperature of hell, less than 444.6 degrees C (832.3 degrees F).

Therefore heaven is hotter than hell."


Ciao,
Alfio


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Jan  6 17:33:21 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:33:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c3d40e$14a823a0$0cca5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <001101c3d47b$316abad0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

>From a security point-of-view, I have developed a new hypothesis:

We may be a valuable source of free research, information and entertainment
to the universe.  We broadcast most of our information for free out to the
universe via radio and TV.  Advanced civilizations may be able to receive
all our signals and watch all our TV and radio programs.  As long as they
are receiving free service, why should they tell us?  Maybe they are afraid
we will cut them off as soon as we find out they are receiving all of our
information but we are receiving none of theirs.  Maybe it is a historical
pattern in the universe that civilizations suddenly clam up when they
discover other civilizations.  Maybe older civilizations listen to newer
civilizations for as long as they can without letting them know.

>From a security perspective, they would want to find out as much as they can
about us, and would want us to know as little as possible about them.  Until
we establish that we are not a threat to them, they would stay quiet.  They
would not want to jeopardize their ability to observe us by alerting us to
their presence.  They receive all our stuff already anyway.  How will
contacting us help?  It would only reduce their information or make it less
trustworthy.  As long as we don't know about them, our broadcasts are not
controlled propaganda.  As soon as we find out about them, we can limit or
manipulate our broadcasts.  We also may start demanding information back in
return.

This seems obvious if we think of it from the other side.  Suppose we start
receiving signals from a nearby star.  We can monitor their civilization and
they don't know about us.  We would be very concerned about them.  Are they
friendly?  Do they have superior technology?  Do they want to eat us?  We
probably wouldn't want to announce our presence and location to them.  We
would probably want to observe them quietly at first.  It seems clear that
we are a new civilization with our signals going out only a hundred light
years or so.  The time for the return-trip would limit our communications to
civilizations within 50 light years or so.  Any time they delayed listening
to us would reduce that radius to 40 or 30 light-years or further.  Anybody
who could have heard us and responded would have to be relatively close and
therefore even more cautious about responding.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jan  6 17:34:59 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:34:59 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
	<Law10-OE141E9GQvnbE00023caa@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bd01c3d47b$68462800$62256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Freels" <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
To: <natashavita at earthlink.net>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hell


> >  Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> > religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these
> > religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we
can
> > project that all souls go to Hell.
>
> This just happens to be my initial reasoning behind becoming an atheist!
lol

And is hence flawed.
However, from a theological POV Asatru is interesting.
Here most people reside in Hel (now where did Xians get their version
from?...) until it is time to be reborn into their family line again.
Others are selected by the Gods and Goddesses to reside with them in their
halls, the most famous being Odin's - Valhalla.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jan  6 18:07:31 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:07:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <001301c3d47f$f4b95e70$94b91b97@administxl09yj>

Father Gabriele Amorth, the leading exorcist of the Vatican,
http://www.catholic-exorcism.org/pages/suntelegraph/suntelegraph.html
http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/Articles/fr_amorth.html
who speaks with the Devil every day, over 50,000 times
in the last 30 years, told yesterday that - according to Devil -
the Hell is completely different from what we know.
Dante's Inferno (illustration, here, by G. Dor?)
http://jade.ccccd.edu/Andrade/WorldLitI2332/Dante/inf_dore_14.029.jpeg
or H. Bosch http://www.artonline.it/img/large/230gcd07.jpg
were wrong. The Hell - according to Devil - has nothing to
do with "real" fire, but it has much to do with a "spiritual"
fire, that is to say: pain anyway. According to father Amorth
every religion has its (different) Hell.




From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jan  6 18:01:09 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:01:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwinian dynamics unlikely to apply
	tosuperintelligence
References: <20031231094734.GE11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<3FF309F8.6000502@yifan.net>	<20031231195904.GN11973@digitalkingdom.org>	<87llorutus.fsf@snark.piermont.com>	<20040102014258.GW11973@digitalkingdom.org><8765fut8zd.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<3FF5FEA2.8040900@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <008601c3d47f$2a859b00$edff4d0c@hal2001>

  > Evolution isn't something you can avoid.

True.

> Deep down, all it says is "you find more
> of that which survives and spreads itself"

No, that's only half of what makes evolution work, for the other half you
need some mechanism to make the next generation different from the present
one. In Darwinian biological evolution that mechanism is random mutation; in
cultural evolution (science is just one example) it is Lamarckian and the
inheritance of acquired characteristics is possible.  Lamarckian evolution
is about a billion times faster than the Darwinian version because it is
directed by intelligence. Once life enters this phase things will move in a
direction more likely to make intelligence happy because the old style
Darwinian component will be swamped out by the much larger Lamarckian.

  John K Clark    jonkc at att.net






From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Jan  6 18:02:43 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:02:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
Message-ID: <001801c3d47f$4babc7f0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

I wrote,
> It seems clear that we are a new 
> civilization with our signals going out only a hundred light 
> years or so.

This is based on the earliest possible signals when Marconi transmitted
wireless telegraph just before 1900.    But it now occurs to me that they
bounced such radio waves off the ionosphere to get around the curve of the
earth.  I am not sure when radio waves started going out into space, or when
they became numerous or interesting enough to be detectable.  The first
radio network was NBC starting in 1926.  The first big or powerful
transmitters were built by RCA after 1934.  We may have only about 65 years
of transmitting to space.  For a round-trip signal, that limits responses to
about 30 light-years or less, if they detected us instantly and responded.
Any delay in detection or answering, and our globe of possible civilizations
to talk to is reduced even further.  There are 106 stars within 20
light-years according to
<http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/nearstar.html>.  Only 6 of these are
yellow G-class stars.  If the likelihood of advanced civilizations is less
than 1/7 (14%) of G-class stars, we may be the only civilization within this
response cone.  There may be no civilizations close enough to have heard us
and answered us yet.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jan  6 18:07:07 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
In-Reply-To: <20040106172111.82340.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040106180707.79714.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:14:57 -0600, you wrote
> > > One rock
> > >selected him and came straight toward him. It was
> a handsome rock,
> > flat on
> > >one side and brilliant while in the sunshine. A
> sharp edge faced him
> > and
> > >grew and grew and grew until it encompassed the
> whole world. >
> 
> What I want to know is how an edge can encompass a
> whole world. An edge
> is a line, i.e. it has only one dimension. What sort
> of non-euclidean
> trick was used to make a one dimensional geometric
> object encompass all
> of 3 dimensional space???

Wrong definition of "world".  In this case, "the whole
world" meant his whole world, i.e. the entirety of his
perceptions - and conscious perceptions at that.  It
is not that much of a leap to believe that someone
about to die might well focus entirely on the oncoming
implement of death.

General trick: when someone seems to spout nonsense or
impossibilities, see if there are alternate meanings
of certain terms which, when used instead, would make
what is said make sense.  If so, then it is most
likely the case that this alternate was what was
meant.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Jan  6 18:09:52 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:09:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c3d40e$14a823a0$0cca5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401060832200.27270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Responding to the most recent comments by Dennis forwarded
by Daniel...

> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 5:26 PM
> Subject: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach

> No investment in discovery?  A singular thought pattern
> which doesn't experiment or take risks?  No diversity
> of opinion concerning value.  Again it doesn't sound like
> much of a brain.

:-;  But there *is* potentially an investment in discovery.
MBrains, using 1% of their mass resources, can have
100 billion telescopes the diameter of the moon.  These
in turn can be laid out across distances of AU's to LY
and it may be possible to link them together into one
f***ing big interferometer (the configuration for the
NASA TPF mission and the ESA Darwin mission to view
extraterrestrial planets).

An MBrain can see just about *everything* within the
speed of light constraints.  In contrast if one wants
electromagnetic communications one effectively gets
only 0.5c and the speed for probes is typically cited
as 0.1c (there) and then c after you build something
capable of sending back information (still at a trickle
of what is available).  Go look at the data rates on
the current Mars probes -- highest speed is 128K bits.
Its going to take a week to get the current pictures
already taken back to us.  Do we communicate with
the probes?  Not really -- they are essentially using
their own intelligence due to the 8 minute delays
in signals to/from the probe.

If one wants probes to survive across interstellar
distances one has to build self-adaptation into them.
If one builds in self-adaptation it may be hard to
retain loyalty.  Particularly because any intelligent
entity is going to realize after 1000 years of travel
time to a star 100 l.y. distant, that whatever one
was once loyal to is unlikely to exist.  An MBrain
could have completely rearchitected itself, dispersed
itself, altered its fundamental purpose, etc. during
that time period.  So one has an extremely fine line
between sending out a probe capable of surviving and
sending out a probe capable of ones enemy.

> Worth something?  Whole libraries can be sent on
> a laser signal for next to nothing.  What makes you
> think those >2^50 bits aren't mainly archives of
> Alien Slug Porn at high resolution or something
> equally useless to someone else.  Value is in the
> eye of the beholder.

Yes, the value is in the eye of the beholder and
establishing a common dictionary between civilizations
that have gone off on very different vectors may be
very difficult.  But you are not paying attention
to the speed and costs of transmitting data across
interstellar distances.  The Library of congress
contains ~20x10^13 bits, the Web is probably slightly
more than that now, all current human memory is
perhaps 1.2x10^19 bits.  This is peanuts compared
with 2^50 bits.

Now, we are not talking a fiber cable between two
cities, we are talking a laser signal across interstellar
distances.  So, I'd suggest you sit down and calculate
the beam power required to have even a single photon
hit the receiver given dispersion and dust interference
across interstellar distances.  While I am not an
expert in these areas I would like to suggest the
cost is not "next to nothing" and the time required
to transmit even the small amount of data in the
Library of Congress is millions if not billions
of years unless one gets very clever.  (Advanced
civilizations may be able to be clever -- but there
are still limits and cost tradeoffs).

> I can only go by what little I have read.  No doubt the
> fantastic unrealistic claims get more press than those
> who are serious.  I will have to read more by those who
> are thought to be serious.

I urge this -- Drexler first proposed the gray goo scenario
in Engines of Creation (which is online at www.foresight.org)
and Robert Freitas has quantified the risks and proposed
solutions:
  http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html

Regarding gray goo and ecophagy:
> I would think that all these claims depend on the efficient
> mining of resources from the environment to enable
> self-replication. Something yet to be demonstrated and
> unlikely to be as simple as postulated.

No argument that general resource extraction will be complex
and that self-replication is simple.  But we know that
microorganisms manage self-replication with something like
350-450 genes.  That isn't a huge number given the complexity
of things that humans have built (the Apollo command module
for example).  Similarly the basic needs for gray goo such
as elements (C, N, O, H, Si) are quite available in the
environment (literally in the air, water and soil) and
energy is clearly available from the sun.

> Some of the more
> fantastic claims I've heard clearly ignored the necessity of
> mining diverse resources and the actual energy costs and
> heat losses incurred in doing so.  There are many biological
> systems which are extremely efficient.

I don't dispute this -- the ATP synthase molecular complex
in the mitochondria may have an extremely high energy conversion
efficiency (80-90%?).  Yet the overall conversion of solar
energy into useful energy by plants is on the order of 1-4%.
Solar cells are now pushing 30-40%.  So it is clear that
the energy conversion mechanisms that may be employed by
gray goo may be more efficient than natural green goo.

Regarding the elimination of superintelligences (MBrains, etc.):

> Or simply: enough hydrogen bombs hurled at them fast
> enough for long enough, or swarms of pellets fired at them
> for long enough from all directions, or enough anti-matter
> hurled long enough, or destroying it while it is small by
> any number of means, or setting off nearby stars to create
> lethal neutrino showers, or orienting parts of the blast from
> supernovas, or hitting it again and again with solid objects
> traveling near the speed of light, and so on.

Yes, there are possible paths to attack megaconstructs.  The
question then becomes could one launch any of these types of
attacks undetected?  And could one detect revenge-intelligences
deployed so as to be undetectable (in suspend mode for thousands
of years in cold/dark interstellar space or in tight orbits
around stars so as to be masked by stellar radiation (used
by Linda Nagata in Vast I think) or hidden within what otherwise
seem to be harmless bodies (asteroids, comets, moons, etc.)?

I bring to mind, the infamous saying by Kahn in one of the
Startrek episodes/movies -- "Revenge is a dish best served cold"!

> Exactly my point - WoMD will destroy the big buck brain
> before it gets very big.  Who says berserkers of one kind
> or another aren't already out there causing the
> Fermi Paradox?

The delay in the speed of light.  Using our civilization as
an example we make the transition from "primitive" to the
singularity in something like 2000-4000 years (depending on
how one defines "primitive").  We make the transition from
"non-scientific" to "scientific" in ~300 years.  So that
imply a requirement for advanced civilizations to be watching
us in very close proximity (10s to 100s of l.y.) to be able
to detect our development and send destructor-bots to eliminate
us.  Once the singularity takes off it will be too late.
It

Regarding the detection of dark, cold, distant MBrains:

> Everything is visible to spread spectrum impulse E&M.  You
> can't hide anything of that size if someone cares to look.
> If I send out trillions of spread spectrum impulse probes I
> will find anything I care to look for.  If you are large and
> lumbering once your found your dead - given sufficient
> time.

I'm not sure that I understand this claim fully.  *But*
taking it at face value if you are inside the galaxy and
an MBrain is orbiting 100,000 light years outside the galaxy
by the time you receive any signals back from such probes
you have minimal confidence that the MBrain will be where
you expect it to be.  All one has to do is execute random
course change maneuvers.  To develop an effective attack
on something with a usable mass of 10^26 kg and an energy
availability of 10^26 W most likely requires the massing
of similar or greater masses and energies.  It seems really
difficult that such activities would go undetected.  So
one could disperse the intelligence across an extremely
large volume of space forcing an increased expenditure
of resources to track the subcomponents down and eliminate
them.  It sounds like the only way to be successful is
to start out way ahead in the game.  And how far "ahead"
one can get appears to be limited by the quantity of
intelligence one can gather given limits-of-physics
delays on communication times.

> I would enjoy being informed in those areas you feel I behind in.
See:
  http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/index.html
  (a background)
  http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/index.html
  (more or less a guide to recent thoughts/papers)

> The other question is: why is my solution to the Fermi Paradox
> less plausible - since it does not depend on new science,
> big brains, or unknown nanotechnology?

If by this you mean that civilizations self-destruct, I don't consider
it less plausible.  We have been and continue to be at risk of
self-destruction and/or continually knocking ourselves back into
pre-technological states.  *But* we are also at risks from natural
hazards (from earthquakes to global warming to gamma ray bursts).
Those may knock us back as well.  Once intelligent civilizations
become aware of such hazards they will presumably develop strategies
to protect themselves from such.  Finally one has to face the
potential of intelligent external hazards.  I deal with this in
two ways.  First, one runs the risk that an intelligent remote
outpost can always turn on you (look at the United States vs.
England).  This kind of makes one think twice before one runs
off colonizing remote outposts.  Second, there is questionable
benefit to the expenditure of resources to develop remote
outposts given the quantity of information and the speed
of evolution within local entities and the fact that even
if the remote outpost discovers/invents something "wonderful"
it may be too expensive to return it to the founder.

I'm not saying that these are hard and fast rules -- but
I am saying that the delays imposed by the speed of light
and the speed of interstellar travel need to be taken into
account when thinking about these problems.

Robert




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Jan  6 18:10:51 2004
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:10:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
In-Reply-To: <20040106172111.82340.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040106172111.82340.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A95E4E26-4073-11D8-AB10-000A9591E432@bonfireproductions.com>


Mike,

Ever read Flatland?

=)

kulakovich

On Jan 6, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- randy <cryoofan at mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:14:57 -0600, you wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> One rock
>>> selected him and came straight toward him. It was a handsome rock,
>> flat on
>>> one side and brilliant while in the sunshine. A sharp edge faced him
>> and
>>> grew and grew and grew until it encompassed the whole world. >
>>
>>
>> Geez, someone's been reading a bit too much Hemingway....
>>
>> I guess RAH got the Hemingway out of his system with this book, cuz I
>> have never before noticed the similarity....
>
> What I want to know is how an edge can encompass a whole world. An edge
> is a line, i.e. it has only one dimension. What sort of non-euclidean
> trick was used to make a one dimensional geometric object encompass all
> of 3 dimensional space???
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>                                        - Mike Lorrey
> Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Jan  6 18:16:38 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: META Re: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d
	approach
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401060832200.27270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061015590.27270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Sorry folks if you are getting multiple postings -- I'll try to be
more careful.  R.




From naddy at mips.inka.de  Tue Jan  6 18:24:39 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:24:39 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0401061828340.3311@hercules>
Message-ID: <bteuh7$76d$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at
> or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees C. (Above that point,
> it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

Well, we don't know about the pressure in Hell, do we?

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 18:39:56 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Hell
In-Reply-To: <bteuh7$76d$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <20040106183956.89058.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:
> Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> 
> > A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must
> be at
> > or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees C. (Above that
> point,
> > it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
> 
> Well, we don't know about the pressure in Hell, do we?

Considering that more souls go to hell than demons come to earth (an
assumption, I grant), it follows that it is likely that Hell has a
lower pressure than Earth.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jan  6 19:07:36 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:07:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] gastro-physics
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
	<001301c3d47f$f4b95e70$94b91b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <000601c3d488$5966dca0$94b91b97@administxl09yj>

On 'Physics Education', n. 1/Jan.2004,
http://www.iop.org/EJ/toc/0031-9120/39/1 
there are many papers about 'gastro-physics',
that is to say, new foods, new tastes,
molecular fine-tuned cooking, etc.
See, i.e., the paper by this (famous) Italian
'gastro-physicist'
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0031-9120/39/1/M06/pe4_1_m06.pdf

s.

- registration (create account) required at 
http://www.iop.org/EJ/passwd/help/-topic=enhanced/journal/PhysEd
if you want to download current papers -



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Jan  6 19:07:09 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:07:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0401061828340.3311@hercules>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE35EjQxzmWec000242fb@hotmail.com>

Nice work! lol :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alfio Puglisi" <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hell


>
> I once found this, somewhere on Usenet:
>
> EAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL
>
>   "The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our
> authority is the Bible:
>
> Isaiah 30:26 reads, "Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light
> of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of
> seven days."
>
> Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does
> from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much
> as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we
> receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from
> the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the
> temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the
> point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received
> by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the
> earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for
> radiation:
>
>      (H/E)^4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the earth,
>      300 degrees K (273+27). This gives H, the absolute temperature
>      of heaven, as 798 degrees absolute (525 degrees C).
>
> The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than
> 444.6 degrees C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from
> a liquid to a gas.
>
> Revelations 21:8: "But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their
> part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
>
> A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at
> or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees C. (Above that point,
> it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
>
> We have then, temperature of heaven, 525 degrees C (977 degrees F).
> Temperature of hell, less than 444.6 degrees C (832.3 degrees F).
>
> Therefore heaven is hotter than hell."
>
>
> Ciao,
> Alfio
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jan  6 19:14:56 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:14:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
Message-ID: <174210-22004126191456532@M2W060.mail2web.com>

Wow! You *all* are very, very clever indeed.

loling

Natasha


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From jcorb at iol.ie  Tue Jan  6 19:39:53 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:39:53 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] CLONE: Seeking contacts for organ cloning 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106190923.032f07b0@pop.iol.ie>

Very sorry to hear of your Mum's troubles, Mike.  I seem to remember you 
mentioning her on your blogsite, didn't realize it was to this extent.  I 
know what it's like to watch a parent go through such difficulties, I hope 
things improve for her.

As for research, I'm afraid I'm a dead end, really sorry.  My understanding 
is that the intestine is a pretty uniform organ along its length, so it 
sounds like a good candidate for stem cell growth on a polymer scaffold as 
they do with arteries.  Perhaps by growing several sections simultaneously 
to acheive long length very quickly, joining them as they grow.

Please pardon my musings, I hope someone else here can point to some 
positive WIP.




James...


>------------------------------
>Message: 20
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:28:28 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] CLONE: Seeking contacts for organ cloning
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <20040105182829.78544.qmail at web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>As many of you know, my mother has had a rather rough year with a
>botched gastro bypass operation. Her current condition is that she has
>4' of small intestine, 1/3 of her original colon, with a colostomy bag,
>and requires 24 hour care. She is also developing an increasing
>encephalopathy condition that is likely tied to the lack of intestines
>providing insufficient nutrition for her brain, despite supplements and
>thrice daily injections of protien nutrient mix through a G tube into
>the lower stapled off area of her stomach.
>Her mental condition is spotty memory, a lack of ability to maintain a
>consistent train of thought, language problems in selecting the wrong
>words, lethargy, depression, phantom pain in her gut (like amputees
>experience), and when her electrolytes get off she hallucinates living
>in a different house with a different family, her dead father, among
>other things.
>I am increasingly of the opinion that she is going to need an
>intestinal transplant to regain her ability to digest sufficient
>nutrition, possibly get her intestine cloned. Can anyone point to
>researchers working in this area, such as those growing cloned organs
>in pigs or in a dish, etc.???
>=====
>Mike Lorrey
>"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>- Gen. John Stark
>"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>- Mike Lorrey
>Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
>Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
>http://search.yahoo.com/top2003




From jcorb at iol.ie  Tue Jan  6 19:56:25 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:56:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106194742.0334e920@pop.iol.ie>


>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:13:20 -0600
> >From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <002701c3d3d9$22740a60$8c994a43 at texas.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > > From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:49 PM
> > >
> > > > Does the author have a website?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > What's the URL?
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> > The Consensus:-
> > The political party for the new millennium
>Forgive my bluntness, but...
>You're planning to run the United Kingdom, and you can't get Google to work?

Somebody's gotta use that in their sig :O)



James...



From jcorb at iol.ie  Tue Jan  6 20:03:37 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:03:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: New Light-emitting Transistor Could
 Revolutionize Electronics Industry
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106195855.0334ea70@pop.iol.ie>

Interesting this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040106082752.htm


>CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - Put the inventor of the light-emitting diode and the 
>maker of the world's fastest transistor together in a research laboratory 
>and what kinds of bright ideas might surface? One answer is a 
>light-emitting transistor that could revolutionize the electronics industry.
>Professors Nick Holonyak Jr. and Milton Feng at the University of Illinois 
>at Urbana-Champaign have uncovered a light-emitting transistor that could 
>make the transistor the fundamental element in optoelectronics as well as 
>in electronics. The scientists report their discovery in the Jan. 5 issue 
>of the journal Applied Physics Letters.

and

>Although the recombination process is the same as that which occurs in 
>light-emitting diodes, the photons in light-emitting transistors are 
>generated under much higher speed conditions. So far, the researchers have 
>demonstrated the modulation of light emission in phase with a base current 
>in transistors operating at a frequency of 1 megahertz. Much higher speeds 
>are considered certain.
>"At such speeds, optical interconnects could replace electrical wiring 
>between electronic components on a circuit board," Feng said. This work 
>could be the beginning of an era in which photons are directed around a 
>chip in much the same fashion as electrons have been maneuvered on 
>conventional chips.

It it can be marketed, it might reverse the trend to move to high speed 
serial busses in PCs back to multibit-wide datapaths, 'cept without the 
crosstalk nightmare.




James....



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Jan  6 20:00:49 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:00:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living
In-Reply-To: <20040106180707.79714.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040106172111.82340.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040106141859.01c61e88@mail.comcast.net>

At 10:07 AM 1/6/2004 -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

>General trick: when someone seems to spout nonsense or
>impossibilities, see if there are alternate meanings
>of certain terms which, when used instead, would make
>what is said make sense.  If so, then it is most
>likely the case that this alternate was what was
>meant.

But it's not as much fun.

Harlan Ellison once wrote of his penchant for deliberate mishearing. The 
example he cited was: on seeing a sign for a Chinese hand laundry, he 
imagined a washing machine with tumbling Chinese hands.

Since I read this some decades ago, I have cultivated this knack myself. 
It's most entertaining when you have someone similarly warped to riff with.

4 -- alternate meaning is generated with the same meaning of the same words 
but a different intonation
3 -- different sense of one or more words
2 -- relying on homonyms
1 -- non-homonym puns

Besides its recreational side, it can be an effective source of story or 
product ideas.  Also, if you are writing something you want to be taken 
seriously -- a product name, a campaign slogan, a soundbite for the evening 
news -- it's useful to consider how your opposition (or Jay Leno) can 
misconstrue what you wrote.

And I think it has nootropic benefits.

Similar exercise: choose two words at random.

(a) Come up with a real-world linkage between them; or
(b) Come up with a fantasy or sf interpretation of their combination.

Or, take a random noun.  Put a technology buzzword, like "virtual," 
"remote," "collaborative," or "nano" in front of it.  See if the 
combination is new, interesting, and useful.

Any other techniques y'all use to limber up your creativity and imagination?


-- David Lubkin.

"somewhere between genius and a toaster"




From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jan  6 20:29:57 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:29:57 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106194742.0334e920@pop.iol.ie>
Message-ID: <02a401c3d493$dba96a60$62256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Corbally" <jcorb at iol.ie>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> > > > > Does the author have a website?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > What's the URL?
> > >
> > > Dirk
> > >
> > > The Consensus:-
> > > The political party for the new millennium
> >Forgive my bluntness, but...
> >You're planning to run the United Kingdom, and you can't get Google to
work?
>
> Somebody's gotta use that in their sig :O)


Somebody should read the thread and discover that the question asked was not
the question answered.
Since you're so smart why not tell me how google can return a non-existent
URL?

He has a homepage - HE DOES NOT HAVE A WEBSITE (as far as anyone here
knows).
Can you understand the subtle difference? Can you now understand the
question?

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Jan  6 20:58:10 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:58:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106194742.0334e920@pop.iol.ie>
	<02a401c3d493$dba96a60$62256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <013601c3d497$cdeb3580$e3b13841@texas.net>


> He has a homepage - HE DOES NOT HAVE A WEBSITE (as far as anyone here
> knows).
> Can you understand the subtle difference? Can you now understand the
> question?

Website - A virtual location on the web. A URL that serves as the top-level
address of a Web site will be said to point to that website's home page.
That page serves as a reference point, containing pointers to additional
HTML pages or links to other Web site.
www.conxion.com/technology/glossary.asp

Home Page (or Homepage) - Several meanings. Originally, the web page that
your browser is set to use when it starts up. The more common meaning refers
to the main web page for a business, organization, person or simply the main
page out of a collection of web pages, e.g. "Check out so-and-so's new Home
Page." See also: Browser, WWW
www.matisse.net/files/glossary.html

Google is so helpful.

I provided Mr Wright's email address. Perhaps he knows the answer.

Damien Broderick



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 21:06:28 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Hell
In-Reply-To: <bteuh7$76d$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <20040106210628.60398.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

--- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:

> Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> 
> > A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its
> temperature must be at
> > or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees
> C. (Above that point,
> > it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
> 
> Well, we don't know about the pressure in Hell, do
> we?

Actually we can make an educated guess, if we take it
as axiomatic that hell is down inside the earth
somewhere.  By googling up temperature vs depth and
pressure vs depth profiles, we could set an upper and
lower bound.

Clearly, hell is not at or near the surface,(though
some would dispute this on based on human suffering
and rampant stupidity) cause it's too cold.

I haven't got those temp and pressure profiles close
at hand, nor the phase diagram for sulfur, so I can't
be more helpful.  Sorry.

Best, Jeff Davis

           "I thought I was taller."*
                           Milton Berle

* Punch line to a sight gag.  Uncle Milty raises his
stogey as if to take a puff, then jabs his forehead
with the chewed-on end, and says,..."


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 21:17:51 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:17:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
In-Reply-To: <02a401c3d493$dba96a60$62256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040106211751.44364.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "J Corbally" <jcorb at iol.ie>
> To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
> 
> 
> > > > > > Does the author have a website?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > What's the URL?
> > > >
> > > > Dirk
> > > >
> > > > The Consensus:-
> > > > The political party for the new millennium
> > >Forgive my bluntness, but...
> > >You're planning to run the United Kingdom, and you can't get
> Google to
> work?
> >
> > Somebody's gotta use that in their sig :O)
> 
> 
> Somebody should read the thread and discover that the question asked
> was not
> the question answered.
> Since you're so smart why not tell me how google can return a
> non-existent
> URL?

Don't need a nonexistent URL, you need to google:
http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/

No wonder you don't like libertarians, you won't get off your own duff
to google something.

> 
> He has a homepage - HE DOES NOT HAVE A WEBSITE (as far as anyone here
> knows).
> Can you understand the subtle difference? Can you now understand the
> question?

Website and home page are not necessarily different things. Nor is a
site what you asked for, you asked first whether he had a site, then
you asked for a URL. The URL referenced above is a site (notice, no
".html" file specified), not a home page, which would be either
index.html or home.html, or index.php, or something of that sort.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jan  6 21:20:57 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:20:57 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040106194742.0334e920@pop.iol.ie><02a401c3d493$dba96a60$62256bd5@artemis>
	<013601c3d497$cdeb3580$e3b13841@texas.net>
Message-ID: <02d601c3d49a$f9b6ba60$62256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


>
> > He has a homepage - HE DOES NOT HAVE A WEBSITE (as far as anyone here
> > knows).
> > Can you understand the subtle difference? Can you now understand the
> > question?
>
> Website - A virtual location on the web. A URL that serves as the
top-level
> address of a Web site will be said to point to that website's home page.
> That page serves as a reference point, containing pointers to additional
> HTML pages or links to other Web site.
> www.conxion.com/technology/glossary.asp
>
> Home Page (or Homepage) - Several meanings. Originally, the web page that
> your browser is set to use when it starts up. The more common meaning
refers
> to the main web page for a business, organization, person or simply the
main
> page out of a collection of web pages, e.g. "Check out so-and-so's new
Home
> Page." See also: Browser, WWW
> www.matisse.net/files/glossary.html
>
> Google is so helpful.
>
> I provided Mr Wright's email address. Perhaps he knows the answer.

Every time I come across someone like you I recall why I left Mensa 25yrs
ago.
You strike me as someone who likes to show how clever they are instead of
being willing to read between the lines and helping.
Right down to the trademark Mensa debating ploy of quoting a dictionary and
trying for a 'semantic win'.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 21:25:36 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Hell
In-Reply-To: <20040106210628.60398.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040106212536.94431.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Extropes,
> 
> --- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:
> 
> > Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> > 
> > > A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its
> > temperature must be at
> > > or below the boiling point, which is 444.6 degrees
> > C. (Above that point,
> > > it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
> > 
> > Well, we don't know about the pressure in Hell, do
> > we?
> 
> Actually we can make an educated guess, if we take it
> as axiomatic that hell is down inside the earth
> somewhere.  By googling up temperature vs depth and
> pressure vs depth profiles, we could set an upper and
> lower bound.

Ah, yes, didn't account for gravity in the soul v demon immigration
situation. However, you must consider that the pressure must be low
enough for sulphur to be liquid (and the temp as well).

Using similar logic, I find that it is a bit difficult to actually
place where heaven is. The claim that in heaven the moon is as bright
as the sun is on earth implies that heaven is somewhere in lunar orbit,
but to say the sun is seven times brighter than on earth implies that
it is somewhere inside of the orbit of Venus, since the solar flux in
lunar orbit is only 1.4 times that on earth. Are we sure that the
original hebrew said "THE moon" and not just "A moon"??? Perhaps it is
a different star system altogether. Then again, is it restricted only
to visible light?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jan  6 21:26:07 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:26:07 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
References: <20040106211751.44364.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02e401c3d49b$b280c9f0$62256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence


> > > > > > > Does the author have a website?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > What's the URL?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dirk
> > > > >
> > > > > The Consensus:-
> > > > > The political party for the new millennium
> > > >Forgive my bluntness, but...
> > > >You're planning to run the United Kingdom, and you can't get
> > Google to
> > work?
> > >
> > > Somebody's gotta use that in their sig :O)
> >
> >
> > Somebody should read the thread and discover that the question asked
> > was not
> > the question answered.
> > Since you're so smart why not tell me how google can return a
> > non-existent
> > URL?
>
> Don't need a nonexistent URL, you need to google:
> http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/
>
> No wonder you don't like libertarians, you won't get off your own duff
> to google something.

Did it, got that URL some time before I asked the question.

> > He has a homepage - HE DOES NOT HAVE A WEBSITE (as far as anyone here
> > knows).
> > Can you understand the subtle difference? Can you now understand the
> > question?

> Website and home page are not necessarily different things. Nor is a
> site what you asked for, you asked first whether he had a site, then
> you asked for a URL. The URL referenced above is a site (notice, no
> ".html" file specified), not a home page, which would be either
> index.html or home.html, or index.php, or something of that sort.

Are you all retards here?
Unable to see what the question is without a dictionary?
You another Mensa member?

Have some free info -
http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/
is shorthand for
http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/index.html

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

or

http://www.theconsensus.org/index.html



From aperick at centurytel.net  Tue Jan  6 20:28:08 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:28:08 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein for real
In-Reply-To: <200401061908.i06J8mE30410@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d493$99d24080$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

After reading Heinlein (Stranger..., Friday, etc.) has any of you ever
gotten seriously enthusiastic about Polyamory? 

Edify me in public, or sympathize off-list if you fear ridicule. 

PS: Hella good postings today, I love you guys.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Closet nudist, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed
Atheist, radical thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed
singular authority on the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we
few lack. "Happy Happy, Joy Joy" http://home.centurytel.net/rickw
aperick at centurytel.net






From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Jan  6 21:44:38 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:44:38 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
Message-ID: <3FFB2C46.7010203@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

According to Snopes this piece of humor first appeared on the Internet
around 1997 and many variations have spread around since then.
But it has a much older history.

<http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp>

---------
Origins:   The piece quoted above likely began as a humor post to the
newsgroup rec.humor in 1997. Its roots, however, are far older: an
unattributed parody of a scientific proof concluding Heaven was hotter
than Hell appeared in a 1972 edition of Applied Optics, a story found in
a 1962 book (reprinted from a 1960 magazine) is a mathematical "proof"
that heaven is hotter than hell, and article published in a 1979 edition
of the Journal of Irreproducible Results written by Dr. Tim Healey
(written as a response to the Applied Optics piece) carried the joke one
step farther by arguing that Hell was hotter still. Though these older
pieces don't directly correlate with what has now become a standardized
bit of Internet lore, the themes are similar enough for us to postulate
that the older versions sparked the newer ones.
---------

Applied Optics article 1972 and
Journal of Irreproducible Results written by Dr. Tim Healey 1979

<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm>


Also See: Amusing things I've Found on the Net

<http://www.mit.edu/people/ngrier/humor.html>

which contains some nice bumper stickers, such as:
Jesus is coming, everyone look busy.

and

Great Rules for writing from William Safire in the New York Times.
(which Damien will undoubtedly find very useful)  ;)

e.g. It is incumbent on one to avoid archaisms.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
The verb, overlooked on many occasions have to agree with the subject.
Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of
10 or more words, to their antecedents.


BillK






From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Jan  6 21:57:18 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:57:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401061828340.3311@hercules>
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0401061828340.3311@hercules>
Message-ID: <3FFB2F3E.7080108@mindspring.com>


Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> Isaiah 30:26 reads, "Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light
> of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of
> seven days."
> 
> Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does
> from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much
> as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all.

   I had considered a different interpretation.  In the quoted bit, it
doesn't say that the light of the sun *per day* is sevenfold the light
of seven days, but rather during some unspecified time period, the light
would be that intense, making it potentially much brighter.

   I know Isaiah always followed SI guidelines for proper notation of
physical quantities, and he would have kept the "per day" if he meant
it, and that's the only way the dimensions would come out conformal.

   I did another lookup in a literal translation, and it says:

   "And the light of the moon hath been as the light of the sun, And the
light of the sun is sevenfold, As the light of seven days, In the day of
Jehovah's binding up the breach of His people, When the stroke of its
wound He healeth."

   As this states that the sun is that bright *per day* it was clear
that it was 49 times brighter.  Lousy editors always fuddlin' the
scientists' units.  I know thee well.

   However, I have to note that this whole analysis is based on a flawed
premise--reading the surrounding passage, it's clear that Isaiah isn't
talking about heaven at all, but an event that will occur on earth.
This makes the numbers easier to reconcile--one could, in the future,
come up with a configuration where the moon has moved further from the
earth due to tidal kneading and such, and the sun has swollen into a red
giant which delivers more power to the earth, or something.

   Exact numerical analysis of the stellar evolution cycle and lunar
orbit decay to predict when this will actually happen are left as an
exercise to the reader, or biblical scholar who, knowing well every
thought and intention of God, will find this problem trivial.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Jan  6 22:00:59 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:00:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
Message-ID: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>


   In the spirit of the recent calculations of heaven and hell, I humbly
submit a mathematical analysis that I once made about surviving another
Biblical flood.

   The context that led to all of this was that someone stated that
during the flood, "it would have been a good time to be a duck."

-------

   Hmmm... I wondered about that a bit... would a duck have survived a
Great Flood?  The rainfall rate, as seen below, was quite vigorous.  I
just did a bit of research and found that the bible was quite clear on
this point:

    "All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of
cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man.  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of
all that was in the dry land, died."  (Genesis 7:21-22)

    Sorry, Mr. Ducky.  But that's pretty clear.

    I guess that just leaves sea animals.  How many fish would have been
killed?  Let's see.  The bible is also quite precise in its measurement
of the flood.  Genesis 7:19-20 states that "And the waters prevailed
exceedingly upon the earth; and all the mountains, that were under the
whole heaven, were covered.  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters
prevail; and the mountains were covered."

    Okay, so the highest mountains of the earth were covered, plus an
extra 15 cubits (approx 27 feet) for good measure.  The current
measurements for highest mountain is Mt. Everest at 29030.8 feet
(according to the highly dubious and utterly non-trustable 2002 Guinness
Book of World Records.)

     I know that Everest is growing slowly, (best estimates are 2.4
inches/year) so we'll discount for that.  (It makes very little
difference in any case.)  I'm using my "Frink" calculating tool (
http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/ ) to find out what this comes out
to.  In Frink notation, this is:

    depth = 29030 feet + 15 biblicalcubits - (2.4 inches/year 4000 years)

    About 28257 feet of water.  This was deposited over 40 days.  The
rainfall was thus:

    rainfall = depth / (40 days)

    Or about 353 inches/hour, or 29 feet/hour.  A good rain around here
is about an inch an hour.  The very rainiest places on earth get about
this much rain in a *year*.  (I'm campaigning Colorado farmers to sin a
bit more...)

    To see if this is a fatal rainfall, one could put a duck in a bucket
(say, a big bucket with a water surface area of 1 square foot, and pour
3.7 gallons of water on him every minute for 40 days and see if he
enjoys it, or repents.  Poor ducky.  I don't think *I* would do this to
him, no matter what bad things he did.

   That's a huge amount of water to add to the planet.  Over the surface
of the earth, this is an approximate additional water volume of:

    floodvolume = 4 pi earthradius2 depth

    This is about 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of water added to the earth.

    Several sources give the current volume of the earth's oceans as
about 1.37 billion cubic kilometers.

    oceanvolume = 1.37 billion cubic kilometers

    The volume attributed to the flood is about *3.2 times* the volume
of the water in earth's oceans.  Thus, the salinity of the water
(assuming the flood waters were fresh water) would be reduced to a
factor of:

    oceanvolume / (floodvolume + oceanvolume)

    Or, to a salinity of only about 24% of the ocean's original value.
Any sea fish or freshwater fish that couldn't live in this new altered
salinity for at least 150 days would die.  The lakes and oceans would of
course become one giant ocean covering the planet.  (The exact amount of
mixing of the layers is left as a problem for the biblical scholar.)  I
don't know how many fish this would kill; does anyone?

    And think of the change in ocean pressure!  Adding over 28000 feet
of water column would increase ocean pressure by:

    depth water gravity -> psi

    Or over 12,000 pounds per square inch increase in pressure at any
given level in the former oceans!  This is about 833 atmospheres of
pressure!  Every fish that didn't start swimming upward would tend to be
crushed by the pressure.   A fish accustomed to living near the surface,
if it stayed in the same spot, would soon find itself under pressures as
high as the bottom of the ocean is now.  How fast does the pressure
increase?

    rainfall gravity water -> psi/hour

    About 12 psi/hour or .87 atmospheres/hour.  Most fish could take
this rate of increase over a short period, but would probably have to
make up their mind early to start moving on up.

    A quick look at standard Navy decompression tables hints that if a
clever human tried to ride out the great flood by remaining underwater,
they would have to keep swimming upward pretty constantly.   When you're
adding 29 feet of water every hour, it would be quite easy to get behind
to a point that you couldn't ever catch up.

    It probably wasn't fun to be a fish or a bottom-dwelling creature at
that time, either.  They might die by:

    * Salinity changes
    * Pressure changes

    What else?

    So where did the water come from and where did it go to?  Creating
this much water from energy at this rate (E=mc2) would require a power
output *652 trillion times* the amount of power that the earth receives
from the sun.  No half-measure, this flood.

----

    P.S.  I learned something else from this.  Here's a good trivia
question to spring on your favorite biblical scholar:  "how many animals
of each type did Noah take with him on the ark?"  I found out from this
research that the answer isn't what I thought it was.  I sprung this on
my mom, who has been teaching religious education classes for 26 years
and she didn't know it.  (No, it's not the usual "How many animals did
Moses bring on the ark" trick question.)  It's not at all a trick
question--it seems that the bible has been quoted incorrectly in the
popular literature.  I wonder how many people would get this right?  For
the answer, read Genesis 7:2-3.  To make it more specific, you can ask
"how many ducks did Noah take on the ark?"

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift



From extropy at audry2.com  Tue Jan  6 23:12:19 2004
From: extropy at audry2.com (Major)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:12:19 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein for real
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d493$99d24080$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>
	(aperick@centurytel.net)
References: <000001c3d493$99d24080$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>
Message-ID: <200401062312.i06NCJv02552@igor.synonet.com>


> [...] has any of you ever gotten seriously enthusiastic about Polyamory?
> 
> PS: Hella good postings today, I love you guys.

All of us?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Major


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue Jan  6 22:12:08 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:12:08 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
References: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401062307100.25957@hercules>

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Alan Eliasen wrote:

>question to spring on your favorite biblical scholar:  "how many animals
>of each type did Noah take with him on the ark?"  I found out from this
>research that the answer isn't what I thought it was.  I sprung this on

Lots more than 2 per species. He needed to feed the carnivores, that is :)
There was a small garden in the rear section of the ship for the
herbivores.

You know, before the flood, the duckirott and papris where the common farm
animals, much better than the pig.  But, Noah only took 2 of each with
him, and staying on a boat for all that time made him very hungry.

Ciao,
Alfio


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 22:49:47 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
In-Reply-To: <02e401c3d49b$b280c9f0$62256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <20040106224947.68976.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you all retards here?
> Unable to see what the question is without a dictionary?
> You another Mensa member?

Nope, though I am a comp-sci major and have an IQ of 160, thank you
very much. I know the difference between a website and a home page.
Someone obviously has led you to the delusion that only domain names
are websites. This is incorrect.

> 
> Have some free info -
> http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/
> is shorthand for
> http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/index.html

The first URL is the website, a directory called 'people/john-c-wright'
which the www.sff.net domain name is pointed to by the sff.net apache
or IIS server. The home page specified by the second URL resides within
that directory.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jan  6 22:53:13 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wordplay
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040106141859.01c61e88@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040106225313.19155.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> At 10:07 AM 1/6/2004 -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >General trick: when someone seems to spout nonsense
> or
> >impossibilities, see if there are alternate
> meanings
> >of certain terms which, when used instead, would
> make
> >what is said make sense.  If so, then it is most
> >likely the case that this alternate was what was
> >meant.
> 
> But it's not as much fun.

True.  This appears to be one of those unfortunate
cases where business and pleasure conflict.  Both are,
of course, important: one should know how to have fun
as well as how to accomplish serious tasks, else both
abilities will be impaired.  (The effect of fun and
sociability on improved business relations has long
been documented, and then there's the reduced
potential for pleasure when one's practical resources
are severely constrained.)

> Besides its recreational side, it can be an
> effective source of story or 
> product ideas.  Also, if you are writing something
> you want to be taken 
> seriously -- a product name, a campaign slogan, a
> soundbite for the evening 
> news -- it's useful to consider how your opposition
> (or Jay Leno) can 
> misconstrue what you wrote.

Quite true.

> And I think it has nootropic benefits.

It's been proven that minds in happy states tend to
positively influence all manner of generic health
measures, especially ability of the immune system.
Also, developing minds in situations where they are
happy - for instance, children with lots of things to
play with, rather than subjected to repetitive and
dull tasks - tend to correlate to minds that will
develop more extensively.

> Similar exercise: choose two words at random.
> 
> (a) Come up with a real-world linkage between them;
> or
> (b) Come up with a fantasy or sf interpretation of
> their combination.

Casimir tap: a cylinder of mirrored wires and
non-mirrored insulation arranged so the Casimir effect
will draw the wires together in such a way that the
wires keep spinning around each other.  Inside a
magnetic field, this would be a perpetual electricity
generator...so long as the energy had somewhere to go,
rather than arcing between the wires and eventually
melting the device.

Of course, in reality, this would probably just be
another perpetual motion device.  (See the long
history of such.)

> Or, take a random noun.  Put a technology buzzword,
> like "virtual," 
> "remote," "collaborative," or "nano" in front of it.
>  See if the 
> combination is new, interesting, and useful.

Nanogoogle.  (Okay, "google" - without the G - is more
of a verb than a noun...but, any takes?)

> Any other techniques y'all use to limber up your
> creativity and imagination?

