From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 1 00:11:56 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia Message-ID: <20051201001156.7D2CA57F5B@finney.org> Thanks for the comments on my posting. A few replies: David McFadzean writes: > Question for Hal, in your thought experiment do the robots necessarily > have qualia (in other words, are you saying philosophical zombies are > logically impossible), or are you stipulating that they do have qualia > as part of the thought experiment, or do we merely assume that they > likely do have qualia because of how they behave? My point is to show a model for how agents that have various problem-solving capabilities would naturally come to speak and act as if there were something mysterious about their consciousness and qualia. But actually there is nothing mysterious going on. Therefore there is no need to invoke mysterious physics in order to explain why problem-solving entities perceive a mysterious gap between physicality and mentality. In terms of your questions, probably the third choice would be closest. As I put it, an alien being would be as justified in concluding that the robots have qualia as that humans have qualia. And in fact we would expect all intelligent entities that evolve (or are designed with) human-like planning capabilities to behave as if they have qualia, and express puzzlement at the many paradoxes this raises, just as we have been going here on this list. As far as zombies, I know that philosophers distinguish between logical impossibility, metaphysical impossibility, and many other flavors as well, until it makes my head hurt. I could not parse what type of impossibility it is that zombies possess. Jef Allbright writes: > One suggestion: I kept stumbling over your use of "computational" to > describe the more subjective model. It seems to me that the other > model was just as computational, but within the domain of physics. > Might it be more useful to refer to them as the "physical" model and > the "intentional" model? Maybe so. I was trying to avoid loaded language about mental states that would suggest that I was trying to smuggle in my conclusion. I tried to stay as neutral as possible (although I slipped a few times and spoke of the robot "imagining" things rather than modeling them). Brent Allsop writes: > No, you're categorically talking about something completely different here > that has nothing to do with qualia. > > When you talk about the knowledge these robots have - whether it is of the > "physical" or "mental" they are still represented by abstract information > fundamentally based on only arbitrary causal representations. > > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of models as > what you describe these software robots doing. The critical difference is - > all of our conscious knowledge or models are represented with qualia - > rather than abstract information represented by arbitrary causal properties. Yes, the robots are purely mechanical and work with abstract information that represents the outside world. The point is that despite that, the robots can speak and act as if they are puzzled by some of the same paradoxes of consciousness vs physicality that we have been discussing here. Suppose you met a race of aliens. You discuss consciousness and qualia with them and from what they say, they experience these pretty much the same as humans. Which would you predict: that they are like the robots, fully physical and natural, acting and talking as if they have consciousness when they actually don't? Or that they are like you think humans are, with some extra physics or something going on, so that when they speak of having consciousness, it is really true? What evolutionary forces would act on the aliens to make one solution more likely than the other? If purely physical/mechanical aliens (like the robots) are able to act conscious as well as ones with the extra "effing" ability, why would evolution actually select for and create that ability? Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 1 00:12:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:12:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <09A2B89F-312B-4AE4-8C1B-A26C07F5A3A3@mac.com> On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hal, > > >> As to when the robot achieved his consciousness, I suspect that it >> also >> goes back to that original model. Once he had to deal with a >> world that >> was part physical and part mental, where he was able to make >> effective >> plans and evaluate them, he already had the differentiation in place >> that we experience between our mental lives and the physical world. >> > > No, you're categorically talking about something completely > different here > that has nothing to do with qualia. I think it has [most] everything to do with explaining what so-called "qualia" are. > > When you talk about the knowledge these robots have - whether it is > of the > "physical" or "mental" they are still represented by abstract > information > fundamentally based on only arbitrary causal representations. > So is everything in your brain's physical structure. It is a meat computational/sensing device. > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of > models as > what you describe these software robots doing. The critical > difference is - > all of our conscious knowledge or models are represented with qualia - > rather than abstract information represented by arbitrary causal > properties. Says you. Please explain the difference. It looks pretty empty to me. - samantha From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 1 00:48:33 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:48:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <20051201001156.7D2CA57F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: <200512010048.jB10mbMb009083@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Hal, > Suppose you met a race of aliens. You discuss consciousness and qualia > with them and from what they say, they experience these pretty much > the same as humans. Which would you predict: that they are like the > robots, fully physical and natural, acting and talking as if they have > consciousness when they actually don't? Or that they are like you think > humans are, with some extra physics or something going on, so that when > they speak of having consciousness, it is really true? > > What evolutionary forces would act on the aliens to make one solution more > likely than the other? If purely physical/mechanical aliens (like the > robots) are able to act conscious as well as ones with the extra "effing" > ability, why would evolution actually select for and create that ability? You must have missed most of the discussion on effing the ineffable and what each of these terms means and their implications. You can't directly tell what another intelligent thing is representing information with by its behavior. This requires internal analysis of the representational systems - and if qualia is involved - in order to really know what the representations are "like" you must eff the particular phenomenal properties to another mind capable of reproducing the same neural correlates that have the same conscious qualia. You simply ask the alien - or whatever - what phenomenal property do you consciously represent 700 nm light (or red) with? And the alien communicates to your augmented generic qualia reproducer in your mind what is required to reproduce the same qualia - and you say something like: "Oh My! I've never experienced anything like THAT! How wonderful.". That is effing the ineffable. Brent Allsop From templar137 at webtv.net Thu Dec 1 00:55:09 2005 From: templar137 at webtv.net (E N) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:55:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Lurker's Caveat In-Reply-To: Samantha Atkins 's message of Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:12:41 -0800 Message-ID: <22531-438E49ED-1100@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net> Good evening Ladies and Gentleman Extropians. Been "lurking" on this site for a good while. Enjoyed your exchanges. BUT: Why do many of you argue angels-on-a pin philosophy about qualia and oftentimes use the words "moral" and "good" and "evil" as though they were any more than a human verbal contrivance with no more artificial meaning than we choose to give it. It's tummy warming but meaningless. The biggest part of any human exchange is that we all are abominably stupid, some more than others, and I, to my regret, am in the lesser part of human intelligence, and you all ain't too brighter either, considering all that can be "knowable" that we do not know. Stuff it in your stomachs, lads. We're all dumb. Soildier on for THE QUEEN and ENGLAND. And die. http: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 02:31:21 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:31:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <20051201001156.7D2CA57F5B@finney.org> References: <20051201001156.7D2CA57F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:11:56 -0500, "Hal Finney" wrote: > My point is to show a model for how agents that have various > problem-solving capabilities would naturally come to speak and act as > if there were something mysterious about their consciousness and qualia. This is a behaviorist approach to the problem. Behaviorism denies/ignores subjective experience and asserts that only outward behavior, including speech, is important to understanding the psychology of humans or in this case robots. It "answers" the qualia question (if you can call it an answer) by sweeping the question under the rug. If it can't be measured objectively, says the behaviorist, then it is not a proper object of scientific study. And he's right, technically speaking, but qualia nevertheless happen or exist and are the object of our inquiry here. Most everyone will admit to experiencing qualia in addition to speaking and acting "as if" they do. This is not to say that I think your robots do not experience qualia. I think they very well might, but that given their relative simplicity in comparison to humans, their experience would probably not be something we would recognize. > Suppose you met a race of aliens. You discuss consciousness and qualia > with them and from what they say, they experience these pretty much > the same as humans. Which would you predict: that they are like the > robots, fully physical and natural, acting and talking as if they have > consciousness when they actually don't? Or that they are like you think > humans are, with some extra physics or something going on, so that when > they speak of having consciousness, it is really true? I would predict that if they are robots then they are not unconscious robots, that they are thus like either humans or robots, that the distinction between humans and sufficiently advanced AI robots is probably false, and that whatever they are, they probably do experience qualia. Your robots have sensors, memory, and programming to analyse their records of their sense data. I'm not certain I'm not one of them. :) -gts From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 03:58:30 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:58:30 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> On 11/28/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > > > Oh it is much worse than that. If qualia are properties that do not sit > in > the network of causation for brain states, then qualia cannot be the > reason > that anyone claims that they have qualia! The fact that qualia exist and > that people argue for qualia existing could only be a coincidence. People > would say they had qualia even if qualia did not exist. > > > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Robin, This in no way contradicts my theory that qualia are processes on a higher-dimensional time-line. Nor does it contradict other forms of modern dualism. The fact that qualia *includes* material causality (as I agree they must) in no way proves that qualia are *only* these material processes. As an analogy, take a cube. Now take a 2-d 'slice' of that cube (which is a square). Is the 2-d slice equivalent to the cube? No. In my theory of higher dimensional time, qualia are a form of multi-dimensional causality which *includes* (projects down on to) ordinary material brain causality. So of course I agree that the network of causal brain-states is *part* of what qualia are. But the relationship between qualia and material brain processes could be analogous to the relationship between the cube and a 2-d slice of that cube. You are also being too pessimistic when you say that if qualia are something beyond ordinary material causality we can never know about it. Science is filled with examples of indirectly inferring the existence of things (dark matter for instance or 11-d superstring theory where we inferred extra spatial dimensions). Non-material aspects of qualia coud also be indirectly inferred. (for instance my multi-dimensional time theory - extra time dimensions could be indirectly inferred if it were shown that such a hypothesis were an effective explanation). -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Dec 1 05:20:37 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:20:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report Message-ID: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> My boss (who is new to the company) has gotten it into his head that we absolutely MUST have copy protection on our next software product. We make extremely specialized test tools for development and QA engineers, not games or graphics apps. In the entire history of our company, we have never used copy protection, we've never seen any use for it. Nonetheless, the new boss is not dissuaded. To that end, I've been ordered to produce a report on all the available copy protection schemes and make a recommendation on which one we should use. I have written this http://www.magicdave.com/private/browse/CopyProtection.pdf and I invite any and all to critique/comment on it. I think I've reached a correct conclusion, but I'd really like this to be bulletproof, my ass may be riding on it. Feel free to pass it around. I have to present it next Tuesday. Dave Palmer -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 05:59:51 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:59:51 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia bet with Eliezer In-Reply-To: <200511291659.jATGxLG4007166@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <438BC704.1040901@pobox.com> <200511291659.jATGxLG4007166@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060511302159r39f816b0k8faa9c603a44cf9f@mail.gmail.com> On 11/30/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > > > If not Eliezer, is there anyone else that would be willing to take such a > bet? Could we persuade someone like Daniel Dennett to take such a > bet? Or > if some people don't like these terms - how might we tweak them so they > are > meaningful and agreeable to both parties? > > Brent Allsop As others point out, it's not clear exactly what it is your're proposing - your definitions are just too vague. If by 'qualia' you mean something exists that has a reality over and above the physical processes which gave rise them then I agree with you. If by 'qualia' you mean that there exists some non-material substance which can exist independently of the brain then no I disagree with you. You don't need to bet with Eliezer about that. Substance dualism was dead by 1949. My guess would be that new laws of physics are indeed needed for a complete *explanation* of qualia (namely my 'extra time dimensions' theory). However I am also sure that all laws of physics are computational and that qualia are entirely generated by commputational physical processes. Therefore I think that all you need to generate conscious experience is the right software. What qualia are is perfectly obvious - to me at least ;) They're obviously a processes on a higher-dimenionsal time-line, which *includes* (projects down on to) ordinary material causality. Qualia are *mathematical sets*. And mathematical sets are a relationship between mind and reality. The mind *groups together* many individual particulars in a certain way to form the meaning of a *concept*. For instance the meaning of the concept 'blue' is the *set* of all blue objects linked together by a mind (for instance a blue curtain, a blue sky, a blue car). So qualia are mathematical sets summarizing all the associations that make all the meaning of a concept. Simple really. -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 