I tend to think of my imagination as trained since
childhood.  I am a dreamer by profession.  I
occasionally write (usually but not always short)
stories and invent gadgets (sometimes in fantasy/sf
settings, using what's known about the capabilities
available; sometimes in reality, as an excuse to
research and learn what capabilities are available) to
keep that training up.


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 23:02:29 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040106230229.85742.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Alan Eliasen <eliasen at mindspring.com> wrote:

"Okay, so the highest mountains of the earth were
covered, plus an extra 15 cubits (approx 27 feet) for
good measure.

The current measurements for highest mountain is Mt.
Everest at 29030.8 feet (according to the highly
dubious and utterly non-trustable 2002 Guinness
Book of World Records.)"

         ------------------------------

Your use of Everest here doesn't seem right.  The
authors of the scriptures likely were speaking of the
"known" world, that is, the world known to them. 
Supposing them to have been native to what we now call
the mideast, the Himalayas would probably not have
been known to them.  Consequently, I suggest the
following method for determining the height of the
highest mountain within the world known to the authors
of the Biblical flood story.

Consider the expanse of the known world at the time,
and take the highest mountain within that region. 

Or, take the location of Noah's home town as the
starting point and Ararat as the ending point. 
Calculate the rate of drift--to my knowledge, the arc 
wasn't a sailboat, so speed derived in the
conventional fashion based on hull speed, and power,
doesn't apply here--of the arc based on its
dimensions, load factor, upper bound on wind speed,
and use this to calculate the maximum distance the arc
could have traveled, out and back as it were, on its
way to Ararat.  Then use this as the radius of a
circle(actually Noah's home town and Ararat would be
the foci of an ellipse) encompassing the region to
which the biblical authors could have been referring. 


The biblical authors must have been descendents of
Noah, as all the rest of the people of the known world
are presumed to have drowned.  And the more limited
view of the flood that I am suggesting seems likely,
since Chinese and African peoples either survived--the
more likely conclusion--or evolved subsequently from
Noah's descendents.  Given the large number of Chinese
people compared to semites (ie spawn of Noah), I would
have to go with survived and prospered rather than
evolved, migrated, prospered and reproduced like,
well, er,... Chinese).

Anyway, derive a "highest mountain on earth" by this
method and then recalculate the rainfall rate.

It takes a village to make a village idiot. ;-}

Best, Jeff Davis

    I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical 
    thing is usually to change those beliefs that 
    cause the most immediate trouble...
                      Daniel Ust


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Jan  6 23:04:14 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
In-Reply-To: <20040106211751.44364.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061343340.26344-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Website and home page are not necessarily different things. Nor is a
> site what you asked for, you asked first whether he had a site, then you
> asked for a URL. The URL referenced above is a site (notice, no ".html"
> file specified), not a home page, which would be either index.html or
> home.html, or index.php, or something of that sort.

I don't know ... just because the URL doesn't specify a particular file
doesn't mean that it isn't referring specifically to a home page.  URLs
that don't specify page can refer to a whole web site, or can just be
shorthand for the URL of the index page.  And personally, I refuse to use
the term "site" for anything that involves less than two pages.



From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Jan  6 23:15:51 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:15:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory tabs
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061343340.26344-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <025c01c3d4ab$089e6400$e3b13841@texas.net>

This might be old news, but it's kinda cool:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/06/1073268003915.html

CDs could be obsolete in five years
London
January 6, 2004


Compact discs could be history in five years, superceded by a new generation
of fingertip-sized memory tabs with no moving parts.
Each device could store more than a gigabyte of information - equivalent to
1000 high quality images - in one cubic centimetre of space.
Scientists have developed the technology by melding together organic and
inorganic materials in a unique way. They say it could be used to produce a
single-use memory card that permanently stores data and is faster and easier
to operate than a CD.
Turning the invention into a commercially viable, mass marketed product
might take as little as five years, the proponents claim. The card would not
involve any moving parts, such as the laser and motor drive required by
compact discs. [etc]




From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jan  6 23:23:41 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:23:41 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory tabs
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061343340.26344-100000@hplx.net>
	<025c01c3d4ab$089e6400$e3b13841@texas.net>
Message-ID: <033c01c3d4ac$1f02b380$62256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory tabs


> This might be old news, but it's kinda cool:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/06/1073268003915.html
>
> CDs could be obsolete in five years
> London
> January 6, 2004
>
>
> Compact discs could be history in five years, superceded by a new
generation
> of fingertip-sized memory tabs with no moving parts.
> Each device could store more than a gigabyte of information - equivalent
to
> 1000 high quality images - in one cubic centimetre of space.
> Scientists have developed the technology by melding together organic and
> inorganic materials in a unique way. They say it could be used to produce
a
> single-use memory card that permanently stores data and is faster and
easier
> to operate than a CD.

30yrs ago they were called 'fusible link PROMs'
Now its the same idea, but in plastic (but still requiring a silicon
interface).
That progress.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jan  6 23:30:02 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:30:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] *Annual* SL4 CHAT: Wed Jan 7th, 9PM EST
Message-ID: <3FFB44FA.3090207@pobox.com>

SL4's second Annual Chat will be on Wednesday, January 7th, 2004, at 9PM 
EST.  In accordance with SL4 tradition, our Annual Chat will be twice as 
intelligent as our ordinary monthly chat.  Those of you who never get 
around to visiting #sl4 might want to try dropping by.

The suggested topic for the annual chat is "Things transhumanists are 
doing wrong."  (Experience suggests that this topic will last all of 5 
minutes before being abandoned.)

To participate through a standard IRC client, connect to "sl4.org" on a
standard IRC port (for example, 6667) and join channel #sl4.
     irc://sl4.org/sl4

To participate through Java applet, point your browser at:
     http://sl4.org/chat/

To clear up any confusion about timezones, go to
     http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java
to see the current time in Atlanta, GA.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Jan  6 23:45:27 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:45:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <20040106230229.85742.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040106230229.85742.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FFB4897.1020304@mindspring.com>


   Ummm... just to be sure, did you somehow interpret this satire as
serious attempts at science?  Or were your comments to be treated as
good-natured satire as well, including the orders for me to revise my
work and the insult at the end?  Hope it's the latter.

   In any case, the bible doesn't say anything about *Mount* Ararat; the
original name Urartu was the name for a region of what is now in Turkey,
Iran, and Armenia.  Just for the record.

   In any case, a flood that covered the entire globe to a height of
about 17,000 feet (it would have to; water don't glob up that high like
a raindrop on a car hood) and only rained 60% as hard (17 feet an hour!)
would still tend to make one repent pretty quick.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift

Jeff Davis wrote:
> --- Alan Eliasen <eliasen at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> "Okay, so the highest mountains of the earth were
> covered, plus an extra 15 cubits (approx 27 feet) for
> good measure.
> 
> The current measurements for highest mountain is Mt.
> Everest at 29030.8 feet (according to the highly
> dubious and utterly non-trustable 2002 Guinness
> Book of World Records.)"
> 
>          ------------------------------
> 
> Your use of Everest here doesn't seem right.  The
> authors of the scriptures likely were speaking of the
> "known" world, that is, the world known to them. 
> Supposing them to have been native to what we now call
> the mideast, the Himalayas would probably not have
> been known to them.  Consequently, I suggest the
> following method for determining the height of the
> highest mountain within the world known to the authors
> of the Biblical flood story.
> 
> Consider the expanse of the known world at the time,
> and take the highest mountain within that region. 
> 
> Or, take the location of Noah's home town as the
> starting point and Ararat as the ending point. 
> Calculate the rate of drift--to my knowledge, the arc 
> wasn't a sailboat, so speed derived in the
> conventional fashion based on hull speed, and power,
> doesn't apply here--of the arc based on its
> dimensions, load factor, upper bound on wind speed,
> and use this to calculate the maximum distance the arc
> could have traveled, out and back as it were, on its
> way to Ararat.  Then use this as the radius of a
> circle(actually Noah's home town and Ararat would be
> the foci of an ellipse) encompassing the region to
> which the biblical authors could have been referring. 
> 
> 
> The biblical authors must have been descendents of
> Noah, as all the rest of the people of the known world
> are presumed to have drowned.  And the more limited
> view of the flood that I am suggesting seems likely,
> since Chinese and African peoples either survived--the
> more likely conclusion--or evolved subsequently from
> Noah's descendents.  Given the large number of Chinese
> people compared to semites (ie spawn of Noah), I would
> have to go with survived and prospered rather than
> evolved, migrated, prospered and reproduced like,
> well, er,... Chinese).
> 
> Anyway, derive a "highest mountain on earth" by this
> method and then recalculate the rainfall rate.
> 
> It takes a village to make a village idiot. ;-}
> 
> Best, Jeff Davis
> 
>     I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical 
>     thing is usually to change those beliefs that 
>     cause the most immediate trouble...
>                       Daniel Ust
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  7 00:38:08 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory tabs
In-Reply-To: <025c01c3d4ab$089e6400$e3b13841@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20040107003808.93684.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> This might be old news, but it's kinda cool:
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/06/1073268003915.html
> 
> CDs could be obsolete in five years
> London
> January 6, 2004
> 
> 
> Compact discs could be history in five years, superceded by a new
> generation of fingertip-sized memory tabs with no moving parts.

Who wants to bet that the packaging in the stores won't shrink one bit?

Let me see, though: you can already buy 512MB SUB thumb drives, which
isn't that much smaller than a CD already. Perhaps this article should
have been dated 2001?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Jan  7 00:51:22 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:51:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <20040106230229.85742.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040106185802.02d8f008@mail.comcast.net>

At 03:02 PM 1/6/2004 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

>The biblical authors must have been descendents of
>Noah, as all the rest of the people of the known world
>are presumed to have drowned.  And the more limited
>view of the flood that I am suggesting seems likely,
>since Chinese and African peoples either survived--the
>more likely conclusion--or evolved subsequently from
>Noah's descendents.  Given the large number of Chinese
>people compared to semites (ie spawn of Noah), I would
>have to go with survived and prospered rather than
>evolved, migrated, prospered and reproduced like,
>well, er,... Chinese).

Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham, whose descendants populated 
the Earth.

According to the Bible directly, the Semites were the descendants of Shem. 
Abram, later known as Abraham, was Shem's great^7-grandson. Abram's two 
kids, Isaac and Ishmael, each got to be a "mighty people" and began the 
Jewish / Arab feud.

Japheth was less blessed, as the middle son, but still respected. He is 
considered the father of the Greeks, who the early rabbis admired. Greek 
was the only language it was acceptable to translate the Bible into, which 
is probably part of the reason why the Christian Bible was in Greek.

Ham was cursed, for making fun of his father's naked, drunken stupor. He 
was deemed the father of Ethiopians (through his son Cush, whose grandson 
was Sheba, as in Queen of), Egyptians, and Canaanites, who were relegated 
to eternal servitude as punishment. Devout colonial American slaveholders 
justified themselves with Genesis 9:25-27.

Nobody explained where Asiatic people came from, although the web abounds 
in more recent explanations.

Which indirectly leads me to a biology question:  how is it that a horse 
and a donkey -- different species, with different numbers of chromosomes -- 
can produce offspring?  What are the limits of cross-species mating, 
besides incompatible hardware, e.g., horse and gerbil?  Given species x, y 
and gestational periods g(x) and g(y), respectively, what will the 
gestational period of an x carrying an x/y hybrid be?


-- David Lubkin.




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Wed Jan  7 01:05:23 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:05:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
References: <3FFB301B.3040204@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <3FFB5B53.6090501@mindspring.com>


Alan Eliasen wrote:
>      I know that Everest is growing slowly, (best estimates are 2.4
> inches/year) so we'll discount for that.  (It makes very little
> difference in any case.)  I'm using my "Frink" calculating tool (
> http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/ ) to find out what this comes out
> to.  In Frink notation, this is:

>     floodvolume = 4 pi earthradius2 depth

   Correction--in the cut-n-paste, I lost an exponentiation symbol.
This should read

   floodvolume = 4 pi earthradius^2 depth

   The rest is correct Frink notation.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From aperick at centurytel.net  Wed Jan  7 01:16:16 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:16:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] late response to Dan/Technotranscendence 
In-Reply-To: <200401061908.i06J8mE30410@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000201c3d4bb$de222b60$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Dan/Technotranscendence wrote: (a while back)

>I'm basically anti-democratic.

Wow, I am not the only one? This is sooo cool! I did not believe that I
was an idiot before joining this list, but some of my remaining doubts
re my sanity, wisdom and intelligence have further faded as I read
things like this from other smart beings. 

Hey Dan; what is your personal policy on voting? 


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Closet nudist*, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed
Atheist, radical thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed
singular authority on the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we
few lack. 

* Part time comedian and recovering idealist ... now show me yours :)
http://home.centurytel.net/rickw aperick at centurytel.net




From aperick at centurytel.net  Wed Jan  7 01:41:14 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:41:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] A great old quote re AI, and?
In-Reply-To: <200401061908.i06J8mE30410@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000301c3d4bf$567b9e90$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Q: will computers ever think independently?

A: if computers in their ultimate evolutionary form and substance, were
to emulate man, then, based on close observation of the human species, I
estimate that only 3.2 out of every one hundred computers will ever
think for themselves. 

Now, my question: who shall I attribute this quote to? I found it in my
old notes -- without the names of the speakers. Sagan?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Closet nudist*, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed
Atheist, radical thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed
singular authority on the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we
few lack. 

* Part time comedian and recovering idealist ... now show me yours :)
http://home.centurytel.net/rickw aperick at centurytel.net




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jan  7 02:46:34 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <20040106230229.85742.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061844130.6591-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


The largest known mountain in the ancient world was probably
Mt. Ararat.  Currently 16,940 ft (5165 m).  I don't think the
conclusions would change too significantly if one switches
from Mt. Everest to Mt. Ararat.

Robert





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  7 03:36:50 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:36:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061844130.6591-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040107033650.17768.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> The largest known mountain in the ancient world was probably
> Mt. Ararat.  Currently 16,940 ft (5165 m).  I don't think the
> conclusions would change too significantly if one switches
> from Mt. Everest to Mt. Ararat.

Well, given that Bob Ballard has demonstrated the likely source of the
flood myth was the breaching of the Bosporus and flooding of the Black
Sea around 5000 BC, can anybody say how long it would take to raise the
Black Sea to its present level, filling it from the Bosporus, and
whether such filling would cause high rainfail for some period???

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  7 03:41:50 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:41:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] For Us, The Living: evolution sentences
In-Reply-To: <pkhlvvo4tmg44sidholpiqjjv8vuj0r5cc@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <001401c3d4d0$2eff8690$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

Damien Broderick expressed the opinion that an
inattentive editor let this sentence slip thru: 

 
> > One rock
> >selected him and came straight toward him. It was a handsome rock,
flat on
> >one side and brilliant while in the sunshine...


This is a mutant sentence.  

Biological genetic drift depends on random
mutations which change the genome in such a way that
the mutant either is beneficial, or at least not harmful
to the individual.  Evolution of new species depends upon
this phenomenon.

Damien's example is a mutant sentence: a sentence that is
one letter off of the author's likely intention, yet the
typo forms a new word and the new word forms a part of 
speech that causes the new sentence to make sense.  In
some rare cases the mutant sentence is better than the
original, which we could call an evolution sentence.  

Anyone know of examples in literature in which one
can form an evolution sentence by adding, subtracting
or changing a single letter?

spike



From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Jan  7 03:56:08 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:56:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution sentences
References: <001401c3d4d0$2eff8690$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <033201c3d4d2$31a196c0$e3b13841@texas.net>


From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:41 PM

> Anyone know of examples in literature in which one
> can form an evolution sentence by adding, subtracting
> or changing a single letter?

The Venetians were greatly offended when Shakespeare wrote:

`Cry havoc, and let slip the doge of war!'

But their mood soon improved when he hastily read from the Bible:

`Thou shalt now commit adultery!'

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  7 03:56:55 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:56:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
In-Reply-To: <001801c3d47f$4babc7f0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000001c3d4d2$4b14f070$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Harvey Newstrom

> 
> This is based on the earliest possible signals when Marconi 
> transmitted wireless telegraph just before 1900.    But it now occurs
to 
> me that they bounced such radio waves off the ionosphere to get around
the 
> curve of the earth.  I am not sure when radio waves started going out
into 
> space, or when they became numerous or interesting enough to be
detectable.  
> The first radio network was NBC starting in 1926.  The first big or
powerful
> transmitters were built by RCA after 1934.  We may have only 
> about 65 years of transmitting to space...  Harvey


Understatement.

Some Morse code would leak past the ionosphere, but consider this: to an
alien civilization, the meaning of Morse code is out of reach.  They
could deduce that a meaningful signal is being sent, but the
transmission of 30 characters presupposes an *enormous* amount of
information in order to interpret.  We could transmit language in
arbitrary quantities, yet it could never be interpreted in the absence
of other information.

Take the next step: radio waves.  Even if highly intelligent aliens
somehow managed to translate them into sounds, they would be no further
along in interpreting these sounds than is humanity in understanding
whale speech.

Can we take it further?  Are our television signals inherently
uninterpretable?  I speculate they are.  If so, the only signal ever
sent from earth that has a chance of being interpreted is that SETI
thing with the stick figures.  Even that is not a very informative
message.

If aliens are listening, about the only thing they could determine is
that some form of intelligence is creating the message.

spike 







From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  7 04:41:42 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:41:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
In-Reply-To: <02e401c3d49b$b280c9f0$62256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <000201c3d4d8$8c872f40$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Dirk Bruere...
> 
> Are you all retards here?
> Unable to see what the question is without a dictionary?
> You another Mensa member? ... Dirk

Gentlemen, please, let us be good to each other.  Our
dreams of immortality *might* come true some day, in
which case we could be stuck with each other for a
looooooong time.  {8^D

spike




From aperick at centurytel.net  Wed Jan  7 03:49:32 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:49:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein for real
In-Reply-To: <200401070246.i072klE09031@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d4d1$4391fc40$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Major wrote:

>> ...

>> PS: Hella good postings today, I love you guys.

>All of us?

>Sorry, couldn't resist.


Actually, at the instant in which I typed those last four words my
personal simulation avatar switched to the personality and likeness of
Erick Cartman. And I had in fact typed "I love you guys -- except you
Kenney" but then quickly morphed back into aperick, reached for the
White-Out but then remembered the backspace key. And it's ape-rick NOT
a-prick you bastards :)


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Closet nudist*, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed
Atheist, radical thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed
singular authority on the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we
few lack. 

* Part time comedian and recovering idealist ... now show me yours :)
http://home.centurytel.net/rickw aperick at centurytel.net




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Jan  7 05:02:57 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution sentences
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d4d0$2eff8690$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <pkhlvvo4tmg44sidholpiqjjv8vuj0r5cc@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040106230937.0304a1f0@mail.comcast.net>

At 07:41 PM 1/6/2004 -0800, Spike wrote:

>Anyone know of examples in literature in which one
>can form an evolution sentence by adding, subtracting
>or changing a single letter?

Precisely the phenomenon you describe actually occurred with an Anne 
McCaffrey collection, which she'd submitted as _Get Of The Unicorn_ but was 
"corrected" to _Get Off The Unicorn_ by a helpful copy editor.

There is conflicting evidence about whether Burgess had wanted his novel 
actually published as _A Clockwork Orang_.  (Orang, as in orangutan, 
meaning "man" in Malay; Burgess lived in Malaysia shortly before the book 
was written.)

Meanwhile, Ed Ferman had a series of contests in F&SF years ago, each 
predicated on love of wordplay and knowledge of science fiction.

One was your idea, limited to sf titles.

http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/eichin/cruft/text2/scifi-titles

Another was to take a well-known sf title and integrate the author's name, 
as in

When David Gerrold Was One
"I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream At Harlan Ellison"
I, Asimov
Robert Heinlein Is A Harsh Mistress
"Do Androids Dream of Philip K. Dick?"

The funniest are ones that play off or opposite well-known personality 
characteristics of the author, as these do.

And imaginary collaborations, e.g.,

Heinlein & Wylie, Blow Ups Happen When Worlds Collide
Ellison & Disch, The Beast That Shouted Love At the Brave Little Toaster
Zelazny & Piper, Isle of the Dead Little Fuzzy


-- David Lubkin.




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  7 05:08:33 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:08:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence 
In-Reply-To: <000201c3d4d8$8c872f40$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000501c3d4dc$4c81e260$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Gentlemen, please, let us be good to each other.  Our
> dreams of immortality *might* come true some day, in
> which case we could be stuck with each other for a
> looooooong time.  {8^D
> 
> spike

Possible mutant sentence to the above, most likely to
be uttered by Jeremy Rifkin and his luddite ilk:

"Our dreads of immortality *might* come true some day..."

{8^D

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  7 05:39:16 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:39:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: evolution sentences
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040106230937.0304a1f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3d4e0$96fbe800$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> At 07:41 PM 1/6/2004 -0800, Spike wrote:
> 
> >Anyone know of examples in literature in which one
> >can form an evolution sentence by adding, subtracting
> >or changing a single letter?
> 

Perhaps some of you will recall the lyrics to the Cat Stevens hit Bad
Brakes:

...Bad brakes whole car shakes
Looks like I'm heading for a breakdown
Black smoke engine beginning to choke
I must be heading for a breakdown...

The words "heading for a breakdown" was a common catchphrase of the late
70s meaning things were not going well.  At my high school, the social
clubs would paint signs and hang them about the campus to raise school
spirit and encourage the football team.  The FHS or Future Homemakers
Society, was not known for its intellectual achievement (do allow me to
draw the curtain of mercy upon the details of this comment).  

In any case, this particular club was painting its banners on the week
we were to face the Hillsborough Hawks.  This enormous banner was
painted with the immortal words 

"The Hawks are HEADING FOR A BEAKDOWN"

The banner was hung with *not one* of the club members noticing the
apparent misspelling.  When it was pointed out the next day with great
derision and mirth, I suggested that this was slyly intentional, for the
Hawks would surely be despondent upon their gridirion defeat and thus
their collective countenance would be fallen, and so they would leave
the field with faces downcast: the hawks' beaks would be down.

This ignited extensive debate over whether the FHS could ever muster
enough collective brains to actually come up with a clever mutant
sentence.  Had the young Mensans, the debate team or the chess club
painted such a sign, everyone would grant them the benefit of the doubt.
As a joke, or perhaps in all levitious seriousity, that FHS banner was
given the prize for team spirit.  Thenceforth, the phrase "heading for a
beakdown" replaced the more familiar Cat Stevens breakdown version.

spike 











From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Wed Jan  7 06:03:31 2004
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:03:31 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heinlein for real
Message-ID: <3FFBA133.5411E724@Genius.UCSD.edu>

Rick wrote:
> After reading Heinlein (Stranger..., Friday, etc.) has any of you ever
> gotten seriously enthusiastic about Polyamory? 
> Edify me in public, or sympathize off-list if you fear ridicule. 

	When I first read of such things in his books, I didn't think
	much about it really.  I thought that he was trying to be
	creative and envelop-pushing and so wrote about all kinds of
	unusual things.  I took it in stride.  I have to admit that
	I did find myself thinking about the episode where Lazarus	
	Long (I think) ended up having sex with his "daughters"
	(clones of his made female by doubling the X and tossing the Y)!

	A few years after Heinlein, a girl I was interested in turned
	me on to the idea of polyamory, and it clicked for me, 
	intellectually.  Unfortunately for me, this girl's version of 
	Poly was "deeply intimate celibacy", if you know what I mean.
	Around this time I entered a sexual relationship with another 
	girl, but it turns out she was strictly monogamous and felt 
	hurt by my telling her about my polyamorous tendencies.  Oops!
	I then got the message that Poly is much more controversial
	than I'd thought (I was such an innocent :-).  Anyway, for 
	her, I remained behaviorally monogamous.

	Later I met a fellow leading a seminar on "non-violent 
	communication", and he introduced me to a local community of
	people living the Poly lifestyle.  I went to a few of their 
	parties, but unfortunately almost all of them were significantly
	older than me and I wasn't interested in any of the women 
	there (well, except one younger one who was excellent, except
	that she too wasn't into sex, or at least sex with me. Argh!).

	And so it's been for me.  I've had a few non-Poly girlfriends,
	haven't been interested in the Poly women I've met so far,
	and yet have multiple attractions and would go Poly if I
	could!  As far as resources, check out polyamory.org, and
	of course the book _The Ethical Slut_ is a classic :-)

	Meanwhile, a few years ago I met a girl who's read almost
	every fiction book Heinlein wrote, and she was a lot of fun
	(though "just a friend") ... at least it was nice to chat 
	about his ideas with her :-)

	Best, Johnius


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jan  7 07:32:39 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Surviving a flood...
In-Reply-To: <20040107033650.17768.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401062305190.14211-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Well, given that Bob Ballard has demonstrated the likely source of the
> flood myth was the breaching of the Bosporus and flooding of the Black
> Sea around 5000 BC, can anybody say how long it would take to raise the
> Black Sea to its present level, filling it from the Bosporus, and
> whether such filling would cause high rainfail for some period???

Well, given the region, one might estimate the initial Black Sea
level as perhaps the level of the Dead Sea below Sea level.  Then
estimate the volume of water required to raise it to sea level.
But to do this accurately one needs to know the area at the
below sea level and the final area of the Black Sea now.
But to really do it right one needs the pre-5000 BC Black
Sea level and a complete set of sea depths at various points
to compute the volume of water that was added.

I'm doubtful that filling the Black Sea could cause the rainfall.
But one might speculate that something like a volcano eruption
seeding clouds or perhaps an asteroid impact in the Mediterranean
could have raised its level to break through into the Black Sea.

Robert




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Jan  7 08:17:59 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:17:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
References: <157240-2200412617214495@M2W042.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <04ab01c3d4f6$c3607df0$33be1b97@administxl09yj>

> Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these
> religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can
> project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are,
> we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Why only one? According to MWI (here in the Many Souls version) the number
of Hells (and Paradises) is, of course, also unbounded.








From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Jan  7 10:23:54 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:23:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix news
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEKCCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix websites and mailing lists:
Protandim has now been covered by over 120 media sources stretching all
across the globe. Feature articles in major newspapers, as well as coverage
by an NBC news affiliate and international radio broadcasts.
Lifeline Nutraceuticals (Lifeline) is currently looking to close out its
fundraising that is earmarked for FDA approval processes and product
commercialization. Closing has been delayed due to contractual obligations,
but we hope to break escrow by mid February. Internal and independent
product tests have been conducted, but some of these studies will be
repeated for the FDA as soon as the funding is finalized. Final human trials
will also begin at that time.
Lifeline is a privately held Denver-based nutraceutical licensing and
marketing company. Lifeline has a unique anti-aging nutraceutical, protandim
(TM), that acts by mobilizing the body's own defense and repair mechanisms,
resulting in the rescue of tissues and organs of the body that would
otherwise be irrevocably damaged by the effects of "oxidative stress" caused
by aging and numerous diseases.
Quite a few inquiries have revolved around the publication date of studies
that have already been completed. Lifeline and its affiliate pharmaceutical
company, CereMedix, have intentionally chosen to not publish studies at this
time.
CereMedix, Inc., is a privately held Massachusetts-based drug discovery and
development company. CereMedix has a unique portfolio of peptide-based
product candidates with the unique action of activating certain genes
present in cells of the human body that act as the bodys own defend and
repair mechanisms. The switching on of these genes results in the rescue of
tissues and organs of the body that would otherwise be irrevocably damaged
by the effects of oxidative stress resulting from aging and multiple
diseases. The company is targeting its therapeutic products at multi-billion
dollar markets with no viable existing therapeutics.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040107/a11ba1e9/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Jan  7 11:58:17 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:58:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach
Message-ID: <007901c3d515$8aac8f20$a3cd5cd1@neptune>

Another cross-post from Atlantis II. -- Dan

P.S.:  Thanks to Robert and Dennis for their continued participation in
this debate.

From: Dennis May <determinism at hotmail.com>
To: <atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach


I wrote:

>The other question is: why is my solution to the Fermi Paradox
>less plausible - since it does not depend on new science,
>big brains, or unknown nanotechnology?

Robert J. Bradbury wrote

"If by this you mean that civilizations self-destruct, I don't consider
it less plausible."

My solution is that only stealthy, dispersed, nomadic civilizations
can survive WoMD in space.

The MBrain solution is centralized command and control.

They are two very different models of how to survive WoMD.
I don't doubt that centralized command and control can work
for a while.  I don't consider it to be a stable solution.

Dennis May

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  7 13:02:10 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 05:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hell
In-Reply-To: <04ab01c3d4f6$c3607df0$33be1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20040107130210.7219.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> > Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> > religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of
> these
> > religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion,
> we can
> > project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as
> they are,
> > we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
> exponentially.
> 
> Why only one? According to MWI (here in the Many Souls version) the
> number of Hells (and Paradises) is, of course, also unbounded.

Not necessarily. It could easily be one locale outside the space-time
continuum. Being faced with the infinity of your sins that you not only
committed, but WOULD have committed, would be a fine torture indeed for
a place like hell.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jan  7 12:40:13 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 04:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix news
In-Reply-To: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEKCCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401070424560.19462-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> >From the Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix websites and mailing lists:

[snip]

I would be *highly* doubtful...  Sounds too much like a scam to me.

> Lifeline has a unique anti-aging nutraceutical, protandim (TM),

But *what* is it?

> ... the effects of "oxidative stress" caused by aging and numerous diseases.

Hmmm... the conventional wisdom is that oxidative stress causes aging
not aging causes oxidative stress.  (Living does cause oxidative stress
but without consuming oxygen we wouldn't be able to live.)

> CereMedix has a unique portfolio of peptide-based product candidates

If they are unique then there should be patents and one should not have
a problem disclosing them right?

Furthermore if they are peptides (sequences of amino-acids) then one
has a problem getting them through the digestive tract without being
broken down.  So they would need to be injected right?  If they are
overloading the digestive tract so some peptides might be absorbed
how do they account in individual differences in digestive capacity?

> with the unique action of activating certain genes present in cells

What genes precisely?

> of the human body that act as the bodys own defend and
> repair mechanisms.

Hmmm... presumably that is "defense and repair".  Mind you there are
substances that activate the Phase II detoxification system which
are in foods like brocolli and perhaps garlic.  Google on sulphorophane
or allicin and "Phase II".

Unless they point out something concrete that is novel I'd stick
with substances that are known, the subject of public studies
and probably much cheaper.

> The company is targeting its therapeutic products at multi-billion
> dollar markets with no viable existing therapeutics.

Well that statement is obligatory otherwise why would anyone be
interested?

Robert




From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Wed Jan  7 18:02:24 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:02:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] late response to Dan/Technotranscendence 
In-Reply-To: <000201c3d4bb$de222b60$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLEELDCNAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

rick wrote:
> Dan/Technotranscendence wrote: (a while back)
>
>> I'm basically anti-democratic.
>
> Wow, I am not the only one? This is sooo cool! I did not believe that
> I was an idiot before joining this list, but some of my remaining
> doubts re my sanity, wisdom and intelligence have further faded as I
> read things like this from other smart beings.

### Welcome to the club! I am also anti-democratic (i.e.
anti-majoritarian-elective-democracy), although I am strongly pro-democratic
in the sense of letting people have maximum control over their own lives (be
masters of their own destiny rather than being ruled by elites or mobs), for
example by market-like mechanisms.

Rafal



From mark at permanentend.org  Wed Jan  7 16:13:49 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:13:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLEELDCNAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <04ba01c3d539$3c5dd3a0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>

There are a number of ways to slice the eugenic (good breeding) pie, but one
that is relevant for my question to you has to do with the state/versus
nonstate distinction. Many transhumanists are in favor of eugenics, e.g.,
embryo selection for desirable traits, or elimination of embryos with
perceived defects, so long as it is not done in a state mandated way.
According to this doctrine, it is morally permissible for individuals or
families to make decisions about what constitutes good breeding , but it is
not permissible for the state to mandate such matters. Of course the Nazis
were the great
"popularizes" of state sponsored eugenics, but as Kevles et al. have pointed
out, many other nations were
involved. Hopefully, according to this doctrine, we have learnt our lesson
here.

Eumemics, as you have already guessed, has to do with good memeing. If you
believe in state mandated good memeing raise your hands. For example, how
many of you believe in state mandated education? Or do you believe it should
be left entirely up to parents or the children themselves whether children
get an education or not?

Question: suppose you believe that at least some state mandated eumemics
is morally permissible (e.g., education), but you do not believe in state
mandated eugenics, what is the principle or principles that makes it morally
permissible in the one case but not the other? Now of course you could
reject the question because you don't believe in state mandated eumemics,
even education. Well, at least here you will have consistency on your side.
I guess most of us reject this because of the harm that children will suffer
if their parents decided that they do not want to have their children
educated. It is interesting to note that even some staunch libertarians
think
that children are a special case, that is, that the state has a special
interest in the lives of children in a way that it should not in adult
lives. In any event, if you don't believe in state mandated education then
pleasing stop reading here. (To say that education is state mandated is
independent of the question of who should run it and who should pay for it,
e.g., this is consistent with private run schools).

Here are some possible candidates for the operative principle or principles:

1. Eugenics interferes with parental rights to choose the sort of children
they want to have.

Rebuttal: Surely eumemics interferes with parental rights just as much. If
you want to raise your child to not be infected with decadent mass culture
surely not allowing your child to read or write might seem like an appealing
option. So, forcing children to go to school infringes on parental rights
here. I guess most of us would say this infringement is justified. So, why
is it not justified in the case of eugenics, e.g., not allowing severely
mentally or physically disabled children to be born. Or perhaps not allowing
children with an IQ of less than 120 to be born?

2. Parents know what is best for their children, the state does not.

Rebuttal: Much the same point as above. What do we say to parents who do not
want to educate their children? Isn't the answer that in this case the state
knows best? So why not in the case of eugenics?

3. State mandated eugenics necessarily compromises the autonomy of
individuals whereas education does not.

Rebuttal: The full answer to this point would require rehashing the
discussion of the principle of potential plentitude (discussed a while back
on the WTA-list), but here is the
Readers' Digest version: Suppose the state mandates that embryos are to be
selected for high IQ, athletic potential, perfect pitch, and the capacity to
readily acquire virtues. (For the last of these see:
www.permanentend.org/gvp.htm) If you are the product of such a selection you
could still refuse to exercise any of the genetic potentials you have been
given, e.g., you could spend your time in your parent's basement smoking pot
and listening to punk music rather than attempting to develop your
intellect,
your athletic, moral or musical potential. As I argued in connection with
the Principle of Potential Plentitude discussion, enhanced
potential (in many cases) actually increases autonomy, it does not reduce
it.

4. State mandated eugenics may compromise the autonomy of individuals
whereas eumemics does not.

Explanation: This differs from the previous point in that it allows that
eugenics could be used in a way that does not compromise autonomy, but
worries that the state might use eugenics to compromise autonomy. Suppose
like some bad sci-fi movie embryos were selected for aggressive potential so
that the individuals could be made into fearsome soldiers (or some such
nonsense). Eumemics, on the other hand, does not compromise the autonomy
of individuals.

Rebuttal: State mandated eumemics can be used to compromise the autonomy
of individuals, consider for example indoctrination, propaganda, etc. The
Nazis too were helpful
in "popularizing" eumemics. If it is the mere potential for abuse that
stops us with eugenics then why do we not disallow all forms of eumemics
on the same basis? (And let us not under estimate the power of eumemics to
harm. I have a friend whose father went to a Nazi school for his education.
His father still celebrates Hitler's birthday every year with friends over
drinks).

Cheers,

Mark


Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org






From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Jan  7 16:41:24 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:41:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix news
In-Reply-To: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEKCCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <007501c3d53d$19be0230$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

This was discussed on ImmInst.com a few months ago.  See
<http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=69&t=2082&st=0&#entry15690>.
Reason got misquoted by them and had to ask them to remove his name as
implying endorsement.  They also have some research and references there
about what this stuff is and where the research came from.  A dissertation
about the substance was published.  See
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0429103-132144/.  Earlier
references to the company and their research were discussed on ImmInst one
year ago.  See
<http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=39&t=1431&st=0&#entry10693>.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  7 17:51:23 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nutraceutical advice needed
In-Reply-To: <007501c3d53d$19be0230$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040107175123.16204.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

As from my prior post re: my mother's health situation, I'm interested
in finding out about any nutraceuticals with proven abilities to
improve digestion efficiency as well as something that improves the
availability of digested anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs to
cross the blood brain barrier. If someone wants to discuss it, please
email me and I can detail what meds she is taking and her other health
issues. Mitigating any deterioration of her current condition is of
immediate importance, as encephalopathy can lead to coma and death if
it is not halted and/or reversed.

One list member got me a good contact in the cloning field that I am
pursuing, so that is much appreciated, though its more of a long term solution.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jan  7 18:37:28 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <04ba01c3d539$3c5dd3a0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040107183728.98118.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>

Just playing devil's advocate here...

--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> Question: suppose you believe that at least some
> state mandated eumemics
> is morally permissible (e.g., education), but you do
> not believe in state
> mandated eugenics, what is the principle or
> principles that makes it morally
> permissible in the one case but not the other?

Technical understanding.  The state, having evolved
through memetic influences, has at least a rough
understanding of beneficial vs. non-beneficial memes.
Although this understanding can easily be demonstrated
to be flawed in certain cases - and in those cases, it
should be (and is being, to some degree) restricted
from action - it can also be demonstrated to have
selected certain good memes (insofar as any meme can
be judged absolutely "good", independent of the
memeset of the observer).

On the other hand, genetic engineering is very much in
its infancy, so imposing genetic solutions at this
time - prior to a better understanding of what genes
do what - is likely to cause more problems than it
solves.  (Note that this does not apply to, say,
state-mandated treatment of genes that are well
understood to be desirable or not; for instance,
correcting the gene that gives cystic fibrosis or
certain other diseases.  But in these specific cases,
there is not much debate anyway: what parent wants
their child to be born sick?)

Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
known what memes/genes are good and what are bad.  Not
just a simple democratic majority (although it may
come to that in some cases), but closer to universal
consensus levels.  Without that knowledge, attempts to
impose solutions have historically just caused damage
without achieving the desired results; the limits on
government impositions in this case are there to
prevent a repeat of that mistake.


From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Jan  7 18:34:00 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:34:00 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nutraceutical advice needed
References: <20040107175123.16204.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FFC5117.1C4E1AAF@sasktel.net>

Hi Mike:

One thing that comes to mind is dimethy-sulfoxide, a common aprotic solvent and lab
catalyst.  It has the interesting property of facilitating the transport of small
and medium sized molecules accross physical barriers such as skin , blood-brain
barrier and colon.

http://www.dmso.org/subLevels/literature.htm
I have not reviewed this site completely but it summarizes some relevant
literature.

As a personal note I consumed about a teaspoonful of 100 % DMSO- spectro  grade for
about 4 years from 1973-1977.  It tastes like bitterish  garlic.  It has a warm
taste as it dilates surface blood vessels.  After a few days you get used to it.
It does have one downside, your breath will contain dimethysulfide so you will reek
of garlic.  There is a 90% solution available in the veterinary use area.

A lot has been said about this compound, but it falls in the orphan drug category ,
and it has never caught the financial fancy of any pharma company

Having said all this, I think you may find it quite useful overall.

**************************************

The trade publication "natural health products industry  insider" has had industry
product review articles one of which has focused on colon health.

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com
http://cgi.vpico.com/search/search.asp?simple=yes&index=npindex&request=colon

Morris Johnson
Mike Lorrey wrote:

> As from my prior post re: my mother's health situation, I'm interested
> in finding out about any nutraceuticals with proven abilities to
> improve digestion efficiency as well as something that improves the
> availability of digested anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs to
> cross the blood brain barrier. If someone wants to discuss it, please
> email me and I can detail what meds she is taking and her other health
> issues. Mitigating any deterioration of her current condition is of
> immediate importance, as encephalopathy can lead to coma and death if
> it is not halted and/or reversed.
>
> One list member got me a good contact in the cloning field that I am
> pursuing, so that is much appreciated, though its more of a long term solution.
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>                                        - Mike Lorrey
> Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jan  7 19:29:13 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeline Nutraceuticals and Ceremedix news
In-Reply-To: <007501c3d53d$19be0230$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401071116250.28083-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> See:
> http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0429103-132144/.

Though I have not reviewed the imminst discussions, reviewing the
above brings to mind a number of questions.
a) *What* SOD is being upregulated -- there are 3?
b) Are their immunoblot tests which generally require antibodies
   selective for one of the 3 SODs?
c) How does one know that the upregulation of SODs is not a
   cellular response to a pro-oxidative response to the peptides
   involved?  (I.e. the peptides may activate cellular systems
   that generate oxidative stress and the cells respond by
   increasing SOD production -- in which case one is dealing
   with a double edged sword that may harm as much as it helps.)

And I'll note that the peptides were delivered i.v. (direct
injection into the bloodstream) which by definition are *not*
nutraceuticals which presumably must be eaten.  If the
substances are peptides to be delivered i.v. then they would
be considered drugs and have to go through the normal FDA
drug approval process.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jan  7 20:07:56 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <20040107183728.98118.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401071145560.28083-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:

Ok, Mark has laid out a rather large swamp and I may
get to his post at some point but here I'll deal with
some of Adrian's points...

> Technical understanding.  The state, having evolved
> through memetic influences, has at least a rough
> understanding of beneficial vs. non-beneficial memes.

Ha!  Lets see -- we have the Greek, Roman and southern
U.S. cultures that evolved through a number of memetic
influences and yet all had slave based economies.
Beneficial? yes. Morally correct? probably not.

> On the other hand, genetic engineering is very much in
> its infancy, so imposing genetic solutions at this
> time - prior to a better understanding of what genes
> do what - is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Well... it seems likely that the insights are going
to come quite quickly (within 1, certainly 2, decades
for most complex traits).  Why should a state allow
the birth of less than average intelligence individuals
or individuals with genetic defects that may pose a
health care burden upon the state (and the shareholders
of the state -- i.e. the taxpayers) at some future date?

> (Note that this does not apply to, say,
> state-mandated treatment of genes that are well
> understood to be desirable or not; for instance,
> correcting the gene that gives cystic fibrosis or
> certain other diseases.  But in these specific cases,
> there is not much debate anyway: what parent wants
> their child to be born sick?)

Oh, no Adrian you don't get away with that.  There is
a very active "classic" debate within the bioethics
community that uses the example of deaf parents who
want their child to be born deaf when presented with
a proposal by the medical community to use genetic
engineering to reverse the child's deafness.  It
gets into very sticky issues that involve the
presumption that to exist as a deaf person is
somehow less valid than existing as a non-deaf person.
Once you make the assumption that people should
be non-deaf you are on the slippery slope that
would argue that everyone should be superintelligent
rather than simply of average intelligence.

> Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
> genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
> known what memes/genes are good and what are bad.

Subjective.  What is good and bad are entirely context
dependent.  There are contexts where Vulcan logic
and disinvolvement are the best way to go and there
are contexts where the the Klingon perspective that
"Today is a good day to die" are on the mark.
Didn't you learn anything from Star Trek??? :-)


> Not just a simple democratic majority (although it may
> come to that in some cases), but closer to universal
> consensus levels.

But the consensus can be quite wrong (perhaps as the
slavery example cited above may indicate).

> Without that knowledge, attempts to
> impose solutions have historically just caused damage
> without achieving the desired results; the limits on
> government impositions in this case are there to
> prevent a repeat of that mistake.

But do such limits accomplish this?  I once dated a woman
who used to joke about the fact that if her son could
grow up and become a basketball player then her life
would be golden.  With her this type of conversation
was simple fantasy -- but one has to suspect that there
are parents out there that would be willing to pay
megabucks to have children who would be well suited
for the NFL, NBL, WWF, Fear Factor, etc.  Given the subtlety
of various genetic interventions from a strict health vs.
enhancement to excel in sports, beauty, etc. it is going
to be very difficult to get the damage v. benefit equation
correct at either an individual or societal level.

I can easily make an argument that the right of a parent
to enhance their child to be an ideal physical individual
for the NFL directly harms me as a parent who does not
choose to enhance his child to that level.  Furthermore
the enhancement of such individuals may contribute to
their being violent megalomaniacs which are certainly
a threat to society.

I don't think one gets out of this box easily.

Robert




From mark at permanentend.org  Wed Jan  7 22:19:30 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:19:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
References: <20040107183728.98118.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011f01c3d56c$52c2d3b0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>



> Just playing devil's advocate here...

I'm not sure I believe it, but your argument has ingenuity on its side; the
devil should count his blessings having you on his side.

>
>> Technical understanding.  The state, having evolved
> through memetic influences, has at least a rough
> understanding of beneficial vs. non-beneficial memes.
> Although this understanding can easily be demonstrated
> to be flawed in certain cases - and in those cases, it
> should be (and is being, to some degree) restricted
> from action - it can also be demonstrated to have
> selected certain good memes (insofar as any meme can
> be judged absolutely "good", independent of the
> memeset of the observer).
>
> On the other hand, genetic engineering is very much in
> its infancy, so imposing genetic solutions at this
> time - prior to a better understanding of what genes
> do what - is likely to cause more problems than it
> solves.  (Note that this does not apply to, say,
> state-mandated treatment of genes that are well
> understood to be desirable or not; for instance,
> correcting the gene that gives cystic fibrosis or
> certain other diseases.  But in these specific cases,
> there is not much debate anyway: what parent wants
> their child to be born sick?)
>

Is the problem here the technology or the desirability of the traits? If the
former then it is sufficient to limit the state's interest here to embryo
selection. One could examine embryos for genetic markers associated with
high IQ and CF and sort accordingly. If the latter then the fact that the
technology is in its infancy might caution us against providing new traits,
say extra legs so that one could be as fleet of foot as satyrs. But what
about values that we already endorse through eumemics, e.g., knowledge. If
we look for genetic markers to ensure a goodly quantity of intelligence to
allow at least the possibility that embryo will be able to have a goodly
quantity of knowledge. Any given level of knowledge by an individual has a
corresponding minimum level of intelligence that individual must possess. If
we increase intelligence then we will have raised the ceiling for knowledge.
The eumemic equivalent of course is the attempt to impart knowledge to our
offspring through education.

> Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
> genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
> known what memes/genes are good and what are bad.  Not
> just a simple democratic majority (although it may
> come to that in some cases), but closer to universal
> consensus levels.  Without that knowledge, attempts to
> impose solutions have historically just caused damage
> without achieving the desired results; the limits on
> government impositions in this case are there to
> prevent a repeat of that mistake.

I'm no historian, but I think the history of mandatory education is perhaps
a relevant counterexample to your general claim. There seems to have been
quite a bit of resistance to mandatory education in the U.S. and it seems to
have taken quite a long time to make it mandatory in every state in the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html . So if we are agreed that
mandatory education is a good thing (again allowing for the possibility of
it being privatized) then it seems that the "wisdom" of the state exceed
that of the consensus of the population. The near consensus on the goodness
of mandatory education came after the fact. That point aside, it seems that
the council for the defense has only come up with a temporary restraining
order, as our knowledge of what eugenics can do it seems that there will no
longer be a principled reason for allowing state mandated eumemics but not
eugenics.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jan  7 22:42:53 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401071145560.28083-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040107224253.56739.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > Technical understanding.  The state, having
> evolved
> > through memetic influences, has at least a rough
> > understanding of beneficial vs. non-beneficial
> memes.
> 
> Ha!  Lets see -- we have the Greek, Roman and
> southern
> U.S. cultures that evolved through a number of
> memetic
> influences and yet all had slave based economies.
> Beneficial? yes. Morally correct? probably not.

I said rough, but I also said imperfect.  Where it is
imperfect, it should be resisted.  It's not a blanket
"all eumemics are okay" or "all eumemics are not okay"
statement.

> > On the other hand, genetic engineering is very
> much in
> > its infancy, so imposing genetic solutions at this
> > time - prior to a better understanding of what
> genes
> > do what - is likely to cause more problems than it
> solves.
> 
> Well... it seems likely that the insights are going
> to come quite quickly (within 1, certainly 2,
> decades
> for most complex traits).

I disagree - but mainly because of the level of
insight that will be needed.  Yes, it may be possible
to say that genes X and Y roughly correlate with
higher intelligence within 2 decades, such that
individuals would choose those genes for their own
children.  It takes a much higher confidence level in
the causation, which is going to take much longer to
achieve, before the state may be permitted to require
such.

> Why should a state allow
> the birth of less than average intelligence
> individuals
> or individuals with genetic defects that may pose a
> health care burden upon the state (and the
> shareholders
> of the state -- i.e. the taxpayers) at some future
> date?

Even in genes where we're almost certain, for instance
cystic fibrosis, the argument is marginal at this
time given the current cost and risk of genetic
engineering techniques.  To mandate interference in
anything less well understood, such as intelligence,
is to invite disaster, and almost everyone
acknowledges this.

> > (Note that this does not apply to, say,
> > state-mandated treatment of genes that are well
> > understood to be desirable or not; for instance,
> > correcting the gene that gives cystic fibrosis or
> > certain other diseases.  But in these specific
> cases,
> > there is not much debate anyway: what parent wants
> > their child to be born sick?)
> 
> Oh, no Adrian you don't get away with that.

Yes I do. ;P  As I said:

> > genes that are well
> > understood to be desirable or not

...and by your example, the condition of deafness (and
therefore the genes that cause it) is not "well
understood to be desirable or not", regardless of how
well we know what genes cause deafness.

> There
> is
> a very active "classic" debate within the bioethics
> community that uses the example of deaf parents who
> want their child to be born deaf when presented with
> a proposal by the medical community to use genetic
> engineering to reverse the child's deafness.  It
> gets into very sticky issues that involve the
> presumption that to exist as a deaf person is
> somehow less valid than existing as a non-deaf
> person.

Deaf != sick.  "What parent wants their child to be
born sick" != "What parent wants their child to be
born deaf", by this very example.  We're talking
"sick" as a condition that is universally considered
undesirable; the very existance of defenders of
deafness excludes it from this category.  (Personally,
after having reviewed the arguments of said defenders,
I still consider deafness to be an overall disability,
but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

> > Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
> > genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
> > known what memes/genes are good and what are bad.
> 
> Subjective.  What is good and bad are entirely
> context
> dependent.

That's why I put the "widely known" in there.  If
there is much room for subjective disagreement, that
invalidates it until the disagreement can be resolved.
It is not too inaccurate to say that the disagreement
itself, and any resolution thereof, becomes the
limiting factor in these cases.

> Didn't you learn anything from Star Trek??? :-)

Yeah.  That life is darn great for species that have
already gone through their respective Singularities.
Also, if you wear red shirts and have no name, you get
to demonstrate how the monster works.

> > Not just a simple democratic majority (although it
> may
> > come to that in some cases), but closer to
> universal
> > consensus levels.
> 
> But the consensus can be quite wrong (perhaps as the
> slavery example cited above may indicate).

Many slaves disagreed with the consensus (although
many other slaves agreed).  I would therefore not call
it universal, or even nearly universal.

> > Without that knowledge, attempts to
> > impose solutions have historically just caused
> damage
> > without achieving the desired results; the limits
> on
> > government impositions in this case are there to
> > prevent a repeat of that mistake.
> 
> But do such limits accomplish this?

Sometimes.  No one has found and implemented a perfect
solution to avoid repeating mistakes of the past.  I
was just talking with my father about some tech he
developed for walking robots some decades ago; the
problems he encountered in that development effort
seem to be being repeated by modern efforts.  (Of
course, his effort was never detailed for Google et
al, so the modern efforts were unaware of it.)

> I can easily make an argument that the right of a
> parent
> to enhance their child to be an ideal physical
> individual
> for the NFL directly harms me as a parent who does
> not
> choose to enhance his child to that level. 

There, you may be correct.  But allowing parents to
choose is a far cry from allowing the state to
mandate.

> Furthermore
> the enhancement of such individuals may contribute
> to
> their being violent megalomaniacs which are
> certainly
> a threat to society.

"Power must be shared."

The response is, of course, to allow others -
including others who have already been born - to be
enhanced in similar manners if and when they desire
it.  (This is one reason I favor development of
bionics over development of genetic enhancements.)
Eventually, you wind up with the average physical
capabilities being increased.  This may cause a
lessening of the status of the unenhanced...but part
of the reason for allowing individual choice is that
individuals can upgrade when they believe it makes
sense for them to do so.  Perhaps eventually this is
essentially a forced choice, but the theory is that,
by allowing individuals to at least control the
timing, pace, and _exact_ nature of their
enhancements, the end result can be better - and
perhaps the transition can be less painful.

Free will and destined choice, both in one.  In
theory, only true improvements - ones that some people
would freely apply to themselves absent other factors,
and which people would envy in others to the point
that they believe cathing up would be desirable - can
come about by this path.

To wit: some might say, "But what if I want to remain
as I am for all time?"  Answer: "If this that I do
does not improve me, you may remain as you are, and by
definition you will be without disadvantage.  But if
this is an improvement, then you will eventually not
want to remain as you are now.  You will be the judge,
and you may revisit your decision whenever you wish."


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jan  7 23:05:55 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:05:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <011f01c3d56c$52c2d3b0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040107230555.73416.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> > Just playing devil's advocate here...
> 
> I'm not sure I believe it, but your argument has
> ingenuity on its side; the
> devil should count his blessings having you on his
> side.

Okay, Angel's Advocate.  Devil's is just the common
term.  ;P

> Is the problem here the technology or the
> desirability of the traits?

Yes.  ^_-

> If the
> former then it is sufficient to limit the state's
> interest here to embryo
> selection. One could examine embryos for genetic
> markers associated with
> high IQ and CF and sort accordingly.

If we knew what markers those were, and that those
markers were not associated with other potentially
desirable or undesirable things.  We don't, at least
not with much confidence (especially for IQ), so
attempts to do so right now will likely bring about
unintended, and potentially (probably, given
historical precedent) disastrous, selection effects.

> If the latter
> then the fact that the
> technology is in its infancy might caution us
> against providing new traits,
> say extra legs so that one could be as fleet of foot
> as satyrs.

And, as has been cautioned, don't assume endorsement
even for or against existing traits such as deafness.

> But what
> about values that we already endorse through
> eumemics, e.g., knowledge.

Counter-examples of said endorsement are widespread.
Some people really do want their kids to be dumb (so
they will be obedient to their parents, even when said
parents are wrong in the extreme).

> > Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
> > genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
> > known what memes/genes are good and what are bad. 
> Not
> > just a simple democratic majority (although it may
> > come to that in some cases), but closer to
> universal
> > consensus levels.  Without that knowledge,
> attempts to
> > impose solutions have historically just caused
> damage
> > without achieving the desired results; the limits
> on
> > government impositions in this case are there to
> > prevent a repeat of that mistake.
> 
> I'm no historian, but I think the history of
> mandatory education is perhaps
> a relevant counterexample to your general claim.
> There seems to have been
> quite a bit of resistance to mandatory education in
> the U.S. and it seems to
> have taken quite a long time to make it mandatory in
> every state in the U.S.

There still is some resistance.  This is part of why
I said, "Not just a simple democratic majority
(although it may come to that in some cases)".  I do
not claim to know where the cutoff is below 100%
agreement, or even that there is a single cutoff that
is optimal for all such issues (I suspect there is
not).

> That
> point aside, it seems that
> the council for the defense has only come up with a
> temporary restraining
> order, as our knowledge of what eugenics can do it
> seems that there will no
> longer be a principled reason for allowing state
> mandated eumemics but not
> eugenics.

A temporary restraining order is all I was going for.
There is potential for it to become indefinite, if
agreement never forms that a certain set of genes is
undesirable - said agreement likely necessarily
including, perhaps even consisting entirely of, those
who possess said genes (and thus, who would be
directly affected).  But if that agreement were to
come about...well, hey, if everyone (and I mean
*everyone*) who has gene X says they want to make sure
their yet-to-be-conceived kids never have gene X, and
no one else wants gene X, then yeah, the state is
probably going to be quite justified in requiring
genetic engineering to eliminate gene X.

Maybe it was Devil's after all.  ^_-


From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Wed Jan  7 23:06:00 2004
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:36:00 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B0178690E@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker [mailto:mark at permanentend.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 1:44 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics

> Here are some possible candidates for the operative principle 
> or principles:
> 
> 1. Eugenics interferes with parental rights to choose the 
> sort of children
> they want to have.
> 
> Rebuttal: Surely eumemics interferes with parental rights 
> just as much. If
> you want to raise your child to not be infected with decadent 
> mass culture
> surely not allowing your child to read or write might seem 
> like an appealing
> option. So, forcing children to go to school infringes on 
> parental rights
> here. I guess most of us would say this infringement is 
> justified. So, why
> is it not justified in the case of eugenics, e.g., not 
> allowing severely
> mentally or physically disabled children to be born. Or 
> perhaps not allowing
> children with an IQ of less than 120 to be born?
> 

Education is a special case with humans. We are social creatures, who
function best with a prerequisite long period of education before adulthood.
Some things we need to function properly as Human v1.0 in our current
society come in our genes, the rest requires education. Note that this
education should be defined far more broadly than typical state regulated
education!

So in the case of eumemics, there is a requirement for education, meaning it
isn't optional. Furthermore, it is to a large part reversible; you can shake
even the crustiest of crusty memes if you try hard enough for long enough.

However, genetic engineering is an entirely different beast. Firstly, I'll
assume that prenatal genetic engineering is being proposed because we assume
the postnatal organism cannot be modified further genetically. One day
(maybe soon) this wont be true, which will render much of the argument for
eugenics, such as it is, irrelevant. However, I'll take this as a given
here.

So genetic engineering is irreversable, by the previous paragraph. It is
also entirely optional, in a way that memetic upload (education) isn't.
These two qualities (optional, irreversable) should be combined with the
unproven and unknown qualities highlighted by Adrian in his reply to Mark,
to show that modern "eugenics" (parental or state manipulation of the
unborn) is a really poor idea, not comparable to education, and to be
undertaken at the parent/state's extreme peril; after all, you are messing
with a future citizen, who *will* be pissed off if you get it wrong (from
their point of view, not yours).

My view is that transhumanists just shouldn't venture onto this territory.
Fix really deadly genetic illnesses, but after that you should leave a
person alone until they are old enough to choose for themselves. In about 18
years from now, it's not too far fetched to assume that adult phenotype
genetic manipulation will a going concern, after all.

> 2. Parents know what is best for their children, the state does not.
> 
> Rebuttal: Much the same point as above. What do we say to 
> parents who do not
> want to educate their children? Isn't the answer that in this 
> case the state
> knows best? So why not in the case of eugenics?

Again, because there is a necessity when it comes to education. Eugenics, on
the other hand, is optional.

> 
> 3. State mandated eugenics necessarily compromises the autonomy of
> individuals whereas education does not.
> 
> Rebuttal: The full answer to this point would require rehashing the
> discussion of the principle of potential plentitude 
> (discussed a while back
> on the WTA-list), but here is the
> Readers' Digest version: Suppose the state mandates that 
> embryos are to be
> selected for high IQ, athletic potential, perfect pitch, and 
> the capacity to
> readily acquire virtues. (For the last of these see:
> www.permanentend.org/gvp.htm) If you are the product of such 
> a selection you
> could still refuse to exercise any of the genetic potentials 
> you have been
> given, e.g., you could spend your time in your parent's 
> basement smoking pot
> and listening to punk music rather than attempting to develop your
> intellect,
> your athletic, moral or musical potential. As I argued in 
> connection with
> the Principle of Potential Plentitude discussion, enhanced
> potential (in many cases) actually increases autonomy, it 
> does not reduce
> it.

You assume that we know how to make positive differences such as these
(pretty doubtful), and that everyone values the same things; after all,
there are likely to be tradeoffs involved. And you don't consider any of the
risks involved in screwing this up.

> 
> 4. State mandated eugenics may compromise the autonomy of individuals
> whereas eumemics does not.
> 
> Explanation: This differs from the previous point in that it 
> allows that
> eugenics could be used in a way that does not compromise autonomy, but
> worries that the state might use eugenics to compromise 
> autonomy. Suppose
> like some bad sci-fi movie embryos were selected for 
> aggressive potential so
> that the individuals could be made into fearsome soldiers (or 
> some such
> nonsense). Eumemics, on the other hand, does not compromise 
> the autonomy
> of individuals.
> 
> Rebuttal: State mandated eumemics can be used to compromise 
> the autonomy
> of individuals, consider for example indoctrination, 
> propaganda, etc. The
> Nazis too were helpful
> in "popularizing" eumemics. If it is the mere potential for abuse that
> stops us with eugenics then why do we not disallow all forms 
> of eumemics
> on the same basis? (And let us not under estimate the power 
> of eumemics to
> harm. I have a friend whose father went to a Nazi school for 
> his education.
> His father still celebrates Hitler's birthday every year with 
> friends over
> drinks).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 

Again; eugenics is optional. Education isn't. Screwing around with your own
genes, or anything else about yourself, is well and dandy, I highly support
it. Screwing around with someone else's genes, like your kids', when you
don't have to, is really dangerous territory.

Emlyn



From mark at permanentend.org  Thu Jan  8 00:14:58 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:14:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
References: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B0178690E@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>
Message-ID: <053201c3d57c$74413f80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan"
>
> Education is a special case with humans. We are social creatures, who
> function best with a prerequisite long period of education before
adulthood.
> Some things we need to function properly as Human v1.0 in our current
> society come in our genes, the rest requires education. Note that this
> education should be defined far more broadly than typical state regulated
> education!
>
> So in the case of eumemics, there is a requirement for education, meaning
it
> isn't optional. Furthermore, it is to a large part reversible; you can
shake
> even the crustiest of crusty memes if you try hard enough for long enough.
>

Optional and necessary for what purpose? Some people are only smart enough
to get a McJob and eke out an existence all because of the DNA lottery.
(Others of course are smart enough to do other things but choose McJobs).
Not everyone is born with the right DNA to pursue excellence in music,
knowledge, athletics, etc. I'm not sure I agree with the reversibility claim
either. Try to look at a page or a screen and see shapes but not letters and
words. It is pretty hard to undo the abcs that you learnt at school. On the
other hand, if you are the product of embryo selection and you are provided
with the genetic potential for high iq, perfect pitch, and athletic ability
there is no reason that you can't let this potential atrophy as you smoke
pot and listen to punk music in your parent's basement. Moreover, the main
issue it seems to me is the basic asymmetry between the enhanced and the
unenhanced. The enhanced can choose most of the life trajectories of the
unenhanced, but not vice versa. Which is to say that the enhanced have
greater autonomy. (For those who want to explore this claim further see the
debate starting here:
http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/2003-September/000254.html )
.


> However, genetic engineering is an entirely different beast. Firstly, I'll
> assume that prenatal genetic engineering is being proposed because we
assume
> the postnatal organism cannot be modified further genetically. One day
> (maybe soon) this wont be true, which will render much of the argument for
> eugenics, such as it is, irrelevant. However, I'll take this as a given
> here.
>
> So genetic engineering is irreversable, by the previous paragraph. It is
> also entirely optional, in a way that memetic upload (education) isn't.
> These two qualities (optional, irreversable) should be combined with the
> unproven and unknown qualities highlighted by Adrian in his reply to Mark,
> to show that modern "eugenics" (parental or state manipulation of the
> unborn) is a really poor idea, not comparable to education, and to be
> undertaken at the parent/state's extreme peril; after all, you are messing
> with a future citizen, who *will* be pissed off if you get it wrong (from
> their point of view, not yours).
>
> My view is that transhumanists just shouldn't venture onto this territory.
> Fix really deadly genetic illnesses, but after that you should leave a
> person alone until they are old enough to choose for themselves. In about
18
> years from now, it's not too far fetched to assume that adult phenotype
> genetic manipulation will a going concern, after all.
>

The position I am interested in is one that says three things: (1) it is
morally permissible for parents to practice eugenics to select or promote
traits, (as would happen with genetic engineering or embryo selection). (2)
it is not morally permissible for the state to mandate eugenic selection.
(3) It is morally permissible for the state to mandate education of the
young. As I noted in my original post, the question of consistency doesn't
touch hardcore libertarians who deny that it is permissible for the state to
mandate education (i.e., (3)). Since you deny (1) you too do need to look
for a way to reconcile these 3 claims. I'm guessing that qua transhumanist
you are in minority in denying  (1). But, hey, you are in the majority--at
least in the "West".

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org








From jcorb at iol.ie  Thu Jan  8 00:59:17 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:59:17 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Virtual cash exchange goes live
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040108004503.0330f530@pop.iol.ie>

An item that appears to have made the small news, but may be a small step 
to bigger news in the future;

>Virtual cash exchange goes live

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3368633.stm

>Online games now have their own foreign exchange that lets players buy and 
>sell different virtual currencies just like in the real world.
>The Gaming Open Market allows players who control characters in games such 
>as Star Wars Galaxies, The Sims Online and Ultima, to buy and sell the 
>currencies used in the different game worlds.
>Players can convert cash reserves in one game into a different currency in 
>another world or sell their virtual money for US dollars.
>The market now has 29 characters in six different games that act as 
>virtual bank managers in the separate worlds.


The website is http://www.gamingopenmarket.com/

I was thinking; given a monetary system, would it be possible to implement 
a form of Robin Hanson's Terrorism Futures concept into this?  Instead of 
Al Qaeda attacks and such, players would put their money on which 
player/guild will be the next to suffer a surprise attack for example.  If 
it was workable, it could potentially be proof-of-concept without the 
emotional outbursts that doomed the original.

Now, if it becomes possible to turn virtual money into *realworld* money on 
an ongoing basis....(outside of Ebay).

Or should that be "when".


James...



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  8 01:01:03 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Virtual cash exchange goes live
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040108004503.0330f530@pop.iol.ie>
Message-ID: <20040108010103.14096.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- J Corbally <jcorb at iol.ie> wrote:
> Now, if it becomes possible to turn virtual money
> into *realworld* money on 
> an ongoing basis....(outside of Ebay).
> 
> Or should that be "when".

It's a nice theory.  In the past, the game managers
have tended to frown on people turning any real profit
from the games.  These guys may have a chance if they
approach the game owners on a business-to-business
level; they certainly present themselves as an
honest-to-goodness currency exchange, and thus legally
a "financial institution".  If they fail to do so, I
see no reason to expect they will not simply be banned
like their predecessors, and trading (for them) halted
on all currencies within a year.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  8 01:06:22 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA ?= Destiny
In-Reply-To: <053201c3d57c$74413f80$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040108010622.455.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> Not everyone is born with the right DNA to pursue
> excellence in music,
> knowledge, athletics, etc.

>From where comes this belief, taken as fact?  From my
own (admiteddly anecdotal) experiences, it seems that
environment has more to do with potential than
genetics in almost all cases.  (Barring biochemical
defects that tend to leave one unable to function
normally in society at all.)  Genes give probabilistic
influences, not absolute barriers; a non-genius at
birth might have a harder time earning a Ph.D., but
with the right education and training (much of which
can be self-obtained and self-directed these days,
thanks to the Web), anything that is humanly possible,
is possible for a human.


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  8 01:24:00 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Becoming human (and posthuman:-)
Message-ID: <20040108012400.66755.qmail@web41312.mail.yahoo.com>

Check this fascinating link based on documentary by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson ("discoverer" of Lucy:-)
 
http://www.becominghuman.org/
 
Transhumanistically yours,



La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040107/7cc1047b/attachment.html>

From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  8 02:08:48 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA NEWS   January 7, 2004
Message-ID: <20040108020848.39733.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Extropian friends,
 
     I am reforwarding this WTA NEWS since there is information about the coming 
Extropy Institute Vital Progress Summit:-)
 
     Extropianilly yours,




La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040107/c252a618/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Hughes, James" <james.hughes at trincoll.edu>
Subject: [wta-ann] WTA NEWS   January 7, 2004
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:10:01 -0500
Size: 26455
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040107/c252a618/attachment.mht>

From reason at exratio.com  Thu Jan  8 02:45:00 2004
From: reason at exratio.com (Reason)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:45:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Virtual cash exchange goes live
In-Reply-To: <20040108010103.14096.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEDMEBAA.reason@exratio.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes

> --- J Corbally <jcorb at iol.ie> wrote:
> > Now, if it becomes possible to turn virtual money
> > into *realworld* money on
> > an ongoing basis....(outside of Ebay).
> >
> > Or should that be "when".
>
> It's a nice theory.  In the past, the game managers
> have tended to frown on people turning any real profit
> from the games.  These guys may have a chance if they
> approach the game owners on a business-to-business
> level; they certainly present themselves as an
> honest-to-goodness currency exchange, and thus legally
> a "financial institution".  If they fail to do so, I
> see no reason to expect they will not simply be banned
> like their predecessors, and trading (for them) halted
> on all currencies within a year.

This is a rapidly evolving field, with 20+ new multi-million dollar launches
every year. Things are changing fast, and the game owners and game creation
community are well aware of these economic matters. The owners of Second
Life gave copyright of user-created objects (which is pretty much everything
in the game) to their users just a month ago or so - so anyone with the
right talent could make a living as a Second Life designer if the game
becomes large enough.

I give it no more than two years for a successful game to exist that is
fully integrated into the US or South Korean real world economic systems.
Then it gets interesting.

If you look at Castranova's latest paper, you'll see that many of my
last-year predictions of tax competition for real world nations and other
goodies from virtual worlds are now echoed by economists in the know.

http://www.gamestudies.org/0302/castronova/

Reason
http://www.exratio.com





From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Thu Jan  8 02:30:12 2004
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:00:12 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786910@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker [mailto:mark at permanentend.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 9:45 AM

> Optional and necessary for what purpose? Some people are only 
> smart enough
> to get a McJob and eke out an existence all because of the 
> DNA lottery.
> (Others of course are smart enough to do other things but 
> choose McJobs).
> Not everyone is born with the right DNA to pursue excellence in music,
> knowledge, athletics, etc. 

Well, trivially, you have to be able to read in order to participate in
western society in any kind of first-class way. Writing is also extremely
useful!

More, you need socialisation, which I'd lump under education, and I think
which you'd call eumemetics. Without it, you're wolf boy. Check out this
site on feral children:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0

I think that to conflate this kind of thing (lack of socialization) with
lack of genetic engineering is disingenuous. Socialization (education!) is
necessary, genetic engineering is optional.

> I'm not sure I agree with the 
> reversibility claim
> either. Try to look at a page or a screen and see shapes but 
> not letters and
> words. It is pretty hard to undo the abcs that you learnt at 
> school. 

There might be a case for separating things like speech and literacy
(skills?) from knowledge. I'm not sure.

> On the
> other hand, if you are the product of embryo selection and 
> you are provided
> with the genetic potential for high iq, perfect pitch, and 
> athletic ability
> there is no reason that you can't let this potential atrophy 
> as you smoke
> pot and listen to punk music in your parent's basement. 

It is a huge "if" to even say that you can do this at all, genetically. You
will be selecting for a particular genetic pattern, which may or may not
epiphenomenally result in the traits you describe. I think you couldn't be
anything but uncertain of the effectiveness of such selection without a few
generations of the selected to test. And it's my contention that by the time
you get there, we'll have stronger technologies for enhancement which can be
used solely by consenting adults. So the generations in between are
non-consenting guinea pigs in an ultimately pointless experiment.

> Moreover, the main
> issue it seems to me is the basic asymmetry between the 
> enhanced and the
> unenhanced. The enhanced can choose most of the life 
> trajectories of the
> unenhanced, but not vice versa. Which is to say that the enhanced have
> greater autonomy. (For those who want to explore this claim 
> further see the
> debate starting here:
> http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/2003-September
> /000254.html )
> .

I totally agree. I only object to the method of enhancement, which I claim
is untestable (in a reasonable timeframe), of dubious value, probably risky,
and involves irrevocable action on those who cannot give their consent. If
you were talking about adults modifying themselves, I would fully support
your argument.

> 
> 
> > However, genetic engineering is an entirely different 
> beast. Firstly, I'll
> > assume that prenatal genetic engineering is being proposed 
> because we
> assume
> > the postnatal organism cannot be modified further 
> genetically. One day
> > (maybe soon) this wont be true, which will render much of 
> the argument for
> > eugenics, such as it is, irrelevant. However, I'll take 
> this as a given
> > here.
> >
> > So genetic engineering is irreversable, by the previous 
> paragraph. It is
> > also entirely optional, in a way that memetic upload 
> (education) isn't.
> > These two qualities (optional, irreversable) should be 
> combined with the
> > unproven and unknown qualities highlighted by Adrian in his 
> reply to Mark,
> > to show that modern "eugenics" (parental or state 
> manipulation of the
> > unborn) is a really poor idea, not comparable to education, 
> and to be
> > undertaken at the parent/state's extreme peril; after all, 
> you are messing
> > with a future citizen, who *will* be pissed off if you get 
> it wrong (from
> > their point of view, not yours).
> >
> > My view is that transhumanists just shouldn't venture onto 
> this territory.
> > Fix really deadly genetic illnesses, but after that you 
> should leave a
> > person alone until they are old enough to choose for 
> themselves. In about
> 18
> > years from now, it's not too far fetched to assume that 
> adult phenotype
> > genetic manipulation will a going concern, after all.
> >
> 
> The position I am interested in is one that says three 
> things: (1) it is
> morally permissible for parents to practice eugenics to 
> select or promote
> traits, (as would happen with genetic engineering or embryo 
> selection). (2)
> it is not morally permissible for the state to mandate 
> eugenic selection.
> (3) It is morally permissible for the state to mandate 
> education of the
> young. As I noted in my original post, the question of 
> consistency doesn't
> touch hardcore libertarians who deny that it is permissible 
> for the state to
> mandate education (i.e., (3)). Since you deny (1) you too do 
> need to look
> for a way to reconcile these 3 claims. 

My position is that I don't think it's morally permissable for the parents
or the state to play with the genetics of offspring, except where there is a
clear and present danger to the offspring from not doing so (eg: cf?). I
think you are clear on that.

On point 3, I think it is necessary for some minimal education to be given
to children, and personally I lean toward a solid education for all
children. How that is enforced (ie: does it come back to armed men enforcing
the rules), I'm hazy on. Probably at some minimal level it should be state
enforced. But the details of that education, within basic guidelines, should
be up to parents probably. But that's all only imo, and I can't really back
it up with much, or be very specific. I contend, however, that it's
unrelated to the first to points, given what I've said previously about
genetic and memetic interference being entirely different beasts.

> I'm guessing that qua 
> transhumanist
> you are in minority in denying  (1). But, hey, you are in the 
> majority--at
> least in the "West".

Ouch, you don't pull your punches, do you? :-) I probably am in the
majority, but accidentally, and mostly for different reasons I think. Oddly
enough, the most common reason I see expressed for not allowing genetic
manipulation of children is jealousy, or a fear of inequality, which I find
weird. Make no mistake, the entirety of my concern is about untried,
unprovable technology with dubious benefits and very real risks, and lack of
ability for the individual to give consent.

Emlyn

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mark Walker, PhD
> Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
> University of Toronto
> Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
> 15 Devonshire Place
> Toronto
> M5S 1H8
> www.permanentend.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jan  8 03:35:31 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786910@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401071909340.2702-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Rather than do a point by point, I'll simply offer some
impressions on comments by Emlyn and Mark.

First, with regard to Emlyn disliking parents doing anything
other than fixing diseases in potential offspring until some
type of agreement can be found with respect to generally
accepted modifications that are known to work.  The problem
with this is that 18 years in our environment is a very
long time.  One runs the risk that if one waits too long
to enhance oneself one may be too late.  (For example
consider Robin's paper on uploads coming first.)  In
this situation *not* enhancing ones children may be
considered a form of "child abuse".  I.e. one has not
sufficiently prepared ones children to survive in the
environment that is likely to exist when they are able
to make informed decisions.

Second, the adding or removal of genetic characteristics
will be relatively easy in 15-20 years.  There are very
clear methods now to augment genomes and probably even
replace defective genes.  They aren't well developed
or generally available at this time however.  But I
don't think arguments should be premised on this because
it is rapidly shifting ground.

Third, much of the learning and development of an
individual meme set probably takes place before the
ages of 12-13 -- this is when one starts to lose the
ability to learn languages easily (i.e. brain plasticity
starts to decline).  Once this meme set/learning is
in place it is *much* harder to modify.  (It probably
requires robust nanotechnology at the level of
uploading/downloading.)  So by not making the choices
early on you may be setting individuals on paths that
are not easily changed.  This could be considered a
problem with Greg Stock's perspective of allowing one
to enhance an individual with potential genetic
modifications but only activating them when the
person is qualified to make a judgement about whether
or not they want them.  By the time they make that
choice it may be too late.

With respect to Eumemics one has the problem that a
potential set of memes that may be useful for one
generation may be either benefit or harm survival
chances for another generation.  So one can look at
public education as helping survival probabilities
(public education vs. extremely conservative and narrow
minded religious groups) or harming survival probabilities
(public education in the face of extremely rapid societal
changes -- politics works slowly...).

Even in the case of private education there is no
assurance that it will be optimal.  As a parent I would
tend to seek out teachers (my generation) that tend to
teach my perspective.  It would be difficult to seek out
teachers to teach things (e.g. how to juggle currency futures
in a role-playing game environment) that are alien to me
but which may be essential to the survival of my child.

Robert




From nanowave at shaw.ca  Thu Jan  8 05:30:21 2004
From: nanowave at shaw.ca (Russell Evermore)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:30:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality (terminology)
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<244b01c3d316$db187420$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<014f01c3d31a$59da6040$bd994a43@texas.net>
	<270401c3d391$13cf7eb0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
	<008d01c3d3c8$389ae0e0$8c994a43@texas.net>
	<3FF9CB34.6030902@imminst.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c3d5a8$82c9ef80$d3a44418@du.shawcable.net>

Well I see some work has been done to promote "Emortal" as the meme de jour,
but I'd still like to submit for your late consideration one other
possibility:


        - drum roll -

                            "Permasentient"


As far as I can google, permasentient appears to be of my own coinage.

Permasentient, unlike immortality, nicely encompasses the tranhumanist ideal
of uploading, which as you know, involves not so much the continuation of
LIFE per se (in the sense that typical humans would appreciate and value it)
but the continuation of SENTIENCE in a way that many if not most
transhumanists surely would.

Permasentient or permasentience handily sidestepps the *implied promise of
success* that so heavily burdens word like 'immortality' due to centuries of
faith-based 'religio-afterlife' association and usage.

Permasentient cheerfully resists becoming just another 'ism.'  Not so
'Emortal.'

Permasentient brings to mind other words like: permanent press,
permaculture, and permafrost. We've all grown accustomed to 'permanent'
things not really being permanent in the literal sense of forever and ever
and ever and ever ...

Permafrost reminds me of cryonics ever since I read an interesting piece Ben
Best wrote several years back exploring burial-in-permafrost as a viable
poor man's alternative to cryonics (a view he's since moved away from as I
understand).

Anyhow.

Meesa back!
Russell Evermore
nanowave at shaw.ca


> Till Noever has composed four articles for
> ImmInst concerning 'Emortalism'
>
> Emortalism 101 - Introduction
> http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=1752&s=
>
> Emortalism 102 - Meaning, Context, Identity, Sex and Other Curiosities
> http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=67&t=1764&hl=noever
>
> Emortalism 103 - Scenarios
> http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=67&t=1811
>
> Emortalism 104 - Emortalist Ethics
> http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=66&t=1928
>
> Bruce Klein
> Chairman, ImmInst.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From aperick at centurytel.net  Thu Jan  8 06:17:18 2004
From: aperick at centurytel.net (rick)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:17:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics now eugenics 
In-Reply-To: <200401072315.i07NFWE12354@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3d5af$12875d00$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>

Where did so may of you get the idea that eugenics was anything other
than the careful attention to biological parentage? Eugenics is
selective breeding: dog breeders would be dog eugenicists if they were
only concerned with selecting for objectively progressive (super-dog)
traits. For us, this would mean objectively deciding* if our own mix of
inheritable traits are among the very best available and, if not,
getting ourselves "fixed." If we are deemed (by us, or by ones we trust)
to be prime breeding stock our only eugenic task is to arrange to
combine our gametes with other high grade gametes. There may be many
reasons that any government would tend to f__k this up, but today we
just need one very good one: the current mental qualities of current
governmental leaders fits that bill nicely. So, apart from the most
private of actions, practicing eugenicists of our day have virtually no
opportunities to act in support of what we reason is a good thing. If we
had money to burn I suppose we could produce TV commercials containing
gentle suggestions in a spirit of kindness: "The more you know" :-D 

e.g., "dear friend, are you wicked ugly? And not the sharpest tool in
the shed? Perhaps you should consider forgoing the experience of
procreation -- for the love of God!"  LOL

* by this I clearly mean only that one makes an informed and sincere
attempt at objectivity. 

But seriously; how would I as a below average and defective unit, who
should have known that these traits were inheritable, look my teenage
offspring in the eye and claim that I truly love them and have always
wanted nothing but the best for them? Might they not one day regret not
having had the opportunity to select for themselves different parents?
"gee thanks mom and dad for making me, my life really kinda sucks, and
any fool could have seen the probability of THAT coming -- given the
clearly observable phenotypes of you two." 

Wow, I may have stumbled on what could be the only case of true and pure
altruism per my tight little definition*: when one's only reason for
forgoing procreation is out of concern for one's offspring there is not
much chance of any kind of payback for that "gift". Except that you will
know that you did the right thing. But it is only the net/sum effect
that counts when categorizing an act as having no selfish motives -- the
presumed pain of going childless could certainly out-weigh the "I did
the right thing" consolation. Conclusion: the fantasy of altruism is
made real only when the beneficiary is not. 

* my (possibly rare) interpretation of dictionary entries. 

How many think I need "sick puppy" in my signature/tagline? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Woolley, Closet nudist*, Certified Scientist Type, Confirmed
Atheist, radical thinker, notorious fuck-up, and self-proclaimed
singular authority on the abysmal depths of human stupidity that only we
few lack. 

* Part time comedian and recovering idealist ... now show me yours :)
http://home.centurytel.net/rickw aperick at centurytel.net



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  8 07:28:26 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:28:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Black holes no more...
Message-ID: <20040108072826.70897.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

So, every time a supernova rings, a universe gets its wings....
If a singularity event horizon is merely a boundary to another universe
(whether you can git theyah frum heyah is another question), then
hyperspace drives require the ability for occupants of a black hole to
puncture that boundary, travel around the outside of the hole, then
reenter at another point. No sweat.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Black Holes No More -- Introducing the Gravastar                   |
|   from the yet-another-cosmic-theory dept.                         |

[0]Mark Eymer observes: "From the Space.com [1]article: 'Emil Mottola 
of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Pawel Mazur of the University
of South Carolina suggest that instead of a star collapsing into a 
pinpoint of space with virtually infinite gravity, its matter is
transformed into a spherical void surrounded by "an extremely durable
form of matter never before experienced on Earth."' While these objects
may abound in the universe, they also say that our entire universe may
reside within a giant gravastar." This new theory attempts to fill
holes in the currently accepted concept of the "black hole".

Discuss this story at:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/01/07/1515210

Links:
    0. mailto:eymerm at cableone.net
    1. 
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gravastars_020423.html


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Thu Jan  8 08:14:59 2004
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:44:59 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786913@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 1:06 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than do a point by point, I'll simply offer some
> impressions on comments by Emlyn and Mark.

I'll reply point by point :-)

> 
> First, with regard to Emlyn disliking parents doing anything
> other than fixing diseases in potential offspring until some
> type of agreement can be found with respect to generally
> accepted modifications that are known to work.  The problem
> with this is that 18 years in our environment is a very
> long time.  One runs the risk that if one waits too long
> to enhance oneself one may be too late.  (For example
> consider Robin's paper on uploads coming first.)  In
> this situation *not* enhancing ones children may be
> considered a form of "child abuse".  I.e. one has not
> sufficiently prepared ones children to survive in the
> environment that is likely to exist when they are able
> to make informed decisions.

That's only true if you have solid provable enhancements ready to go, which
we don't. I still think that by the time we've got such enhancements (given
the necessarily long timescales they require to develop), we'll be able to
fix the adult phenotype, and probably more easily, which will more than
compensate for any lack of genetic muddling. I think Adrian said he was more
for cybernetics than genetic mods. I'd say I agree, and also lean toward
gene therapy for adults (although I realise this hasn't the same potential
as pre-natal gene modification), and don't forget nano-medicine.

In fact, your comment about long timescales disproves your own thesis. By
the time we have a first generation of seriously gene-modded kids grown to
adults, don't you think the self-modification options available to the adult
will be way more efficient, effective, and timely than early generation
genetic bumbling? It's like a bunch of STL colony slowboats heading off to
alpha-centauri, only to find it a well and truly settled advanced colony
system of Earth, with startrek federation-style starships with warpdrives
which can do the journey in half an hour, the first of which arrived
hundreds of years before. 

I just think that genetic modification of embryos is going to take a while
to become even theoretically useful, and will be obsolete before it can ever
become advantageous. This makes the risks really rather foolhardy.

> Second, the adding or removal of genetic characteristics
> will be relatively easy in 15-20 years.  There are very
> clear methods now to augment genomes and probably even
> replace defective genes.  They aren't well developed
> or generally available at this time however.  But I
> don't think arguments should be premised on this because
> it is rapidly shifting ground.

But what precisely are you going to add/modify/delete? That we have the tech
to do it doesn't tell us what to do.

> 
> Third, much of the learning and development of an
> individual meme set probably takes place before the
> ages of 12-13 -- this is when one starts to lose the
> ability to learn languages easily (i.e. brain plasticity
> starts to decline).  Once this meme set/learning is
> in place it is *much* harder to modify.  (It probably
> requires robust nanotechnology at the level of
> uploading/downloading.)

Much of that stuff is still easier to modify than gene mods, which are for
all practical purposes irreversable (ie: by the time they are reversable,
you don't need gene mods any more).

Also, remember that with learning, we *must* do it. We will learn
*something* in our developmental phases (even if only to be wolf/dog/monkey
boy), so this is not optional. Genetic modification is *entirely* optional,
OTOH.

>  So by not making the choices
> early on you may be setting individuals on paths that
> are not easily changed.  This could be considered a
> problem with Greg Stock's perspective of allowing one
> to enhance an individual with potential genetic
> modifications but only activating them when the
> person is qualified to make a judgement about whether
> or not they want them.  By the time they make that
> choice it may be too late.

That's very true; he limits the individual's options to what can be
effective after the age of consent, as would some kind of wholesale gene
therapy, missing out on developmental stages.

btw, it seems to me that such a set of optional genes is pretty damned tough
to make work; I'd probably opt to upload instead, and just do a bit of
auto-debug in the virtual world. I think the time frames for both techs
might be similar (especially considering the 18 year lag on optional gene
use).

> 
> With respect to Eumemics one has the problem that a
> potential set of memes that may be useful for one
> generation may be either benefit or harm survival
> chances for another generation.  So one can look at
> public education as helping survival probabilities
> (public education vs. extremely conservative and narrow
> minded religious groups) or harming survival probabilities
> (public education in the face of extremely rapid societal
> changes -- politics works slowly...).

Can you ever see a case for not teaching the three 'R's? Excepting the case
where we dispense with literacy/numeracy for some whamo highbandwidth
mindlink, you always need these things. I'm arguing that there is at least a
minimum level of education required that includes learning these skills,
which is non-optional unless you are hell bent on turning out Wolf-boys.

Out civilisation requires some minimum skill set which is not heritable, and
increasingly it will require a well honed ability to learn.

> Even in the case of private education there is no
> assurance that it will be optimal.  As a parent I would
> tend to seek out teachers (my generation) that tend to
> teach my perspective.  It would be difficult to seek out
> teachers to teach things (e.g. how to juggle currency futures
> in a role-playing game environment) that are alien to me
> but which may be essential to the survival of my child.
> 
> Robert

You really can't teach everything they need for adulthood anymore; you have
to retreat somewhat to the meta level. More and more you need to lean toward
teaching kids open ended learning tools. How to find stuff out (research),
how to criticise/evaluate/analyse, how to do rational thinking, how to do
creative/lateral thinking, etc, how to be humble so you can absorb
knowledge, how to be bloody minded when you are sure you are right and
others are wrong, how to put it all together and use different thinking
tools as appropriate (de Bono seems pretty good on this). That's my opinion,
anyway. 

Emlyn



From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Thu Jan  8 08:18:44 2004
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:48:44 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] genes don't matter
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786914@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>

btw, do people realise that genes really don't matter much any more? As long
as you get the minimal set so that you aren't severely disadvantaged, we're
in memespace nowadays. Where the raw material doesn't cut it, we can go for
hard tech. Genes matter if you are a bug or e. coli, but for us they are a
red herring. Forget the damned genes, they made themselves irrelevant as
soon as they discovered intelligence.

Emlyn



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Jan  8 13:44:17 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:44:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics now eugenics 
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d5af$12875d00$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>
References: <000001c3d5af$12875d00$0200a8c0@soy0450mhz>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0401080831210.-211285@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


I've often thought that animal breeders are practicing eugenics. So
are plant breeders. And we do ourselves, when we try to select proper
mates. (I don't know about you, but there were people I dated in
school who I did NOT ever consider for marriage, and having
kids is part of that picture.)

It's government involvement that disturbs me most.

IIUC there are a number of people who refrain from breeding because
they carry inheritable genetic problems. Although I don't know any of
these folk myself, it's not a conversation you might have with just
anyone either, so perhaps I *do* know folks like that but am unaware
of it?

I know I've had the discussion with friends that if I had a severely
retarded/damaged child I'd perhaps want the child sterilized because
1)  parenthood would be just too much for the child to cope with, and
2)  if it was an inheritable problem.  I've not had much disagreement
there, either.

Since I've not been faced with that situation, I do not *know* what I
would do... but we did limit ourselves to two children as we did not
have the resources (there are many kinds necessary)  to care properly
for more.

Regards,
MB

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, rick wrote:

> Where did so may of you get the idea that eugenics was anything other
> than the careful attention to biological parentage? Eugenics is
> selective breeding: dog breeders would be dog eugenicists if they were
> only concerned with selecting for objectively progressive (super-dog)
> traits. For us, this would mean objectively deciding* if our own mix of
> inheritable traits are among the very best available and, if not,
> getting ourselves "fixed." If we are deemed (by us, or by ones we trust)
> to be prime breeding stock our only eugenic task is to arrange to
> combine our gametes with other high grade gametes. There may be many
> reasons that any government would tend to f__k this up, but today we
> just need one very good one: the current mental qualities of current
> governmental leaders fits that bill nicely. So, apart from the most
> private of actions, practicing eugenicists of our day have virtually no
> opportunities to act in support of what we reason is a good thing.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jan  8 15:29:44 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Honeybee genome completed
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401080725190.14562-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Baylor has completed the Honeybee genome.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040108070413.htm

This is of interest because within a few years it may lead
to a determination of exactly what biochemical pathways
contribute to the longevity of queen bees vs. workers.