06:30:00 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:30:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] [minus1_0_1@yahoo.de: [rael-science] First Picture of Living Human Retina Reveals Surprise] Message-ID: <20051201063000.GX2249@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Friend ----- From: Friend Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:42:27 +0100 To: rael-science-select at yahoogroups.com Subject: [rael-science] First Picture of Living Human Retina Reveals Surprise User-Agent: Opera M2/8.51 (Win32, build 7712) Reply-To: rael-science-select-owner at yahoogroups.com Source: LiveScience http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051128_eye_image.html First Picture of Living Human Retina Reveals Surprise 28 November 2005 By Sara Goudarzi Special to LiveScience The first images ever made of retinas in living people reveal surprising variation from one person to the next. Yet somehow our perceptions don't vary as might be expected. Imaging thousands of cells responsible for detecting color in the deepest layer of the eye, scientists found that our eyes are wired differently. Yet we all -- with the exception of the color blind -- identify colors similarly. The results suggest that the brain plays an even more significant role than thought in deciding what we see. Inside the eye The eye, responsible for receiving visual images, is wrapped in three layers of tissue [graphic]. The innermost layer, the retina, is responsible for sensing color and sending information to the brain. The retina contains light receptors known as cones and rods. These receptors receive light, convert it to chemical energy, and activate the nerves that send messages to the brain. The rods are in charge of perceiving size, brightness and shape of images, whereas color vision and fine details are the responsibility of the cones. On average, there are 7 million cones in the human retina, 64 percent of which are red, 32 percent green, and 2 percent blue, with each being sensitive to a slightly different region of the color spectrum. At least that's what scientists have been saying for years. But the first complete imaging of the human retina, mapping the arrangement of the three types of cone photoreceptors, revealed something surprising about these numbers. Big variation The study found that people recognized colors in the same way. Yet the pictures of their retinas showed there is enormous variability, sometimes up to 40 times, in the relative number of green and red cones in the retina. "[This] suggests that there is a compensatory mechanism in our brain that negates individual differences in the relative numbers of red and green cones that we observed," Joseph Carroll, a researcher at Center for Visual Science at University of Rochester and a collaborator of the study, told LiveScience. The researchers used adaptive optics imaging, which uses a camera containing a corrective device that cancels the effects of the eye's imperfect optics on image quality, producing a high-resolution retinal picture. Borrowing from astronomy "Adaptive optics is a technique borrowed from astronomy where it is used to obtain sharp images of stars from telescopes on the ground," said David Williams, Director of Center for Visual Science at the University of Rochester. "All such telescopes suffer from blur due to the effects of turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere. In our case, optical defects in the cornea and lens of the eye blur images of the retina." The measured defects were corrected using deformable mirrors, which bend and morph according each person's eye, before taking high magnification pictures of the eye. This allowed Williams and colleagues to see and map single cells such as the cones. The researchers hope to use the same techniques to better understand various forms of color blindness and different kinds of retinal disease. The findings were detailed in a recent issue of the Journal of Neuroscience. ? 1999-2005 Imaginova Corp. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 06:40:57 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:40:57 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia Message-ID: <7a5e56060511302240p65c7702ev8f7b1169c6a87c7d@mail.gmail.com> Great post Hal. Here are notes from my 'Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) framework' you may be inetrested in: --- I propose to define a Complex System as composed of three basic kinds of Information: Intrinsic, Action and Temporal. *Intrinsic: The form of the basic building blocks (or individual 'parts') of the system *Action: The states of the basic building blocks (or the actions being carried out) *Temporal: The causal properties of the system - rules governing how the system evolves across time. The '*Temporal* aspect of a complex system I here define as an ordered relationship (or in mathematical jargon a 'mapping') between 'events' on a time-line. Temporal = Mapping (Event1 >>>>>>>>> Event2) Event = Combination (Intrinsic property, Action property) In order for a system to 'evolve' across time in an ordered way, there has to be an ordered relationship between 'events'. Another way of putting this is that the Temporal aspect of the Complex System is a *Function* (Mathematical definition of that terms) mapping two 'events' to each other. One 'event' is the cause, the other the 'effect'. An 'event' is a combination of an Intrinsic and Action property of the system. I propose that (to model) reality (AI software would require to model) the following 3 Complex Systems: The Mathematical System, The Volitional System and The Physical System. Definitions of these 3 terms were given earlier. The Mathematical system consists of *Mathematical proofs*, the Volitional system consists of *Memes* and the Physical system consists of *Computations* (Physics). Recall that I proposed to consider reality as 'pure information' (aka John Wheeler). We are pretending that reality is a 'program' or a kind of 'mind', and this is what justifies the step of deviding reality into 'Three Worlds' (Mathematical, Volitional and Physical). Whether or not these 'three worlds' are reducible to one another is quite irrelevant. The fact is, that when we treat reality as 'pure information', 3 kinds of fundamental 'data types' appear - Mathematical propositions, Memes and Physical states. We are justified in treating each kind of Information seperately because that is what we need to do in order to fully *explain* reality in *informational* terms. When treated in terms of pure information and considered as a Complex System, reality consists of three complex systems . By the definition of a Complex System given earlier, each system in turn can be sub-devided into 3 parts: Temporal, Intrinsic and Action, for a total of 9 fundamental kinds of Information. I propose to 'join' these 3 Complex Systems together into an integrated whole by making two of the complex systems sub-systems of the last. Then reality is integrated in an aesthetically pleasing way and 9 seperate data types are reduced to 7. The proposal is given below. The scheme below is intended to be an *Informational* representation of Reality. Reality consists of three general types of information - mathematical, memetic and physical. These are treated as three kinds of complex system. The terms *Temporal*, *Action* and *Intrinsic* were briefly defined earlier. The labels below refer to various kinds of proposed data structures associated with these componants of the system. Mathematics System *Temporal - Sets (Qualia) *Action -Memes (Morality) *Intrinsic - Function (Physics). *Sets* here refer to the standard mathematical definition of the term - groupings of entities related in some way. Everything in maths can be defined as a set of some kind. *Memes* is here is refering to beliefs of a social nature. *Function* is here referring to physical objects (functional systems) The system above is strategy for defining reality in terms of mathematical sets. A set is defined as a grouping together of different functional systems (physical objects) - the particular kind of 'grouping together' that connects different objects is achieved by memes. So a mathematical set is defined as a relationship between mind and reality. Sets are also proposed to be equiavalent to qualia (conscious experience). Example: The concept 'Blue' A 'set' would be formed by a mind linking together many objects deemed to have in common the quality of 'blueness'. The particular 'linking together' algorithm is a 'meme'. For instance the system might chosoe the following objects: Sky, Car, Shirt and 'link' them (associate them) to form a 'set' representing the meaning of the concept 'Blue' - this 'Set' would be equivalent to qualia. Volitional System *Temporal - Meme (Morality) *Action - Situation *Intrinsic - Agent *Morality* here refers to a system of memes - referring to the interactions between agents *Situation* here refers to the activities of a volitional agent *Agent here refers to a volitional agent The system above is a strategy for defining a memetic system. It says that a memetic system is defined by a series of mental events consisting of a combination of agents and activities. This scheme is part of what could be called a 'Two Category Theory'. Ontological reality has been granted to the concept an 'agent', as distinct from the concept of mere matter. Physical System *Temporal - Fuction (Physics) *Action - Translation *Intrinsic - Object *Physics* here referes to a functional proccess - a system passing through a succesion of on/off ststes. *Translation* Here refers to the movements of a body *Object* here refers to something with an extension in physical space The system above is a strategy for defining a physical system. It says that a physical system is defined as a series of computational 'events' composed of serially ordered combinations of objects and their motions. Example: Temporal: A gun firing (this is a function - an 'event'). Action: The particular movements of the gun needed (i.e cocking trigger, bullet exiting etc) Intrinsic: The gun itself --- -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 1 06:58:50 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:58:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] qualiavores Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051201005314.01e34cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> They're why our senses fade with age, see, and life progressively loses its savor. The qualiavores multiply like slow viruses, browsing on our sensibilities, consuming what a more primitives age would have called our "souls". My team of researchers and I are working with recombinant qualia toward a vaccination for this terrible plague, and I feel certain that once we've driven the filthy things out--until they mutate, alas, and their progeny rush back in--we'll all experience an enriched, fragrant and luminous recovery of childhood joy. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 1 07:00:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:00:03 -0800 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: <4D60217B-C4AD-4D72-A769-6C585CA5CCD8@mac.com> Message-ID: <200512010703.jB1730e19255@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:39 PM, spike wrote: The danger I had in mind is accidental overdose... Please refrain from writing on this subject until you get some basic education in this area. - samantha I tried that, but found the results most puzzling. There is much contradictory information. Janis Joplin did not die of LSD overdose, it was heroin. Jim Morrison's death certificate claims he perished of heart failure. (Well, the old geezer *was* pushing 28.) Jimi Hendrix drowned in barf after devouring nine sleeping pills. So I was misinformed that all these were LSD corpses. In any case, Amara is right, I should stay with the medical research. There is clearly plenty of conflicting info, so much of it must be wrong. A credible looking site described animal studies which showed 12 milligrams slew 50% of the test animals that received that dose. A suicide site claims LSD overdose isn't the way to take oneself out of this world, for it would take a few hundred normal doses to do the deed, an amount one simply would not have on hand. (Unless one is far too rich to be contemplating suicide.) So after this googlefest, I had a notion. Before the internet I would have had not the foggiest notion on how to cook up a batch of LSD or where to find out. This evening I googled "make LSD" and a recipe popped up in a fraction of a second. Reading over the chemistry, it doesn't look as difficult as rebuilding an old motorcycle. So I now sadly speculate that fatal LSD overdoses will become much more common. Reasoning: if it requires 120 normal doses to reach 50% chance of perishing, ordinarily one would not have that much. But if the masses are able to google and cook the stuff themselves, one could have that much. Twelve milligrams could be accidentally ingested I would think. This has all been most educational. spike From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 07:24:55 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:24:55 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <20051130202633.56C5057F5B@finney.org> References: <20051130202633.56C5057F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: <7a5e56060511302324x31b2d02au734c35f2f3dba96e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/1/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > One thing that strikes me about the qualia debate and the philosophical > literature on the topic is that it is so little informed by computer > science. No doubt this is largely because the literature is old > and computers are new, but at this point it would seem appropriate to > consider computer models of systems that might be said to possess qualia. > I will work out one example here. > > Let's suppose we are going to make a simple autonomous robot. It needs > to be able to navigate through its environment and satisfy its needs > for food and shelter. It has sensors which give it information on the > external world, and a goal-driven architecture to give structure to > its actions. We will assume that the robot's world is quite simple and > doesn't have any other animals or robots in it, other than perhaps some > very low-level animals. > > One of the things the robot needs to do is to make plans and consider > alternative actions. For example, it has to decide which of several > paths to take to get to different grazing grounds. > > In order to equip the robot to solve this problem, we will design it > so that it has a model of the world around it. This model is based > on its sensory inputs and its memory, so the model includes objects > that are not currently being sensed. One of the things the robot > can do with this model is to explore hypothetical worlds and actions. > The model is not locked into conformance with what is being observed, > but it can be modified (or perhaps copies of the model would be modified) > to explore the outcome of various possible actions. Such explorations > will be key to evaluating different possible plans of actions in order > to decide which will best satisfy the robot's goals. > > This ability to create hypothetical models in order to explore alternative > plans requires a mechanism to simulate the outcome of actions the robot > may take. If the robot imagines dropping a rock, it must fall to the > ground. So the robot needs a physics model that will be accurate enough > to allow it to make useful predictions about the outcomes of its actions. > > This physics model doesn't imply Newton's laws, it can be a much simpler > model, what is sometimes called "folk physics". It has rules like: rocks > are hard, leaves are soft, water will drown you. It knows about gravity > and the strength of materials, and that plants grow slowly over time. > It mostly covers inanimate objects, which largely stay where they > are put, but may have some simple rules for animals, which move about > unpredictably. > > Using this physics model and its internal representation of the > environment, the robot can explore various alternative paths and decide > which is best. Let us suppose that it is choosing between two paths > to grazing grounds, but it knows that one of them has been blocked by > a fallen tree. It can consider taking that path, and eventually coming > to the fallen tree. Then it needs to consider whether it can get over, > or around, or past the tree. > > Note that for this planning process to work, another ingredient is > needed besides