Some background on the Royal Jelly fed to queen bees...
  http://www.eurobee.nl/journal2.htm

Robert




From exi-info at extropy.org  Thu Jan  8 15:37:09 2004
From: exi-info at extropy.org (Extropy Institute)
Date: Thu,  8 Jan 2004 10:37:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Announces the Vital Progress
	Summit I (VP1)
Message-ID: <1610158607.1073575784584.JavaMail.wasadmin@ui2>

Extropy Institute Announces the upcoming 2004 Summit
VITAL PROGRESS ("VP") (01.07.04)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Greetings!

Recent and accelerating scientific advances may have 
you excited about extropic goals of extended life, 
heightened intelligence, and so on. But hold on! The 
forces of reaction are surging and we need to respond 
now. Extropy Institute is well into the planning process 
for the upcoming Vital Progress Summit, set for 
February 2004. In this newsletter, we explain why this 
Summit is needed so urgently, how it will work, what 
we aim to accomplish, and who we expect to 
participate.

The Summit is ExI's proactive response to three 
disturbing pivotal developments: <i>Beyond 
Therapy</i> - the 
report of 
the US President's Council on Bioethics headed by arch-
bioconservative and neophobe Leon Kass (and including 
avowed anti-posthuman Francis Fukuyama); <i>The 
New 
Atlantis</i> publication - a high-powered rallying point 
for 
the neo-Luddites; and the <b>Precautionary 
Principle</b> - a 
idea being adopted by a diverse array of interest 
groups devoted to blocking the fundamental 
technological advances crucial to our survival and to 
our extropic goals of overcoming human limits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this issue: ExI VITAL PROGRESS ("VP") Summit scheduled for February, 2004; and Welcome to Honorary Advisor -Prof. Tom W. Bell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Killer Quotes!
* <b>The Surging Threat to Extropic Advance</b>
* <b>About the "VP" Summit</b>

* <b>ExI Welcomes its Honorary Advisor</b>


Killer Quotes!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The finitude of human life is a blessing for every 
individual, whether he knows it or not." And: "The 
immortals cannot be noble." -- Leon Kass, chairman of 
the President's Council on Bioethics

"The worst possible way to resolve [the question of life 
extension] is to leave it up to individual choice. There is 
no known social good coming from the conquest of 
death." - Daniel Callahan

"The whole effort to defeat death, it seems to me, is a 
kind of striving that speaks of a kind of serious lack of a 
certain kind of moral perspective. - Francis Fukuyama

"The pursuit of perfect bodies and further life extension 
will deflect us from realizing more fully the aspirations 
to which our lives naturally point, from living well rather 
than merely staying alive."  - Leon Kass in The 
Washington Post



<b>The Surging Threat to Extropic Advance</b>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throughout history the forces of advancement have 
struggled against the reactionary forces of stasis. 
Europe suffered a thousand years of zero progress 
during the Dark Ages. The Renaissance and 
Enlightenment finally broke through that grim era. We 
transhumanists are the heirs to the Enlightenment 
values of perpetual progress for humanity based in 
science and creativity. Recent years have seen 
numerous developments that are showing the culture at 
large the realism of our extropic goals of extended 
healthy life, enhanced intelligence, refined emotions, 
and the ever-extending ability to take control of our 
form and fate. But now we face an unprecedented 
convergence of groups intent on using direct action 
and global legislation to halt humanity's progress.

One of the most remarkable and worrying developments 
is the presidential-level bioethics council. This council, 
led by Leon Kass (once an opponent of in vitro 
fertilization) has published a report, <I>Beyond 
Therapy</I> 
that takes very seriously issues at the core of our 
extropic values and goals. From the preface to the 
report:

"In keeping with our mission, we have undertaken an 
inquiry into the potential implications of using 
biotechnology "beyond therapy," in order to try to 
satisfy deep and familiar human desires: for better 
children, superior performance, ageless bodies, and 
happy souls. Such uses of biotechnology, some of 
which are now possible and some of which may become 
possible in the future, are likely to present us with 
profound and highly consequential ethical challenges 
and choices. They may play a crucial role in shaping 
human experience in the fast-approaching age of 
biotechnology."

Backing Kass's council of intellectual clones,
marching to the same anti-transhumanist, anti-biotech 
beat, are other numerous and organized voices. Their 
favored watering hole - the forum that gathers and 
disseminates their vitality-sapping fulminations of fear 
and faith is <i>The New Atlantis</i>. Appropriately 
named 
after the Platonic fantasy of a perfect unchanging 
society now lost to the world, this publication aims to 
shape "the nation's moral and political understanding of 
all areas of technology" in a way deadly to extropic 
ideals and aspirations. Many other groups are getting in 
on the act through the vehicle of the sensible-sounding 
<b>Precautionary Principle</b>. This principle cripples 
technological progress by requiring every technological 
innovation to clear the impossible hurdle of 
absolutely proving total safety. It unites extreme 
environmentalists, anti-capitalists, scare-mongers, 
biological fundamentalists, enemies of modern 
civilization, and Luddites of all stripes.



<b>About the "VP" Summit</b>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To counter Kass and his Council, <i> The New 
Atlantis</i>, and 
the seductive Precautionary Principle, Extropy Institute 
has initiated a Summit in several phases. The first 
phase will take place in mid-late February. This 
<b>collaborative, multi-disciplinary online</b> event will 
bring 
together not only all kinds of transhumanists and future-
friendly folks, but also advocacy groups such as the 
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation who need 
advanced biotech research to fix devastating biological 
problems. As Reeve has said, "I never thought politics 
would get in the way of hope."

The Vital Progress Summit aims to achieve real, 
practical results. These will come in stages as the 
project progresses, but early deliverables expected 
from the February summit include a pithy response to 
the Precautionary Principle, a policy and values 
statement to counter <i>Beyond Therapy</i>, and a 
comprehensive collection of links to pro-advancement 
groups, journalists, publications, and educational groups.

The Vital Progress Summit fits perfectly with and 
realizes Extropy Institute's mission. The February 
Summit will see the start of a continuing effort to build 
a broad alliance sharing the goal of the continued 
progress of fundamental knowledge of the human 
condition and how to modify it for the better. We can 
counter the bioconservatives by catalyzing the 
development of a "party of life".

You'll find more details of the workings of the Summit in 
the <b>next update just a week from now</b>. The 
core of the 
two-week online event will be a <b>focused blog</b>
by invited 
keynote bloggers. Others will be able to participate in 
related forums and by commenting on the blog-project 
work as well as by helping develop associated 
resources.

 >> http://www.extropy.org





<b>ExI Welcomes its Honorary Advisor</b>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ExI welcomes Tom Bell as its Honorary 
Advisor.  
Tom is a professor of law and a policy analyst, 
who has written widely about copyright, free speech, 
gambling, and telecommunications.

Tom is also a designer of ideas and, as such, coined 
the term "extropy" way back in 1988. Tom was co-
founder and Vice President of ExI, and remains a 
valued friend and colleague.  ExI continues to be 
infused by Tom's characteristic enthusiasm, good 
humor, and probing mind.

Welcome back Tom!

Prof. Tom W. Bell - Honorary Advisor >> http://www.extropy.org/directors.thm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quick Links...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join ExI! >> http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm
Email lists >> http://www.extropy.org/emaillists
Transhumanist FAQ >> http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm
Best Business Analysis on the Web! >> http://www.manyworlds.com://
More About Us >> http://www.extropy.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: exi-info at extropy.org
voice: 011.512.263.2749
web: http://www.extropy.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Extropy Institute | 10709 Pointe View Drive | Austin | TX | 78738

This email was sent to natasha at natasha.cc,
by Extropy Institute.

Update your profile
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1011086851128&ea=natasha at natasha.cc&id=preview.1011086851128

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011086851128&ea=natasha at natasha.cc&id=preview.1011086851128

Privacy Policy:
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp 

Powered by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040108/cf5faa31/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jan  8 16:51:44 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Announces the Vital Progress
	Summit I (VP1)
In-Reply-To: <1610158607.1073575784584.JavaMail.wasadmin@ui2>
Message-ID: <20040108165144.8166.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

The links direct IE to my yahoo login, not to any ExI login.

--- Extropy Institute <exi-info at extropy.org> wrote:
> Extropy Institute Announces the upcoming 2004 Summit
> VITAL PROGRESS ("VP") (01.07.04)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> Recent and accelerating scientific advances may have 
> you excited about extropic goals of extended life, 
> heightened intelligence, and so on. But hold on! The 
> forces of reaction are surging and we need to respond 
> now. Extropy Institute is well into the planning process 
> for the upcoming Vital Progress Summit, set for 
> February 2004. In this newsletter, we explain why this 
> Summit is needed so urgently, how it will work, what 
> we aim to accomplish, and who we expect to 
> participate.
> 
> The Summit is ExI's proactive response to three 
> disturbing pivotal developments: <i>Beyond 
> Therapy</i> - the 
> report of 
> the US President's Council on Bioethics headed by arch-
> bioconservative and neophobe Leon Kass (and including 
> avowed anti-posthuman Francis Fukuyama); <i>The 
> New 
> Atlantis</i> publication - a high-powered rallying point 
> for 
> the neo-Luddites; and the <b>Precautionary 
> Principle</b> - a 
> idea being adopted by a diverse array of interest 
> groups devoted to blocking the fundamental 
> technological advances crucial to our survival and to 
> our extropic goals of overcoming human limits.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In this issue: ExI VITAL PROGRESS ("VP") Summit scheduled for
> February, 2004; and Welcome to Honorary Advisor -Prof. Tom W. Bell
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * Killer Quotes!
> * <b>The Surging Threat to Extropic Advance</b>
> * <b>About the "VP" Summit</b>
> 
> * <b>ExI Welcomes its Honorary Advisor</b>
> 
> 
> Killer Quotes!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The finitude of human life is a blessing for every 
> individual, whether he knows it or not." And: "The 
> immortals cannot be noble." -- Leon Kass, chairman of 
> the President's Council on Bioethics
> 
> "The worst possible way to resolve [the question of life 
> extension] is to leave it up to individual choice. There is 
> no known social good coming from the conquest of 
> death." - Daniel Callahan
> 
> "The whole effort to defeat death, it seems to me, is a 
> kind of striving that speaks of a kind of serious lack of a 
> certain kind of moral perspective. - Francis Fukuyama
> 
> "The pursuit of perfect bodies and further life extension 
> will deflect us from realizing more fully the aspirations 
> to which our lives naturally point, from living well rather 
> than merely staying alive."  - Leon Kass in The 
> Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> <b>The Surging Threat to Extropic Advance</b>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Throughout history the forces of advancement have 
> struggled against the reactionary forces of stasis. 
> Europe suffered a thousand years of zero progress 
> during the Dark Ages. The Renaissance and 
> Enlightenment finally broke through that grim era. We 
> transhumanists are the heirs to the Enlightenment 
> values of perpetual progress for humanity based in 
> science and creativity. Recent years have seen 
> numerous developments that are showing the culture at 
> large the realism of our extropic goals of extended 
> healthy life, enhanced intelligence, refined emotions, 
> and the ever-extending ability to take control of our 
> form and fate. But now we face an unprecedented 
> convergence of groups intent on using direct action 
> and global legislation to halt humanity's progress.
> 
> One of the most remarkable and worrying developments 
> is the presidential-level bioethics council. This council, 
> led by Leon Kass (once an opponent of in vitro 
> fertilization) has published a report, <I>Beyond 
> Therapy</I> 
> that takes very seriously issues at the core of our 
> extropic values and goals. From the preface to the 
> report:
> 
> "In keeping with our mission, we have undertaken an 
> inquiry into the potential implications of using 
> biotechnology "beyond therapy," in order to try to 
> satisfy deep and familiar human desires: for better 
> children, superior performance, ageless bodies, and 
> happy souls. Such uses of biotechnology, some of 
> which are now possible and some of which may become 
> possible in the future, are likely to present us with 
> profound and highly consequential ethical challenges 
> and choices. They may play a crucial role in shaping 
> human experience in the fast-approaching age of 
> biotechnology."
> 
> Backing Kass's council of intellectual clones,
> marching to the same anti-transhumanist, anti-biotech 
> beat, are other numerous and organized voices. Their 
> favored watering hole - the forum that gathers and 
> disseminates their vitality-sapping fulminations of fear 
> and faith is <i>The New Atlantis</i>. Appropriately 
> named 
> after the Platonic fantasy of a perfect unchanging 
> society now lost to the world, this publication aims to 
> shape "the nation's moral and political understanding of 
> all areas of technology" in a way deadly to extropic 
> ideals and aspirations. Many other groups are getting in 
> on the act through the vehicle of the sensible-sounding 
> <b>Precautionary Principle</b>. This principle cripples 
> technological progress by requiring every technological 
> innovation to clear the impossible hurdle of 
> absolutely proving total safety. It unites extreme 
> environmentalists, anti-capitalists, scare-mongers, 
> biological fundamentalists, enemies of modern 
> civilization, and Luddites of all stripes.
> 
> 
> 
> <b>About the "VP" Summit</b>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To counter Kass and his Council, <i> The New 
> Atlantis</i>, and 
> the seductive Precautionary Principle, Extropy Institute 
> has initiated a Summit in several phases. The first 
> phase will take place in mid-late February. This 
> <b>collaborative, multi-disciplinary online</b> event will 
> bring 
> together not only all kinds of transhumanists and future-
> friendly folks, but also advocacy groups such as the 
> Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation who need 
> advanced biotech research to fix devastating biological 
> problems. As Reeve has said, "I never thought politics 
> would get in the way of hope."
> 
> The Vital Progress Summit aims to achieve real, 
> practical results. These will come in stages as the 
> project progresses, but early deliverables expected 
> from the February summit include a pithy response to 
> the Precautionary Principle, a policy and values 
> statement to counter <i>Beyond Therapy</i>, and a 
> comprehensive collection of links to pro-advancement 
> groups, journalists, publications, and educational groups.
> 
> The Vital Progress Summit fits perfectly with and 
> realizes Extropy Institute's mission. The February 
> Summit will see the start of a continuing effort to build 
> a broad alliance sharing the goal of the continued 
> progress of fundamental knowledge of the human 
> condition and how to modify it for the better. We can 
> counter the bioconservatives by catalyzing the 
> development of a "party of life".
> 
> You'll find more details of the workings of the Summit in 
> the <b>next update just a week from now</b>. The 
> core of the 
> two-week online event will be a <b>focused blog</b>
> by invited 
> keynote bloggers. Others will be able to participate in 
> related forums and by commenting on the blog-project 
> work as well as by helping develop associated 
> resources.
> 
>  >> http://www.extropy.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <b>ExI Welcomes its Honorary Advisor</b>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ExI welcomes Tom Bell as its Honorary 
> Advisor.  
> Tom is a professor of law and a policy analyst, 
> who has written widely about copyright, free speech, 
> gambling, and telecommunications.
> 
> Tom is also a designer of ideas and, as such, coined 
> the term "extropy" way back in 1988. Tom was co-
> founder and Vice President of ExI, and remains a 
> valued friend and colleague.  ExI continues to be 
> infused by Tom's characteristic enthusiasm, good 
> humor, and probing mind.
> 
> Welcome back Tom!
> 
> Prof. Tom W. Bell - Honorary Advisor >>
> http://www.extropy.org/directors.thm
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From mark at permanentend.org  Thu Jan  8 17:29:39 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:29:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA ?= Destiny
References: <20040108010622.455.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <074801c3d60c$ff7364d0$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Tymes"

> --- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> > Not everyone is born with the right DNA to pursue
> > excellence in music,
> > knowledge, athletics, etc.
>
> >From where comes this belief, taken as fact?  From my
> own (admiteddly anecdotal) experiences, it seems that
> environment has more to do with potential than
> genetics in almost all cases.  (Barring biochemical
> defects that tend to leave one unable to function
> normally in society at all.)  Genes give probabilistic
> influences, not absolute barriers; a non-genius at
> birth might have a harder time earning a Ph.D., but
> with the right education and training (much of which
> can be self-obtained and self-directed these days,
> thanks to the Web), anything that is humanly possible,
> is possible for a human.
> _

For the contrary opinion see:

Plomin R., et al. Behavioral Genetics, 4th edition. New York, Freeman, 2001.

Molecular Genetics and the Human Personality, edited by J. Benjamin et al.
2002 American Pscychriatic Publishing, 293-314.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org








From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Jan  8 17:32:16 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:32:16 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Announces the Vital Progress
	Summit I (VP1)
Message-ID: <3FFD9420.8050204@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Thu Jan 08, 2004 09:51 am Mike Lorrey wrote:
> The links direct IE to my yahoo login, not to any ExI login.

On Mozilla the links mostly work OK, but two links give a 404 Not Found
error. namely:
<http://www.extropy.org/directors.thm>  and
<http://www.extropy.org/emaillists>

The Update and Unsubscribe links at the foot of the message appear to
permit anyone to update and unsubscribe natasha.

Danger Will Robinson!!


BillK




From mark at permanentend.org  Thu Jan  8 18:00:16 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:00:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
References: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786910@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>
Message-ID: <077201c3d611$460b2730$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan"

> > I'm guessing that qua
> > transhumanist
> > you are in minority in denying  (1). But, hey, you are in the
> > majority--at
> > least in the "West".
>
> Ouch, you don't pull your punches, do you? :-) I probably am in the
> majority, but accidentally, and mostly for different reasons I think.
Oddly
> enough, the most common reason I see expressed for not allowing genetic
> manipulation of children is jealousy, or a fear of inequality, which I
find
> weird. Make no mistake, the entirety of my concern is about untried,
> unprovable technology with dubious benefits and very real risks, and lack
of
> ability for the individual to give consent.
>
The sorts of concerns you raise are quite common, at least in my experience
in lecturing and teaching this stuff. However, just because you are in the
majority it does not necessarily mean you are wrong. : )  Let's put aside
cases of genetic engineering of children and concentrate on simple embryo
selection. Here there is no genetic engineering, simply choosing which fetus
to implant. The individual here cannot complain post facto that they were
manipulated in any way, only that they were chosen. They might have been
born in any event, by selecting them we have simply "rigged the lottery".
This seems to resolves to just the usual complaint of being born at all, as
the song goes: "were not my mother's womb my grave".
Now take IQ. There is a lot of evidence that this has a strong genetic
component to it. (See for example, Plomin R., et al. Behavioral Genetics,
4th edition. New York, Freeman, 2001, or "Are We Hardwired?" for a slightly
more popular account). For example, estimates of the IQ correlation between
identical twins adopted and reared apart are in the 50 to 80% range. The
correlation between the IQ of adopted children and their parents is pretty
close to zero. Here we have a case where the technology of selecting embryos
has already established, the consent issue doesn't seem germane, and the
benefit is the potential for increased knowledge. Isn't a primary purpose of
education to increase knowledge? If so then what is the principled
difference between embryo selection for the potential for increased
knowledge and attempting to educate the young so that their knowledge
increases?

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org






From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Jan  8 18:26:00 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:26:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Announces the Vital
	ProgressSummit I (VP1)
Message-ID: <2920-2200414818260602@M2W052.mail2web.com>



Original Message:
-----------------
From: BillK bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk

On Mozilla the links mostly work OK, but two links give a 404 Not Found
error. namely:
<http://www.extropy.org/directors.thm>  and
<http://www.extropy.org/emaillists>

*Yes, I saw this.  I'll fix it in the software.

The Update and Unsubscribe links at the foot of the message appear to
permit anyone to update and unsubscribe natasha.

*Hummm.  I'm not sure why this is.  I better call the software designer! :-)



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From jonkc at att.net  Thu Jan  8 18:49:45 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:49:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA ?= Destiny
References: <20040108010622.455.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00f301c3d618$46f50dd0$3cff4d0c@hal2001>

"Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net> Wrote:

>From my  own (admiteddly anecdotal) experiences,
>it seems that  environment has more to do with potential
>than  genetics in almost all cases.

The IQ of identical twins raised separately is much more similar than the IQ
of fraternal twins raised separately, the variation is almost the same as
twins who stayed with their biological parents. In both cases the
correlation between the intelligence of the adoptive parents and the
children they care for is lousy, the correlation with the biological parents
is much better.

This would seem to work against your theory.

   John K Clark     jonkc at att.net










From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  8 20:14:18 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA ?= Destiny
In-Reply-To: <00f301c3d618$46f50dd0$3cff4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <20040108201418.55598.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> The IQ of identical twins raised separately is much
> more similar than the IQ
> of fraternal twins raised separately, the variation
> is almost the same as
> twins who stayed with their biological parents. In
> both cases the
> correlation between the intelligence of the adoptive
> parents and the
> children they care for is lousy, the correlation
> with the biological parents
> is much better.
> 
> This would seem to work against your theory.

What of the arguments that genetic and environmental
influences tend to be correlated?  I.e., that the
same types of experiences tend to happen to the same
gene sets?  Although, I suppose that would defeat the
theory in most cases too: if what happens to you tends
to be destined, then how you're born is how you're
born...unless, of course, you take action to change
that, which almost no one does.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jan  8 20:22:04 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <077201c3d611$460b2730$2ee4f418@markcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040108202204.33011.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> Here we have a case where the
> technology of selecting embryos
> has already established,

Slight incorrectness.  Selecting embryos itself, yes,
that technology is here.  But how to know which
embryo has the genes for intelligence?

That said, this could be a real issue in the very near
term.  All that's missing is a good, publically
available map of genes to approximate IQ, which
doesn't seem that hard to create.  A group dedicated
to the necessary studies could possibly publish a
fairly reliable one (with a disclaimer that it only
covers the genetic component of IQ, which is not 100%
of IQ - partly as a cover in case one of the resulting
children decides to destroy their own potential)
within two or three years.  It would have to be a
private group, since no current scientifically
trustworthy government could get away with such an
effort politically, but the resources required do not
seem to exceed several million dollars.  But the map
isn't available yet, so this selection could not be
done with confidence today in most cases.


From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Thu Jan  8 23:03:00 2004
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:33:00 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B01786916@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>

Mark Walker wrote:
> The sorts of concerns you raise are quite common, at least in 
> my experience
> in lecturing and teaching this stuff. However, just because 
> you are in the
> majority it does not necessarily mean you are wrong. : )  
> Let's put aside
> cases of genetic engineering of children and concentrate on 
> simple embryo
> selection. Here there is no genetic engineering, simply 
> choosing which fetus
> to implant. The individual here cannot complain post facto 
> that they were
> manipulated in any way, only that they were chosen. They 
> might have been
> born in any event, by selecting them we have simply "rigged 
> the lottery".
> This seems to resolves to just the usual complaint of being 
> born at all, as
> the song goes: "were not my mother's womb my grave".
> Now take IQ. There is a lot of evidence that this has a strong genetic
> component to it. (See for example, Plomin R., et al. 
> Behavioral Genetics,
> 4th edition. New York, Freeman, 2001, or "Are We Hardwired?" 
> for a slightly
> more popular account). For example, estimates of the IQ 
> correlation between
> identical twins adopted and reared apart are in the 50 to 80% 
> range. The
> correlation between the IQ of adopted children and their 
> parents is pretty
> close to zero. Here we have a case where the technology of 
> selecting embryos
> has already established, the consent issue doesn't seem 
> germane, and the
> benefit is the potential for increased knowledge. Isn't a 
> primary purpose of
> education to increase knowledge? If so then what is the principled
> difference between embryo selection for the potential for increased
> knowledge and attempting to educate the young so that their knowledge
> increases?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mark Walker, PhD
> Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
> University of Toronto
> Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
> 15 Devonshire Place
> Toronto
> M5S 1H8
> www.permanentend.org
> 

Embryo selection I can probably support; there's nothing risky involved,
just a choice that could have occured anyway. Yes, that's a strong argument
(thanks!). Because in the case of embryo selection, it's like education; it
*must* happen (default is close enough to random), so morally you are fairly
free to choose.

However, like education, the choice of how needs to fall back on those
primarily responsible for the child, ie: the parents, and not on the state.
I wonder if I need to back this statement up? Probably.

Emlyn



From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Thu Jan  8 23:48:29 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:48:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312030924410.-37899@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <000201c3d642$49784430$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

I've already hit that point and I'm only 27.
The sheer amount of time spent in the pursuit
of work in the U.S. is ridiculous. Hell,
the Egyptians had it easier than us building
the pyramids :)  I'ld much rather see a healthier
schedule (4 days work, 3 days play)...  Its a pity
that the germans have succumbed to this stupid 
mentality that you have to put in more hours at 
work to be competitive.  Besides, where do you draw
the line, why not work 20 hours a day?  You'll be
that much more competitive.  I sometimes think I'm
the only that really despises a 40 hour work week.
Everybody else just looks at me like I'm crazy :)

omard-out

PS> you've hit the nail on the head; the only break
you get is 65+; at 65+ your health is starting to go.
so why not try working on improving you and your fellows
health...





-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:55 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age



Yes, there is a flavor of youthful enthusiasm here, but it
is not intentional (on my part). What I was trying to point
out is that one spends 25+ years "working" (often on someone else's
projects) and not playing. And finally, if one is blessed with decent
health, one can try playing.

I gave an example of my brother, and he's in his mid 70s.

My other brother is pushing 80. He does ice skating, model building,
studying German (he always wanted to learn the language after he was
there in WW2), reading, website building for friends - and travel. He
sleeps a lot, and my sister in law says she thinks he may have been
without sufficient sleep all his working life. But he is busy and AFAIK
happy. The work he does now is not what he did in his job, but he still
has connections there.

I myself am only hitting this wall now, and I do wonder
"what's the point?" I don't feel very good, aches and pains. I'm not as
strong as I was, and I need more support system. :( It's most
irritating. But there are new things out there. I've built a website for
a non-profit a friend of mine suggested, I do a bit of database work for
a former boss, I help some older less able friends to get around, and
I've taken up Shaped Note Singing. I also have become interested in
snakes and I roller skate with friends. And I have more time (which is a
darn good thing, as I have less strength!) for my garden.

This is mostly new stuff for me, as I simply didn't have
time when I was working and raising my family.

However.... I admit, I'm not at all sure I'd want to look at another 100
or so years of it. My health isn't what I'd desire.

That said, I think the *real* problem is elsewhere. It is within my
mind.  My brothers have more internal drive than I do, they are ...
smarter. They've always been that way.

None of us watch TV (except my oldest brother watches the iceskating).
I'd rather sleep! :)))

I still think there's more neat stuff for me out there, I
just haven't found it yet.

That's one reason I (usually) lurk on this list. It's interesting. And
full of new stuff.

And my email was meant to be an encouragement.

Regards,
MB
ps. There's also a sort of mid-life thing that some men go through -
having spent all their energies on "the job". Perhaps this is part of
the original poster's trouble?

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, BillK wrote:

> On Tue Dec 02, 2003 05:07 pm  Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > There's always more to learn and do, although one
> > might become tired of it and start justifying that everything out 
> > there is all the same.
>
>
> On Tue Dec 02, 2003 09:11 pm MB wrote:
> > There's stuff out there. You can find it. It may not be what you 
> > expect. It may be sort of out of your field, but nothing wrong with 
> > that.
>
>
> These sentiments strike me as having the flavor of youthful 
> enthusiasm. When you are younger, everything is new and exciting, you 
> are healthy and fit and full of energy and you want to 'go boldly 
> beyond the frontiers'.
>
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Thu Jan  8 23:51:40 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:51:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312032220120.-276771@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <000301c3d642$b7bf50a0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Stupid, mundane, short-sighted, ignorant greedy people in power 
taxing me at 50% effective to prohibit me from doing any of the 
things I like and forcing me to do things the stupid way.  I've
had it up to here with both parties, I've voting libby from here
until my grave; and wherever possible, cheat the system (a sliding
countermeasure) until the libbys get in power.

omard-out

PS> I wouldn't talk to these leaches in RL if god himself 
came down and told me to :)



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:26 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor




--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came
from?"


Discovering that so many things I liked or wanted to do were either
taxed, prohibited, or regulated. That came as quite a shock to me as I
was growing up.

Regards,
MB

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Thu Jan  8 23:41:48 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:41:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Black holes no more...
In-Reply-To: <20040108072826.70897.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000101c3d641$577bdf20$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Actually I had a similar thought about a week ago...
{apparently this was released last year, interesting
things are afoot}.. I'm firmly convinced that gravity is 
the key to everything :)  In fact, I'm going to make it
my primary focus in studying physics.  That and waveguides
(which might come in very handy in studying gravity) :)
But in any event, I would think that the defining boundary
must in and of itself be non-traversible.  Incidentally,
a warp drive would negate the need to puncture that boundary.
<ducks> :)

omard-out



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:28 PM
To: extropy-chat at extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Black holes no more...


So, every time a supernova rings, a universe gets its wings.... If a
singularity event horizon is merely a boundary to another universe
(whether you can git theyah frum heyah is another question), then
hyperspace drives require the ability for occupants of a black hole to
puncture that boundary, travel around the outside of the hole, then
reenter at another point. No sweat.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Black Holes No More -- Introducing the Gravastar                   |
|   from the yet-another-cosmic-theory dept.                         |

[0]Mark Eymer observes: "From the Space.com [1]article: 'Emil Mottola 
of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Pawel Mazur of the University
of South Carolina suggest that instead of a star collapsing into a 
pinpoint of space with virtually infinite gravity, its matter is
transformed into a spherical void surrounded by "an extremely durable
form of matter never before experienced on Earth."' While these objects
may abound in the universe, they also say that our entire universe may
reside within a giant gravastar." This new theory attempts to fill holes
in the currently accepted concept of the "black hole".

Discuss this story at:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/01/07/1515210

Links:
    0. mailto:eymerm at cableone.net
    1. 
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gravastars_020423.html


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark "Fascists are
objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:12:15 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:12:15 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040105080609.03941420@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3d645$42c06b60$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

I just read an interesting paper about weather prediction;
not in the sense of what will happen tomorrow, but statistically,
what percentage of x can u expect.  Its based off of chaos theory,
primarily examining what portions of weather systems were scale
independent.  It was interesting/thought provoking.  Not sure if
I believe it (at this point).  But does indicate an interesting line
of thought.

omard-out


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:24 AM
To: Extropy Chat
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton



Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


>When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic
>require quotation marks around it?
>
>To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming
>controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back
in 
>the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight
to 
>a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer 
>model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data
in 
>themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data

>from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they
were 
>themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting
forward. 
>There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only 
>model runs.
>
>This fascination with computer models is something I understand very 
>well.
>Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only
if 
>you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at
the 
>complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
>
>Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're 
>asked
>to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And
make 
>financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost
their 
>minds?



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:21:14 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:21:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Libertarianism and the Autistic
	Spectrum (fwd from fehlinger@un.org)
In-Reply-To: <3FBCA014.2060101@mxm.dk>
Message-ID: <000101c3d646$dbfbe880$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Actually, being a person of some severe* psychological abnormalities,
I'll play a card that is a favorite of mine when dealing with people
who I term "skittish";  the DSM-IV requires that the person who has
the disorder consider it a disorder (causitive of problems in need 
of resolution) for it to be classified as a disorder.

Now, knowing that, and starting with his assumption that everyone
is Narcissitic Personality Disorder, would anyone here say that they 
have personality tendencies that are severely interfering with their
lives and hence, require treatment?  That of course, would be the
direct implication of his "prognosis".

And having said, one can thus deduce he doesn't know what the fuck he
his talking about, since I do not see any questions to group members
of the form I just posed.

If he were smart, he could of course, make the statement that he is 
observing narcistic tendencies (and get away with that)/

omard-out

*I am weird.  No doubt about it. Confirmed from multiple external
sources.
I am a very open person, so I don't bother hiding my abnormalities in
the
slightest.  I don't see a point to continually trying to iceskate
uphill.



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max M
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:06 AM
To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org
Cc: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Libertarianism and the Autistic
Spectrum (fwd from fehlinger at un.org)


Eugen Leitl wrote:


> I discovered stuff on the Web that convinced me
> that a lot of folks in the Extropian/transhumanist community exhibit 
> many of the characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (as 
> described in DSM-IV)


<snip>

> However, it now seems to me that some of this atmosphere
> (and my perception of the atmosphere remains the same -- a smug, 
> self-satisfied lack of empathy with people who don't share their 
> particular hobby-horse -- and for that matter, a frequent lack of 
> empathy with each other!) may be due to a concentration among this 
> group (as with folks in SF fandom, the Trekkie world, the Role-Playing

> Game world, computer programmers, mathematicians, and science/
> engineering types in general) of a sub-clinical "shadow syndrome"
> of autism.  Not quite Asperger's Syndrome, even,
> just a mild echo of it.


Yeah right

And less than 5% of the worlds population are pshycologists and they 
have a very similar psychological profile.

So they they are outside the normal distribution, and thus sick.

That's a stupid argument ... and so is his.

But naturally it is easier to dismiss people if if you can label them 
with a mental disorder.

Personally I am glad, however, to belong to the diseased group of people

who created the majority of the worlds wealth and health.


regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:25:33 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:25:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Libertarianism and the
	AutisticSpectrum (fwd from fehlinger@un.org)
In-Reply-To: <3FBCB626.7070405@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <000201c3d647$702f5c80$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

>They also believe that they are right and everybody else is wrong."
The first part is self fulfilling. Any group that wants to change the 
status quo consists of "fringe" people.

Prove that everyone else does not follow the identical pattern;
I, to date, have not found anyone who does not think what they are
doing is right, and everybody else is wrong... Anecdotal, but I like
to study people in detail :)  I would have sniffed it out :)  There
is of course, the standard proviso that I might yet mean someone who
thinks they are wrong, and everybody else is right... but I find it
unlikely at this stage in the game.


>We would most likely appear a lot more reasonable to a lot of people if

we could show single reasonable cases in todays society with a >H 
solution/attitude.

Bleh, get the cure for cancer, refuse to administer it to anyone who
objects :) Problem solved :)

omard-out

regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:28:01 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:28:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of work, the leisure society,
	and automation
In-Reply-To: <3FDD5EE7.60807@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <000301c3d647$736ab160$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Possibly because you need more stuff to use your leisure time
productively :)

omard-out


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max M
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:13 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The end of work, the leisure society, and
automation


Colin Magee wrote:

>               I am interested in the concept of a leisure society and
> was wondering if anyone knew of any major thinkers,researchers,or
think 
> tanks exploring this concept and the
cultural,economic,psychological,and 
> political ramifications of this idea.


It was all the rage among futurologists in the 70-80's. But it turned 
out that people didn't want to use their higher income for more leisure 
time. Rather they wanted more stuff.

So they kept working


regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:30:37 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:30:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000001c3caeb$9a163da0$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <000401c3d648$28132ac0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Matus
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 5:33 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already



> 
Charlie Stross said:

> I'd like to add to that: war seems to me to be about as anti-extropic 
> as you can get. The triumph of brute force over enlightenment, 
> destruction, death and despair on a massive scale. An excuse for the 
> enemies of freedom on every side to chip away at civil rights. The 
> ascendency of dehumanization is the *opposite* of transhumanism.

I would like to disagree with that.  War is neither intrinsically
extropic nor anti-extropic.  If one of the parties at war is less
extropic, and it wins, then war is anti-extropic.  

- careful their kimo sabe, thats a dangerous line your walking;
put another way, if you will grant me, a small society that is
"extropic".. which by definition, leads a less "extropic" society
comprised of the majority.  So when does the bloody revolution start,
comrade? :)  Direct consequence of your statements, you understand.

As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)

Michael


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:34:07 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:34:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated
In-Reply-To: <LAW10-OE53iGlrxDG4U000081cf@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000501c3d648$a1421dc0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.
You don't need an island. You need a boat.
Yup, thats right, a boat.  According to maritime
law, you are under the laws of the registering nation
when you are at sea (and protection, ostensibly).
So pick a country that hasn't passed any laws against
whatever you want, get a citizen from there, have him
register a boat in his name, and float the boat 15 miles
off any coast you like.

There is also some interesting case law regarding the formation
of nation-states :)

omard-out




-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
kevinfreels at hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:26 PM
To: reason at exratio.com; ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated


Can we get together and buy an island to do all this research on?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reason" <reason at exratio.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Robert 
> > J.
> Bradbury
>
> > Terminology:
> > ILE: Indefinite Lifespan Extension -- preferable to "IMMORTALITY" 
> > because IMMORTALITY can take too many hits based on the physics of 
> > the universe.  (Protons decaying, expansion accelerating, black 
> > holes consuming everything else, yada yada yada...).
> >
> > Ok, now one of the serious questions that people should
> > be concerned with with respect to ILE is precisely *how*
> > do I get my cake.  For those of us on the upside end of
> > 40, or perhaps 30, cryonics enters into the equation.
> >
> > *But* as some of us know cryonics becomes pretty *iffy*
> > if the legal authorities stick their fingers into the works. (Cases 
> > in point range from the current situation regarding the Martinot's 
> > in France to the case of Dora Kent in the past.)
>
> I think I would go so far as to say that the entirety of the "cake or 
> not" question revolves around government interference. My take is that

> we're probably 30 years away from the start of aging as a chronic but 
> controlled condition, *IF* there are clear skies and freedom for 
> fundraising,
activism,
> education and research. There are no show-stopping hurdles beyond a 
> lot of work and a lot of money - exactly the same thing that could 
> have been said about cancer 30 years ago.
>
> This time could easily double if politicians and anti-progress forces
really
> dig in and fight seriously to halt medical progress towards 
> ILE...which
they
> show all the signs of doing. Already, scientific progress in 
> regenerative medicine is far behind where it could have been.
>
> Reason
> http://www.exratio.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




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:36:32 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:36:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: garage nanotech
In-Reply-To: <14a.26e36763.2ceae155@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000601c3d648$a5291bf0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

First, bradbury, what are you talking about?
Second, alex, out of curiousity, what were
you working on that distracted you from the STM.
Incidentally, you wouldn't happen to be out in
Cali, would you?
omard-out
 

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
ABlainey at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:44 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: garage nanotech


In a message dated 18/11/2003 00:29:48 GMT Daylight Time,
bradbury at blarg.net writes:




It may be useful for Dan to point out to his daughter that if someone
does
pull off tool tip replacement and alternative assembly chemistries for
STMs
that they are probably on the short list for a Nobel Prize (and probably

would have a very *very* large set of royalty income streams from the
patents.)





What is the problem with the tool tip replacement? Is it just the
problem of the tip wearing down and having to be constantly replaced and
shaped? or is the problem more complex?
I toyed with the idea of a home-brew STM not that long ago. I built a
piezo scanning head in a few hours and then became distracted by a more
interesting project. I have thought about continuing the STM
construction and had a few ideas about tool and scanning head
refinements. 
Maybe this thread is just the incentive I need to get the project off
the shelf.

Alex



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040108/fd3bfdc4/attachment.html>

From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:38:32 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:38:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Risks of Smart Drugs
In-Reply-To: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B74661@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c3d649$40160f10$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Can't say anything about smart drugs;
however, I do have a personal observation regarding grape juice.
I find, if I have been concentrating for a great deal of time
(making lots of complex decisions for a number of hours), that
I deplete something... and when I drink grape juice (for which
I develop a most unusual hankering), i get a mental boost.

Just an FYI, in case you were interested (or anyone on the list 
for that matter).


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy James
Stapp
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:22 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Risks of Smart Drugs


Vinpocetine is the only OTC nootropic that gives me any 
noticeable effect. Subjectively, it seems like the world goes by just a
tiny bit slower, and I feel a bit more on top of things. Unfortunately I
am unaware of any quick tests 
to determine the efficacy of nootropics. This effect 
seemed to fade over a couple of days though. Who knows 
whether I was adapting to the subjective effect (and still 
receiving an objective effect, if any) or whether I was 
adapting to the objective effect and it was losing it's 
efficacy.

Acy

-----Original Message-----
From: R.Coyote [mailto:etheric at comcast.net] 

I've also had noticeably positive effects from vinpocetine.
http://www.nootropics.com/vinpocetine/index.html

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 01:05:41 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:05:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Words of wisdom and humor
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031029075440.01926240@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3d64d$19b935a0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Man that Voltaire was such a card :)
I've got candide queued for reading,
just read the introduction, and he seemed
like a fairly cool guy.  I read it in highschool,
but I can't remember a thing about it except that
I liked it alot.  Swift too :)

-------------
I've included some quotes from my homepage circa 1995. I have many more
saved,
but I'm afraid I haven't integrated them yet.

-- You're out of luck, can't find a copy.

ah well.
omard-out




-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:05 AM
To: Extropy Chat
Subject: [extropy-chat] Words of wisdom and humor


Rather than hoarding all the quotes I've gathered, I thought I'd share
some 
of them here. A mix of wisdom, humor, and both at once:


"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come
here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Sexual abstinence is harmless when practiced in moderation.

  "The future is usually like the past  right up to the moment when it
isn't." George F. Will, Newsweek, 10.27.03

"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness
of 
people."
Isaac Newton, after losing his savings in the South Sea Bubble of 1720.

"Life is a process of evolution and anyone who thinks the current world 
order is OK does not get what evolution is all about."
Leroy Hood

Bill McKibben "It is clear that these revolutionary technologies are
being 
driven by people with immortality, or something very near it, on their
minds."

"The only one who likes change is a wet baby."
Unknown

"There's a seeker born every minute."
Robert Anton Wilson

"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk" Thomas
Edison

"No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human

beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?"
Dr. James Watson, Nobel Laureate, Co-Discoverer with Francis Crick of
the 
Structure of DNA, and Founding Director of the NIH Human Genome Project.

"It seems to me that the civilized human being is a skeptic  someone who

believes nothing at face value."
Robert McKee, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, in "Storytelling That 
Moves People".

"Humankind does not live by bread alone but also by catchphrases."  From
"Real Work" by Abraham Zaleznik, HBR Nov/Dec 1997

  "I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is
to 
be flexible at all times."
Everett Dirksen, leader of Senate Republicans 1959-1969

  "I don't want any 'yes men' in this organization. I want people to
speak 
their minds, even if it does cost them their jobs."
Sam Goldwyn

  "Inside an organization there are only cost centers. The only profit 
center is a customer whose check has not bounced."
  Peter F. Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century, p.122, 
"Information Challenges".

"If man were meant to be nude, he would have been born that way." -
Oscar 
Wilde.

"I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it."
- Groucho Marx (1895-1977)

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)

"If you are going through hell, keep going."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"The covers of this book are too far apart."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)

"It is time I stepped aside for a less experienced and less able man."
- Professor Scott Elledge on his retirement from Cornell

"Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)

"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking
that 
he renounce Satan.

"The nice thing about egotists is that they don't talk about other
people."
- Lucille S. Harper

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
- Wernher Von Braun (1912-1977)

"I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial."
- Irvin S. Cobb

"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" "
- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

"His ignorance is encyclopedic"
- Abba Eban (1915-)

"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims."
- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)


Onward!

Max



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 00:52:18 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:52:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR
Message-ID: <Law10-OE15apUZq3dUO00027d69@hotmail.com>

I found this online and I thought someone would appreciate it:
http://www.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/paranormal/Ratsey_shuttle.jpg
Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040108/65d3d9ce/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 01:16:42 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was enough?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE15apUZq3dUO00027d69@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040109011642.44794.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=16&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_fe_st/foiled_room_4

OLYMPIA, Wash. - What kind of friends coat your apartment ? and nearly
everything in it ? with tinfoil while you're away? Here's a hint: One
of the only objects that escaped the shiny treatment was a book titled
"Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends." 

Chris Kirk found his downtown Olympia apartment encased in aluminum
foil when he returned home Monday night from a trip to Los Angeles. 

The walls, ceiling, cabinets and everything in between shimmered, after
the prank orchestrated by Kirk's longtime friend, Luke Trerice, 26, who
was staying in the apartment while Kirk was away. 

"He's known for large-scale strangeness," Kirk, 33, told The Olympian.
"He warned me that he would be able to touch my stuff, but it didn't
sound so bad." 

Trerice, who lives in Las Vegas, and a small group of friends draped
the apartment with about 4,000 square feet of aluminum foil, which cost
about $100. 

Not surprisingly, the idea was hatched on New Year's Eve. 

"It was just a spur of the moment thing," Trerice said. "I really don't
even consider it art. I consider it a psychology project. ... He seems
to be upbeat, so I consider this a success. " 

No detail was too small or too time-consuming. The toilet paper was
unrolled, wrapped in foil, then rolled back up again. The friends
covered Kirk's book and compact disc collections but made sure each CD
case could open and shut normally. They even used foil on each coin in
Kirk's spare change. 

And to sweeten the theme, they left silver Hershey's kisses sprinkled
throughout the apartment. 

"The toilet was hard. The molding around the doorways took a very long
time," Trerice said. 



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  9 01:30:25 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: garage nanotech
In-Reply-To: <000601c3d648$a5291bf0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401081726210.27057-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Paul Grant wrote:

> First, bradbury, what are you talking about?

I was generally talking about the difficult of making
precise tips for use with STMs or AFMs.  There is a
bit of difference between a tip that will grasp carbon
monoxide securely and precisely and a tip that will grasp
adamantane (a 10 carbon molecule (I think) with a diamond
like bonding structure).  If you only want to add one type
of molecule to a structure you never need to change tips.
If you do then you probably need a variety of tips to
get the job done.  View the tips as the wrenches and sockets
you need to take apart your car engine.

> Second, alex, out of curiousity, what were
> you working on that distracted you from the STM.
> Incidentally, you wouldn't happen to be out in
> Cali, would you?

I think Alex is either in MI or TX, I can never keep track
of everyone.

R.

{ P.S. Paul -- you are probably over your message limit for
the day so you may want to refrain from posting for a day or
so.  Thanks (taking off the really ugly moderator cap...) }




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jan  9 02:05:20 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <20040108202204.33011.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401081739070.27283-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> That said, this could be a real issue in the very near term.

Yep.

> All that's missing is a good, publically
> available map of genes to approximate IQ, which
> doesn't seem that hard to create.

Its harder than you might think if there are many genes
(say greater than a dozen) and they have low penetrance
(say are responsible for only 5-10% of the trait each).
These are the characteristics associated with diabetes
and heart disease predispositions and its been rather
difficult to produce a complete picture in spite of many
people working on it.

I suspect Decode, working with the Icelandic dataset
or the company that is working with the Estonian (?)
dataset may be the first to begin to unravel this
because they have the largest number of samples to
work with (and don't have the problems a U.S.
University would probably run into).

> A group dedicated
> to the necessary studies could possibly publish a
> fairly reliable one (with a disclaimer that it only
> covers the genetic component of IQ, which is not 100%
> of IQ - partly as a cover in case one of the resulting
> children decides to destroy their own potential)
> within two or three years.

Sooner than you think... :-)  [I just love Google...]
http://www.hum-molgen.de/bb/Forum9/HTML/000052.html

And then there is the work at King's College:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11838529&dopt=Abstract

And even Pennsylvania State University has an IQ project:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8024528&dopt=Abstract&itool=iconabstr

And then of course there is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12556904&dopt=Abstract
which finds 4 loci and 3 specific genes they can identify.

Related abstracts also report negative findings for association
with the dopamine receptor and several other genes.

> It would have to be a private group, since no current scientifically
> trustworthy government could get away with such an effort politically,
> but the resources required do not seem to exceed several million dollars.

It would be interesting to research who paid for the studies
cited above.  One thing is for sure -- people with below average
IQs probably cost governments money (extra educational requirements,
perhaps a greater possibility for becoming criminals, etc.)

[I'm not stating things as facts but as reasonable possibilities.]

> But the map isn't available yet, so this selection could not be
> done with confidence today in most cases.

Well 5+ positive polymorphisms and several negative polymorphisms
certainly gives you a start.

Robert

P.S.  I think the Extro list needs a semi-AI filter that runs
all "claims" through google to determine whether or not there
is resonable data to suggest that you might want to be very
careful about the claims...  (No offense Adrian... :-))




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 02:30:17 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:30:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was enough?
In-Reply-To: <20040109011642.44794.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001401c3d658$890d1d30$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=16&u=/ap/20040108/ap_
on_fe_st/foiled_room_4>
> 
> OLYMPIA, Wash. - What kind of friends coat your apartment - 
> and nearly everything in it - with tinfoil while you're away? 
> Here's a hint: One of the only objects that escaped the shiny 
> treatment was a book titled "Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends."

Slow news day?  Why is this news?

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jan  9 03:17:49 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:17:49 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated
References: <000501c3d648$a1421dc0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>
Message-ID: <007b01c3d65f$29053470$62256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Grant" <paulgrant999 at hotmail.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:34 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated


> I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.
> You don't need an island. You need a boat.
> Yup, thats right, a boat.  According to maritime
> law, you are under the laws of the registering nation
> when you are at sea (and protection, ostensibly).
> So pick a country that hasn't passed any laws against
> whatever you want, get a citizen from there, have him
> register a boat in his name, and float the boat 15 miles
> off any coast you like.
> 
> There is also some interesting case law regarding the formation
> of nation-states :)

http://www.sealandgov.com/ 

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jan  9 06:03:13 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:03:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000401c3d648$28132ac0$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>
Message-ID: <000001c3d676$44fe0910$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grant
>
> Charlie Stross said:
> 
> > I'd like to add to that: war seems to me to be about as
anti-extropic
> > as you can get. The triumph of brute force over enlightenment,
> > destruction, death and despair on a massive scale. An excuse for the
> > enemies of freedom on every side to chip away at civil rights. The
> > ascendency of dehumanization is the *opposite* of transhumanism.
> 
> I would like to disagree with that.  War is neither intrinsically
> extropic nor anti-extropic.  If one of the parties at war is less
> extropic, and it wins, then war is anti-extropic.
> 
> - careful their kimo sabe, thats a dangerous line your walking;
> put another way, if you will grant me, a small society that is
> "extropic".. which by definition, leads a less "extropic" society
> comprised of the majority.  So when does the bloody revolution start,
> comrade? :)  Direct consequence of your statements, you understand.
> 
> As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)
> 

I think you should refer to the rest of the discussion.  Are you
claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars that have ever
occurred but all wars that could possibly occur are definitely
anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.  This of course requires you
to define extropic exactly, and war exactly.  My point, as was evident
from the discussion was that whether war is extropic is a much more
complicated question.  In that discussion Charlie even presented an
example of overthrowing the US government to get rid of the drug laws.  

My example of a less extropic government being overthrown by a more
extropic one was merely a quick example, it was not meant to imply that
ANY more extropic government had the right to overthrow any less
extropic one no matter the cost in lives or property.  That is of course
ridiculous.  A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in extropy,
and how much of an increase?  Debates of that sort have been tossed
around on this list all ready. 

I also noted in that discussion that freedoms are not directly
synonymous with extropy, as the freedom to sit on ones ass all day and
watch TV isn't gonna bring about a singularity, nor would being stoned,
drunk, or visiting strip clubs all day, nor chattering on discussion
board for that matter.  In fact a paternalistic big brother esque
society where each person was assigned an area of technological pursuit
and had immortality and extropianism drilled into their head from the
time they were children would probably be the most 'extropic' yet it
would not be very free.

Michael Dickey




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jan  9 07:14:45 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401081739070.27283-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040109071445.76398.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > That said, this could be a real issue in the very
> near term.
> 
> Yep.

The present course - do nothing - seems to be best.
Some people will gene-select their children; they can
then provide the test cases.  Meanwhile, as has been
pointed out, adults are likely to be able to receive
superior enhancements within 20-40 years, rendering
the effects of gene selection moot by the time it
might start to matter.

> > All that's missing is a good, publically
> > available map of genes to approximate IQ, which
> > doesn't seem that hard to create.
> 
> Its harder than you might think if there are many
> genes
> (say greater than a dozen) and they have low
> penetrance
> (say are responsible for only 5-10% of the trait
> each).
> These are the characteristics associated with
> diabetes
> and heart disease predispositions and its been
> rather
> difficult to produce a complete picture in spite of
> many
> people working on it.

Aye.  But I was speaking relative to other things we
discuss here, such as creating sentient AI or
molecular assemblers.  Compared to those types of
things, merely discovering which genes have good
correlation with IQ isn't that hard.

> P.S.  I think the Extro list needs a semi-AI filter
> that runs
> all "claims" through google to determine whether or
> not there
> is resonable data to suggest that you might want to
> be very
> careful about the claims...  (No offense Adrian...
> :-))

None taken.  I disclaimed it as my own anecdotal
experience for a reason, and if it further inspires
someone with a way to do something like that, we're
all better off for the results of my mis-suspicion.
^_-


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 07:23:39 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:23:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d676$44fe0910$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <002701c3d681$80aafa80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Matus wrote,
> Are you claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars
> that have ever occurred but all wars that could possibly
> occur are definitely anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.

Actually, your argument against this statement seems to be the strong
assertion.

Why can't we just allow the general statement that "war is bad"?  It does
not seem to be such an unreasonable assertion.

> A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in 
> extropy, and how much of an increase? 

No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it keeps
coming up on this list.

> Debates of that sort have been tossed around on this list
> all ready.

It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who keep trying to
justify committing violence as part of the extropian agenda.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 07:29:25 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:29:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics
In-Reply-To: <20040109071445.76398.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002801c3d682$5209c390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

> "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> > P.S.  I think the Extro list needs a semi-AI filter
> > that runs all "claims" through google to determine
> > whether or not there is resonable data to suggest
> > that you might want to be very careful about the
> > claims...

Bingo.  I do this manually, but don't have time to do it often enough.
Other people never seem to do this at all.  I find that at least half of the
news items posted to this list are vaporware that I don't expect ever to
materialize.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 12:44:17 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 04:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <20040109124417.91800.qmail@web41308.mail.yahoo.com>

UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

By FRANK SIETZEN JR. AND KEITH L. COWING, United Press International

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return to the moon
early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore 
Mars
and nearby asteroids, President Bush is expected to propose next week 
as
part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program.

To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of
spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules 
in
the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as soon as
construction of the International Space Station is completed, senior
administration sources told United Press International.

The visionary new space plan would be the most ambitious project 
entrusted
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since the Apollo 
moon
landings of three decades ago. It commits the United States to an 
aggressive
and far-reaching mission that holds interplanetary space as the human 
race's
new frontier.

Sources said Bush's impending announcement climaxes an unprecedented 
review
of NASA and of America's civilian space goals -- manned and robotic. 
The
review has been proceeding for nearly a year, involving closed-door 
meetings
under the supervision of Vice President Dick Cheney, sources said. The
administration examined a wide range of ideas, including new, reusable 
space
shuttles and even exotic concepts such as space elevators.

To begin the initiative, the president will ask Congress for a down 
payment
of $800 million for fiscal year 2005, most of which will go to develop 
new
robotic space vehicles and begin work on advanced human exploration 
systems.
Bush also plans to ask Congress to boost NASA's budget by 5 percent 
annually
over at least the next five years, with all of the increase supporting 
space
exploration. With the exception of the Departments of Defense and 
Homeland
Security, no other agency is expected to receive a budget increase 
above
inflation in FY 2005.

Along with retiring the shuttle fleet, the new plan calls for NASA to
convert a planned follow-on spacecraft -- called the orbital space 
plane --
into versions of a new spaceship called the crew exploration vehicle. 
NASA
would end substantial involvement in the space station project about 
the
same time the moon landings would begin -- beginning in 2013, according 
to
an administration timetable shown to UPI.

The first test flights of unmanned prototypes of the CEV could occur as 
soon
as 2007. An orbital version would replace the shuttle to transport
astronauts to and from the space station. However, sources said, the 
current
timetable leaves a period several years when NASA would lack manned 
space
capability -- hence the need to use Soyuz vehicles for flights to the
station. Ariane rockets also might be used to launch lunar missions.

During the remainder of its participation in space station activities,
NASA's research would be redirected to sustaining humans in space. 
Other
research programs not involving humans would be terminated or 
curtailed.

The various models of the CEV would be 21st century versions of the 
1960s
Apollo spacecraft. When they become operational, they would be able to
conduct various missions in Earth orbit, travel to and land on the 
moon,
send astronauts to rendezvous with nearby asteroids, and eventually 
serve as
part of a series of manned missions to Mars.

Under the current plan, sources said, the first lunar landings would 
carry
only enough resources to test advanced equipment that would be employed 
on
voyages beyond the moon. Because the early moon missions would use 
existing
rockets, they could deliver only small equipment packages. So the 
initial,
return-to-the-moon missions essentially would begin where the Apollo
landings left off -- a few days at a time, growing gradually longer. 
The
human landings could be both preceded and accompanied by robotic 
vehicles.

The first manned Mars expeditions would attempt to orbit the red planet 
in
advance of landings -- much as Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon but did 
not
land. The orbital flights would conduct photo reconnaissance of the 
Martian
surface before sending landing craft, said sources familiar with the 
plan's
details.

Along with new spacecraft, NASA would develop other equipment needed to
allow humans to explore other worlds, including advanced spacesuits, 
roving
vehicles and life support equipment.

As part of its new space package, sources said, the administration will
convene an unusual presidential commission to review NASA's plans as 
they
unfold. The group would consider such factors as the design of the
spacecraft; the procedure for assembly, either in Earth orbit or lunar
orbit; the individual elements the new craft should contain, such as
capsules, supply modules, landing vehicles and propellant stages, and 
the
duration and number of missions and size of crews.

Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing
programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the 
plan
and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA 
briefings
next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to 
Congress.

--

Frank Sietzen Jr. covers aerospace issues for UPI Science News. Keith 
L.
Cowing is editor of NASAWatch.com and SpaceRef.com. E-mail
sciencemail at upi.com




La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040109/8171413a/attachment.html>

From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 13:10:40 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:10:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated
In-Reply-To: <007b01c3d65f$29053470$62256bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <000201c3d6b2$3a7d2a70$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Thought about that too..

but you don't get military protection from that :)
Unless you want to build a military as well :)

No, I think a boat is the way to go :) a boat from a country
that isn't overly prohibitive and powerful enough that nobody
would want to screw with you :)

Probably one of the less-legally advanced nuclear powers :)
omard-out



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:18 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Grant" <paulgrant999 at hotmail.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:34 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated


> I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.
> You don't need an island. You need a boat.
> Yup, thats right, a boat.  According to maritime
> law, you are under the laws of the registering nation
> when you are at sea (and protection, ostensibly).
> So pick a country that hasn't passed any laws against whatever you 
> want, get a citizen from there, have him register a boat in his name, 
> and float the boat 15 miles off any coast you like.
> 
> There is also some interesting case law regarding the formation of 
> nation-states :)

http://www.sealandgov.com/ 

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium http://www.theconsensus.org
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 13:24:37 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:24:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d676$44fe0910$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <000301c3d6b4$3d1e7750$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Matus
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:03 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- 
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grant
>
> Charlie Stross said:
> 
> > I'd like to add to that: war seems to me to be about as
anti-extropic
> > as you can get. The triumph of brute force over enlightenment, 
> > destruction, death and despair on a massive scale. An excuse for the

> > enemies of freedom on every side to chip away at civil rights. The 
> > ascendency of dehumanization is the *opposite* of transhumanism.
> 
> I would like to disagree with that.  War is neither intrinsically 
> extropic nor anti-extropic.  If one of the parties at war is less 
> extropic, and it wins, then war is anti-extropic.
> 
> - careful their kimo sabe, thats a dangerous line your walking; put 
> another way, if you will grant me, a small society that is 
> "extropic".. which by definition, leads a less "extropic" society 
> comprised of the majority.  So when does the bloody revolution start, 
> comrade? :)  Direct consequence of your statements, you understand.
> 
> As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)
> 

>I think you should refer to the rest of the discussion.  Are you
claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars that have ever
occurred but all wars that could possibly occur are definitely
anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.  This of course requires you
to define extropic exactly, and war exactly.  My point, as was evident
from the discussion was that whether war is extropic is a much more
complicated question.  In that discussion Charlie even presented an
example of overthrowing the US government to get rid of the drug laws. 

-To me, war is a question of relevance;  are they (whoever) really
relevant to your own extropic efforts?
As it is, the US gov. has little no effect on my own pursuits... so
would war (with all its sapping
efforts) be necessary?  Mind you, I'm not partial to a lot of the laws
that are currently in effect,
but thankfully, most of said laws are not being enforced... so what
would be the point?  I'ld much
rather save my efforts for something more constructive.  Its a question
of costs, more than anything else.
And war imho, raises the costs of peace-time pursuits disproportionate
to the benefits of said overthrow.

Besides, really, think about it... wouldn't you rather bring your
aggressor to your viewpoints of things
and have him join his resources to yours, as opposed to beating him, and
then spending all that effort
to keep "unruly" portions of your population in line?  And no matter
what anyone says, if extropians succeed
in their quest, it will be something worth its weight in gold (read: of
intrinsic value to anyone alive).

>My example of a less extropic government being overthrown by a more
extropic one was merely a quick example, it was not meant to imply that
ANY more extropic government had the right to overthrow any less
extropic one no matter the cost in lives or property.  That is of course
ridiculous.  

Well it's a direct consequence of your statement :) I only extended it
to illustrate it.  I think it defines (embodies) a rather nice specifity
to the term "enlightened".  Kind of like a self-reinforcing pattern.

>A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in extropy, 
and how much of an increase?  Debates of that sort have been tossed 
around on this list all ready. 

No doubt. I dunno, what do you think? Do you think extropy is measured
in number of human lives?
Personally I tend to think of it as a codified survivor instinct without
regard to any of the current
mental/spiritual/economic/political blocks in place :)

>I also noted in that discussion that freedoms are not directly
synonymous with extropy, as the freedom to sit on ones ass all day and
watch TV isn't gonna bring about a singularity, nor would being stoned,
drunk, or visiting strip clubs all day, nor chattering on discussion
board for that matter.  In fact a paternalistic big brother esque
society where each person was assigned an area of technological pursuit
and had immortality and extropianism drilled into their head from the
time they were children would probably be the most 'extropic' yet it
would not be very free.

I would agree with that sentiment (not the big brother), but that
freedom and extropy need not be irrevocably related...  I would suggest
though, that life without freedom (and health) would lose its flavor
rather quickly,
so perhaps it is highly correlated...

Some interesting questions :)

omard-out

Michael Dickey


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From determinism at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 14:29:01 2004
From: determinism at hotmail.com (Dennis May)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:29:01 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was enough?
Message-ID: <BAY7-F6SPibkiNhozHO0001feaa@hotmail.com>

When I was a senior in college we plastic saran-wrapped every object
in a professors office, including a bust of Einstein.  We then took sheet
rock and walled off the end of the hallway making the office disappear.
A table with flowers and pictures on wall completed the look.

The same professor had other things done on his birthdays:

Live lobster delivered by a man in a guerrilla suit during a lecture.
Delivery of a talking doll with personalized lustful messages from teenage 
girls.
His entire office filled with styrofoam beads by blowing them under
his door with a shop vac.
His entire office filled with balloons.

Dennis May
_____________________
Physicist/Engineer/Inventor
determinism at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 15:06:06 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 07:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <002701c3d681$80aafa80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040109150606.86840.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Matus wrote,
> > Are you claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars
> > that have ever occurred but all wars that could possibly
> > occur are definitely anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.
> 
> Actually, your argument against this statement seems to be the strong
> assertion.
> 
> Why can't we just allow the general statement that "war is bad"?  It
> does not seem to be such an unreasonable assertion.

All state action is bad. How about that assertion?

> 
> > A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> > reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in 
> > extropy, and how much of an increase? 
> 
> No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
> keeps coming up on this list.

Because ALL conflict, all state sponsored action, is a cost benefit
measured action, not just conflict with guns and other weapons. For
example, the legislated banning of DDT has resulted in more deaths from
malaria than those exterminated by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. All because
some entropically orthodox enviromentalist nuts value birds more than
humans.
> 
> > Debates of that sort have been tossed around on this list
> > all ready.
> 
> It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who keep trying
> to justify committing violence as part of the extropian agenda.

This is an absolutely FALSE assertion, and I request you retract it.
This subject is active on this list because of Mark Walker's inane and
thinly vieled argument that Extropians should become absolute
pacifists.

There are quite a number of paleo-extropians who look on this list with
disgust these days because of these sorts of pacifistic arguments.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jan  9 15:05:21 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:05:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <002701c3d681$80aafa80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000001c3d6c2$05922850$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
> 
> Matus wrote,
> > Are you claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars
> > that have ever occurred but all wars that could possibly
> > occur are definitely anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.
> 
> Actually, your argument against this statement seems to be the strong
> assertion.

My statement that sometimes war may be extropic is a strong assertion?
How so?  Seems like that absolute that war is *always* anti-extropic is
the strong assertion, since it requires not only a clear definition of
extropic but one of war as well.

Referring back to my discussion with Charlie, I said as much

"To positively assert whether something was extropic or not, you will
have to define what criteria makes something extropic, and how much of
it was present before and how much present afterward. This would
probably be quite an undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely
positive that *all* wars are anti-extropic."

In that same conversation, Charlie said:

> I'll grant you that it's necessary to address the problem of
> anti-extropic ideologies, and in some cases their proponents will not
> listen to reason. But ...

What do we do when their proponents will not listen to reason?  

To suggest that war is *always* anti-extropic requires one to prove that
each and every possible war scenario definitely results in a net
decrease in extropic memes (net?  Perhaps not, since one small pocket of
extropic thought might bring about a singularity, yet another question
the arises when making such sweeping absolutes)  To suggest, as I did,
that maybe some wars are indeed extropic requires me to present merely
one single example of a war that would reasonably be considered
extropic.  To do this, and prove it to you, Charlie, and Paul would
likely require a lengthy discussion just to define extropic and to
define war.  But are you so sure that ANY possible war is definitely NOT
extropic?

> 
> Why can't we just allow the general statement that "war is bad"?  It
does
> not seem to be such an unreasonable assertion.

Because some statements can be so general that they are meaningless.
Why not run around with a 'make love not war' shirt while were at it.
The real world is not simple and general, it is complex and violent.  If
you wanted to try to convince Hitler and Stalin that War was bad, I'm
all for it, but once tanks start rolling over us, I'm defending myself.
We could say that 'killing is bad' as well, but in saying that am I
giving up my right to self defense?  

> 
> > A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> > reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in
> > extropy, and how much of an increase?
> 
> No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
keeps
> coming up on this list.

Yet if one is to assert that all wars are anti-extropic, then this is a
question that MUST be answered before making that determination.  All
wars include loss of life.  How extropic is a single life?  What do we
mean when we say 'extropic' in the first place?

> 
> > Debates of that sort have been tossed around on this list
> > all ready.
> 
> It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who keep trying to
> justify committing violence as part of the extropian agenda.
> 

And it seems that there is a subgroup of people content to let us be
overrun by murderous oppressive regimes for fear of taking a single like
to defend our very extropic (thought not extropic enough) society.

Would you assert that in absolutely *NO* cases would committing violence
be extropian?

Yes, War is bad, and killing is also bad.  So is lying, stealing,
cheating, etc.  But the real world is cold, complex, and unforgiving,
and sometimes things must be done that we prefer not to do in order to
ensure the continuation of the things we value.  I may steal bread to
feed my starving self or family, I may lie to protect the feelings of
someone I care about, I may kill someone in self defense, and my country
may go to war when threatened by a clearly and significantly less
extropic, less free, murderous and oppressive government.  

Michael Dickey




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  9 15:26:16 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:26:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <119420-22004159152616388@M2W043.mail2web.com>


From: Jose Cordeiro 


Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news


"UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

By FRANK SIETZEN JR. AND KEITH L. COWING, United Press International

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return to the moon
early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore 
Mars and nearby asteroids, President Bush is expected to propose next week 
as part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program."


This is exciting.  I listened to a full report on the radio this morning
and was gleeful that as a side-event, maybe the space tourism industry will
finally be able to piggyback on the advances of a larger industry - NASA. 
NASA has made many mistakes, to be sure, however it just might make the big
leap we all have been waiting for in the surge to develop a better system
to counter rocket booster problems.

Of course there will be plenty of organizations blocking this next step,
but if we NASA can get the "American" public to rally around its future
misssions, it could bring back some of that ole' space age enthusiasm.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jan  9 15:31:02 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:31:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000301c3d6b4$3d1e7750$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>
Message-ID: <000001c3d6c5$9915f400$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grant
>
>
> > As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)
> >
> 
> >I think you should refer to the rest of the discussion.  Are you
> claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars that have ever
> occurred but all wars that could possibly occur are definitely
> anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.  This of course requires you
> to define extropic exactly, and war exactly.  My point, as was evident
> from the discussion was that whether war is extropic is a much more
> complicated question.  In that discussion Charlie even presented an
> example of overthrowing the US government to get rid of the drug laws.
> 
> -To me, war is a question of relevance;  are they (whoever) really
> relevant to your own extropic efforts?

So, do you disagree with the statement then that in all possible cases
all wars are definitely anti-extropic?  And would you thus agree that
under certain relevant circumstances some may be?

> 
> Besides, really, think about it... wouldn't you rather bring your
> aggressor to your viewpoints of things
> and have him join his resources to yours, as opposed to beating him,

Those who do not subscribe to reason can not be conquered by it, as I
said to Charlie when he made this same point.  What do you do when your
enemy can not be enlightened?  What would you do when you can not
convince an armed assailant that he shouldn?t be holding you up or about
to murder a loved one?  Of course I would prefer my enemy to 'see the
light' but I am not so na?ve to think that everyone always will.  There
is way too much pain and suffering all ready occurring to believe as
such.

 and
> then spending all that effort
> to keep "unruly" portions of your population in line?  And no matter
> what anyone says, if extropians succeed
> in their quest, it will be something worth its weight in gold (read:
of
> intrinsic value to anyone alive)

If one person stood in the way of a singularity, and you could not
convince him through reason to let a singularity occur, what would you
do?

When members of this list continue to extol the virtues of extropianism
while at the same time deriding violence or spreading extropy through
any means other than polite conversation, it should come of no surprise
that the logical conclusions of these two statements occur as difficult
ethical questions.

> 
> >My example of a less extropic government being overthrown by a more
> extropic one was merely a quick example, it was not meant to imply
that
> ANY more extropic government had the right to overthrow any less
> extropic one no matter the cost in lives or property.  That is of
course
> ridiculous.
> 
> Well it's a direct consequence of your statement :) I only extended it
> to illustrate it.  

I hoped that the apparent relevance of 'less extropic' and 'more
extropic' would be obvious, and that the statement would not be taken so
literally.  I would not endorse one society that merely taxes computer
purchases being overthrown, quite violently, by a nearly identical group
whose only difference is that they would not tax computers.  

> >A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in extropy,
> and how much of an increase?  Debates of that sort have been tossed
> around on this list all ready.
> 
> No doubt. I dunno, what do you think? Do you think extropy is measured
> in number of human lives?
> Personally I tend to think of it as a codified survivor instinct
without
> regard to any of the current
> mental/spiritual/economic/political blocks in place :)
> 

Certainly not, as I said in the discussion with Charlie, I attempted to
start a thread suggesting we clearly define extropic goals, of course
many are all ready listed on extropy sites principles page.  A million
survivor watching automaton couch potatoes are not extropic at all
compared to a handful of productive motivated scientists, so # of lives
is not the only extropic consideration.


> >I also noted in that discussion that freedoms are not directly
> synonymous with extropy, as the freedom to sit on ones ass all day and
> watch TV isn't gonna bring about a singularity, nor would being
stoned,
> drunk, or visiting strip clubs all day, nor chattering on discussion
> board for that matter.  In fact a paternalistic big brother esque
> society where each person was assigned an area of technological
pursuit
> and had immortality and extropianism drilled into their head from the
> time they were children would probably be the most 'extropic' yet it
> would not be very free.
> 
> I would agree with that sentiment (not the big brother), but that
> freedom and extropy need not be irrevocably related...  I would
suggest
> though, that life without freedom (and health) would lose its flavor
> rather quickly,
> so perhaps it is highly correlated...

Certainly, and I highly value both freedom AND extropy!

Michael Dickey




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 16:55:59 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:55:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
References: <119420-22004159152616388@M2W043.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE56dJLnGS96j00028f86@hotmail.com>

So I guess the question that's on everyone's mind is whether or not this is
true. I remember a recent similar story that circulated regarding a
statement that Bush was going to give at the Wright Brothers flight
anniversary at Kitty Hawk in December. It was later discovered that this was
not true. Is there any other indication that this story is accurate?

----- Original Message -----
From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>;
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; <wta-india at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Moon news


>
> From: Jose Cordeiro
>
>
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
>
>
> "UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
>
> By FRANK SIETZEN JR. AND KEITH L. COWING, United Press International
>
> WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return to the moon
> early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore
> Mars and nearby asteroids, President Bush is expected to propose next week
> as part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program."
>
>
> This is exciting.  I listened to a full report on the radio this morning
> and was gleeful that as a side-event, maybe the space tourism industry
will
> finally be able to piggyback on the advances of a larger industry - NASA.
> NASA has made many mistakes, to be sure, however it just might make the
big
> leap we all have been waiting for in the surge to develop a better system
> to counter rocket booster problems.
>
> Of course there will be plenty of organizations blocking this next step,
> but if we NASA can get the "American" public to rally around its future
> misssions, it could bring back some of that ole' space age enthusiasm.
>
> Natasha
>
> Natasha Vita-More
> http://www.natasha.cc
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 17:50:07 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was enough?
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d658$890d1d30$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040109175007.29434.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> >
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=16&u=/ap/20040108/ap_
> on_fe_st/foiled_room_4>
> > 
> > OLYMPIA, Wash. - What kind of friends coat your apartment - 
> > and nearly everything in it - with tinfoil while you're away? 
> > Here's a hint: One of the only objects that escaped the shiny 
> > treatment was a book titled "Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends."
> 
> Slow news day?  Why is this news?

Are you asking me? I thought it represented the most well grounded and
anti-ELINT residence I've heard of. Its property value must have gone
up as a result.... ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 18:25:09 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:25:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was enough?
In-Reply-To: <20040109175007.29434.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c3d6dd$ed4626e0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Slow news day?  Why is this news?

> Are you asking me? I thought it represented the most well grounded
> and anti-ELINT residence I've heard of. Its property value must
> have gone up as a result.... ;)

As a security expert, I should warn you that aluminum foil doesn't work as
TEMPEST shielding.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From Artillo at comcast.net  Fri Jan  9 18:33:36 2004
From: Artillo at comcast.net (Artillo at comcast.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:33:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <010920041833.5104.25e6@comcast.net>


GRRRR I don't like this part of the article at all! I really don't think that a 'one-track mind' approach is a good idea, how about you guys?

"Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing
programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the 
plan
and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA 
briefings
next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to 
Congress."

> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  9 18:42:31 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:42:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>



From:  Artillo at comcast.net

>GRRRR I don't like this part of the article at all! I really don't think
that a 'one-track mind' approach is a good idea, how about you guys?>

"Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing
programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the 
plan
and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA 
briefings
next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to 
Congress."

I can see a way around this.  If NASA scraps current projects for a more
exalted program, then the trickle down effect could occur and the
"scrapped" projects could go to private industry where their is a growing
interest, and this could help it along.  I got a lot of good wear out of my
best friends' hand-me-down cloths.  Of course she has very expensive taste,
but so does NASA.

Natasha
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 18:53:26 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:53:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d6c2$05922850$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <006001c3d6e1$e0a6cf80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Michael Dickey wrote,
> My statement that sometimes war may be extropic is a strong 
> assertion? How so?  Seems like that absolute that war is 
> *always* anti-extropic is the strong assertion, since it 
> requires not only a clear definition of extropic but one of 
> war as well.

People who have been on this list generally know what the Extropian
Principles are.  You can nit-pick on particular interpretations if you want,
but you can't assume that nobody has defined them yet.

People also generally know what war means.  You made your assertions about
war without having to create a more rigorous definition of the term.  If the
term is generally good enough for you, it is generally good enough for other
people.  You seem to be requiring a higher burden of proof for other people
than for yourself.

> "To positively assert whether something was extropic or not, 
> you will have to define what criteria makes something 
> extropic, and how much of it was present before and how much 
> present afterward. This would probably be quite an 
> undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely positive that 
> *all* wars are anti-extropic."

That is like saying that to avoid a car crash, you have to define exactly
what "avoidance" means, exactly what a "car crash" is, calculate how much
work "avoidance" is versus work recovering from a "car crash" would be
afterward.  This would probably be quite an undertaking, yet you are all
ready absolutely positive that "all" car crashes are anti-extropic.

We do NOT need exact quantitative analysis to make a qualitative judgment.
I think there is more evidence and experience showing that "war is bad" than
"war is good".  Only warmongers and terrorists think that we should inflict
some war on "them" to get greater results for "us".

> What do we do when their proponents will not listen to reason?  

This is a key requirement for war.  You must dehumanize your enemy to the
point that it is not possible to negotiate or reason with them.  They will
never agree to anything else, so we must kill them.  We have to eliminate
all other possible options before the "final solution" becomes the only one
left.

As Extropians, we should be seeing more and more options all the time, not
less and less.  War should be less likely and less useful as we progress
into the future.  War is the opposite of extropy.  War means that there are
no possible solutions, we give up, we can't oppose the other side, so we
will just kill them.

> To suggest, as I did, that 
> maybe some wars are indeed extropic requires me to present 
> merely one single example of a war that would reasonably be 
> considered extropic.  To do this, and prove it to you, 
> Charlie, and Paul would likely require a lengthy discussion 
> just to define extropic and to define war.  But are you so 
> sure that ANY possible war is definitely NOT extropic?

Typical losing-position approach.  You want to assert it, but it would take
too long to explain why.  You want to push the burden of proof to the other
side.  You want them to prove a negative (that no war could ever be
extropic), while you refuse to prove a positive (just give one example).
You also claim that your position hasn't been disproved yet, nobody has
proved that all war is always entropic and never can be, so your argument
still stands undefeated.  A lack of defeat (yet) does not equal proof.

> If you wanted to try to 
> convince Hitler and Stalin that War was bad, I'm all for it, 
> but once tanks start rolling over us, I'm defending myself. 
> We could say that 'killing is bad' as well, but in saying 
> that am I giving up my right to self defense?  

There is a big difference between defending yourself from violence and
initiating violence.  The libertarians and older extropians on this board
used to understand that.  This idea of pre-emptive strikes and initiating
force on people who haven't attacked us is definitely not extropian.  It
never has been and never will be.  

(And for the record, no I don't believe that Iraq was part of the 9/11
attacks or had weapons of mass destruction.  I do believe that we
pre-emptively attacked a country that neither attacked us nor were capable
of attacking us.  No, I don't think the Iraq war is extropic.)

> > > A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> > > reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in 
> > > extropy, and how much of an increase?
> > 
> > No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
> > keeps coming up on this list.
> 
> Yet if one is to assert that all wars are anti-extropic, then 
> this is a question that MUST be answered before making that 
> determination.  All wars include loss of life.  How extropic 
> is a single life?  What do we mean when we say 'extropic' in 
> the first place?

Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.  ZERO LOSS OF LIFE is extropic.  ANY
LOSS OF LIFE is entropic.  Now I know that the world isn't perfect, and we
can't prevent all loss of life.  But I certainly don't want anybody planning
loss of life as part of their master plan.  Especially any final solution
where the loss of life is directed at one group while a different group
benefits.

> > It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who 
> > keep trying to justify committing violence as part of
> > the extropian agenda.
> 
> And it seems that there is a subgroup of people content to 
> let us be overrun by murderous oppressive regimes for fear of 
> taking a single like to defend our very extropic (thought not 
> extropic enough) society.

Only people who cannot conceive of any answer besides murder, terrorism and
war would make such a statement.  If there are other options, then it is
perfectly possible to pursue them without resorting to murder, terrorism and
war.  The refusal to initiate force does not equal a lack of self-defense.
Every libertarian knows that.

> Yes, War is bad, and killing is also bad.  So is lying, 
> stealing, cheating, etc.  But the real world is cold, 
> complex, and unforgiving, and sometimes things must be done 
> that we prefer not to do in order to ensure the continuation 
> of the things we value.  I may steal bread to feed my 
> starving self or family, I may lie to protect the feelings of 
> someone I care about, I may kill someone in self defense, and 
> my country may go to war when threatened by a clearly and 
> significantly less extropic, less free, murderous and 
> oppressive government. 

This is my point exactly.  As extropians, we are supposed to be intelligent
people with optimism, smart technology and future solutions.  Can't we think
up something besides guns, murder, lying and war?  As long as you think
these things are bad and work to avoid them, then we are in agreement.  But
some people here seem almost eager to resort to these methods and too ready
to give up trying to find anything better methods.
 
-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Jan  9 18:53:45 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:53:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <20040109150606.86840.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006101c3d6e1$ed5bfc00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> All state action is bad. How about that assertion?

Stupid, in my opinion.  You can't say that something (war) done by the state
is bad because everything the state does is bad, but the same exact thing
done by us is good, because everything we do is good.  This is illogical.
You are assigning "good" and "bad" labels on the basis of "us" versus "them"
instead of any criteria of goodness.  If war is bad, and we don't want the
state waging war, then we don't want to become state-like and commit the
same atrocities.

> Because ALL conflict, all state sponsored action, is a cost 
> benefit measured action, not just conflict with guns and 
> other weapons.

This is the root of all war, all terrorism, and all conflict.  The idea that
we can calculate the best good and choose the lesser of two evils.  It
solves nothing.  A communist will calculate a communist end to be the
greater good.  A luddite will calculate a non-technological world was a
greater good.  Some transhumanists will destroy all life and replace
everything with computronium simulating life and call that the greater good.
In short, everybody thinks they are right.  This argument boils down to
saying that we are right therefore we have the right to kill our enemy, but
they are wrong so they don't have the right to kill us.

> > It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who 
> > keep trying to justify committing violence as part of
> > the extropian agenda.
> 
> This is an absolutely FALSE assertion, and I request you 
> retract it. This subject is active on this list because of 
> Mark Walker's inane and thinly vieled argument that 
> Extropians should become absolute pacifists.

Is this better?  It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who
keep trying to justify that committing violence should be excluded as part
of the extropian agenda.

> There are quite a number of paleo-extropians who look on this 
> list with disgust these days because of these sorts of 
> pacifistic arguments.

I am sorry that non-violence disgusts these people so much.  I worry about
what will happen when people who see violence as a necessary part of
extropianism either gain powerful technology.  Even worse, I hate to imagine
what will happen if they don't gain the powerful technology they desire
while some other groups of extropians do.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> extropian agenda.




From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jan  9 19:05:15 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:05:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality - who pays? What will
	the cost be?
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040104172428.02c0e170@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3FFEFB6A.3CE85BA2@sasktel.net>

Top Of The News
 Health Costs Rise Beyond Belief
 Dan Ackman, 01.09.04, 9:58 AM ET

                     NEW YORK - U.S. health care costs are rising so fast
                     that not only do they outstrip the prior year, they even
                     exceed forecasters' ability to project them

                     In mid-2002, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
                     Services projected that national health expenditures
                     would reach $2.8 trillion in 2011--an estimate based
                     on a mean annual growth rate of 7.3%. Since then,
                     the growth rate has increased significantly to
                     9.3%--to the point where health spending is already
                     at nearly 15% of GDP, according to Centers for
                     Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a unit of HHS.

                     This increase--and future projections--don't take into
                     account the potential effects of the prescription drug
                     entitlement in the Medicaid bill passed by Congress
                     last year.

                     Hospital and prescription drug spending led the
 charge, CMS said. "This continued acceleration injects pressure into the health
care
 system, and everyone--from businesses to government to consumers--is affected,"
 Katharine Levit, a CMS official and the lead author of the report published in
the
 journal Health Affairs, said at a news conference. Levit added that early
indications are
 that the rate of increase will slow "as a result of the economic slowdown.'' In
fact,
 health care spending increases slowed during the late 1990s boom, and have
 accelerated since the economy cooled.

 This tendency has led to higher insurance premiums, cutbacks in employer health
plans
 and a rise in the number of uninsured.

 Health care spending averaged $4,672 per person in 2000 and $5,035 per person in
 2001. In 2002, the U.S. spent $5,440 per person for a total of $1.55 trillion.
This is more
 per person than anywhere else. The U.S. spends 47% more per person than
 Switzerland, which ranks second, according to the Organization for Economic
 Cooperation and Development. It also spends substantially more than any other
nation
 in terms of percentage of GDP. Health care costs were 10.9% of GDP in
Switzerland,
 10.7% in Germany and 9.7% in Canada.

 Even before the 2002 figures were known, CMS was projecting that by 2011 U.S.
 health costs would rise to 17% of GDP.

 The increase in hospital spending was caused by increased usage and higher labor
 and supply costs. Hospitals, meanwhile, managed to raise prices by 5%.
Prescription
 drug spending was the fastest-rising aspect of health costs at 15.3%. Despite
this
 trend, leading drug companies like Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ), Merck
(nyse:
 MRK - news - people ) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (nyse: BMY - news - people )
 have all seen their share prices decline over the last two years, though they
have
 rebounded lately.

 Even large and highly profitable companies like General Electric (nyse: GE - news
-
 people ) have felt the effects. Perhaps for that reason, total out-of-pocket
spending on
 health care rose by $12 billion, to $212.5 billion, and out-of-pocket spending on

 prescription drugs rose $6.1 billion, to $48.6 billion. Meanwhile, health
insurers like
 Aetna (nyse: AET - news - people ), UnitedHealth Group (nyse: UNH - news -
 people ) and WellPoint Health Networks (nyse: WLP - news - people ) have all seen

 their share prices rise by at least 50% over the last two years.

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> >From: "Harvey Newstrom"
> >
> > > How about "ageless" as a word?  We aren't growing older toward dying of
> > > old-age.  But it implies nothing about living forever or not dying by some
> > > other means.
>
> "Ageless Thinking"  talk I presented at Alcor Technology Conference, and
> essay in my book (1996).
>
> http://www.natasha.cc/ageless.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From determinism at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 19:10:12 2004
From: determinism at hotmail.com (Dennis May)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:10:12 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Challenge For Cold Dark 
Message-ID: <BAY7-F84uN6tdqVvPdL00009e2b@hotmail.com>

Even a few years ago the Hubble was showing old galaxies
at the furthest observable reaches.  The latest observations
show more of the same.  A 13.7 billion year old universe with
old galaxies from the very start.  Even this article is being
very generous in not questioning how the clusters of old
galaxies fit into the Big Bang model.

Astronomers See Era Of Rapid Galaxy Formation;
New Findings Pose A Challenge For Cold Dark
Matter Theory

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040109064539.htm

Dennis May
_________________________
Physicist/Engineer/Inventor
determinism at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet 
access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 20:03:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040109200338.69941.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> I can see a way around this.  If NASA scraps current projects for a
> more exalted program, then the trickle down effect could occur and
the
> "scrapped" projects could go to private industry where their is a
> growing interest, and this could help it along.  I got a lot of good
> wear out of my best friends' hand-me-down cloths.  Of course she has
> very expensive taste, but so does NASA.

On the negative side, most of the 'irrelevant' projects tend to be
science R&D projects, something which the aerospace industry has
generally seen as NASA's job for the past three quarter century, and
which themselves don't generally generate much profit.

On the plus side, it will leave this research to private and state
universities, taking the work outside the governmental grant rat race,
and the schools generally do a better job of getting the businesses
that benefit most to fund these efforts as well. They also tend to
obtain the gained knowledge more cost effectively than federal programs.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 20:07:42 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:07:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was
	enough?
In-Reply-To: <BAY7-F6SPibkiNhozHO0001feaa@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000501c3d6ec$76eee720$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>

Dude thats hilarious :)
Brilliant, Awesome! :)
HAHAHAHAHAAA
omard-out


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 6:29 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: TEMPEST: You thought your tinfoil hat was
enough?


When I was a senior in college we plastic saran-wrapped every object in
a professors office, including a bust of Einstein.  We then took sheet
rock and walled off the end of the hallway making the office disappear.
A table with flowers and pictures on wall completed the look.

The same professor had other things done on his birthdays:

Live lobster delivered by a man in a guerrilla suit during a lecture.
Delivery of a talking doll with personalized lustful messages from
teenage 
girls.
His entire office filled with styrofoam beads by blowing them under his
door with a shop vac. His entire office filled with balloons.

Dennis May
_____________________
Physicist/Engineer/Inventor
determinism at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 20:25:59 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:25:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d6c5$9915f400$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <000001c3d6ef$13911970$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Matus
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:31 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- 
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grant
>
>
> > As u can see, I have to agree with Charlie :)
> >
> 
> >I think you should refer to the rest of the discussion.  Are you
> claiming, absolutely, that not only have all wars that have ever 
> occurred but all wars that could possibly occur are definitely 
> anti-extropic?  Quite a strong assertion.  This of course requires you

> to define extropic exactly, and war exactly.  My point, as was evident

> from the discussion was that whether war is extropic is a much more 
> complicated question.  In that discussion Charlie even presented an 
> example of overthrowing the US government to get rid of the drug laws.
> 
> -To me, war is a question of relevance;  are they (whoever) really 
> relevant to your own extropic efforts?

So, do you disagree with the statement then that in all possible cases
all wars are definitely anti-extropic?  And would you thus agree that
under certain relevant circumstances some may be?

-
Put another way, do think that for *every* case a war is fought, 
is their a less costly pathway to achieving the same end?  I
would have no problem stating yes; ergo, war is anti-extropic
insofar as it is a tremendously more costly way of doing business,
and thus, a less-desireable solution.   This is all academic anyway,
since really, I don't even think of extropic/anti-extropic as a boolean
quality (with a few noteable exceptions, in the process of definining 
extropy)... Its a sliding scale, something to judge the quality of state
versus another state.
 
> Besides, really, think about it... wouldn't you rather bring your 
> aggressor to your viewpoints of things and have him join his resources

> to yours, as opposed to beating him,

]Those who do not subscribe to reason can not be conquered by it.  

Having dealt with many delusional people, skip reason...figure out how 
their delusion can be warped to your own ends.  You're a state machine,
with a utility table. Period.  Very effective, btw.

]What do you do when your enemy can not be enlightened?  

Simple.  Make him irrelevant.

]What would you do when you can not convince an armed assailant that he
shouldn?t be holding you up or about to murder a loved one?  

Aaaah, the age old question.  Give him the cash.  Steal the same amount
back from society [upgrade!].
Stall for time.  Die.  There are tons of options besides killing him.
Personally I prefer maiming :)
Much more effective :)  Of course, the last time I was assaulted was
like 10 years ago or so.  I've
become far more skillful in avoiding physical combat.

]Of course I would prefer my enemy to 'see the light' but I am not so
na?ve to think that everyone always will.  There is way too much pain
and suffering all ready occurring to believe as such.

So why not add to it, eh? :)

> then spending all that effort
> to keep "unruly" portions of your population in line?  And no matter 
> what anyone says, if extropians succeed in their quest, it will be 
> something worth its weight in gold (read:
of
> intrinsic value to anyone alive)

]If one person stood in the way of a singularity, and you could not
convince him through reason to let a singularity occur, what would you
do?

Invent a way to negate their influence, or barring that, invent a way to
harness their resistence to my own ends.
I've always been a fan of the perverse :)

]When members of this list continue to extol the virtues of extropianism
while at the same time deriding violence or spreading extropy through
any means other than polite conversation, it should come of no surprise
that the logical conclusions of these two statements occur as difficult
ethical questions.