the physics model. The model of the environment must > include more than the world around the robot. It must include the robot > itself. He must be able to model his own motions and actions through > the environment. He has to model himself arriving at the fallen tree > and then consider what he will do. > > Unlike everything else in the environment, the model of the robot is > not governed by the physics model. As he extrapolates future events, > he uses the physics model for everything except himself. He is not > represented by the physics model, because he is far too complex. Instead, > we must design the robot to use a computational model for his own actions. > His extrapolations of possible worlds use a physics model for everything > else, and a computational model for himself. > > It's important that the computational model be faithful to the robot's > actual capabilities. When he imagines himself coming to that tree, he > needs to be able to bring his full intelligence to bear in solving the > problem of getting past the tree. Otherwise he might refuse to attempt > a path which had a problem that he could actually have solved easily. > So his computational model is not a simplified model of his mind. > Rather, we must architect the robot so that his full intelligence is > applied within the computational model. > > That is not a particularly difficult task from the software engineering > perspective. We just have to modularize the robot's intelligence, > problem-solving and modelling capabilities so that they can be brought > to bear in their full force against simulated worlds as well as real ones. > It is not a hard problem. > > I am actually glossing over the true hard problem in designing a robot > that could work like this. As I have described it, this robot is capable > of evaluating plans and choosing the one which works best. What I have > left off is how he creates plans and chooses the ones that make sense > to fully model and evaluate in this way. This is an unsolved problem > in computer science. It is why our robots are so bad. > > Ironically, the process I have described, of modelling and evaluation, > is only present in the highest animals, yet is apparently much simpler > to implement in software than the part we can't do yet. Only humans, > and perhaps a few animals to a limited extent, plan ahead in the manner > I have described for the robot. There have been many AI projects built > on planning in this manner, and they generally have failed. Animals > don't plan but they do OK because the unsolved problem, of generating > "plausible" courses of action, is good enough for them. > > This gap in our robot's functionality, while of great practical > importance, is not philosophically important for the point I am going > to make. I will focus on its high-level functionality of modelling the > world and its own actions in that world. > > To jump ahead a bit, the fact that two different kinds of models - a > physical model for the world, and a computational model for the robot - > are necessary to create models of the robot's actions in the world is > where I will find the origins of qualia. Just as we face a paradox > between a physical world which seems purely mechanistic, and a mental > world which is lively and aware, the robot also has two inconsistent > models of the world, which he will be unable to reconcile. And I would > also argue that this use of dual models is inherent to robot design. > If and when we create successful robots with this ability to plan, > I expect that they will use exactly this kind of dual architecture for > their modelling. But I am getting ahead of the story. See the proposal in my last post. I suggested not two, but *three* different kinds of models. My 'Physical System' corresponded to your 'Physical Model'. My 'Volitional System' is what you refer to as a 'Computational Model' (which as Jef rightly pointed out is a misnomer - the physical model is commputational as well). Did you grok my trick for reconciling the two inconsistent models? I also proposed a *third* kind of model ('The Mathematical System') which has the job of reconciling the other two. And Qualia/Mathematics emerges from this third model. Let us now imagine that the robot faces a more challenging environment. > He is no longer the only intelligent actor. He lives in a tribe of > other robots and must interact with them. We may also fill his world > with animals of lesser intelligence. > > Now, to design a robot that can work in this world, we will need to > improve it over the previous version. In particular, the physics model > is going to be completely ineffective in predicting the actions of other > robots in the world. Their behaviors will be as complex and unpredictable > as the robot's own. They can't be modelled like rocks or plants. > > Instead, what will be necessary is for the robot to be able to apply his > own computational model to other agents besides himself. Previously, his > model of the world was entirely physical except for a sort of "bubble of > non-physicality" which was himself as he moved through the model. Now he > must extend his world to have multiple such bubbles, as each other robot > entity will be similarly modelled by a non-physics model, instead using a > computational one. > > This is going to be challenging for us, the architects, because > modelling other robots computationally is harder than modelling the > robots' own future actions. Other robots are much more different than > the future robot is. They may have different goals, different physical > characteristics, and be in very different situations. So the robot's > computational model will have to be more flexible in order to make > predictions of other robot's actions. The problem is made even worse > by the fact that he would not know a priori just what changes to make in > order to model another robot. Not only must he vary his model, he has to > figure out just how to vary it in order to produce accurate predictions. > The robot will be engaged in a constant process of study and analysis > to improve his computational models of other robots in order to predict > their actions better. > > One of the things we will let the robots do is talk. They can exchange > information. This will be very helpful because it lets them update their > world models based on information that comes from other robots, rather > than just their own observations. It will also be a key way that robots > can attempt to control and manipulate their environment, by talking to > other robots in the hopes of getting them to behave in a desired way. > > For example, if this robot tribe has a leader who chooses where they will > graze, our robot may hope to influence this leader's choice, because > perhaps he has a favorite food and he wants them to graze in the area > where it is abundant. How can he achieve this goal? In the usual way, > he sets up alternative hypothetical models and considers which ones > will work best. In these models, he considers various things he might > say to the leader that could influence his choice of where to graze. > In order to judge which statements would be most effective, he uses > his computational model of the leader in order to predict how he will > respond to various things the robot might say. If his model of the > leader is good, he may be successful in finding something to say that > will influence the leader and achieve the robot's goal. > > Clearly, improving computational models of other robots is of high > importance in such a world. Likewise, improved physics models will also > be helpful in terms of finding better ways to influence the physical > world. Robots who find improvements in either of these spheres may be > motivated to share them with others. A robot who successfully advances > the tribe's knowledge of the world may well gain influence as "tit for > tat" relationships of social reciprocity naturally come into existence. > > Robots would therefore be constantly on the lookout for observations and > improvements which they could share, in order to improve their status > and become more influential (and thereby better achieve their goals). > Let's suppose, as another example, that a robot discovers that the > tribe's leader is afraid of another tribe member. He finds that such a > computational model does a better job of predicting the leader's actions. > He could share this with another tribe member, benefitting that other > robot, and thereby gaining more influence over them. > > One of the fundamental features of the robot's world is that he has > these two kinds of models that he uses to predict actions, the physics > model and the computational model. He needs to be able to decide which > model to use in various circumstances. For example, a dead or sleeping > tribe member may be well handled by a physics model. > > An interesting case arises for lower animals. Suppose there are lizards > in the robot's world. He notices that lizards like to lie in the sun, > but run away when a robot comes close. This could be handled by a > physics model which just describes these two behaviors as characteristics > of lizards. But it could also be handled by a computational model. > The robot could imagine himself lying in the sun because he likes its > warmth and it feels good. He could imagine himself running away because > he is afraid of the giant-sized robots coming at him. Either model > works to some degree. Should a lizard be handled as a physical system, > or a computational system? > > The robot may choose to express this dilemma to another robot. > The general practice of offering insights and information in order > to gain social status will motivate sharing such thoughts. The robot > may point out that some systems are modelled physically and some, like > other robots, are modelled computationally. When they discuss improved > theories about the world, they have to use different kinds of language > to describe their observations and theories in these areas. But what > about lizards, he asks. It seems that a physics model works OK for > them, although it is a little complex. But they could also be handled > with a computational model, although it would be extremely simplified. > Which is best? Are lizards physical or computational entities? > > I would suggest that this kind of conversation can be realistically mapped > into language of consciousness and qualia. The robot is saying, it is > "like something" to be you or me or some other robot. There is more > than physics involved. But what about a lizard? Is it "like something" > to be a lizard? What is it like to be a lizard? > > Given that robots perceive this inconsistency and paradox between their > internal computational life and the external physical world, that they > puzzle over where to draw the line between computational and physical > entities, I see a close mapping to our own puzzles. We too ponder over > the seeming inconsistency between a physical world and our mental lives. > We too wonder how to draw the line, as when Nagel asks, what is it like > to be a bat. > > In short I am saying that these robots are as conscious as we are, and > have qualia to the extent that we do. The fact that they are able and > motivated to discuss philosophical paradoxes involving qualia makes the > point very clearly and strongly. > > I may be glossing over some steps in the progress of the robots' mental > lives, but the basic paradox is built into the robot right from the > beginning, when we were forced to use two different kinds of models > to allow him to do his planning. Once we gave the robots the power of > speech and put them into a social environment, it was natural for them > to discover and discuss this inconsistency in their models of the world. > An alien overhearing such a conversation would, it seems to me, be as > justified in ascribing consciousness and qualia to robots as it would > be in concluding that human beings had the same properties. > > As to when the robot achieved his consciousness, I suspect that it also > goes back to that original model. Once he had to deal with a world that > was part physical and part mental, where he was able to make effective > plans and evaluate them, he already had the differentiation in place > that we experience between our mental lives and the physical world. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Dec 1 07:53:42 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:53:42 +0100 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) Message-ID: spike: >In any case, Amara is right, I should stay with >the medical research. You can also go to a symposium (you will hear a mix of everything) International Symposium on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Albert Hofmann 13 to 15 January 2006 Convention Center Basel, Switzerland http://lsd.info/symposium/home-en On the occasion of the 100th birthday of Dr. Albert Hofmann on 11 January 2006, the Gaia Media Foundation stages an International Symposium on the most widely known and most controversial discovery of this outstanding scientist. LSD - three letters that changed the world. Since 19 April 1943, the day Swiss chemist Dr. Albert Hofmann discovered this psychoactive substance, millions of people all over the world have experienced a higher reality with profound and psychological insights and spiritual renewal; created innovative social transformation, music, art, and fashion; were healed from addiction and depression; experienced enlightened insights into the human consciousness. Some 60 years later experts will present an in-depth review of all aspects of this unique phenomenon, informing and discussing history, experiences, implications, assess the risks and benefits of this most potent of all psychoactive substances. LSD - a challenge in the past, now, and in the future. Program http://lsd.info/symposium/home-en Amara From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 1 09:24:35 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:24:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> Samantha Atkins, > Says you. Please explain the difference. It looks pretty empty to me. Yes, you must be missing something or not thinking about this theory of perception and phenomenal properties in the right way because it should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. Here is a big part of the way I think about it. First lets construct a robot with stereoscopic 3D vision. Lets give this robot 2 stereoscopic cameras that are an order of magnitude higher resolution than our own eyes. These two cameras produce two pixel arrays of data that represents two 2D pictures of a strawberry it is looking at. Lets also say the color depth of this information is also an order of magnitude deeper than the color depth we can perceive. Lets give this robot some powerful parallel image processing machinery that can real time construct from these two 2D video images a 3D model of the strawberry. Lets represent this 3D model with a simple high-resolution 3D array and call each point in the array a color ?voxel? for volume picture element. So, the final result is - for each point on the surface of the strawberry that reflects 700 nanometer light, the corresponding voxel in this array in the mind of our robot has an abstract number representing red ? something like FF0000. Of course this number can be represented by everything from voltages on a set of wires or pits on a CD, to wholes punched in paper ? and in fact anything in physics that can assume a causally detectable state with sufficient resolution will suffice. So the only important part of this abstract information is its numeric value: FF0000. Now, lets say we want our robot to be ?self aware? so when it sees its arms it also produces a model of numbers in this same array that represent the location of its real arms that are able to pick up the strawberry. In fact lets give it internal sensors of its entire self so there is a fairly complete model of itself in this same 3D array. So, since it has knowledge of itself we can say it is self-aware. And since all the visual knowledge is an order of magnitude greater resolution and depth than what we are visually aware of we can claim that the robot is an order of magnitude more visually aware of the strawberry than we are. Now an interesting property of this poor robot ? as we have designed it for efficiency purposes ? is that it is being deceived. It thinks its knowledge of the strawberry is the real strawberry and its knowledge of its arms picking up its knowledge of the strawberry are its real arms. Especially since they track each other so