Your young, aren't you? :) <chuckles> 
Perhaps it is a respect for all life that drives us, eh?
A reasoning that one cannot know the future, and that possibility
(though it may take longer), offers a greater chance of success.
It is a short hop from extending one's own life, to that of others,
and perhaps incorporating it as a principle.

> >My example of a less extropic government being overthrown by a more
> extropic one was merely a quick example, it was not meant to imply
that
> ANY more extropic government had the right to overthrow any less 
> extropic one no matter the cost in lives or property.  That is of
course
> ridiculous.
> 
> Well it's a direct consequence of your statement :) I only extended it

> to illustrate it.

]I hoped that the apparent relevance of 'less extropic' and 'more
extropic' would be obvious, and that the statement would not be taken so
literally.  

I always take things literally.  No offense intended, I find it
difficult to read people's minds, and so I find it is convenient to
assume that what they say mirrors what they are thinking.  As I said, no
offense intended; for future reference, I always reply to what is said,
or barring my being able to make sense of it, probe, or ask for
clarification.

]I would not endorse one society that merely taxes computer purchases
being overthrown, quite violently, by a nearly identical group whose
only difference is that they would not tax computers.  

That is just a question of degree friend :)

> >A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in extropy, 
> and how much of an increase?  Debates of that sort have been tossed 
> around on this list all ready.
> 
> No doubt. I dunno, what do you think? Do you think extropy is measured

> in number of human lives? Personally I tend to think of it as a 
> codified survivor instinct
without
> regard to any of the current mental/spiritual/economic/political 
> blocks in place :)
> 

Certainly not, as I said in the discussion with Charlie, I attempted to
start a thread suggesting we clearly define extropic goals, of course
many are all ready listed on extropy sites principles page.  A million
survivor watching automaton couch potatoes are not extropic at all
compared to a handful of productive motivated scientists, so # of lives
is not the only extropic consideration.

]aaaah :) but if people are educated, and curious (with the proviso of a
survivor instinct above), 
certes the conclusion becames inescapable; want to live life on your
terms (excluding death, disease
and sundry other annoying conclusions), better start molding your
environment to suit your needs.
Want proof, everyone on this list, I'm sure, is engaged in some attempt
to achieve said goals.
And they all arrived at it independently (supposition on my part, but I
think its reasonable).

I would suggest that the principles of extropy are primarily based off
what drives each of us
to adopt a common set of methods, and operating principles (posits,
assumptions etc).  I'ld be happy
to start a discussion with you on said topic, and offering my current
viewset as a starting point.
It'll sound a little simplistic, I fear, but I tend to write fairly
dense statements, preferring
a minimal basis, from which the rest can be extrapolated.

> >I also noted in that discussion that freedoms are not directly
> synonymous with extropy, as the freedom to sit on ones ass all day and

> watch TV isn't gonna bring about a singularity, nor would being
stoned,
> drunk, or visiting strip clubs all day, nor chattering on discussion 
> board for that matter.  In fact a paternalistic big brother esque 
> society where each person was assigned an area of technological
pursuit
> and had immortality and extropianism drilled into their head from the 
> time they were children would probably be the most 'extropic' yet it 
> would not be very free.
> 
> I would agree with that sentiment (not the big brother), but that 
> freedom and extropy need not be irrevocably related...  I would
suggest
> though, that life without freedom (and health) would lose its flavor 
> rather quickly, so perhaps it is highly correlated...

]Certainly, and I highly value both freedom AND extropy!

Hehehehe.  Me too. :)


Michael Dickey


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From paulgrant999 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan  9 20:35:11 2004
From: paulgrant999 at hotmail.com (Paul Grant)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <006001c3d6e1$e0a6cf80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000101c3d6f0$62890d70$5a01a8c0@SIGMA7PG>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey
Newstrom
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:53 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already


Michael Dickey wrote,

This is my point exactly.  As extropians, we are supposed to be
intelligent people with optimism, smart technology and future solutions.
Can't we think up something besides guns, murder, lying and war?  <snip>

---
There is always that free state project :)

omard-out





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  9 20:35:11 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDD: VT House told GM regs unconstitutional
Message-ID: <20040109203511.51660.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

VT House told GM Regulations Unconstitutional
by Mike Lorrey

A Vermont State House of Representatives committee was told yesterday
by the State Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr that any attempt by
the state to restrict the right of farmers to use genetically modified
seeds in their crops would be found unconstitutional by the courts.

The State Dept of Agriculture issues recommendations to farmers who
choose to use GM seeds regarding creating boundaries that will limit
DNA drift into neighboring crops. However, in testimony before the
House Agriculture Committee, the Secretary said, "Any kind of appraisal
that would stigmatize genetically engineered foods would not stand
constitutional muster." The recommendations his department makes are
"perhaps the only permissible approach because we cannot create
mandatory rules of the road," he told the committee.

This summer Kerr asked seed manufacturers, such as Monsanto and
Dairlyand Seed Co., to report how much and what tupe of genetically
engineered seeds they sold in Vermont in 2002. They have until Jan 15th
to comply.

So far five of seven companies have submitted data. "It's not perfect
year for reporting," Kerr said, "We're still working out the bugs."

This is a marked change from a few years ago, when Vermont, under the
leadership of former Governor, now Presidential Candidate Howard Dean,
was the leader of a national effort to restrict the use of BGH in dairy
cows, and ultimately fought for labelling on containers of dairy
products that use, or are free of, such milk.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Jan  9 21:12:16 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:12:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <20040109200338.69941.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>

Every report I've seen in the press on Bush's supposed plans has the 
identical quote from this guy, sometimes as an unnamed expert. This is the 
New York Times' version:

>One expert on NASA management, Harold E. McCurdy of American University, 
>said that if, in fact, the plan was to go to the moon, the overall goal 
>would be broader.
>
>"The ultimate purpose of going back to the moon is not to go the moon," 
>Mr. McCurdy said. "It's to go to Mars and explore the inner solar system. 
>It's like climbing Mount Rainier in preparation for an ascent of Mount 
>Everest."

No one quotes Zubrin or other prominent figures from the Mars Society, or 
even mentions that if you want to go to Mars, the answer might just be -- 
go to Mars.

The descriptions of Bush's plan so far sound like the same old NASA 
hooey.  Long, slow, expensive projects so that every NASA center gets a 
piece, the usual aerospace contractors get billions in contracts, and a few 
dozen humans at best get to go up.

I suppose we'll get some useful technologies and accomplishments but it 
will come at a heavy price.  I'm mostly afraid that it will interfere with 
private space projects -- particularly with legal restraints.

BTW, debka.com reported a while back that experiences with Afghanistan and 
Iraq made it clear to DOD that we have to invest more in protecting our 
space assets. This shows up as an understated aside at the end of the NYT 
piece, and may be the most important aspect of the news:

>Congressional aides also said they expected the announcement to detail a 
>reorganization of the nation's space effort, to bring the military and 
>civilian sides closer together to make better use of limited resources.


-- David Lubkin.




From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Fri Jan  9 21:16:34 2004
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:16:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Challenge For Cold Dark 
In-Reply-To: <BAY7-F84uN6tdqVvPdL00009e2b@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY7-F84uN6tdqVvPdL00009e2b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <7e6uvv8l4f4hc09abi8q8km1vnsljfmm8b@4ax.com>

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:10:12 -0600, you wrote

>Even a few years ago the Hubble was showing old galaxies
>at the furthest observable reaches.  The latest observations
>show more of the same.  A 13.7 billion year old universe with
>old galaxies from the very start.  Even this article is being
>very generous in not questioning how the clusters of old
>galaxies fit into the Big Bang model.
>
>Astronomers See Era Of Rapid Galaxy Formation;
>New Findings Pose A Challenge For Cold Dark
>Matter Theory
>
>

Isn't clear by now that we really do not understand what the universe
is, and that we should just assume that it is eternal, everlasting,
whatever.  That way we don't hamstring ourselves when it comes to
dealing with issues involving possible future long term life
extension.....


-------------


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Jan  9 21:21:02 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:21:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <014a01c3d6f6$7e65b740$a8994a43@texas.net>

From: "David Lubkin" <extropy at unreasonable.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:12 PM

> No one quotes Zubrin or other prominent figures from the Mars Society, or
> even mentions that if you want to go to Mars, the answer might just be --
> go to Mars.

No one mentions that if you want to stay on Mars rather than going briefly
and coming back, the answer might just be -- stay on Earth. For the next
decade or so (as is planned anyway). Put all that loot into nanotechnology
and other bootstraps. Then build a skyhook or a diamonoid launch platform or
something equally radical. Meanwhile, send probes if you really must.

Damien Broderick




From duggerj1 at charter.net  Fri Jan  9 21:45:08 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:45:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Drive on Mars in your Pajamas.
Message-ID: <200401092144.i09LiewL068134@mxsf27.cluster1.charter.net>

Friday, 09 January 2004

Hello all,

     NASA released the rover control software and Mars data sets for people to try at home. It's not quite telepresence, but it's still a very nice toy. I've not seen nor heard this mentioned in all the coverage, so each of you can be the first on your block to "drive on Mars".

http://mars.telascience.org/

Use the BitTorrent links if you can. We now return you to the threads in progress.


Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/Aduggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jan  9 22:28:09 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:28:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <006001c3d6e1$e0a6cf80$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000001c3d6ff$df8202f0$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
> 
> Michael Dickey wrote,
> > My statement that sometimes war may be extropic is a strong
> > assertion? How so?  Seems like that absolute that war is
> > *always* anti-extropic is the strong assertion, since it
> > requires not only a clear definition of extropic but one of
> > war as well.
> 
> People who have been on this list generally know what the Extropian
> Principles are.  You can nit-pick on particular interpretations if you
> want,
> but you can't assume that nobody has defined them yet.
> 

Nor did I say they were not defined, but checking out the extropian
principles reveals many not accurately defined statements.  

>From - http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm

Extropy -  The extent of a living or organizational system's
intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for
improvement

Extropic - Actions, qualities, or outcomes that embody or further
extropy

So we have the extent of a systems intelligence, its order, its
'vitality', capacity for improvement, and its drive for improvement.  

Are these 'clearly' defined?  

E.g. what is the 'extent of a systems intelligence' the # of intelligent
beings?  (think of billions of couch potatoes or peasant agrarian
farmers, not very extropian) The speed of information storage and
retrieval (books vs computer databases) Speed of information exchange
between intelligent systems?  (snail mail vs. email) etc. etc. etc.

"Extropy" is not meant as a real entity or force, but only as a metaphor
representing all that contributes to our flourishing"

Ah, is it then a clearly defined metaphor?

Of course, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to define
'extropic' since extropic progress requires intelligence, freedom to act
on intelligence, motivation to do something with intelligence, science
to collect knowledge, technology do extend and better our lives, etc.
etc.  

Which is of these is most important?  Which is least important?  Do you
care to quantify them?  Without having to, I will make the assertion
that a society which is statist (denies progress) luddite (despises
technology) oppressive (denies freedom) and mystic (denies science) is
far less extropic than one that embraces all those things.  And as such,
I would further assert that a war between these two societies, of
similar populations, where one person was killed on the less free
society (Brother number 1 say) and none were killed in the freer
society, and as a result the oppressive luddite mystic society was
turned into a dynamic, open, and technological progressive society.  

Such a 'war' I would certainly call extropic.  However, it would not be
as extropic as merely convincing Brother # 1 over a cup of tea that this
is what he should do, and him agreeing.

Even though, yeah, it would be pretty if the brother #1 decided to
resign and enact the changes himself, and it was 'bad' to have to resort
to a 'war', but the world is imperfect.  Lets add that brother # 1 was
killing 1,000 people per year in gulags for owning computers, thinking
independent thoughts, or writing poetry.  But, 10 people were killed in
the war, and 1 person on the freer side was killed.  Still extropic?
Make that 100 people, and 10 people, respectively, etc. etc.  Lets add
that Brother # 1 was funding revolutions in neighboring territories,
demanding killing quotas, and was intent on attacking said free nation.


Suffice to say, your idealistic extropic paradise where everyone
eventually sees reason and the bad guys are only people vilified by the
good guys is absurd in a world where 170 million people were killed by
very regressive, very mystic, and very oppressive societies.

Additionally, as I have been arguing *some* wars may be considered
extropic, certainly not ALL WARS.  But various methods of attaining
goals differ in levels of extropy, ranging from very extropic (merely
changing opponents mind with discussion) to very anti-extropic.

> People also generally know what war means.  You made your assertions
about
> war without having to create a more rigorous definition of the term.
If
> the
> term is generally good enough for you, it is generally good enough for
> other
> people.  You seem to be requiring a higher burden of proof for other
> people
> than for yourself.

Because other people are making absolutist statements, statement that
have no single fact that suggests they are wrong.  Saying 'ALL WARS ARE
ANTI-EXTROPIC' is absolute and definite.  *ALL WARS* (no doubt there)
*ARE* (again, pretty clear) *ANTI-EXTROPIC (again, no room for doubt is
left).  To make such a sweeping absolutist statement, one must be clear
about what we are talking about.  

I am not making an absolute assertion; I merely assert that surely, in
some cases, given specific circumstances, SOME wars (maybe only one,
maybe four) could be considered extropic.  As an example, I present the
case above.

> 
> > "To positively assert whether something was extropic or not,
> > you will have to define what criteria makes something
> > extropic, and how much of it was present before and how much
> > present afterward. This would probably be quite an
> > undertaking, yet you are all ready absolutely positive that
> > *all* wars are anti-extropic."
> 
> That is like saying that to avoid a car crash, you have to define
exactly
> what "avoidance" means, exactly what a "car crash" is,

No, its likes saying 'All car crashes are bad'  I don't know what you
area talking about.

Car crash = two cars unintentionally run into each other, or a car
unintentionally hits a fixed object

Bad = Someone is hurt

There, as simple as that, I proved my assertion that all car crashes are
bad.  Of course, one could imagine getting hit by some wealthy negligent
fello who needed to be taught a life lesson about responsibility, and
victim, getting minor injuries, receives monetary compensation from
negligent rich fella, and rich fella learns valuable lesson.  Or
Habitual drunken driver hits fixed object, a rock say, receives minor
injuries, but realizes he could have killed someone, and changes his
ways.  Might either of these crashes be considered good?  Good to whom?
Good as a net whole for everyone?  Or good for the victim or
perpetrator?

> We do NOT need exact quantitative analysis to make a qualitative
judgment.
> I think there is more evidence and experience showing that "war is
bad"
> than
> "war is good".  Only warmongers and terrorists think that we should
> inflict
> some war on "them" to get greater results for "us".

I did not disagree that all war is bad, I disagreed that all war is
absolutely anti-extropic.  If you fail to see the difference we are
certainly having a problem communicating.  All war is bad, make no
mistake, I believe as much, all killing is bad as well.  But just as the
car crash examples above, some good can come of 'bad' things.  I am
hesitant to repeat such phrases as all encompassing and as sweeping
generalizations as 'war is bad' because that statement implies too many
different things to too many different people.  

Harvey, do you consider me a warmonger or a terrorist?

> 
> > What do we do when their proponents will not listen to reason?
> 
> This is a key requirement for war.  You must dehumanize your enemy to
the
> point that it is not possible to negotiate or reason with them.

You did not answer the question.  What do we do when they do not listen
to reason?  When they insist on continuing to kill vast portions of
their populations, when they insist on remaining closed, oppressive and
totalitarian.  Shall we just keep hoping they see reason?  For how long?
How many people must die before you give up your idealistic fancifull
pacifist utopia and realize that there are some people who are bad.
Maybe an OPT god can convince them to see the light, but how many people
must we watch them murder while debate rages on?

  They will
> never agree to anything else, so we must kill them.  We have to
eliminate
> all other possible options before the "final solution" becomes the
only
> one
> left.
> 

And what if the 'final solution' is the only one left?

> As Extropians, we should be seeing more and more options all the time,
not
> less and less.  War should be less likely and less useful as we
progress
> into the future.

And it has become less and less likely, and less and less needed,
thankfully.

>  War is the opposite of extropy.  War means that there
> are
> no possible solutions, we give up, we can't oppose the other side, so
we
> will just kill them.

Or we are sick of seeing them killing other people, or it becomes clear
that they threaten our way of life, or they are crazy and just want to
kill as many people as possible, or they want to thrust all of humanity
into darker ages then we have ever known.  Again, I feel you simplify
complex subjects too much.

> 
> > To suggest, as I did, that
> > maybe some wars are indeed extropic requires me to present
> > merely one single example of a war that would reasonably be
> > considered extropic.  To do this, and prove it to you,
> > Charlie, and Paul would likely require a lengthy discussion
> > just to define extropic and to define war.  But are you so
> > sure that ANY possible war is definitely NOT extropic?
> 
> Typical losing-position approach.  You want to assert it, but it would
> take
> too long to explain why.

Its an unproductive waste of time.

  You want to push the burden of proof to the
> other
> side.  You want them to prove a negative (that no war could ever be
> extropic),

Proving all wars are anti-extropic is proving a positive.

> while you refuse to prove a positive (just give one example).

Or you could be asking me to prove a negative (all wars are not
anti-extropic) 

Of course, I never said "ALL" you conveniently added that, I said "some"
All is absolute and all inclusive, some is not.  I need only make a
reasonable case the some hypothetical example exists that is counter to
whatever all encompassing statement is made.  All red heads are male is
absolute.  Some redheads are female is not, I need only demonstrate one
female red head to prove my point, you need to prove that all read heads
are male.

> You also claim that your position hasn't been disproved yet, nobody
has
> proved that all war is always entropic and never can be, so your
argument
> still stands undefeated.  A lack of defeat (yet) does not equal proof.

Again, Harvey, I never said "ALL" you added that.  Charlie et al
however, did say "ALL"  Oddly enough, the fact that he and Paul Grant
said "ALL" is the primary point I hold in contention, yet it is the
single thing you get wrong in my argument.

> 
> > If you wanted to try to
> > convince Hitler and Stalin that War was bad, I'm all for it,
> > but once tanks start rolling over us, I'm defending myself.
> > We could say that 'killing is bad' as well, but in saying
> > that am I giving up my right to self defense?
> 
> There is a big difference between defending yourself from violence and
> initiating violence.  The libertarians and older extropians on this
board
> used to understand that.  This idea of pre-emptive strikes and
initiating
> force on people who haven't attacked us is definitely not extropian.
It
> never has been and never will be.

So says you.  I guess everyone who disagrees with you isn't extropian!

I would ask you to answer the ethical questions I have proposed before
on this list then

You are standing in line, side by side, with ten other people.  A man is
walking down the line shooting each person in the head, starting at the
other end of the line.  BAM BAM BAM BAM hes coming closer to you, BAM
BAM BAM BAM BAM .....  What can you do?  You have a gun.  He has not
threatened you yet, he has not pointed the gun at your head, or even in
your general direction.  

Your society is a progressive, open, technology friendly society.  On
the other side of the world, is a closed, repressive, totalitarian
society.  Your two countries are of equal power, the repressive society
begins an active campaign of expansion.  Turning all neighboring
societies, one by one, into societies ruled by proxy just like the
parent country.  Eventually, half of the worlds countries are consumed,
and the power of that country has quadrupled.  Reports of mass democide
and horrific conditions are prevalent. The leaders of that country
insist they will not bother you. The NCP Libertarians, pacifists, and
idealists in your society insist that if you leave them alone, they wont
bother you.  That it is wrong to initiate force unless you are attacked
directly.  The hawks and warmongers insist that this country is bent on
taking over the entire world, and that if you wait too long, you will
not even be able to oppose them.

> 
> (And for the record, no I don't believe that Iraq was part of the 9/11
> attacks or had weapons of mass destruction.  I do believe that we
> pre-emptively attacked a country that neither attacked us nor were
capable
> of attacking us.  No, I don't think the Iraq war is extropic.)

For the record, I, tentatively, do think it was extropic.  But whatever
we think will not change whether it ends up being extropic or not.

> 
> > > > A more reasonable question (if one can call such questions
> > > > reasonable) would be how many lives are worth an increase in
> > > > extropy, and how much of an increase?
> > >
> > > No we can not call such questions reasonable.  I don't know why it
> > > keeps coming up on this list.
> >
> > Yet if one is to assert that all wars are anti-extropic, then
> > this is a question that MUST be answered before making that
> > determination.  All wars include loss of life.  How extropic
> > is a single life?  What do we mean when we say 'extropic' in
> > the first place?
> 
> Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.  ZERO LOSS OF LIFE is extropic.
ANY
> LOSS OF LIFE is entropic.

Ah, so Pol Pots death was entropic?  Is # of lives the only thing with
which you gauge extropy on?  For the record, I agree with you, I think
any loss of life is entropic as well, but there are many components to
extropy, # of lives only being one of them.  Also, all my ethical
judgments are NOT based solely on what is extropic and entropic, as I
have argued, many freedoms I love and enjoy (and still others I value
but do not partake in) could probably not be considered extropic.

>  Now I know that the world isn't perfect, and we
> can't prevent all loss of life.  But I certainly don't want anybody
> planning
> loss of life as part of their master plan.  Especially any final
solution
> where the loss of life is directed at one group while a different
group
> benefits.

Nor do I, is that what you think I am doing?  I fear your impression of
me is prejudiced by what you think I am trying to say, instead of what I
am actually saying.  Merely that some wars, under some conditions (note,
'SOME' not 'ALL) could be considered extropic (that is, creating a more
progressive, open, technological and science friendly world)

> 
> > > It almost seems as if there is a subgroup of people who
> > > keep trying to justify committing violence as part of
> > > the extropian agenda.
> >
> > And it seems that there is a subgroup of people content to
> > let us be overrun by murderous oppressive regimes for fear of
> > taking a single like to defend our very extropic (thought not
> > extropic enough) society.
> 
> Only people who cannot conceive of any answer besides murder,
terrorism
> and
> war would make such a statement. 

Ah, so if I made such a statement, than I can not conceive of any answer
besides murder, terrorism, and war.  What was that you were saying about
vilifying the enemy?

'Only a murderer would say such a thing!!!'  

Can we keep this discussion a little more intelligent?  Its one thing to
disagree with me, its another entirely to call me a warmongering
murdering terrorist.  And I of course disagree with your premise that
'only people who can not conceive...would make such a statement'

 If there are other options, then it is
> perfectly possible to pursue them without resorting to murder,
terrorism
> and
> war.

Of course!!!  But what if there ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS!!  This is a point
I have yet to see you address.

>  The refusal to initiate force does not equal a lack of self-defense.
> Every libertarian knows that.

Do they?  I think they confuse the NCP sometimes and self defense.  I
have had some discussions on my mailing list about that very subject.
For example, what is self defense?  Does someone merely need to wave a
gun at you in a threatening manner (what is a threatening manner?) do
they actually need to shoot at you (after all, maybe they never intended
on shooting you or even pulling the trigger) What if they shoot everyone
in a line (consider my above ethical question)  There are many scenarios
where self defense and the NCP have no clear answers. 

> 
> > Yes, War is bad, and killing is also bad.  So is lying,
> > stealing, cheating, etc.  But the real world is cold,
> > complex, and unforgiving, and sometimes things must be done
> > that we prefer not to do in order to ensure the continuation
> > of the things we value.  I may steal bread to feed my
> > starving self or family, I may lie to protect the feelings of
> > someone I care about, I may kill someone in self defense, and
> > my country may go to war when threatened by a clearly and
> > significantly less extropic, less free, murderous and
> > oppressive government.
> 
> This is my point exactly.  As extropians, we are supposed to be
> intelligent
> people with optimism, smart technology and future solutions.  Can't we
> think
> up something besides guns, murder, lying and war?

Of course, but what if...

  As long as you think
> these things are bad and work to avoid them, then we are in agreement.
> But

They are unavoidable?

Regards

Michael Dickey




From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Jan  9 23:13:21 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:13:21 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <014a01c3d6f6$7e65b740$a8994a43@texas.net>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com><5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<014a01c3d6f6$7e65b740$a8994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <1608.213.112.90.167.1073690001.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>


Damien Broderick said:
>
> No one mentions that if you want to stay on Mars rather than going briefly
> and coming back, the answer might just be -- stay on Earth. For the next
> decade or so (as is planned anyway). Put all that loot into nanotechnology
> and other bootstraps. Then build a skyhook or a diamonoid launch platform
> or
> something equally radical. Meanwhile, send probes if you really must.
>
> Damien Broderick

There seem to be two approaches to really going to space. One is to use
the cheapest, tried-and-true technology you can find - possibly using it
in unorthodox ways, but in general make sure you don't have to wait and
don't have to assume any technological development. The other one is to
wait for more advanced technology to appear in other areas, and then apply
it. It is a gamble, but you may get more performance for the same price
later, and in many applications you get finished faster. For example, if
you have a large computing problem it might pay to wait for faster
machines rather than running it longer on a slow machine.

In space travel the travel time is likely not the most sensitive aspect to
technology development (unless it enables extremely high ISP gains; the
rest is just gravity) but rather launch cost, miniaturization and price of
the components will be affected more. So the waiters might not get there
first, but they are far more likely to be able to stay. Perhaps even more
important is the development times of projects. It is not obvious how fast
they will decrease *if* they decrease - in a situation of fast
technological change adapting new unexpected capabilities that arrive
while planning might cause delays. Especially if accelerating development
makes it attractive to wait just a little bit more for the next
breakthrough...



-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Jan  9 23:25:41 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:25:41 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Belated new year greetings
Message-ID: <1661.213.112.90.167.1073690741.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>


By the way, hi everyone! I have been somewhat decoupled from the list due
to workload over the last months, but hopefully I get the chance to
interact more now.

Some news: I have started a blog, http://www.aleph.se/andart/ I don't know
what it will become, but it will definitely evolve over the next weeks.

I will be spending the winter and early spring at least developing a major
exhibition about neuroscience that will tour Sweden in 2005. It is fun,
both from a popular science perspective and a transhumanist perspective -
mental enhancement and transhumanist issues will be an integral part of
it.

Other than that, it is the usual mixture of academic work, think tank
writing and random research/roleplaying.

Happy new year everyone!

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Jan  9 23:49:37 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:49:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <014a01c3d6f6$7e65b740$a8994a43@texas.net>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>

I wrote:

 > No one quotes Zubrin or other prominent figures from the Mars Society, or
 > even mentions that if you want to go to Mars, the answer might just be --
 > go to Mars.

to which Damien retorted:

>No one mentions that if you want to stay on Mars rather than going briefly
>and coming back, the answer might just be -- stay on Earth. For the next
>decade or so (as is planned anyway). Put all that loot into nanotechnology
>and other bootstraps. Then build a skyhook or a diamonoid launch platform or
>something equally radical. Meanwhile, send probes if you really must.

They could say that, too, but Zubrin recently testified before the Commerce 
Committee of the US Senate. It would be reasonable to expect a minimally 
competent reporter who covers space to be aware of this and get a reaction 
quote. It's curious that none did, at least none that Google News is aware of.

Thinking of nanotech, though, is far beyond any competency I'd expect from 
journalism.

Anyway. The Case for Mars plan is cheap, pay-for-results, and builds a 
permanent complex on Mars. It is not "going briefly and coming back."

But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put my 
space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid. Set up shop for 
mining, manufacturing, and space construction somewhere convenient, like 
geosynch, L-4, or L-5. Bova et al outlined a reasonable scenario for doing 
this nearly off-the-shelf twenty years ago. I keep expecting to hear that 
Paul Allen has funded it.

Hundreds of millions of tons of metal and organics in a useful Up location 
is a major bootstrap for anything else you want to do in space, and I think 
would have a lot of synergy with nanotech.


-- David Lubkin.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan 10 00:23:15 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401091611550.20282-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, David Lubkin wrote:

> Thinking of nanotech, though, is far beyond any competency I'd expect from
> journalism.

Journalists are catching up faster than you might think from where I sit.
Perhaps due to the fact that they can't escape from more informed writers
who simply throw stuff onto the net without having to make a living as
a journalist.  Its tough to push ca-ca when a Google search will cleearly
show it as such.

> Anyway. The Case for Mars plan is cheap, pay-for-results, and builds a
> permanent complex on Mars. It is not "going briefly and coming back."

But, but but... Zubrin gets so close to the dismantlement of the planet
with the construction of solar cells for power sources then doesn't
follow through.  I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes
nanotechnology will develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century)
would be foolish to support any Mars colonization or even Mars
human visitation efforts.  There is no point to expending resources
to put humans at the bottom of another gravity well.  Hell, on Mars
the atmosphere is so thin one doesn't even have the protection from
asteroids, comets, UV and gamma rays that one has on earth.  It is
*stupid* to expend large amounts of resources to go there.  O'Neill
space based colonies or even asteroid based colonies make much more
sense.  If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could
do if invested in nanotech development...

> But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put my
> space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid. Set up shop for
> mining, manufacturing, and space construction somewhere convenient, like
> geosynch, L-4, or L-5. Bova et al outlined a reasonable scenario for doing
> this nearly off-the-shelf twenty years ago. I keep expecting to hear that
> Paul Allen has funded it.

Let Paul finish the X-prize first, then deal with the asteroid as a
follow-up effort.  (Though I strongly agree with the strategy.)

> Hundreds of millions of tons of metal and organics in a useful Up location
> is a major bootstrap for anything else you want to do in space, and I think
> would have a lot of synergy with nanotech.

It does.

Robert




From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Jan 10 00:39:34 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:39:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com><5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <01da01c3d712$3b3c5a20$a8994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lubkin" <extropy at unreasonable.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:49 PM

> Thinking of nanotech, though, is far beyond any competency I'd expect from
> journalism.

That's true, sort of, but then I'm a journalist, sort of, and in 2001 I had
a long cataogue piece on Mars and beyond in a major exhibition of that name
which is still touring Australian museums. No impact on GWB, it's true, or
the American taxpayer, but it's an existence proof. :)

I'll paste in a sample below.

> But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put
my
> space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid.
> Hundreds of millions of tons of metal and organics in a useful Up location
> is a major bootstrap for anything else you want to do in space, and I
think
> would have a lot of synergy with nanotech.

Indeed, but again a moderately mature molecular fabrication system might be
expected to round up, smelt and return to LEO (or wherever) all the asteroid
metals you could wish, without sending humans out to do it (and die or at
least damage themselves horribly).

Here's a chunk of my piece, which has now been read by many tens of
thousands of people. I've been describing a classic skyhook:

========

         A staggeringly expensive project, even using molecular
mechanosynthesis, it will pay for itself many times over by replacing
rockets with elevators driven by electricity powered by solar energy freely
available and abundant beyond our atmosphere. What is more, building
skyhooks is easier on the Moon and Mars, and eventually it will be possible
to use robot construction machines to spin the great cables for us with no
human supervision. Rather than expend decades on rocket flights to Mars, it
might turn out to be cheaper and quicker, in the long run, to invest in a
major research and development effort in industrial nanotechnology able to
fabricate skyhooks for interplanetary travel. That way we'd have the
benefits of nano for all manner of useful purposes, and an attaintable
highway to space in the bargain.
         What is more, the trouble--and the great delight--of making such
projections into expected future technologies is that once you introduce
such a novelty as nanotechnology, everything else is liable to change in
unexpected ways. If you have access to advanced nanofacture, you might wish
to build other things. I playfully called the space hook a Beanstalk, but in
the fairy story the giant's Beanstalk grew upward from the soil, it did not
hang down from the sky. Might we use molecular or other advanced methods to
grow a ladder or tower upward into the clouds and far, far beyond them?
         NASA scientists Dr Geoffrey Landis and Craig Cafarelli have done
the engineering calculations. It seems that an immensely tall tower could
indeed be built. The stresses in a diamond tower with its mighty footings
deep in rock would be compressive, squeezing downward, the contrary of that
outward tension tearing at a space thread. Small shifts in the crust would
put it at risk of toppling or buckling, so active computerised management
would be necessary to ensure stability. Further calculations show that a
blend of skyhook satellite and very tall tower might be the optimal mix,
using less materials and cheaper to build. But these same technologies have
suggested a quite different audacious scheme to Dr J. Storrs Hall, one of
the few people to have devoted a lot of disciplined effort to exploring the
prospects of nanotechnology. His notion is strange, but remarkably simple
and perhaps elegant in the way of the Eiffel Tower. He proposes a Launch
Pier a hundred kilometres tall, extending above all but the last of the
atmosphere, and three hundred long.
         It would resemble the world's largest trestle, built from slender
diamond-like towers marching beyond the horizon like impossibly tall spidery
radio transmitters. At their top, a colossal rail structure would lead to an
edge I can imagine base-jumpers lining up for months to jump off. The rails
would carry magnetically levitated spacecraft, accelerating them smoothly
for 80 seconds at a crushing but acceptable 10 gravities. Released at the
end of their 300 km run, spared the burden of carrying most of their own
propellent, spacecraft would head for orbit along computer-specified
trajectories, correcting their paths with exquisite changes of velocity from
their conventional rockets.
         From the ground, you would not be able to see the immense launch
platform lost in the haze of air far beneath it. Perhaps you would only see
a few of the great struts plunging upward into the blue. Sunlight,
effectively undiminished, would shine through the lacy thing upon crops.
There'd be no noise, except where great gantries and elevators carried their
loads into the skies, powered not by expensive rocket fuel but by cheap
electricity (which might well be generated from solar energy at the top of
the trestle). How much would such a marvel cost to build? Hall claims it
could be built today, using available technology and materials, although at
exorbitant expense. With moderately early nanotechnology to spin the half
million tonnes of struts, plus magnetic coils and electronics, that
impossible price might plunge to $500,000,000, or more conservatively $10
billion. By comparison, 300 kilometres of superhighway today costs at least
a billion dollars; building the Hubble Space Telescope, hoisting it into
orbit and then repairing it took $3.2 billion; the International Space
Station's bill will be more than $20 billion. The Apollo mission to the Moon
cost $24 billion in 1960 dollars.. but today its mighty Saturn launch
vehicles have been dismantled and even their engineering plans were
destroyed. Hall notes: `If an Apollo-style (and -cost) project could do for
diamond what the original one did for electronics, we could build the tower
in the next decade or so.' Operating costs could fall to $1 per kilogram
lifted into orbit. Today's costs using rockets are 10,000 times higher.
         In short, a major push in developing molecular nanotechnology could
pay off by reducing the cost of this dramatic launch platform into
space--and provide us with all the other benefits of matter compilers almost
as an incidental. Those benefits will probably include inexpensive consumer
goods, perhaps including foods, clothing, safe terrestrial transport,
shelter and computation. That implies a complete and perhaps catastrophic
shake-up in the global economy, as we shift from a world of scarcity to one
of plenty within a brief period of time. During such an upheaval, will
anyone be thinking seriously about exploring the Solar System and beyond?
Yes--because even with the new opportunities for intelligent recycling that
nanotechnology affords us, we'll want all the extra resources we can find.
And space--in the form of asteroids, but also moons and planets, will be an
abundant source of raw materials for a very long time, without the
disturbing moral costs that should have troubled our colonising ancestors.

         iii

Finding clever ways to lift cheaply into orbit is just the first step, but
it is a step that takes us a long way, for it has been said that low earth
orbit is `halfway to anywhere'. While that is true, it depends on how long
you are willing to spend getting anywhere. By rocket from Earth orbit, the
Moon is several days distant. Coasting most of the way, getting to Mars and
back takes many months. Can we speed up the trip? And is your journey really
necessary?
         Several ingenious methods have been explored for boosting crewed
spacecraft to the nearest planets and the asteroids. You can fire tremendous
laser beams at the frail extended butterfly wings of a light-jammer, pushing
it gentle but inexorable into the void on the pressure of light itself. That
sounds absurd, but a highly reflective aluminium skin on a light-sail just
four or five atoms thick and nearly 700 kilometres across can be driven by
sunlight alone to nearly one percent of the speed of light, the maximum
velocity in the universe. Actually we can do better than that. A battery of
powerful lasers, pumping their blazing beams through a lens 200 metres
across, could strike the light-jammer's sail with such force that it would
be accelerated in two months to 15 percvent of the speed of light.
Conditions on board would be comfortable, because the acceleration would be
nearly one g, the force we are used to on Earth from gravity. You do not
need to carry all that mass of proppellent with you, and at destination, the
craft can be slowed by a number of equally clever means not requiring
rockets. One such, suggested by Dr Robert Zubrin, is to deploy an equally
vast magnetic sail-field that presses against the `wind' of the
interplanetary magnetic medium that suffuses `empty' space.
         Do we need to make this trip through the horrors of space at all?
Might we find ways to avoid the perils of weightlessness (which destroys
bone and muscle), radiation storms from the Sun, dangerous micro-debris that
can damage a craft or its instruments? A favourite fancy, fuelled now for
three decades by Star Trek, is the transporter beam, or instant
teleportation from one place to another. Recently this notion has been given
some real scientific grounding with the discovery, in relativity theory,
that wormholes might be possible. These are links through higher-dimnsional
space, joining locations and even times far distant and in principle
permiting signals or even objects to pass through, apparently faster than
light. Of course the transition would not actually be faster than light,
since the distance travelled has been abbreviated. Alas, current thinking
argues against the likelihood that wormholes or hyperspace can really allow
us to teleport instantly to another world, or even from the surface to a
starship propelled by antimatter. One reason for thinking that this sad news
is right is the absence of aliens in the Solar Sysytem, let alone the earth.
If wormhole travel is easy and available, we'd expect the galaxy to be
swarming with star voyagers (assuming that life exists beyond our own
planet). That goes as well, admittedly, for near-light-speed star travel,
such as light-sails or antimatter-fuelled craft, but such vessels would take
years, centuries, even millennia to get to their destinations. That might
cramp the enthusiasm of many extraterrestrial species, encouraging them to
stay at home and sent small nano-robots exploring in their stead. Such
shrunken probes, containing miniaturised artificial intelligence systems
perhaps smarter than human brains, could be accelerated inexpensively from
their home worlds to nearly the speed of light, spin themselves sails from
the interstellar debris as they approach their destination, infest a
convenient asteroid or lifeless moon and start to replicate. A nano-seed of
this sort could build further probes to explore the new system, and enormous
radio or optical transmitters to pump back an encyclopaedia of new
information to the home world. True, the society that launched them
thousands of years earlier might by then be dead or transformed, but the
gale of knowledge would flow across the emptiness between the stars,
bringing riches beyond dream to anyone listening.






From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Sat Jan 10 00:39:11 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:39:11 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com><5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE33w1FwqrYdJ000298dc@hotmail.com>

I think that a permanent presence would be extremely valuable for anything,
regardless of whether or not MNT comes along soon. To simply have a place
with  lots of people and industry that's not buried in a deep gravity well
like Earth would increase our abilities more than I can even guess.
If you could start small and bring asteroids to the moon for processing, it
could grow just as rapidly as the US did. It would be even more useful if we
came to learn that it is easier to manufacture MNT self-replicators in low
or zero g. (I don't know if this would make a difference, but with all the
materials research on the ISS I guess it could be possible).

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lubkin" <extropy at unreasonable.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Moon news


> I wrote:
>
>  > No one quotes Zubrin or other prominent figures from the Mars Society,
or
>  > even mentions that if you want to go to Mars, the answer might just
be --
>  > go to Mars.
>
> to which Damien retorted:
>
> >No one mentions that if you want to stay on Mars rather than going
briefly
> >and coming back, the answer might just be -- stay on Earth. For the next
> >decade or so (as is planned anyway). Put all that loot into
nanotechnology
> >and other bootstraps. Then build a skyhook or a diamonoid launch platform
or
> >something equally radical. Meanwhile, send probes if you really must.
>
> They could say that, too, but Zubrin recently testified before the
Commerce
> Committee of the US Senate. It would be reasonable to expect a minimally
> competent reporter who covers space to be aware of this and get a reaction
> quote. It's curious that none did, at least none that Google News is aware
of.
>
> Thinking of nanotech, though, is far beyond any competency I'd expect from
> journalism.
>
> Anyway. The Case for Mars plan is cheap, pay-for-results, and builds a
> permanent complex on Mars. It is not "going briefly and coming back."
>
> But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put
my
> space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid. Set up shop for
> mining, manufacturing, and space construction somewhere convenient, like
> geosynch, L-4, or L-5. Bova et al outlined a reasonable scenario for doing
> this nearly off-the-shelf twenty years ago. I keep expecting to hear that
> Paul Allen has funded it.
>
> Hundreds of millions of tons of metal and organics in a useful Up location
> is a major bootstrap for anything else you want to do in space, and I
think
> would have a lot of synergy with nanotech.
>
>
> -- David Lubkin.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Jan 10 01:26:00 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:26:00 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] http://www.julianbarbour.com/
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com><5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net><5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
	<01da01c3d712$3b3c5a20$a8994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000801c3d718$b82c3e00$c3994a43@texas.net>

Some spam prick seems to have sitejacked theoretical physicist Julian
Barbour's site. Google's cache shows the same crap. But I'm far from expert
on this stuff; anyone have any insight into this annoyance?

Damien Broderick



From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 01:28:54 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] What to do with $100B? Mars, Nano or Life?
Message-ID: <20040110012854.89171.qmail@web41313.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Robert,
 
     You pose a fundamental question. What to do with a hundred billion dollars?
 
     I would agree with you that it is a lot of money just to go to Mars, but also just for nanotechnology. With that amount of money, we could probably find the secrets of life extension and even immortality?
 
    Your message puts light in a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost. And between Mars and immortality, I take the second without any doubts. 
 
     And later I would go to Mars as well:-)
 
     Extropianily yours,
 
     La vie est belle!
 
     Yos?
 
Robert J. Bradbury bradbury at aeiveos.com 
Fri Jan 9 17:23:15 MST 2004 

   If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could
do if invested in nanotech development...





La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040109/8ad9d0b6/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 01:48:48 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument
In-Reply-To: <011801c3d15a$494a1700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20040110014848.97772.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>

My thoughts on:
 
1. Fermi paradox:
      Any advanced species from an extrasolar planet would have realized the same Darwinian processes have shaped the life on their world as it has on ours. Knowing that any other advanced species it encounters would more likely represent a competitor than an ally. Especially since life based on selfish replicators such as genes, or even memes for that matter, would converge on similar strategies of kin selection and deception to forward their own ends. Therefore it would seem reasonable that any sufficiently advanced alien species would be too canny to advertise their existence through indiscriminate radio broadcasts for fear of invasion or, if more agressive, to avoid tipping their hands to any potential targets for invasion.
      The Fermi Paradox could be a little like a naval battle between submarines where each sub is carefully listening to their passive sonars trying to detect enemy subs and is loathe to use their active sonars for fear of allowing the enemy to pinpoint their location. If that is the case, we may already be screwed.
 
2. Simulation argument:
We do all live in a simulation but each person lives in their OWN simulation. It is called the mind which is in essence a simulation being run by the brain of objective reality which can be modelled and approximated but not precisely known. In our own heads we simulate everything from physical phenomenon to the behavior of our neighbors in an attempt to further our own survival. Any further layers of simulation seem redundant and pointless except for recreational value.
 
      

 

 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040109/aac5813c/attachment.html>

From jcorb at iol.ie  Sat Jan 10 02:05:08 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:05:08 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040110015732.0402aec0@pop.iol.ie>

Such a decision by NASA be a boon to other agencies like ESA.  They can 
then push for funding to do the missions NASA would no longer be interested 
in.  Perhaps a lot less duplication of effort, and more cross-agency 
collaborations eg. ESA and China or India.

Then there's the scenario of having NASA run a moonbase on which a high 
tech lab can study samples dropped off by various unmanned ESA probes 
"patrolling" the galaxy.  Who knows, with a moon refinery and foundry, 
maybe it'll be Europe who mines the asteroid belt :)



James...


>Message: 24
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:03:38 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Moon news
>To: natashavita at earthlink.net, ExI chat list
><extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <20040109200338.69941.qmail at web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > I can see a way around this. If NASA scraps current projects for a
> > more exalted program, then the trickle down effect could occur and
>the
> > "scrapped" projects could go to private industry where their is a
> > growing interest, and this could help it along. I got a lot of good
> > wear out of my best friends' hand-me-down cloths. Of course she has
> > very expensive taste, but so does NASA.
>On the negative side, most of the 'irrelevant' projects tend to be
>science R&D projects, something which the aerospace industry has
>generally seen as NASA's job for the past three quarter century, and
>which themselves don't generally generate much profit.
>On the plus side, it will leave this research to private and state
>universities, taking the work outside the governmental grant rat race,
>and the schools generally do a better job of getting the businesses
>that benefit most to fund these efforts as well. They also tend to
>obtain the gained knowledge more cost effectively than federal programs.
>=====
>Mike Lorrey
>"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>- Gen. John Stark
>"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>- Mike Lorrey
>Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
>Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>




From asa at nada.kth.se  Sat Jan 10 02:31:03 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:31:03 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
In-Reply-To: <007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension>
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org><004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension>
	<007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <2751.213.112.90.167.1073701863.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>

Rafal Smigrodzki said:
> I just finished reading the third part of John C. Wright's Golden Age
> trilogy, and I am awed.

I couldn't agree more. It was a wonderful feeling to see that Wright
managed to get the story to wrap up in a nontrivial manner.

It is one of the few books where one gets the feeling that characters that
are described as smart actually are smart and not just playing. The plot
twists have a nice logic and also managed to dispell the risk of having
the hero solve everything thanks to his amazing willpower and absolute
moral corectitude. Phaeton might be right, but that doesn't mean everybody
will automatically obey or believe him or that he will not put himself
into deep trouble thanks to his personality. There were several times I
was truly afraid that Wright was doing an Ayn Rand channeling, only to -
fortunately - have the solemn arguments punctured by sceptic comments by
listeners or intercepted by reality.

Personally I found the description of Helion's character interesting.
Phaeton is in many ways just the opera hero, while Daphne, Atkins and
Helion are much more nuanced. Wright manages to make identity engineering
and its consequences believable (and very thought provoking; we are going
to need an entire vocabulary for the family and emotional issues around
it).

I was a bit surprised by the length of the historical eras (there is an
appendix describing much of the setting, although not in excessive
detail); I had the feeling the setting was maybe just a few tens of
thousands of years in the future, but it appears to be nearly half a
million years ahead.

> The one issue I don't understand are the IP laws in the Golden Ecumene -
> are
> they statutory or merely contractual? If statutory, why are they
> (apparently) time-unlimited, which might result in inefficiencies (and
> Wright doesn't say how inefficiencies are avoided), and if they are
> contractual, how do they become universally enforced?

Could it be a mechanism similar to the Hortators, but so low-level that
people no longer took notice? Imagine an opt-in economic system where you
contractually agree to accept the IP of others and the penalty of breaking
it is expulsion. AI maintains the actual fund transfer, control of who
owns what IP and so on, so participants do not have to care much about the
details. This system becomes just as popular as the Hortators, in fact
even more popular: the benefits of joining are so great that everybody and
everything joins it, and hence breaking the IP becomes just as bad as a
total Hortator ban. Most likely people get various kinds of insurance and
insulation from this risk, making it less likely to happen by accident.
Over time this system becomes so ubiquitious that it is viewed as the
natural way things are.

I'm thinking about modelling hortator-like structures in Axelrod's Norm
Game. So far there seems to be some interesting effects due to the
topology of the social networks.


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan 10 02:48:34 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:48:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <1608.213.112.90.167.1073690001.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <000101c3d724$3def3ff0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Anders Sandberg
> There seem to be two approaches to really going to space...
> Anders Sandberg

He's baaaaack!  

Welcome Anders, we missed ya.

spike



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jan 10 03:33:12 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:33:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <01da01c3d712$3b3c5a20$a8994a43@texas.net>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

>Journalists are catching up faster than you might think from where I sit.
>Perhaps due to the fact that they can't escape from more informed writers
>who simply throw stuff onto the net without having to make a living as
>a journalist.  Its tough to push ca-ca when a Google search will cleearly
>show it as such.

And yet, here it is.  Look at how this news is being covered.  No one -- 
reporter, politician, or commentator -- has discussed this story with any 
greater depth than they would have in 1972.

>I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes nanotechnology will 
>develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century) would be foolish to 
>support any Mars colonization or even Mars human visitation 
>efforts.  There is no point to expending resources to put humans at the 
>bottom of another gravity well.
>         :
>If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could do if invested 
>in nanotech development...

That's not an option.  You aren't going to get $100B for nanotech 
development.  Money will be spent on space projects.  This is political 
reality.  The question is which space projects will be most useful of the 
alternatives that are politically viable.

I am not necessarily advocating the Mars project.  I *am* saying that it at 
least needs to be in the public discussion.

If the choice is only between the Moon and Mars, there's a decent case that 
it is more useful to go to Mars now than to go back to the Moon.

Of the three space choices we're discussing, I'd pick asteroid mining over 
the Moon or Mars in a New York minute, except that I want it done 
privately.  In the long run, I think we might be better off delaying 
asteroid mining over doing it now as a government project.

Funding realities aside, I am a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy.

Of course I want space-based habitats.  But I also want self-supporting 
human habitats off-world that are minimally dependent on technology, as 
soon as possible.

It's a tremendously useful safety net that we can be dropped with the 
clothes on our back almost anywhere on this planet and survive.  Or that a 
catastrophic event can set our society back centuries and we can recover.

Mars has all the raw materials for life, and we can survive there with 
lower-tech than on the Moon or in a space-based habitat.  Me, I'll take 
space, but I want somebody living on Mars.  Maybe the Amish will go....

I am a strong advocate of nanotech but I don't want to see getting 
off-world delayed --

(1)  Nanotech may be harder than we think.
(2)  Nanotech, genemods, biowar, or an Eliezer-class AI may jeopardize 
earthbound sentient life.
(3)  Asteroid mining is dirt cheap, as in there are many individuals who 
could personally fund it altogether.
(4)  As we agreed, there are synergies between developing nano and 
developing space.

Kevin Freels wrote:

>I think that a permanent presence would be extremely valuable for anything,
>regardless of whether or not MNT comes along soon. To simply have a place
>with lots of people and industry that's not buried in a deep gravity well
>like Earth would increase our abilities more than I can even guess.
>If you could start small and bring asteroids to the moon for processing, it
>could grow just as rapidly as the US did. It would be even more useful if we
>came to learn that it is easier to manufacture MNT self-replicators in low
>or zero g. (I don't know if this would make a difference, but with all the
>materials research on the ISS I guess it could be possible).

And it would be pretty useful to be able to work on assemblers or genemods 
on an isolated orbital station, instead of an office park.  A lot less 
reason to fear something bad getting out the door.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 03:58:51 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news 
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040110015732.0402aec0@pop.iol.ie>
Message-ID: <20040110035851.53386.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- J Corbally <jcorb at iol.ie> wrote:
> Such a decision by NASA be a boon to other agencies like ESA.  They
> can then push for funding to do the missions NASA would no longer be
> interested 
> in.  Perhaps a lot less duplication of effort, and more cross-agency 
> collaborations eg. ESA and China or India.
> 
> Then there's the scenario of having NASA run a moonbase on which a
> high tech lab can study samples dropped off by various unmanned ESA
> probes "patrolling" the galaxy.  Who knows, with a moon refinery and
> foundry, maybe it'll be Europe who mines the asteroid belt :)

Wouldn't that conflict with the EU mining workers unions?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jan 10 03:59:24 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:59:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Professors at war: Searching for dissent
	at the MLA
Message-ID: <3FFF789C.EB29B315@mindspring.com>

< http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/01/04/professors_at_war/
>

Professors at war
Searching for dissent at the MLA

By Scott Jaschik, 1/4/2004

SAN DIEGO -- "Why are you headed to San Diego?" asked the man next to 
me on the plane. "I'm going to a meeting of English professors to 
hear what they have to say about the war with Iraq," I replied.

"English professors? On the war?" The man smirked. "I can't imagine 
what they would have to say."

Plenty, it turns out. This past week, about 8,000 professors and 
graduate students gathered here for the annual meeting of the Modern 
Language Association. Most came for job interviews, to catch up with 
old friends, and to attend some of the 763 panels of scholars. But 
among the panels on topics ranging from Hawthorne to Asian cinema to 
"The Aesthetics of Trash" were a surprising number of sessions 
dealing with the war in Iraq, terrorism, patriotism, and American 
foreign policy.

Not that there was much actual debate. In more than a dozen sessions 
on war-related topics, not a single speaker or audience member 
expressed support for the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The sneering 
air quotes were flying as speaker after speaker talked of "so-called 
terrorism," "the so-called homeland," "the so-called election of 
George Bush," and so forth.

The approach to the war was certainly wide-ranging -- from cultural 
studies to rhetoric to literature to pure political speechifying. In 
a session on "Shock and Awe," Graham Hammill of Notre Dame traced the 
ideas behind the initial bombing back to the Roman historian and 
orator Tacitus's idea of arcana imperii, which translates roughly as 
"mysteries of state." Like Roman emperors who used rhetoric to sway 
the populace, Hammill argued, the Shock and Awe campaign was a 
rhetorical gesture aimed at demonstrating US power as much as 
flattening Baghdad.

At a different panel, Cynthia Young of the University of Southern 
California spoke about how the White House uses Condoleezza Rice and 
Colin Powell "to create a distorted multiracial mask on imperialism." 
"What does it mean," Young asked, "when imperialism comes wrapped in 
a black bow?"

Instead of Rice's August speech comparing the Iraqi "liberation" with 
the civil rights struggle, she recommended the writings of the 
African-American activist and writer Angela Davis, who once described 
her alienation from white Americans mourning the death of John F. 
Kennedy in 1963, but not the four young black girls who died in the 
Birmingham church bombing that same year.

Similar alienation is evident today, Young said, as the United States 
ignores the problems facing minority citizens while taking over 
countries where people do not look or worship like white Americans. 
"The new patriotism looks a lot like the old slash-and-burn 
imperialism," she declared.

Berkeley's Judith Butler, a superstar of gender and literary studies, 
drew a packed house with her analysis of Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld's bad grammar and slippery use of the term "sovereignty."

On a 2002 visit to Eritrea, in response to a question about the 
detention of dissidents there, Rumsfeld declared: "A country is a 
sovereign nation and they arrange themselves and deal with their 
problems in ways that they feel are appropriate to them." Beyond the 
noun-verb agreement problem with "country" and "they," Butler rapped 
Rummy's knuckles for redefining sovereignty -- in her analysis -- as 
"the suspension of legal rights."

When the United States is challenged over the detainees held at 
Guantanamo Bay, American officials assert that US courts have no 
jurisdiction there because we are not sovereign there, Butler pointed 
out. "We are using sovereignty to declare war against the law," she 
said, to nods throughout her talk and loud applause after it.

The MLA's deliberative body, the Delegate Assembly, adopted by a 
landslide margin of 122-8 a resolution supporting "the right of its 
members to conduct critical analysis of war talk" despite government 
efforts to "shape language to legitimate aggression, misrepresent 
policies, conceal aims, stigmatize dissent, and block critical 
thought."

Sometimes that critical analysis was aimed at elements of the antiwar 
left. While denouncing the "particularly evil cabal" that runs the 
country, Barbara Foley of Rutgers urged leftist critics to look 
beyond the distraction of "Bush's cowboyism" to "the Leninist notion 
of intra-imperialist rivalry" to explain US-European competition for 
domination of the oil-rich Middle East.

Anthony Dawahare of California State University at Northridge said 
that "whoever wins the war in Iraq, the working class people in Iraq 
and in the US will be subject to a dictatorship of the rich." In an 
interview, he said that unless Howard Dean challenged capitalism 
itself, student activism on his behalf would be "a waste of time."

Not that everyone at the MLA was preoccupied with Marxist analysis. 
Ask many of the graduate students or younger scholars what's on their 
mind, and they talk about finding a job.

The closest public challenge to the prevailing geopolitical views at 
the MLA came when one professor asked a panel that had derided 
American responses to 9/11 and Iraq what a good response would have 
looked like. She didn't get much of an answer, left the session, and 
declined to elaborate on her question.

But a young professor of English who followed her out the door to 
congratulate her did offer some thoughts on politics at the MLA. 
Aaron Santesso of the University of Nevada at Reno described himself 
as being "on the left" and sympathetic with much of the criticism of 
the war in Iraq. But he said that the tenor of the discussion "drives 
me nuts." "A lot of people here don't want the rhetoric to just be a 
shrill echo of the right," he said.

Just a few years ago, he noted, the Taliban was regularly attacked at 
MLA meetings for their treatment of women and likened to the American 
religious right. Now, there is only talk of how the United States has 
taken away the rights of the Afghan people.

Santesso said he gains a good perspective from his students, most of 
whom he characterized as "libertarian conservatives." Most of the 
debate at the MLA, he said, "would completely alienate my students."

Plenty of English professors share his views, Santesso said. And some 
of his colleagues are even conservative. They just avoid coming to 
the MLA.

Scott Jaschik, former editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, is 
a writer in Washington.
? Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.


-- 
"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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jan 10 04:37:49 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:37:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moon news
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109232505.01aa2d88@mail.comcast.net>

These two articles have more information than has appeared elsewhere.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040108-111922-8569r.htm

Has a pretty detailed account of what's afoot.  I found it quite a 
shocker.  There are clearly major players in the Administration who 
approach problems de novo, decide what ought to be, and then figure out how 
to get there.  They don't always win and they aren't always right but it's 
a pleasure to see bright, creative minds at work.  (Competency is always 
refreshing, regardless of whether I approve of what it's applied to.)

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/010904bush.htm

>The announcement would come on the heels of a high-level review by a 
>secret White House panel, a study sped up in the wake of the Columbia 
>accident. Vice President Dick Cheney was heavily involved with the panel, 
>which included strong representation by the National Security Council and 
>Department of Defense.

Further confirmation of the military aspects of the new plans.


-- David Lubkin.




From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jan 10 05:10:34 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:10:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401091611550.20282-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0401091611550.20282-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040109211034.7ec8b65e.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:23:15 -0800 (PST)
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

> 
> > Anyway. The Case for Mars plan is cheap, pay-for-results, and builds a
> > permanent complex on Mars. It is not "going briefly and coming back."
> 
> But, but but... Zubrin gets so close to the dismantlement of the planet
> with the construction of solar cells for power sources then doesn't
> follow through.  I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes
> nanotechnology will develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century)
> would be foolish to support any Mars colonization or even Mars
> human visitation efforts.  There is no point to expending resources
> to put humans at the bottom of another gravity well.  Hell, on Mars
> the atmosphere is so thin one doesn't even have the protection from
> asteroids, comets, UV and gamma rays that one has on earth.  It is
> *stupid* to expend large amounts of resources to go there.  O'Neill
> space based colonies or even asteroid based colonies make much more
> sense.  If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could
> do if invested in nanotech development...

Why is it "stupid" to put at least part of humanity in more than one basket?  The fact that major technological developments are in the offing soon does not mean that these developments will be used necessarily for the good of the race or even lead to greater survivability.   Having humans spread out a bit seems more sane.  The cost of a space probram such as Zubrin advocates compares quite favorably to really futile endeavors such as the Iraq war and much of the "War on Terror".  

I do agree though that O'Neill and/or asteroid based colonies make a lot of sense and are much more within our currently limited grasp.
  
> 
> > But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put my
> > space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid. Set up shop for
> > mining, manufacturing, and space construction somewhere convenient, like
> > geosynch, L-4, or L-5. Bova et al outlined a reasonable scenario for doing
> > this nearly off-the-shelf twenty years ago. I keep expecting to hear that
> > Paul Allen has funded it.
> 
> Let Paul finish the X-prize first, then deal with the asteroid as a
> follow-up effort.  (Though I strongly agree with the strategy.)
> 

Yes, if it was my billions that is one of the first things I would target.   OK, maybe Mars is a relatively poor goal at this time.

-s



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jan 10 05:23:01 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:23:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040109212301.4b16c3b7.samantha@objectent.com>

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:33:12 -0500
David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> 
> >I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes nanotechnology will 
> >develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century) would be foolish to 
> >support any Mars colonization or even Mars human visitation 
> >efforts.  There is no point to expending resources to put humans at the 
> >bottom of another gravity well.
> >         :
> >If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could do if invested 
> >in nanotech development...
> 
> That's not an option.  You aren't going to get $100B for nanotech 
> development.  Money will be spent on space projects.  This is political 
> reality.  The question is which space projects will be most useful of the 
> alternatives that are politically viable.
>

This is not obvious to me.  The possible breadth and depth of benefits from developing nanotech are much more obvious than the one in just going to Mars or getting the bare beginnings of a foothold on the Moon and/or Mars.  Why is space more politically marketable?  And if it is so politically marketable why have we been clingly to the ground so determinedly since Apollo?

> Of the three space choices we're discussing, I'd pick asteroid mining over 
> the Moon or Mars in a New York minute, except that I want it done 
> privately.  In the long run, I think we might be better off delaying 
> asteroid mining over doing it now as a government project.
>

Me too.  But I think it is better to do it at all than to not do it.
 
- s


From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Jan 10 06:04:01 2004
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:04:01 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] http://www.julianbarbour.com/
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com><5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net><5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net><01da01c3d712$3b3c5a20$a8994a43@texas.net>
	<000801c3d718$b82c3e00$c3994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <001401c3d73f$8e743dc0$c3994a43@texas.net>

I said:


> Some spam prick seems to have sitejacked theoretical physicist Julian
> Barbour's site. Google's cache shows the same crap. But I'm far from
expert
> on this stuff; anyone have any insight into this annoyance?

I was rather hoping someone would immediately reply, hoisting me on my own
recent petard, with the single word:

`Yes.'

But Robert Bradbury kindly reminded me of the Wayback Machine:

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

which showed that Barbour had moved (as Google would have informed me had I
bothered to look properly; but I'd trusted my own bibliography) to
www.platonia.com/

Still, this shows that it doesn't pay to up and leave when some shyster is
liable to grab your expired url and make off with it for nefarious spamster
purposes...

Damien Broderick



From twodeel at jornada.org  Sat Jan 10 06:18:14 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] http://www.julianbarbour.com/
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d73f$8e743dc0$c3994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401092215420.13099-100000@hplx.net>

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Still, this shows that it doesn't pay to up and leave when some shyster
> is liable to grab your expired url and make off with it for nefarious
> spamster purposes...

That kind of thing HAS to be illegal, doesn't it?  They can't just
appropriate whole blocks of somebody else's text like they have on
julanbarbour.com and progressaction.com to imply that it is associated 
with their scam.



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jan 10 06:23:44 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:23:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <20040109212301.4b16c3b7.samantha@objectent.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>
	<63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040110003941.03a32428@mail.comcast.net>

Robert wrote:

 >If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could do if invested
 >in nanotech development...

then I responded:

 > That's not an option.  You aren't going to get $100B for nanotech
 > development.  Money will be spent on space projects.  This is political
 > reality.  The question is which space projects will be most useful of the
 > alternatives that are politically viable.

to which Samantha posed:

>This is not obvious to me.  The possible breadth and depth of benefits 
>from developing nanotech are much more obvious than the one in just going 
>to Mars or getting the bare beginnings of a foothold on the Moon and/or 
>Mars.  Why is space more politically marketable?  And if it is so 
>politically marketable why have we been clingly to the ground so 
>determinedly since Apollo?

As Greg might say in lawyer mode, Res ipsa loquitur: The thing speaks for 
itself. If space weren't politically marketable, it wouldn't be on Bush's 
plate right now.  He's clearly in re-election mode, looking at some of his 
recent actions.  Karl Rove must have polled this, and found it winning.

Space remains popular with the American people. The consequences of going 
to space are self-evident to everyone (or at least they think they are). 
Everyone has seen Star Trek or Star Wars, or looked up at the night sky. 
They may think the money is better spent on curing cancer or feeding the 
homeless, but they are not afraid of space.

On the other hand, most Americans have no clue what nanotech is or what its 
consequences are. Many of the few who have a sense of nano are afraid of 
bogeymen -- grey goo, nano making the rich richer, etc.

Meanwhile, there's an established power framework of subcommittees, NASA 
centers, aerospace contractors, congresscritters with space contractors in 
their districts, etc., built up over half a century in support of continued 
space projects.

Gee, which states have the biggest NASA centers and aerospace 
contractors?  California, Florida, and Texas.  How many electoral votes...?

And the pivotal role that US satellite capabilities had in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, which is vulnerable.

And the competitive economic and military pressure from the space programs 
of China, Japan, India, Israel, etc.

In any case -- here we are. Bush has chosen to push space. Done deal. What 
we can do is try to sway the decisions made within a space policy. Push 
stuff we think is worthwhile -- asteroid retrieval, work on 
closed-environmental systems, building lasting infrastructure instead of 
one-shots, etc. Which *could* include a hefty sum for research that we 
think of as nanotech, if it is framed in terms of its direct applicability 
to the mission. In the way that folks like Rod Hyde at Livermore worked on 
high-powered lasers and tracking for SDI, well aware that the work was also 
applicable to laser-launching.


-- David Lubkin.





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jan 10 08:56:26 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:56:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] http://www.julianbarbour.com/
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d73f$8e743dc0$c3994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000201c3d757$a18dfeb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick
> 
> ... hoisting me on my own recent petard...

Ah yes, the Shakespearean SF author among us can perhaps
shed light upon this comment:

...

Still, this shows that it doesn't pay to up and leave...

Damien Broderick


What part of speech is "up"?  Does the preposition become
a verb?  If so, it represents yet an example of which I
can immediately think of only two, the other being the
curious catchphrase "the truth will out."  What is that?
Does "out" become a verb?  For otherwise that sentence
has no verb, or as some jokers might say 

"That sentence no verb."

We know of many shameful examples of nouns becoming
verbs in modern vulgar usage, but must we now attack
and degrade our prepositions too?

I have heard for all my life about people up and doing
things, such as dying, but never has it been adequately
explained what up is doing in that sentence.

The AI will be so puzzled.

spike



From asa at nada.kth.se  Sat Jan 10 12:29:22 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:29:22 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Information channels (Was: [extropy-chat] Moon news)
In-Reply-To: <000101c3d724$3def3ff0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <1608.213.112.90.167.1073690001.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
	<000101c3d724$3def3ff0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <3379.130.237.122.245.1073737762.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>


Spike said:
> He's baaaaack!
>
> Welcome Anders, we missed ya.

Thanks!

It is interesting to start focussing on the list again. I never
unsubscribed but just didn't check the folder very often, essentially
directing my main attention elsewhere. Going back now is like becoming
aware of an entire sensory stream I had almost forgotten I had. I wonder
how often posthumans are going to end up with that experience?
("Yestersecond I happened to highlink my biobrain, and what do you know,
it had completely changed")

It also highlights a nice problem. There is almost too much transhumanist
information these days. In the "golden days" there was this list, a few
web pages and that was it. Easy to catalogue and handle. Today we have
around ten major lists, more websites than I know of run by transhumanists
(and even more related stuff outside the core movement) and an increasing
production of essays, books and other heavy information. Finding ways of
managing all this information is an interesting challenge, since we still
have to deal with 24 hour days.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From determinism at hotmail.com  Sat Jan 10 14:04:22 2004
From: determinism at hotmail.com (Dennis May)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:04:22 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument
Message-ID: <BAY7-F79rZnREFeY4cn0002488d@hotmail.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>>1. Fermi paradox:
       Any advanced species from an extrasolar planet would have realized 
the same Darwinian processes have shaped the life on their world as it has 
on ours. Knowing that any other advanced species it encounters would more 
likely represent a competitor than an ally. Especially since life based on 
selfish replicators such as genes, or even memes for that matter, would 
converge on similar strategies of kin selection and deception to forward 
their own ends. Therefore it would seem reasonable that any sufficiently 
advanced alien species would be too canny to advertise their existence 
through indiscriminate radio broadcasts for fear of invasion or, if more 
aggressive, to avoid tipping their hands to any potential targets for 
invasion.
       The Fermi Paradox could be a little like a naval battle between 
submarines where each sub is carefully listening to their passive sonars 
trying to detect enemy subs and is loathe to use their active sonars for 
fear of allowing the enemy to pinpoint their location. If that is the case, 
we may already be screwed.>>

This is precisely my view: stealth, mobility,
and dispersion are the secrets to survival
in the high technology space universe of
WoMD and control of high energy
processes.  A single civilization can settle
a galaxy in no time.  It can settle several
galaxies a short time later.  It won't take
long to understand that there is no
advantage in advertising to competitors.
I'm sure intercivilization/species contact
and trade will happen but I doubt open
trust will ever be a wise thing even within
a given civilization or species.

Dennis May
____________________________
Physicist/Engineer/Inventor
determinism at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!  Learn more. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1



From devon at thegreatwork.com  Sat Jan 10 14:43:47 2004
From: devon at thegreatwork.com (Devon White)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:43:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Your thoughts on the news
Message-ID: <003501c3d788$2851a7f0$0a01a8c0@Kallista>

Hi everyone,

My company, Synergy Media Network, is getting ready to begin broadcasting in
March. As we move towards this long awaited goal i'd like input from some of
the
most intelligent and brutally honest minds i know. Which brings me here.

What i would like to know is this: if you could turn on FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS,
etc. . . and design the information that you as well as other people would
get, what would it be? On
a daily/weekly basis, what topics would be addressed? Also, if there are
already organizations or
individuals out there providing some of these kinds of information streams,
who are they and how do i get in
touch with them?

Thanks for your help in advance,

Devon White
devon at synergymedianetwork.com
www.synergymedianetwork.com
www.mysmn.com



From mark at permanentend.org  Sat Jan 10 14:59:16 2004
From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:59:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality - who pays? What
	willthe cost be?
References: <002901c3d313$ead28390$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT><5.2.0.9.0.20040104172428.02c0e170@pop.earthlink.net>
	<3FFEFB6A.3CE85BA2@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <037b01c3d78a$519d5530$2ee4f418@markcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc."

> Top Of The News
>  Health Costs Rise Beyond Belief
>  Dan Ackman, 01.09.04, 9:58 AM ET
>
>                      NEW YORK - U.S. health care costs are rising so fast
>                      that not only do they outstrip the prior year, they
even
>                      exceed forecasters' ability to project them
>
>                      In mid-2002, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
>                      Services projected that national health expenditures
>                      would reach $2.8 trillion in 2011--an estimate based
>                      on a mean annual growth rate of 7.3%. Since then,
>                      the growth rate has increased significantly to
>                      9.3%--to the point where health spending is already
>                      at nearly 15% of GDP, according to Centers for
>                      Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a unit of HHS.
>
Snip

I briefly address the cost question in "Killing the Physically
Immortal".www.permanentend.org/immortality.html . I think the general
principle is that treating the cause rather than the symptoms is cheaper,
e.g., treating the symptoms of polio with iron lungs etc. is expensive
compared with treating the cause of the disease through simple immunization.
Another example I discuss in the essay is the phase two clinical trials now
underway to treat the cause of diabetes (at least in some cases) with a
protein that causes stem cells to repair the pancreas. If it works this
should be much cheaper than treating diabetes with multiple insulin shots,
and then deal with symptoms like blindness, amputation, etc. etc.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan 10 15:31:30 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument
In-Reply-To: <BAY7-F79rZnREFeY4cn0002488d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401100646300.3344-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Fri Jan 9, 2004 The Avantguardian wrote:

> >>1. Fermi paradox:
> Any advanced species from an extrasolar planet would have realized
> the same Darwinian processes have shaped the life on their world as it has
> on ours.

Hmmm... this is questionable -- there seems to be a significant probability
that we are about to shift from evolution driven by random adaptation to
evolution driven by conscious processes.  I would propose that a civilization
driven by 4 billion years of random adaptation to be significantly different
from a civilization driven by 4 billion years of consciously driven evolution.
(And yes I'm using "civilization" loosely since it could be argued that
humanity is probably less than 100,000 years old.)

> Knowing that any other advanced species it encounters would more
> likely represent a competitor than an ally.

"Encounters" are rare unless you intend them to happen.  They are
not competitors until there is a shortage of resources in the universe.

> Especially since life based on selfish replicators such as genes, or
> even memes for that matter, would converge on similar strategies of kin
> selection and deception to forward their own ends.

In advanced civilizations it seems likely that there are no more "genes".
There is also no more (physical) replication because it creates entities
that are likely to be competitors in the future.

There are no more "ends".  You have to create an entirely different
mind set for entities that are all-powerful (within several light
years) and immortal (within the constraints of their fuel supplies
and the longevity of the universe).

> Therefore it would seem reasonable that any sufficiently
> advanced alien species would be too canny to advertise their existence
> through indiscriminate radio broadcasts for fear of invasion or, if more
> aggressive, to avoid tipping their hands to any potential targets for
> invasion.

There is no point to invasion.  Why invade the space of an alien
civilization?  Any developed matter presumably has a self-destruct
sequence.  Harvesting fuel from brown dwarfs or molecular clouds is
much easier than trying to steal someone elses star.  And transporting
large amounts of matter across interstellar distances is *expensive*.

People continue to view this discussion from a "human" perspective when
they simply do not apply on interstellar scales.

> The Fermi Paradox could be a little like a naval battle between
> submarines where each sub is carefully listening to their passive sonars
> trying to detect enemy subs and is loathe to use their active sonars for
> fear of allowing the enemy to pinpoint their location. If that is the case,
> we may already be screwed.>>

If distant civilizations viewed developing civilizations as a threat
and had the ability to detect fires on our planet (distinctly possible
given estimates I've previously cited regarding the number and size
of their telescopes) then it is highly likely that any such civilizations
within 10-20,000 light years know we are here.  The rise in CO2 in the
atmosphere is also probably detectable so any civilizations within
100-2000 light years should see that using much less sophisticated
technology.  So like it or not -- we have probably already given
ourselves away.

Then on Jan 10 2004, Dennis May responded to Avantguardian with:

> This is precisely my view: stealth, mobility, and dispersion are the
> secrets to survival in the high technology space universe of WoMD
> and control of high energy processes.

Going back to the post by Dennis on Jan 5th regarding WoMD:
> Or simply: enough hydrogen bombs hurled at them fast
> enough for long enough, or swarms of pellets fired at them
> for long enough from all directions, or enough anti-matter
> hurled long enough, or destroying it while it is small by
> any number of means, or setting off nearby stars to create
> lethal neutrino showers, or orienting parts of the blast from
> supernovas, or hitting it again and again with solid objects
> traveling near the speed of light, and so on.

The problem with these strategies is their inefficiency.  Need
lots of hydrogen bombs?  Then you need lots of uranium to trigger
them and that requires a substantial energy investment to breed the
uranium.  Want lots of pellet producing machines and pellets
then you need lots of mass to burn.  As Spike and I have pointed
out that mass is valuable -- you don't want to just throw it away.
To produce lethal neutrino showers you would probably have to
set of thousands of stars or more.  No easy trick.  Likewise
with setting off supernovas -- you have to throw a lot of mass
at stars to overload them.

And that doesn't in any way deal with (a) the ability of MBrains
or SBrains to detect anything approaching them and simply move
out of the way -- you have to keep in mind that in the as designed
architecture MBrains and SBrains *are* both dispersed (across
solar system scales in the case of MBrains) as well as mobile;
(b) the ability of MBrains or SBrains to detect anything
incoming and destroy it; and (c) how much of a bad idea it
is to attempt to use WoMD against an MBrain or an SBrain
unless you are absolutely 100% sure that you can eliminate
it and any stealthed berserker-bots.

> A single civilization can settle a galaxy in no time.

But there is no point!  It seems unlikely that one can achieve
greater intelligence or any other benefits this way.  All one
gets is pointless replication.

> It can settle several galaxies a short time later.

Which would be even more pointless.

> It won't take long to understand that there is no advantage
> in advertising to competitors.  I'm sure intercivilization/species
> contact and trade will happen but I doubt open trust will ever be
> a wise thing even within a given civilization or species.

To make the trade argument work you have to explain what is
so valuable that the costs of shipping it across interstellar
distances justifies doing so.  I don't see such a justification.

To make the contact argument work (information transfer) you
have to make a similar argument.  If a civilization can compute
for itself anything you can send to them faster or cheaper than
it can be sent then it makes no sense to open interstellar
communications channels.  It has little to do with WoMD or
fear of being detected.  It has much more to do with physical
constraints imposed on civilizations by the laws of physics
and the abstract economics of a civilization at those limits.

Robert





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan 10 15:42:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: What to do with $100B? Mars, Nano or Life?
In-Reply-To: <20040110012854.89171.qmail@web41313.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401092053240.25596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



Hi Yos?,

I will try to respond to a your questions as best I can.

> You pose a fundamental question. What to do with a hundred billion dollars?

I could have posed what to do with a trillion dollars but I was being
conservative... :-;  As I recall $100B is the number that was tossed
around as the cost of going to Mars under George H.W. Bush.  Its probably
more expensive now.  For example a quick Google finds that the Apollo
costs were $25B (probably in '60s or '70's dollars) and the cost of
a return to the moon in '99 dollars range from ~$40B to $300B [1,2].

> I would agree with you that it is a lot of money just to go to Mars, but
> also just for nanotechnology. With that amount of money, we could probably
> find the secrets of life extension and even immortality?

Yes, Aubrey's proposal for the IBG is only about $1B over 10 years.
Quite small compared with any significant space effort.  It doesn't
solve aging as a whole but does make a significant dent in some of
the major processes we are aware of at this time.

> Your message puts light in a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost.
> And between Mars and immortality, I take the second without any doubts.

While I dislike the term immortality (as recent discussions on Mark's paper
have pointed out there may be terms that better capture the idea as we
currently understand it).

> And later I would go to Mars as well:-)

Of course -- current estimates if we eliminate aging would allow us on
average several thousand years of fatal accident free life -- plenty of
time to go to Mars.  But you may want to get your ticket early.  Once we
have the total power output of the sun at our disposal the dismantlement
time is only 12 hours.

Better get your ticket now because it may be gone before you can
get there :-;

Robert

1. Wikipedia: Apollo Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
2. S.E.I. Lunar Excursions: http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld049c.htm




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Sat Jan 10 17:21:41 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:21:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE55QLHvuBlEh0002a594@hotmail.com>

Supposing that in the next 50 years, AI and MNT is coming along well enough
that we can actually upload ourselves. And suppose that we could create a
copy of ourselves for "just in case" scenatios. Wouldn;t it be nice to be
able to send out a couple of other planets for safe keeping? You would then
be distributed a bit further just in case something happened to the Earth.

It would be really nice if you could send that copy to the Moon
inexpensively on some regularly scheduled transport to a settlement that is
already established. Especially if this settlement has built a storage depot
just for this kinf of thing about 10 miles below the surface.

With the geological instability of this planet, and all the other wacky
things that can occur such as nearby supernova destroying our ozone layer,
my first priority when I upload is going to be to get a copy off of this
planet. If we do this. Even if it is just to the Moon, at least then the
infrastructure will be there for me to do so. Just think of how the
interstate highway system has affected our lives. How has it affected cars?

I still wonder about the proposal. I like it, but what if that is what he is
after? What if he really doesn;t care about this and simply wants my vote?
What if he lands it at congress and it flops. Then he could ask for my vite
and say he tried and that he needs to be re-elected with MORE reps in
congress that will support it.

Besides the fact that this will set up the infrastructure to get us humans
more spread out, I think this proposal does another important thing. It gets
people thinking about the future and thinking beyond their own natural
lifespans. Future thinking is critical to MNT.

There will be lots of opposition to this and I know there are a lot of
people here who don;t like Bush, but I think this entire proposal is more
critical to MNT than many of you may realize. There is plenty of money to go
around. It's not as if they have to rob the poor to get it done. If the
government decided to invest billions in MNT, they could still do so without
hurting the space program. We can also go back to the moon without hurting
the chances of MNT getting money. Many of you seem to think that if they
spend money on this, they won;t spend it on MNT.

Personally, I think that we would be more likely to see more government
investment in MNT if the administration sees a positive return on its
investment in the future. There will be a lot of opposition to this thing.
Much of it will be from Bush haters that really wouldn;t mind such a
program, but will attack it just to attack Bush.

Every one of us needs to get behind this thing. It is something that needs
to be done. For years people like us have bickered about the best way to do
this. We will never know the "best" way. It doesn;t matter either. We just
need to do it. Sitting around on our asses for the last 30 years because we
couldn't decide between the shuttle, moon, Mars, or asteroids will only
leave us right here for another 30-50 years. We're our own worst enemy.For
all our brain power, people like us never really understood politics.

The moon, Mars, asteroids, MNT, all of it is important. Let's not pass on
one because we couldn;t agree which to do first. We're too smart for our own
good. This is what happened when Bush Sr proposed something similar.

Standing up in front of people and stating "I think it is a good idea, but I
would rather see....." Is not going to help anyone. We need to be saying "I
think it is an excellent and necessary step in the right direction. For all
of Bush's other faults, he finally is doing something right"

Kevin Freels


From es at popido.com  Sat Jan 10 17:25:13 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:25:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
In-Reply-To: <20040109212301.4b16c3b7.samantha@objectent.com>
References: <63340-22004159184231482@M2W046.mail2web.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109152840.033923a0@mail.comcast.net>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109175836.030951d8@mail.comcast.net>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040109200537.0377efc8@mail.comcast.net>
	<20040109212301.4b16c3b7.samantha@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <40003579.4080604@popido.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>This is not obvious to me.  The possible breadth and depth of benefits from developing nanotech are much more obvious than the one in just going to Mars or getting the bare beginnings of a foothold on the Moon and/or Mars.  Why is space more politically marketable?  
>

1. China is going to space, so there is a slim chance that there willl 
be a red flag on the red planet and not an american:
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/031231092850.yylbciw2.html
Chinas space ambitions is nothing else but a glove in the face on USA, 
an attempt to show who will be the super power of  the 21st century. The 
race is on.

2. "Going to Mars" is an extremely headlines-friendly goal compared to 
for example "build nano-assemblers" that no one's heard of.

>And if it is so politically marketable why have we been clingly to the ground so determinedly since Apollo?
>  
>

After the race to the moon was won  there was nothing left to prove and 
no real contender to the stars. Also there was the Challenger-accident 
that closed the curtain for NASA for a long time. It showed the risks of 
going to space. I doubt this "Mars statement" would have come if Spirit 
had failed as Beagle did.

But Europe is going to space and so is China, and don't forget the 
X-Prize. I wouldn't call that "clinging to the ground". It's almost 
starting to get crowdy up there.


--
Erik S.



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jan 10 17:42:55 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:42:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] http://www.julianbarbour.com/
In-Reply-To: <000201c3d757$a18dfeb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <001401c3d73f$8e743dc0$c3994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040110115148.02075f90@mail.comcast.net>

At 12:56 AM 1/10/2004 -0800, Spike wrote:

>Ah yes, the Shakespearean SF author among us can perhaps
>shed light upon this comment:

Damien is far more Shakespearean than I, but I have some bioluminescence of 
my own, as writer and linguist.

>What part of speech is "up"?  Does the preposition become
>a verb?  If so, it represents yet an example of which I
>can immediately think of only two, the other being the
>curious catchphrase "the truth will out."  What is that?
>Does "out" become a verb?  For otherwise that sentence
>has no verb, or as some jokers might say
>
>"That sentence no verb."
>
>We know of many shameful examples of nouns becoming
>verbs in modern vulgar usage, but must we now attack
>and degrade our prepositions too?
>
>I have heard for all my life about people up and doing
>things, such as dying, but never has it been adequately
>explained what up is doing in that sentence.

A language is a phenomenon to be studied, not dictated. Its boundaries are 
set by fuzzy metrics of interpersonal comprehension. The syntactic or 
morphological "rules" or meaning of morphemes, words, phrases are only 
valid to the extent that they accurately describe the corpus of spoken and 
written language. Just as descriptions and theories about astrophysical 
phenomena have no inherent validity.

"prepositions" have been used as "verbs" in English for many centuries, as 
have "nouns."

Damien's "up and leave" is indeed very nearly Shakespearean in ancestry.

http://www.etymonline.com/u1etym.htm
>up - O.E. up, uppe, from PIE *upo "up from below." ... Verb meaning "get 
>up" (as in up and leave) is first attested 1643; the meaning "increase" 
>(as in up the price of oil) is from 1915. The verb "to drive and catch 
>swans" is 1560 ....

For "out," the same source says "[t]he verb was O.E. utian "expel," used in 
many senses over the years."

They are both examples of common patterns in linguistic change -- where an 
utterance becomes shorter over time. Words lose syllables, phrases lose 
words. Linguistic economy.

My favorite deskside dictionary (Random House College), by the way, 
considers "up" to be an adverb, preposition, adjective, noun, and verb 
(both transitive and intransitive). "Out " is cited as all those plus 
interjection.


-- David Lubkin.




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jan 10 18:22:09 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:22:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Forteans: ""Add-on" vs. "Structural
	Revisionist"
Message-ID: <400042D1.832D6EC2@mindspring.com>

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:32:20 -0500
From: "T. Peter Park" <tpeterpark at erols.com>
  To: forteana at yahoogroups.com
Subj: FWD [forteana] Forteans: ""Add-on" vs. "Structural Revisionist"


Dear Forteans,
        On another list last Spring, I read an April 25, 2003 _Izvestia_
article, "Why Way Does Evalution Go?," sympathetically discussing
archaeology & prehistory revisionist and Darwin critic Michael Cremo,
author of _Forbidden Archaeology_ and _The Hidden History of The Human
Race_. The article reminded me of one of my own long-standing
observations on Forteans and Forteanism.
        Forteans, I've long thought, have either an "add-on" or a "structural
revisionist" view of the relation of anomalous data, Charles Fort's
"damned" and "excluded" phenomena, to the generally accepted mainstream
scientific world-picture (GAMSWP for short). We may thus call them
"Adders-On" and "Structural Revisionists" after their respective views
of what "damned" and "excluded" data if accepted would do to the GAMSWP. 
        The "Adders-On" see ghosts, poltergeists, "psychic" phenomena, Bigfoot
and other "Hairy Hominids," gnomes and other "Little People," Lake
Monsters (like "Nessie") and other "cryptids" or "Mystery Beasts,"UFO's,
abductions, "spook lights," crop circles, archaeological "erratics," and
"out-of- place" or "impossible" fossils, as hitherto ignored or rejected
phenomena on the outer fringes of the GAMSWP, which have to be
incorporated into that world-picture to make it more complete.
"Structural Revisionists," on the other hand, rather see anomalies as
showing the GAMSWP to be quite wrong or skewed in its basics, needing a
complete overhaul. Adders-On feel that the GAMSWP is largely correct in
its main outlines, but needs a few touch-ups at its outer edges, a few
gaps in its borders to be filled in. Structural Revisionists feel that
the GAMSWP is "all wet" in broad outline, and needs to be replaced by
something very different. In the language of mainstream history,
sociology, and philosophy of science in the tradition of Thomas Kuhn,
they believe that "damned" and "excluded" data demand a major
"scientific revolution" or "paradigm shift."
        Adders-On enthusiastically accept GAMSWP views on prehistory, human
evolution, pre-sapiens hominids, life on other planets, and advanced
civilizations around distant stars in our Galaxy. However, they would
just like to add what they feel is strong evidence that dinosaurs,
plesiosaurs, and pre-sapiens hominids are still alive on our planet
today, and that extraterrestrial visitors are even now exploring and
reconnoitering our planet, and studying our species and civilization. 
They accept the broad outline iof GAMSWP views on neurology, psychology,
brain physiology, and mind-brain relations, but would like to add that
there seems to be good evidence that the human psyche (and probably also
the psyches of at least some higher animals) have certain powers,
faculties, capacities, and activities that appear to be largely
independent of the physical laws and limitations of apace, time, matter,
and physical energy, and can perhaps even function apart from a physical
substratum like the brain. 
        On the other hand, Structural Revisionists like Michael Cremo, Zachary
Sitchin, Erich von D?niken, Richard Shaver & Ray Palmer, and various
"hollow earth" and "hollow planets" writers from John Cleves Symmes,
Marshall Gardner, Cyrus Reed Teed, and John Lloyd Uri onwards, basically
reject many or most parts of the GAMSWP altogether
        I am not saying here which variety of Forteanism is "right" or "wrong."
I do wish to draw attention, however, to the existence of these two
distinct Fortean approaches. I myself personally, by the way, am pretty
much an Adder-On in Forteanism.
        This distinction between Adders-On versus Structural Revisionists, I'd
also like to add here, applies to other fields of human thought and
activity as well as to science and Forteanism. It strikes me as also
applicable, for instance, in religion, history, and politics, each of
which seems to have its own respective Adders-On and Structural
Revisionists.
        In religion, liberal and middle-of-the-road believers, clergy, and
theologians--Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and
Buddhists alike--have an "Add-On" view of the relation of religion and
science. Moderate, liberal, and modernist Catholics, Protestants, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus basically accept the correctness of the
GAMSWP and of modern mainstream secular history, archaeology,
linguistics, textual criticism, sociology, and psychology. At the same
time, they feel that all of these, as presented by the modern secular
scientific and scholarly "mainstream," are quite compatible with a
belief in God, Divine revelation, and eternal life. God, revelation, and
eternal life, they believe, lie "out there" outside or beyond the
GAMSWP, in areas or realms not touched by the GAMSWP.  Fundamentalists,
on the other hand, have much more of a Structural Revisionist approach
to religion and science & secular scholarship. They consider modern
secular science, history, archaeology, and textual criticism just plain
flat-out wrong where they contradict (or seem to contradict)  the Bible,
Church Fathers, Papal encyclicals, Torah, Qur'?n, or Vedas.
        The same contrast of approaches can be seen, again, in history and
politics, particularly in discussions of possible conspiracies (e.g.,
with respect to the Kennedy or King assassinations, or government &
military UFO cover-ups).Historian Richard Hofstadter once pointed out
that there is a distinction between locating conspiracies in history,
and seeing all history as a conspiracy. Adder-Ons here see some
conspiracies here and there in history, while Structural Revisionists
see history itself as a conspiracy.Adders-On may well find
conspiratorial and cover-up elements in the Kennedy or King
assassinations, or in government and military handling of possibly
frightening UFO and extraterrestrial visitation information. Structural
Revisionist conspiracy theorists, and "Holocaust Revisionists," however,
see all or most recent history (or ALL history) as a conspiracy. They
may see it as an age-old conflict between "Rangers" and "Wardens" (Poul
Anderson's science-fiction novel _The Corridors of Time_) or rationalist
republican pro-scientific "Platonists" versus irrationalist oligarchic
Goddess- worshipping anti-technologists and anti-industrialists
"Aristotelians" (Lyndon LaRouche). Or, they may see history as mainly
the record of a vast Jewish, Communist, Masonic, Illuminati,
Bilderbergers, or International Bankers' world domination plot.
Structural Revisionist conspiracy theorists are prone to dismissing
Holocaust as a Zionist hoax, rejecting the 1969 Moon landing as a NASA
public relations hoax, regarding all US presidents from FDR on as
Reptilian space aliens disguised in fake human bodies, or describing
generally respected and admired mainstream public figures like General
George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter,
Walter Cronkite, or Al Gore as "really" pro-Communist traitors.
        Here again, in the religious and politico/historical as well as in the
Fortean fields, I don't want to get right now into the question of who
is "right" or "wrong," but only to point out the existence of these two
contrasting perspectives. However, here again, Id just like to reiterate
that I tend to be personally pretty much of an Adder-On rather than a
Structural Revisionist in my own approaches to religion, history, and
politics as well as to Forteanism.
                Regards,
                T. Peter <tpeterpark at erols.com>
                Garden City South, LI, NY


-- 
"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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jan 10 18:22:27 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:22:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Occam's Razor and Forteanism
Message-ID: <400042E3.7F47A481@mindspring.com>

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:12:54 -0500
From: "T. Peter Park" <tpeterpark at erols.com>
  To: forteana at yahoogroups.com
Subj: FWD [forteana] Occam's Razor and Forteanism


Dear Forteans,

        Writers on anomalous, paranormal, or "Fortean" phenomena often
distinguish between the solid skeptical scientifically based study of
anomalous phenomena versus illogical fringe thinking with no basis in
science or even in true Forteanism. Scientific Forteans criticize fringe
thinkers for using one mystery to solve another mystery--as in
other-dimensional, occult, or demonological theories of UFO aliens or
cryptids (mystery animals). The difference, I suggest, may lie in use
versus neglect of "Occam's Razor" in explaining anomalous phenomena.
Scientific Forteans observe Occam's principle of conceptual economy,
while fringe thinkers ignore or defy it.        

        The mediaeval Scholastic philosopher William of Occam (1285-1349)
emphasized and popularized (though he did not invent) the maxim "non
sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatrem"-- "entities are not to
be multiplied beyond necessity." This principle, named "Occam's Razor"
in his honor, urges us to seek the simplest, most economical explanation
for any phenomenon or problem. We should only use those entities,
concepts, or principles that are strictly, unavoidably necessary to
explain a given fact or phenomenon. We should avoid introducing new,
speculative concepts if old, familiar, well- established concepts can
explain the fact or phenomenon in question. This is an established maxim
in philosophy and science, and should also be kept in mind by
Forteans--though it may well be more difficult to establish the truly
most economical explanation when dealing with phenomena as bizarre or
puzzling as those studied by parapsychologists, UFO'logists, and
cryptozoologists.

        Occam's Razor, also called the Law of Parsimony or Law of Economy, has
become an important basic regulative principle of philosophy and
science. Occam himself used it to simplify, streamline, and "clean up"
mediaeval philosophy, theology, and logic. He used it to dispense with
relations (which he saw as nothing distinct from their foundation in
things), with efficient causality (which like David Hume 400 years later
he viewed merely as regular succession), with motion (which he
considered merely the reappearance of a thing in different places), with
psychological powers distinct for each mode of sense, and with the
presence of Platonic "Ideas" in the mind of God (which he considered
merely the creatures and objects themselves). In science, the 14th
century French physicist Nicole d'Oresme invoked this Law of Economy, as
did Galileo in the 17th century, in defending the simplest hypothesis
(Copernican rather than Ptolemaic) of the heavens.

        In modern times, the French mathematician and astronomer Pierre de
Maupertuis (1689-1759) made the Law of Parsimony a basic law of nature
in his "Principle of Least Action." Maupertuis defined action, defined
by *S*mv ds--i.e., the integral (*S*) of inertia (mv, or mass velocity)
over space-time (ds, the path of length) as minimal. More recently, the
Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838- 1916) declared it
the aim of science to present the facts of nature in the simplest and
most economical conceptual formulations. In psychology, it appears as
Morgan's Canon, formulated by the English biologist and philosopher C.
Lloyd Morgan (1852-1936), who held that no action should be interpreted
in terms of a higher psychic faculty when a lower faculty suffices.

        In some cases, it is initially unclear or ambiguous just what is
actually the simplest, most economical explanation, involving the fewest
entities or concepts. Scientists may be culturally and psychologically
misled by the sheer familiarity of a cumbersome traditional theory. The
initial resistance to heliocentric Copernican-Galilean astronomy, the
peculiarities of the planet Mercury's orbit, first attributed to a
hypothetical planet "Vulcan" but eventually explained by Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity, and recent astrophysical controversies
over "dark matter" are three good examples of this. In all these cases,
it is a toss-up whether a proliferation of hypothetical objects of a
somewhat familiar type or an unfamiliar but  mathematically elegant new
schema are "really" the "simpler" explanations--and whether there is
more "cumbersomeness" or "complexity" in a multitude of unseen old-style
objects, or in a mathematically simple but culturally unfamiliar new
master-theory. These three cases also illustrate some of the basic
conceptual problems Forteans face in explaining scientifically anomalous
phenomena, such as ESP, PK, ghosts, UFO's, abductions, Bigfoot, Lake
Monsters, or crop circles. Scientific Forteans do try to observe Occam's
Razor. Sometimes, though, it's as hard in Forteanism as in these 
mainstream scientific examples to determine just what the truly simplest
explanation is. With phenomena as puzzling as those studied by Forteans,
it may be difficult to determine which of various suggested explanations
is in fact the most economical one. For this reason, a brief description
of these three cases may be useful, to give a sense of true versus
false, real versus apparent explanatory economies. 

        Galileo demonstrated that the heliocentric Copernican model of the
Solar System was mathematically much simpler, more elegant, and more
economical than the geocentric Ptolemaic model, dispensing with the
complex epicycles needed in the Ptolemaic system to explain seeming
irregularities in planetary motions. However, it may be argued that for
Galileo's academic and ecclesiastical opponents, the Ptolemaic model
subjectively "felt" simpler because of its sheer familiarity, and the
seeming "oddity" or "novelty" of the "shift in mental gears" needed to
visualize the new Copernican model that also offended prevailing
cultural attitudes of reverence towards the beliefs of ancient Greek
thinkers and early Christian Church Fathers.  

        Again, when persistent peculiarities were noted in the orbit of Mercury
in the 19th century that could not be accounted for by the gravitational
influences of Venus and the Earth, the self-evidently obvious
explanation in terms of the known physics and astronomy of the time was
that they MUST be caused by a hitherto undiscovered intra-Mercurian
planet, "Vulcan." A planet's orbit is not fixed in space, but responds
to the net gravitational influence of other bodies in its environment.
Through combinations of many small effects, the long axis of Mercury's
orbit is in slow movement around the Sun. The perihelion point moves
eastward almost 10 minutes of arc (1/6 of a degree) per century. Most of
this procession is due to the gravitational influence of the planets,
especially Earth and Venus, but a residual of 40" per century, not
readily explained, was found in 1845 by Urbain LeVerrier, the
co-discoverer of Neptune. LeVerrier attributed this discrepancy to the
gravitational influence of hypothetical planets between Mercury and the
Sun--a very reasonable suggestion, in view of the way Uranus and Neptune
had been discovered through their perturbing gravitational influence on
Saturn's orbit. Some anomalous astronomical observations in the 19th
century suggested that such an intra-Mercurian planet did exist, and it
was even named "Vulcan," for the Roman fire-god. A number of such
objects were reportedly observed by 19th century astronomers in transit
across the face of the Sun. However, very careful and complete 19thand
20th century observations of the Sun and its neighborhood during total
solar eclipses never confirmed their existence. The supposed "Vulcan"
sightings are now believed to have been caused by sunspots, or in a few
cases perhaps by an asteroid between the orbits of Earth and Venus. 

        In 1915, however, Albert Einstein showed that the General Theory of
Relativity predicted a perihelion advance of Mercury of 43" per century
that the classical Newtonian theory did not. Thus, the motion of
Mercury's orbit has been considered an important observational
verification of the General Theory of Relativity. The post-1915
relativistic explanation of Mercury's orbit is simpler than the old
"Vulcan" hypothesis, in that it invokes a basic law of physics rather
than one or more frustratingly elusive physical objects--which can now
be dispensed with. However, in the 19th century, in view of the known
physics of the time, and also of the spectacular success of discovering
two previously unknown planets, Uranus and Neptune, by their
gravitational effects on Saturn's orbit, the "Vulcan" explanation of
Mercury's orbit seemed to be the self-evidently obvious one. Postulating
a new, hitherto unknown, law of physics drastically modifying the
familiar, well-established Newtonian laws of motion and gravitation,
just to explain Mercury's orbital peculiarities, would have seemed an
outrageously radical _ad hoc_proceeding. Better a few still-unseen
planets than a new law of physics! It was only after Einstein had
formulated the General Theory of Relativity for considerations quite
unrelated to Mercury's orbit, and then got it confirmed by Mercury's
orbit, that physicists and astronomer's accepted General Relativity as a
simpler, more elegant, more economical explanation of Mercury's orbit.
As for "Vulcan," the general public now mostly recognizes it as the name
of Spock's home planet in _Star Trek_!

        In the late 20th century, astronomers noticed that galaxies and galaxy
clusters hold together, with no stars or gas escaping from galaxies and
no gas or galaxies from clusters, despite those galaxies and clusters
containing far too little matter--far too little gas, far too few stars
or individual galaxies--to possibly generate a strong enough
gravitational field. Galaxies and clusters should have been
dissipating-- but they weren't. The magnitude of the discrepancy ranged
from a factor of a few to a factor of hundreds. To account for such
discrepancies, astrophysicists have postulated an exotic unobservable
"dark matter." distinct both from visibly shining stars and galaxies and
from the ordinary "dim matter" of planets, dwarf stars, warm gas, and
cold cosmic dust, that might make up 95% of the Universe. So far,
however, this postulated "dark matter" has proven frustratingly elusive
and unobservable. An Israeli physicist has suggested that this "dark
matter" may not even exist, and that the observed curious discrepancies
can be explained just as well or better by a modification of Newton's
Second Law of Motion.

        Mordehai Milgrom, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Weizmann
Institute in Rehovot, Israel, has published an article addressing this
problem, "Does Dark Matter Really Exist?," in _Scientific American_,
August 2002 (Vol. 287, No. 2), pp. 42-52. Noting the failure of
astronomers and physicists to actually observe this postulated "dark
matter," Milgrom suggests that the fault may lie not in the "dark
matter" itself, which may not even exist, but in the laws of physics.
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's laws of motion and gravity,
called MOND for "Modified Newtonian Dynamics," to explain away the
discrepancy. Specifically, MOND modifies Newton's second law of motion
at low accelerations. MOND, he feels, does a very good job of
reproducing observations. MOND introduces a new constant of nature with
the dimensions of acceleration, called a_0 (a sub zero). When the
acceleration is much larger than a_0, Newton's old familiar second law
applies: force is proportioonal to acceleration. But when the
acceleration is smaller than a_0, as near the peripheries of galaxies or
galactic clusters,. Newton's second law is altered: force becomes
proportional to the square of the acceleration. Thus, the force needed
to impart a given acceleration is always smaller than Newtonian dynamics
requires. To account for the observed accelerations in galaxies, MOND
predicts a smaller force- -hence, less gravity-producing mass--than
Newtonian dymamics does. In this way, Milgrom believes, it can eliminate
the need for "dark matter." At sufficiently great distances from the
center of a galaxy or galactic cluster, the orbital velocity of stars or
galaxies should stop decreasing and reach a constant value. Milgrom's
MOND has not yet been generally accepted by astrophysicists--but many do
consider it a serious contender. 

        Milgrom's MOND as an explanation for discrepancies in the motions of
galaxies and galactic clusters closely parallels Einstein's General
Relativity as n explanation for Mercury's orbital peculiarities. In both
cases, peculiarities in the motion of observed visible astronomical
objects--Mercury, galaxies, galaxy clusters--have led conventional
astrophysicists to suggest the gravitational influence of hitherto
unobserved, curiously elusive material bodies--the planet "Vulcan,"
"dark matter." In both cases, the postulated gravitationally perturbing
bodies--"Vulcan," "dark matter"--have persistently remained curiously
elusive, frustratingly difficult or impossible to observe directly. In
both cases, the need for such elusive, hard-to-find material bodies has
been eliminated by a proposed revision of the laws of physics.
Einstein's General Relativity has been generally accepted by the
scientific community, while Milgrom's MOND has not yet been generally
accepted. 

        To return now to Forteanism: scientific Forteans use Occam's Razor
conscientiously. They admit new objects, new creatures, or new entities
when it seems absolutely necessary and unavoidable to do so, but they
try to keep their new entities more or less similar to old familiar
entities if at all possible, and they avoid introducing completely new
realms of being or totally new sorts of basic natural laws. Scientific
Forteans may propose the survival in our own time of relict populations
of supposedly extinct prehistoric hominids or reptiles. However, they
firmly keep them anchored in the good old familiar well- known Earthly
flesh-and-blood DNA-and-protein evolution-spawned animal kingdom, and
NOT coming here from UFO's, other dimensions, an "Inner Earth," or a
demonic or angelic "Goblin Universe." They may likewise find themselves
forced to seriously admit the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting
us in spaceships from Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, Zeta Reticuli, or
wherever. However, they will interpret them conservatively as products
of parallel biological evolution on other habitable planets in our
Galaxy as per the SETI speculations of mainstream scientists like Frank
Drake and Carl Sagan extrapolating from what we already have known for
decades about astrophysics and Earthly biochemistry. They will be VERY
chary of rushing to interpret them right away as coming from another
dimension or from a spiritual, demonic, or angelic realm.  In all such
and other cases, scientific Forteans will stick fairly close to old
familiar generally-accepted scientific concepts and principles whenever
at all possible--which I see as a good use of Occam's Razor. 

        Scientific Fortean study of reported "hairy hominids" like Bigfoot and
Yeti is a good example of the adherence to accepted scientific concepts
whenever possible. Let me give a specific example suggested by your own
comments. In 1999, Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe published _The Field
Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide_, noting
nine classifications for unknown hominoids. At that time, Coleman and
Huyghe were viewed as a bit radical, "far-out," or speculative by many
"mainstream" Bigfooters, who preferred to see populations of a single
large erect bipedal hairy ape-man or man-ape species lurking in the
Pacific Northwest, the Himalayas, and perhaps a couple of other areas of
our planet. The same happened to Coleman's and Mark A.Hall's researches,
from the 1960's onward, about a population of bad-smelling semi-aquatic
chimpanzee-like apes ("Napes" or "Skunk Apes") in the southern United
States. However, today, Coleman and Hall are seen clearly as mainstream
Bigfooters. Coleman and Huyghe might have been regarded as radical or
far-out by old-time Bigfooters only willing to recognize the "classic"
or "standard" California Bigfoot, British Columbia Sasquatch, and
Himalayan Yeti. Those old-line Bigfooters themselves might seem
"radical," "far-out," "gullible," or "unscientific" to all-out Bigfoot
and Yeti skeptics. However, Coleman, Huyghe, Mark Hall, and old-line
Bigfooters alike are in fact orthodox scientific conservatives--though
orthodox scientific conservatives of a very flexible, very broad-minded
kind--in trying to fit Bigfoot, Yeti, Almas, Kaptar, Mecheny, Chuchunaa,
Orang Pendek, Agogwe, etc., into the generally accepted zoological and
palaeontological scientific picture of primate and hominid evolution, as
perhaps possible modern "living fossil" relict populations of
scientifically accepted prehistoric hominoids and hominids like
_Gigantopithecus_, _Paranthropus_, _Australopithecus_, _Homo habilis_,
_Homo erectus_, _Homo heidelbergensis_, Neandertals, etc. 

        In all this, scientific Bigfooters all accept the broad mainstream
scientific outline of the standard picture of hominid evolution and
early human prehistory. In all this, Bigfooters stand in clear
opposition to "ancient astronaut" theorists and fundamentalist
"Scientific Creationists" who simply reject the standard scientific
picture of primate and human evolution. Coleman, Huyghe, Mark Hall, and
Bigfooters likewise far closer to the scientific mainstream than writers
espousing an other-dimensional, extraterrestrial, "Inner Earth," or
demonological interpretation of hairy hominids and other cryptids, who
see Bigfoot appearing to hikers and campers from another dimension,
UFO's, the Earth's interior, or the fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim)
Hell. Indeed, if the Coleman/Huyghe/Hall type scientific "hominologists"
are correct, and if we do eventually succeed in capturing some
Sasquatches, Kaptars, Almas, and/or Orang Pendeks, this will be widely
seen as new scientific confirmation of the essential correctness of the
standard scientific human evolutionary picture, and of mainstream
palaentologists' reconstructions of _Homo erectus_, _Homo
heidelbergensis_, or Neandertals. A real live captured Bigfoot, Almas,
Kaptar, or Orang Pendek would probably not give very much aid and
comfort to "amcient astronaut" enthusiasts or "Scientific Creationists."

        Fringe thinkers, by contrast, ignore or flout Occam's Razor by
promiscuously using one mystery to solve another mystery. They "solve"
legitimate puzzles like Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, UFO's, or abductions by
invoking concepts and principles that are themselves bizarre,
speculative, mysterious, controversial, or unverifiable, in any case
totally unrelated to any realistically foreseeable extensions of the
generally accepted mainstream scientific world-picture--e.g.,
other-dimensional or demonological theories of UFO's, aliens, or
cryptids.

        Nevertheless, we should perhaps not totally dismiss seeming fringe
thinkers out of hand. As I've noted, when dealing with truly puzzling
and bizarre phenomena, it may not always be easy to determine just what
the most truly simple and parsimonious explanation might be. Slightly
extraordinary but unquestionably scientific explanations, like the
extraterrestrial hypothesis of UFO's and aliens or the zoological or
primatological explanation of cryptids, have an obvious appeal for
scientific Forteans anxious to avoid fringe, occult, mystical, or
"metaphysical" theories if at all possible. They do seem like simple,
obvious, straightforward explanations of the great majority of Fortean
reports. They include the UFO's that seem like believably possible
nuts-and-bolts spacecraft a couple of centuries ahead of ourselves
technologically, and the aliens who seem like biologically plausible
flesh-and-blood products of Darwinian evolution on another planet in our
Galaxy with native environmental conditions just slightly different from
the Earth's. They include the  "hairy hominids" like Bigfoot, Almas,
Kaptar, or Orang Pendek that seem like realistically plausible
Neandertal, Homo erectus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or
Gigantopithecus survivors into our own era, the "lake monsters" and "sea
serpents" that might indeed be Plesiosaurus or Zeuglodon survivors into
our own time, and the swamp-dwelling West African mokele-mbembes that
might indeed be surviving Brontosaurus-like sauropod dinosaurs.

        All such "normal," "nuts-and-bolts" or "flesh-and-blood" UFO's and
creatures seem to need no occult, mystical, paraphysical, or
"metaphysical"explanations. They require a stretching of "mainstream"
science only to the point of arguing that Frank Drake's and Carl Sagan's
hypothetical extraterrestrials are already here on Earth visiting us, or
that dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, pre-Sapiens hominids, or other prehistoric
creatures are not quite completely extinct after all.  However, there
are also the occasionally genuinely bizarre yet seemingly authentic
reports, that at least seem to defy a straightforward scientific
extraterrestrial or zoological explanation, that rather do seem to
demand an occult, "metaphysical," or paraphysical explanation. It's
these apparently authentic bizarre reports that have inspired interest
in fringe, occult, and demonological theories. Such fringe theories gain
a certain seeming plausibility because of such bizarre cases. Such cases
give a semblance of "empirical proof" and "I always told you so"
justification to writers and "buffs" already inclined to occult,
mystical, "metaphysical," and demonological speculations.

        Such bizarre reports include UFO's, aliens, and cryptids ("Bigfoots,"
"Black Dogs," etc.) that seemingly appear or disappear instantly, change
shape, or pass effortlessly through solid obstacles like walls, fences,
closed doors, trees, boulders, or dense shrubbery. They include
"Bigfoots," "Black Dogs," and other "mystery beasts" with glowing red
eyes, overpowering foul odors, missing feet or legs, or semi-
transparent bodies. They include "Bigfoot"-like creatures reportedly
seen in connection with UFO's. They include cryptids that seem
unaffected by gunfire or other weapons. They include aliens or other
creatures that disappear or retreat when confronted with crucifixes,
rosaries, or prayers to religious figures like Jesus, Mary, Buddha, or
the Archangel Michael--or that conversely became especially aggressive
when encountering religious symbols.  Such bizarre entities seem to
almost beg to be considered ghosts, spirits, fairies, elementals,
angels, demons, djinn, or other-dimensional "ultraterrestrials"--and
writers like John A. Keel, Jacques Vallee, Patrick Harpur, and Janet &
Colin Bord seem to be glad enough to comply, as are religious
fundamentalist advocates of a demonological theory of aliens and
cryptids. To many writers, an occult, "metaphysical,"
"ultraterrestrial," or demonological theory can easily seem the
simplest, most obvious, most economical explanation of such entities,
the one most conforming to Occam's Razor. But is it, really? I'm not
actually too sure!

        The bizarre, phantom-like, seemingly absurd qualities and behavior of
some reported UFO's and aliens remind me of Arthur C. Clarke's
observation that any sufficiently advanced technology would be
indistinguishable from magic. Teleportation, instant appearance and
disappearance, size or shape change, levitation, invisibility, and
passing through solid objects could be routine accomplishments for a
science and technology thousands or millions of years and not just a
couple of centuries in advance of ours. Some bizarre manifestations,
too, might reflect deliberate technologically engineered
"disinformation" by extraterrestrials bent on confusing us and
cultivating a mental climate of incredulous belief in their existence.
They could deliberately use technological "magic" to make some of us
believe that they are merely the supernatural beings of our own
traditional religious, mythological, or folkloric belief systems, and
the rest of us believe that supposed abductees and alleged "close
encounter" witnesses are simply neurotic, gullible victims of their own
delusions and fantasies unable to distinguish their grotesque nightmares
or bizarre dream-like hallucinations from reality: therefore, the wilder
and more chaotically diversified our supposed "dreams," "fantasies," and
"delusions," the better for the aliens concerned to have us not take
their possible existence too seriously. If some of us think the aliens
are really ghosts, angels, fairies, or demons, and the rest of us simply
laugh at the bizarre tales of abductees and close-encounter witnesses
seeing a hundred different varieties of grotesque creatures with
sometimes ghost-like characteristics telling two dozen absurd,
conflicting tales about their origin or home planet, that suits the
aliens just fine. They may use hypnosis, holographic projections,
robots, and other deceptive techniques we can't even imagine to make us
think we're seeing "Bigfoots," giants, 3-inch diminutive little men,
human-sized giant grasshoppers, ghosts, angels, demons, walking 6-inch
tin cans, "birdmen," "batmen," "mothmen,"or floating disembodied brains.
They might, for instance, deliberately "plant" occasional apparent
sightings of "Bigfoots" with glowing red eyes and missing or
semi-transparent feet to sow confusion, disbelief, and ridicule. Of
course, such alien-created red-eyed spectral "Bigfoot" holographic (?)
projections can easily co-exist with more conventional zoological hairy
hominoid primates and relict flesh-and-blood pre-sapiens Erectus or
Neandertal hominid populations!  

        Alternatively, many of the more "bizarre" and "absurd" UFO, alien, and
cryptid reports may have their explanation not in extraterrestrial
visitors or unknown animals, but rather in the more curious powers and
activities of the human psyche itself, as studied by parapsychologists.
A few seemingly "far-out" parapsychological and Fortean theories
admittedly lie on the border between scientific Forteanism and fringe
"metaphysical" speculation. It may largely be a matter of personal taste
which side of that border one wishes to place them on. They include, for
instance, speculations about "group minds," and about quasi-material
"thought-forms" or "tulpas." I myself see such theories as stretching
the "mainstream" scientific world-picture very nearly to its breaking
point--but not yet QUITE breaking it. I would argue that they are not
quite "fringe" or "metaphysical," but rather a slight extrapolation from
traditional mainstream parapsychology--and thus scientific..

        Solid, respected parapsychologists like Whately Carington, G.N.M.
Tyrrell, Nandor Fodor, and D. Scott Rogo have speculated about
telepathically-generated "group minds," "collective idea- patterns," or
"gestalts" of families, clans, tribes, cultures, political movements,
etc. These "group minds" or "gestalts" would be telepathically created
from the beliefs, myths, symbols, archetypal images, etc., of those
groups, and would have a certain independent active telepathic influence
on group members' minds. Such "group minds," "gestalts," or "collective
idea-patterns" might explain family warning-spirits like the Irish
banshee, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apparitions of the Virgin and
saints, mediaeval appearances of the Devil, ancient Greek and Roman
visions of Pan, satyrs, nymphs, dryads, Theseus, and Castor & Pollux,
Celtic and Germanic close encounters with fairies, gnomes, leprechauns,
dwarfs, trolls, etc.--and perhaps also UFO close encounters and
abductions in our own time. Sometimes, some of these parapsychologists
have suggested, these visions and apparitions take a temporarily
semi-solid, quasi- material form as "thought-forms," "tulpas," or
"telesmic images." UFO's, "aliens," Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, "Black
Dogs," "Mothmen," and assorted "cryptids" might be such "tulpas." Such
"tulpas" might actually have a temporary physical existence--as
collective psychic projections of our own human "group minds," or
perhaps of Carl Gustav Jung's "Collective Unconscious." Again, such
"tulpas" of UFO's, aliens, or cryptids could coexist with real
extraterrestrial nuts-and-bolts starships, real flesh-and-blood aliens,
real flesh-and-blood zoological cryptids, and real relict pre-sapiens
hominids.. 

        Jerome Clark and Loren Coleman at one time proposed something along
such lines in _The Unidentified_ (1975), where they drew on Carl Jung's
theories to describe the UFO phenomenon as a planetary poltergeist
generating apparitions from Humankind's repressed collective unconscious
to create UFO manifestations, Men in Black, etc.--some of which ideas
former FATE editor Clark reportedly now disavows. Anyway, I myself
suspect that a theory of "group minds" and "tulpas" might perhaps
explain many of the more bizarre, "ghostly," "phantom-like" UFO, alien,
and cryptid reports, without resorting to more speculative occult,
"metaphysical," or demonological theories about fairies, elementals,
djinn, devas, angels, demons, or "ultraterrestrials." A
parapsychological theory of "group minds" and "thought- forms," indeed,
could help scientific Forteans defend their approach against the
advocates of fringe and occultist theories. We sometimes may need to
consider the SOMEWHAT extraordinary and MODERATELY "far-out" to avoid
being pressured or seduced into believing the EXTREMELY extraordinary.
William of Occam, I think, would have approved.
                        Regards,
                        T. Peter <tpeterpark at erols.com>
                        Garden City South, L.I., N.Y.


-- 
"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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 18:26:20 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:26:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stephenson's Franchulate enclavism beginning...
Message-ID: <20040110182620.91537.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

In a move that may herald the beginning of panarchical franchise
enclaves predicted by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash and The Diamond
Age, the Vermont town of Killington, VT is considering the possibility
of seceding from Vermont to join NH.

Located 25 miles inside Vermont, Killington is the home of the largest
tourist destination in the state, Killington Ski Resort, the largest
ski area in North America. The locals have had their development hopes
dashed for the past decade by environmental fascists via the states Act
250 environmental courts, which allows anyone to sue to stop you from
developing your land.

Additionally, the Act 60 property tax law treats Killington as a 'gold
town', from which the state loots $10 million in local property taxes
per year to redistribute to 'receiver' school districts around the
state. Killington only gets back $1 million. Combined with a refusal by
the state to build sufficient roads to Killington to deal with its
traffic, the people of Killington feel like a colony that the royalty
in Montpelier leeches off of.

"It kind of reminds us of colonial days," Town Manager David Lewis said
Thursday. "The colonies were being faced with the Stamp Act, the Tea
Act, the Sugar Act. England wasn't giving them any rights. They were
treating the colonies as just a revenue source."

Killington's Select Board wants to let voters consider secession on
Town Meeting Day in March. Lewis says, "New Hampshire would never abuse
a town like ours as Vermont has."

As a result, the Free State Project is ramping up a 'shadow
advertising' campaign across Vermont. "If the people of Killington are
so fed up with the state government, there must be a lot more people
elsewhere in the state who feel similarly," says FSP VP Doug Hillman,
"We are going to promote the FSP and NH to liberty lovers in Vermont
and ultimately in all northeastern states."

Other FSP members want to promote the concept of secession to towns in
other high tax states. "We may wind up with NH towns spread across the
US," one FSP member said. Originally termed Panarchy in the 19th
century, the concept was rekindled in the last decade by popular SF
writer Neal Stephenson, who predicted a future where gated communities
and townships spread like franchises across the world would form
synthetic nations, or 'phyles'. Also called 'clades' and 'franchulates'
(for franchise-consulate), such communities would allow weary citizens
of such phyles to find a safe harbor to stay that recognised their
'citizenship'.



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jan 10 18:59:11 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:59:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401100646300.3344-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <014001c3d7ac$012b2f60$41ff4d0c@hal2001>

Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> Wrote:

> there seems to be a significant probability
> that we are about to shift from evolution
> driven by random adaptation to
> evolution driven by conscious processes.

Yes, I agree completely.

>>    A single civilization can settle a galaxy in no time.

>But there is no point!

It would probably be the same point that Humans had when they settled the
Earth.

>>   It can settle several galaxies a short time later.

>Which would be even more pointless.

Are you certain that every strange citizen in every alien super civilization
would feel as you do about that? It would just take one, and after all,
several members from even your own species don't feel as you do about that.

>It seems unlikely that one can achieve  greater intelligence
>or any other benefits this way.

Intelligence will need matter and it will need energy, if you wish to
maximize intelligence you will to engineer the galaxy and then the entire
universe. This does not appear to have happened which makes me think alien
super civilizations do not exist.

  John K Clark      jonkc at att.net








From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 19:00:53 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] blog linking
Message-ID: <20040110190053.97903.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

The above is my blog location. Those who read it and want to cross link
with their own, please email me your blog URL so that I can add a link
to you.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From nanowave at shaw.ca  Sat Jan 10 19:53:55 2004
From: nanowave at shaw.ca (Russell Evermore)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:53:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
References: <000001c3d6ff$df8202f0$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <007f01c3d7b3$7b582d40$d3a44418@du.shawcable.net>

Oh my my.

Is war extropic or entropic? Well, I should have thought Einstein cleared up
such questions long long ago. Is a siphon entropic or extropic? Obviously it
depends at which side of the flow you happen to be looking at, the uphill
side or the down.

As Joey Tribiani once put it: This question is moo (i.e. so dumb that even
cows don't spend a lot of time talking about it)

Fundamentalist Islam, led by Osama Bin Luddite, has chosen this age (my age,
my son's age) to wage a war of aggression against modernity. When war has
been declared on your person, your continent, and your core values, you have
but two choices - you fight or you flee.

Is it extropic to fight? Is it extropic to flee? Where will you flee - Mars?

-------------

>From the inside flap of _Onward Muslim Soldiers_ by Robert Spencer:

In this shocking new book, author Richard Spencer details how jihad warriors
have already established numerous foothoods right here in America, and are
an established, growing, and ominous threat in Europe. "Onward Muslim
Soldiers" reveals the openly violent contempt that radical Muslims in the
United States and around the world have for Western freedom and tolerance,
and details why a clash of civilizations is already upon us.

Spencer exposes the truth about radical Islam that the media denies and
disregards including:

1) Why Iraqi democracy will have a tough time no matter how long American
troops stay in the country
2)The American Left: its unholy alliance with radical Islam
3)The concept of jihad: how it poisons chances for peace in Israel and in
other conflicts
4)The myth of Islamic "tolerance" in history and today
5)Why the threat of violent jihad is growing daily, despite claims that
Islam is a "religion of peace"
6)How Muslims are undermining Western Europe's commitment freedom
7)Why moderate Muslims have been unable to stop the spread of violent Islam

Using Muslim sources, Robert Spencer uncovers tracts that influence radical
Muslims--material full of naked hatred and intolerance; material that is
freely and popularly available, and that is almost completely ignored by the
establishment media.

This explosive book concludes with a series of practical steps that we must
take to combat jihad terrorism--before it's too late.

-------------

RE




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Jan 10 21:25:52 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:25:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <40006DE0.9010104@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

This is all about politics. Science has nothing to do with it.
Nov 2004 is Bush re-election time.

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3919608/>

Lofty space vision runs into realities
Lawmakers and aides say ?return to moon? talk
is more about politics than about spaceflight

A senior Senate Republican aide said the plan gives Bush a 'big bold
idea' to run on for re-election. But would the Republican-led Congress
fund it?

'Unlikely,' the aide said, asking not to be identified by name. 'But the
president doesn?t have to get this through Congress this year. He just
needs to put it on the table as part of the agenda for his second term'.

'The president is now looking for centrist supporters who may be
enthralled by big ideas. This has much less to do about legislative
reality on Capitol Hill this year than it has to do with political
reality in 2004,' he said.

----------

The USA spends about $15.5 billion on NASA, including about $3.5 billion
on the shuttle program. NASA has a huge money pit in the Shuttle support
and infrastructure, but unfortunately people have started to realize
that it is all pretty pointless and has now started killing astronauts
as well.

NASA's problem is that they want to get rid of the shuttles but keep all
the billions of funding.
How to do this?  Geee - I know! Let's go back 30 years and start
building big rockets and capsules again.
Nahhh - the public would never stand for that.
OK. How about if we pretend we're going to Mars - like in Buck Rogers?
That should get people excited. And we can say we've got to keep up with
the evil Chinese as well.
You know, that might just work.
And the beauty of it is that we don't need to find any really big bucks
until after Bush's second term. So we don't need to get huge budgets
through Congress and we don't have to worry about the budget deficits
before 2008 when Bush will be retiring to his ranch.
Then it's all someone else's problem.
Cool!

It's all politics.


BillK




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jan 10 22:00:01 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument
In-Reply-To: <014001c3d7ac$012b2f60$41ff4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401101330170.10907-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, John K Clark responding to my comments wrote:

With respect to exploration/colonization, John said:

> It would probably be the same point that Humans had when they settled the
> Earth.

Not so John.  You have to ask *what* drove the original human diasporas
(out of Africa) and much later migrations of large numbers such as
the colonization of North and South America?

I'll cite 4, lack of food resources, climate changes/hazards,
lack of reproductive resources, curiosity.

One by one:
a) Lack of food resources.  MBrains have 4 choices: (1) Harvest nearby
   brown dwarfs; (2) Harvest gas from molecular clouds; (3) Harvest
   nearby stars; (4) Decrease ones consumption of fuel by slowing down
   computational activity.

   1-3 have problems because you will waste resources in transporting
   the fuel back to your location.  One might think seriously about
   implementing (4) until one naturally migrates close enough to
   sources 1-3 that transportation overhead is minimized.

b) Climate changes/hazards.  MBrains can observe and predict potential
   hazards long enough in advance that they can execute minor changes
   in orbital vectors to avoid such hazards.

c) Lack of reproductive resources.  It is questionable whether MBrains
   would ever want to reproduce because offspring are potentially
   competitors when resources are in short supply in the distant future.
   This gets into Mark Walker's arguments that potentially immortal
   entities may logically agree to non-proliferation of themselves.
   It applies to mega-civilizations that are immortal as well as it
   applies to individuals on current societies.

d) Curiosity.  MBrains can see pretty much anything going on in
   the galaxy or nearby galaxies.  What they cannot see they can
   probably simulate.  I've yet to see a concrete numbers suggesting
   that there is significant marginal benefit to the knowledge base
   of an MBrain by sending out probes to survey distant solar systems.
   Even if there was significant information benefit that doesn't
   mean that colonization is justified.

> Are you certain that every strange citizen in every alien super civilization
> would feel as you do about that? It would just take one, and after all,
> several members from even your own species don't feel as you do about that.

That is one problem that keeps cropping up in this discussion.  People
keep assuming that the concepts of "citizens" or "individuals" remain
as they are now.  I significantly doubt this.  You either remain in
in a current human state (and find oneself eliminated when something
large enough hits the earth or finds oneself homeless when the
MBrain decides to dismantle it) -- or one plugs into the MBrain
or uploads -- in which case the concept of "self" becomes very very
different.  The reason being that within a relatively short period
of time seems feasible for me to make all of my knowledge available
to you and you to make all of your knowledge available to me.
The same is true for anyone else linked into the net.  Its kind
of like hyper-blogging.  There are no more traditional concepts
of "you" and "me".  The entire civilization becomes much more
borg-like.

Sure you can resist this - but we have relatively hard numbers now
for how futile this will be.  Its roughly 10^42 ops vs 10^15 ops
and 10^50 bits vs 10^10 bits.

Pre-singularity entities are bugs.  I suspect there may come a
significant debate about whether XYZBrains simply swat bugs
(be they sentient or not) if they threaten to interfere with
the goals of the XYZBrain.

> Intelligence will need matter and it will need energy, if you wish to
> maximize intelligence you will to engineer the galaxy and then the entire
> universe. This does not appear to have happened which makes me think alien
> super civilizations do not exist.

The key word in this sentence is "appear".  If, as Milan Cirkovic has proposed
the best computational location for MBrains is intergalactic space (which is
good if one believes the dispersal/stealth and hazard avoidance arguments as
well) then there is very little evidence that would argue against the fact
that shortly after attaining XYZBrain status such superintelligences leave
their galaxies.  There may even be some evidence *for* this scenario in
the missing dark matter/dark energy.

Robert




From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  Sat Jan 10 22:25:12 2004
From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:25:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon news
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0401101620210.4265-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>

Just speculating, but manned missions to the moon and mars
that require reductions in all other NASA projects might
be a good way to avoid learning inconvenient facts about
climate change on earth.

This morning Adam Keiper, Managing Editor of The New
Atlantis, was on C-SPAN touting the moon and mars missions.
They might also be a nice distraction from biology for
life extension and other transhumanist goals. Again, just
speculating.

I'm all for sending robots to mars, but would prefer to
hold off on humans until it gets a lot cheaper. The same
money that it would take to get people to mars and back
could fund a whole lot of robotic technology.

Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hibbard, SSEC, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI  53706
test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  608-263-4427  fax: 608-263-6738
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/vis.html



From determinism at hotmail.com  Sat Jan 10 22:29:49 2004
From: determinism at hotmail.com (Dennis May)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:49 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: FWD (PvT) Professors at war: Searching for
	dissentat the MLA
Message-ID: <BAY7-F61IzJ9skB47qX00004d70@hotmail.com>

"This past week, about 8,000 professors and
graduate students gathered here for the
annual meeting of the Modern Language
Association."

I don't find it at all surprising that you find
left wing extremists and Marxists flocking
together in English departments at
universities.  Those are the only kind of
English professors I have ever met.

Dennis May

_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software ? optimizes dial-up to the max! 
   http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 10 22:39:22 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Your thoughts on the news
In-Reply-To: <003501c3d788$2851a7f0$0a01a8c0@Kallista>
Message-ID: <20040110223922.39896.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Devon White <devon at thegreatwork.com> wrote:

> What i would like to know is this: if you could turn
on FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. . . and design the
information that you as well as other people would
get, what would it be?

               ---------------------

Here's what I want to see, Devon.  Take "Mystery
Science Theatre 3000"--wherein a cheesy old SciFi
movie is screened with the rather quirky audience
providing exceedingly clever and 'enlightened'
commentary, and turn it into "Mystery Pundit Theatre
3000".

Take the news-or-other-punditry and interpose a
'protective' layer of 'control'--freeze-frame, replay,
and edit--and irreverent commentary between 'it' and
the audience.
 
For years I have been absolutely frothing at the mouth
to see this treatment meted out to all those
proper/phony pundit and talking-head types.  I am
confident that fair use would allow you to excerpt a
bucket load of choice bits, the which you could then
gleefully rip and shred with unbridled ridicule.
Meanwhile, the offending bitstream with it's
sacred-cow face is held frozen before the firing squad
of the aggrieved.   

It warms me just to think of what it would be like.  I
mean, I regularly scream at the lying pretentious
weaseloids, as they attempt--in vain--to damage my
brain with their devious self-delusional self-serving
memetic emetic.  (I flatter myself that my defenses
are robust against their onslaught.  In any case it
isn't me their aiming at, but the paying choir and the
stupidly impressionable.)   

I think there must be a coupla a billion others out
there like me, who fume at being bombarded by
seeming-authoritative sputum, powerless to respond to
the one-way-broadcast model.  The mute/off button is
not good enough.  I want payback.  I want my voice
heard from the audience.  After all the years of
helpless anonymous 'silence' at this end of the
one-way crapola stream, I want satisfaction.        

Commentary on the commentators.  Unfair and unbalanced
and un-fuckin-apologetic.

Please.  Pulleeease!  I'll even promise to watch the
goddamned commercials (though I'd prefer to buy it
outright, commercial-free, on cable.)

Best, Jeff Davis

    I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical 
    thing is usually to change those beliefs that 
    cause the most immediate trouble...
                      Daniel Ust


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jan 11 00:21:00 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:21:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....
Message-ID: <020b01c3d7d8$cb4154b0$6501a8c0@int.veeco.com>

Stephen Karlsgodt wrote:
> I thought this was pretty funny. I am an engineer, so apparently I
> may be safe, but I spent enough time in graduate school to relate to
> this essay... 
> 
> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
> 
> Steve



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan 11 01:47:36 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:47:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <007f01c3d7b3$7b582d40$d3a44418@du.shawcable.net>
Message-ID: <004b01c3d7e4$e3dbbd10$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Russell Evermore wrote,
> Is war extropic or entropic? Well, I should have thought
> Einstein cleared up such questions long long ago. Is a siphon 
> entropic or extropic? Obviously it depends at which side of 
> the flow you happen to be looking at, the uphill side or the down.

War is not a flow of resources from the loser to the winner.  War is a
destruction of resources on both sides.  The war ends when one of the
parties' resources is destroyed beyond the point of being able to continue
the war.  After the war, there may be a flow of resources from the loser to
the winner.  But this "benefit" does not alter the fact that war is always a
net loss.  (The argument that the losses of war is intended to prevent an
even greater losses does not alter the fact that war is entropic.)

War = destruction.
Extropy = creation.
War is the opposite of Extropy.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan 11 01:49:24 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:49:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENOUGH already
In-Reply-To: <007f01c3d7b3$7b582d40$d3a44418@du.shawcable.net>
Message-ID: <004c01c3d7e5$273b34a0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Russell Evermore wrote,
> Fundamentalist Islam, led by Osama Bin Luddite, has chosen
> this age (my age, my son's age) to wage a war of aggression 
> against modernity. When war has been declared on your person, 
> your continent, and your core values, you have but two 
> choices - you fight or you flee.

I thought we were talking about the war started by Bush, not the war started
by bin Laden.  But it doesn't matter because the principles are the same.
An evil party attacks an innocent party killing thousands of people with no
provocation in hopes of terrorizing them to such an extent that other
parties only vaguely related to the attacked party will be shocked and awed
into retreating.  Both of these actions failed and triggered a more
aggressive backlash than any conflicts that existed before.

> Is it extropic to fight?

It is extropic to defend, it is not extropic to attack.  
Defense is extropic, initiating force is not extropic.

> Is it extropic to flee? Where will you flee - Mars?

Depends on the situation.  I don't know of any suggestions to flee relating
to current wars, so I can't comment without details.

> >From the inside flap of _Onward Muslim Soldiers_ by Robert Spencer:

I think this author and you conflate bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and
Palestinians all into the same group.  I believe this is too simplistic and
will result in faulty intelligence.  You cannot expect bin Laden, Saddam
Hussein and Palestinians to believe the same things or act in the same ways.
They are radically different religious/political factions only vaguely
related under the banner of Islam.  Saddam was about as non-religious as you
could get and still claim to be Islamic, while bin Laden is about as
extremist fundamentalist as you could get and still claim to be Islamic.
The Palestinians seem to be more territorial than fundamentally religious in
their battles.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan 11 02:19:01 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:19:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....
In-Reply-To: <020b01c3d7d8$cb4154b0$6501a8c0@int.veeco.com>
Message-ID: <004f01c3d7e9$49faa260$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Jef Allbright wrote,
> Stephen Karlsgodt wrote:
> > <http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html >

I would fire any engineer that wrote this article.  He makes fun of things
he doesn't understand and assumes that only his own field of endeavor is
worthwhile while other people's knowledge is fake.  He sounds more like the
pointy-haired boss in Dilbert rather than a real engineer.  

His ill-preparedness for the conference is a failing on his part, not the
other conference attendees.  His lack of understanding of even the basic
jargon of other speakers shows his illiteracy, not the illegitimacy of other
fields of study.  His approach to ridicule and belittle the others, even
when he couldn't understand what they were saying.

If you want me to deconstruct this "Deconstructing Deconstructionism", I
would question the authors racist motives for saying things like "you get
points for being French", and his homophobia of selecting homophobia as a
topic to make fun of, and his dislike of academia in general as a
sour-grapes attempt to dismiss what he couldn't understand.  As near as I
can tell, this engineer totally failed to prepare for the conference, be
effective at the conference, or even understand what was being discussed at
the conference.  His response was to make fun of the conference, dismiss it
as all useless anyway, and try to explain why his ignorance is superior to
anybody else's knowledge that he didn't understand.

This was really pathetic.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jan 11 02:34:47 2004
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:34:47 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....
References: <004f01c3d7e9$49faa260$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <016101c3d7eb$7abe63d0$62256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:19 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....


> Jef Allbright wrote,
> > Stephen Karlsgodt wrote:
> > > <http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html >
>
> I would fire any engineer that wrote this article.  He makes fun of things
> he doesn't understand and assumes that only his own field of endeavor is
> worthwhile while other people's knowledge is fake.  He sounds more like
the
> pointy-haired boss in Dilbert rather than a real engineer.
...
> This was really pathetic.

And the classic 'Quantum Hermeneutics' paper?
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html


Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Jan 11 02:51:46 2004
From: mail at Harvey