accurately. But we, the designers, know better and leave it at that ? having faith that the robot will eventually be able to figure out how things really are on its own after philosophizing about how it might be directly aware of anything beyond its cause and effect eyes for centuries. Now, when we look at a theory of ourselves, and how we are consciously aware of things we perceive ? we can imagine that we might have very many similarities to this robot. We have two eyes with reasonable resolution. We have a powerful parallel image processing system that is able to convert 2 2D stereoscopic images into 3D information. And for every corresponding point on the strawberry that our robot friend represents with FF0000, we represent the same point in our conscious world with ? drum roll please ? the quale red. Now, if it is not crystal clear to you that the quale red we use to represent this information in our conscious world has some very important fundamental differences or if you will ?qualities? from the abstract number our robot uses ? then again ? there is something about this theory of perception, consciousness, and qualia that you are missing or not properly thinking about. Because it should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. At least it seems that way to me when I think of it this way. Brent Allsop From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 09:54:15 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:54:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20051201095415.GQ2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:24:35AM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > represents with FF0000, we represent the same > point in our conscious world with ? drum roll please ? the quale red. No. We represent that as a neuronal activity pattern. The robot has no more internal view of its hardware layer than you have of your pink and squishy wetware layer between your ears. > Now, if it is not crystal clear to you that the > quale red we use to represent this information in > our conscious world has some very important > fundamental differences or if you will > ?qualities? from the abstract number our robot Clear as drek. You keep iterating assertions, while adding not a single bit of information in all those paragraphs. Neither did Hal in his essay of a post. > uses ? then again ? there is something about this > theory of perception, consciousness, and qualia > that you are missing or not properly thinking "You're not properly thinking about" is not an argument. > about. Because it should be blatantly obvious, > very simple, and crystal clear. At least it > seems that way to me when I think of it this way. I don't think you're really thinking when you think you're thinking. What's your opinion on gun control? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 09:57:36 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:57:36 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512010157s3782d4f6n8a96ac62aec397b8@mail.gmail.com> On 12/1/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > > > Now, if it is not crystal clear to you that the > quale red we use to represent this information in > our conscious world has some very important > fundamental differences or if you will > "qualities" from the abstract number our robot > uses ? then again ? there is something about this > theory of perception, consciousness, and qualia > that you are missing or not properly thinking > about. Because it should be blatantly obvious, > very simple, and crystal clear. At least it > seems that way to me when I think of it this way. > > Brent Allsop > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Say what? Qualia are certainly *not* obvious! The best scientists and philosophers have crashed hoplessly against the mystery of consciousness for 2000 years without success! I believe that I am the only person on Earth who understands qualia at this time. -But if I'm deluded then I'm in good company - all the other scientists and philosophers failed too- ;) You may be interested in reviewing my last posting and the notes from my 'Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory' (MCRT). I proposed an equivalence between qualia and mathematical sets. Now a 'set' is the fundamental unit of mathematics. Everything can be defined as a set. Since a 'number' is a mathematical object, a 'number' is also a set. And if I'm right that a 'Set' and a 'Quale' are equivalent, then 'numbers' are indeed identical to qualia. Remember, that 'numbers' are abstract too - 'numbers' are not physical! You can think of a 'Set' as a group of things with a logical 'lasso' around it. This 'lasso' represents a relationship between a mind and the things in question. Even an individual thing has its own Set - a Set consisting of the single object. The difference between the Set of a single thing and the thing itself is that the Set represents the relationships between a mind and the thing in the Set. -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 10:24:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:24:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 12/1/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > http://www.magicdave.com/private/browse/CopyProtection.pdf > > and I invite any and all to critique/comment on it. I think I've reached a > correct conclusion, but I'd really like this to be bulletproof, my ass may > be riding on it. Feel free to pass it around. I have to present it next > Tuesday. > > Dave Palmer > I'd add a section on the recent Sony rootkit fiasco when they tried to protect about 50 of their cds and infected thousands of computers worldwide. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 10:39:14 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20051201103914.GR2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:24:26AM +0000, BillK wrote: > I'd add a section on the recent Sony rootkit fiasco when they tried to > protect about 50 of their cds and infected thousands of computers > worldwide. "Thousands" appears at the low end. It could be several millions, according to http://www.doxpara.com/ -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Dec 1 11:47:35 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:47:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> At 10:58 PM 11/30/2005, Marc Geddes wrote: >Oh it is much worse than that. If qualia are properties that do not sit in >the network of causation for brain states, then qualia cannot be the reason >that anyone claims that they have qualia! The fact that qualia exist and >that people argue for qualia existing could only be a coincidence. People >would say they had qualia even if qualia did not exist. > >You are also being too pessimistic when you say that if qualia are >something beyond ordinary material causality we can never know about >it. Science is filled with examples of indirectly inferring the >existence of things (dark matter for instance or 11-d superstring >theory where we inferred extra spatial dimensions). Non-material >aspects of qualia coud also be indirectly inferred. (for instance >my multi-dimensional time theory - extra time dimensions could be >indirectly inferred if it were shown that such a hypothesis were an >effective explanation). I didn't say anything about "material" causality, whatever that means; I only talked about causality. We can only ever get any evidence about things that have causal connections to us, and that includes dark matter, extra dimensions, God, morality, and qualia. If qualia properties of things cannot at least indirectly cause changes in us, they cannot be the cause of our beliefs about anything, including qualia. And if qualia properties exist and can cause changes in us, then careful scientific investigation should eventually find clear evidence of them. You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" or "qualia properties are non-causal." Of course you can have beliefs regarding things of which you have no evidence. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Dec 1 13:55:16 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:55:16 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. References: <200512010957.jB19vne07202@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002d01c5f67e$de0be1c0$a7830d0a@JPAcer> > From: Marc Geddes > I believe that I am the only person on Earth who understands qualia at > this > time. -But if I'm deluded then I'm in good company - all the other > scientists and philosophers failed too- ;) The above 'if' is not representative of a diminishingly small possibility I suspect. But moving on... When I Googled, 'Qualia bullshit' I only got 396 hits, 'Qualia bollocks' got 215, ' Qualia crap' gets way too many hits - over 17,000 - so to be fair you really must add 'philosophy' to narrow the field to a little over 500 hits. Then you get: http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7rlxx/bt03/id8.html (extract) ... 'If you had to choose, would you rather eat poo-flavored-chocolate or chocolate-flavored-poo?' 'First, I had to clarify some of the background conditions. Would the poo make me sick? No. Would it be human poo? Yes. Would the poo really taste like chocolate, and have the consistency and texture thereof? Yes. Would the real chocolate taste just like real poo, and look like real poo? Yes. Would the real chocolate make me sick? No (except for possible attendant nausea of course). Would the poo be yours? Maybe. Would the poo be like dark or milk chocolate? Just answer the question! The answer is obvious, and goes down easy. I'd eat the poo. Why? Because it tastes like chocolate, and it won't make me sick, whereas the chocolate would taste like poo...' This the trouble with qualia discussions. You need to digest some pretty awful things. You may well choose gross over sanity and normality and call it logical - and yet all the time you know it's only a psychological construct standing between you and a shitty reality... Jack Parkinson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 14:13:20 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:13:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Lurker's Caveat In-Reply-To: <22531-438E49ED-1100@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net> References: <22531-438E49ED-1100@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net> Message-ID: On 11/30/05, E N wrote: > > BUT: Why do many of you argue angels-on-a pin philosophy about qualia > and oftentimes use the words "moral" and "good" and "evil" as though they > were any more than a human verbal contrivance with no more artificial > meaning than we choose to give it. > It's tummy warming but meaningless. True, when the qualia discussion comes up, as I believe it has several (?) times before, I tend to view almost all, if not all, of the emails involved as someone saying "symbol" "symbol" "symbol", or should I say "sound and fury signifying nothing"? But its a genetic thing. The person with the most creative answer gets more points and more points means one gets the girl (which is genetically important to at least the males involved in the qualia discussion whether they consciously believe so or not...). [A recent study showed that more creative people have more sexual partners -- presumably because there is a survival advantage associated with creativity when the shit hits the fan.] The biggest part of any human exchange is that we all are abominably stupid, > [snip] Which is *why* we develop things like PCs, supercomputers (for simulations), Google, Wikipedia, and eventually brain augmentation, Jupiter Brains & Matrioshka Brains. There *is* hope (but you will most likely not see it in the qualia discussion...). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 14:25:56 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:25:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 12/1/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > My boss (who is new to the company) has gotten it into his head that we > > absolutely MUST have copy protection on our next software product. We make > extremely specialized test tools for development and QA engineers, not > games or graphics apps. In the entire history of our company, we have > never > used copy protection, we've never seen any use for it. > > Nonetheless, the new boss is not dissuaded. To that end, I've been ordered > to produce a report on all the available copy protection schemes and make > a > recommendation on which one we should use. > > I have written this > > http://www.magicdave.com/private/browse/CopyProtection.pdf > > and I invite any and all to critique/comment on it. I think I've reached a > correct conclusion, but I'd really like this to be bulletproof, my ass may > be riding on it. Feel free to pass it around. I have to present it next > Tuesday. > > Dave Palmer Of all of those I'd go for a USB dongle Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 15:20:19 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:20:19 -0600 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: <200512010703.jB1730e19255@tick.javien.com> References: <4D60217B-C4AD-4D72-A769-6C585CA5CCD8@mac.com> <200512010703.jB1730e19255@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Many years ago I worked with an old hippie (odd fellow, had over three hundred college hours but never got around to graduating, smart guy but dyslexic) who had manufactured LSD in his college years. Apparently if your lab technique is not *perfect* you *will* accidently dose yourself strongly, making it somewhat difficult to continue the synthesis. If it is something you are doing regularly, tolerance develops rapidly (over the course of a few days). See LSD: My Problem Child by Albert Hoffman on his discovery of LSD. http://www.flashback.se/archive/my_problem_child/ On 12/1/05, spike wrote: > > > ________________________________________ > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:26 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) > > > On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:39 PM, spike wrote: > > The danger I had in mind is accidental overdose... > > > Please refrain from writing on this subject until you get some basic > education in this area. > > > - samantha > > > I tried that, but found the results most puzzling. There > is much contradictory information. Janis Joplin did not > die of LSD overdose, it was heroin. Jim Morrison's death > certificate claims he perished of heart failure. (Well, > the old geezer *was* pushing 28.) Jimi Hendrix drowned > in barf after devouring nine sleeping pills. So I > was misinformed that all these were LSD corpses. > > In any case, Amara is right, I should stay with > the medical research. There is clearly plenty of > conflicting info, so much of it must be wrong. A > credible looking site described animal studies > which showed 12 milligrams slew 50% of the test > animals that received that dose. > > A suicide site claims LSD overdose isn't the way to > take oneself out of this world, for it would take a > few hundred normal doses to do the deed, an amount > one simply would not have on hand. (Unless one is > far too rich to be contemplating suicide.) > > So after this googlefest, I had a notion. Before the > internet I would have had not the foggiest notion on > how to cook up a batch of LSD or where to find out. This > evening I googled "make LSD" and a recipe popped up in > a fraction of a second. Reading over the chemistry, > it doesn't look as difficult as rebuilding an old > motorcycle. > > So I now sadly speculate that fatal LSD overdoses > will become much more common. Reasoning: if it requires > 120 normal doses to reach 50% chance of perishing, > ordinarily one would not have that much. But if the > masses are able to google and cook the stuff themselves, > one could have that much. Twelve milligrams could be > accidentally ingested I would think. This has all been most > educational. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 15:34:23 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:34:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Dave, I can't reach your server (DNS won't resolve) but here are my thoughts on copy protection as a game developer: It does not work. Never. Every available copy protection scheme has been cracked at least once, and that crack is made available to those who want to crack other software. People will crack your copy protection *for fun*. USB dongles are a pain to use. When we buy software that requires one, we find a crack so that we don't have to use it. Otherwise some of our developers would have three or four dongles hanging off of their machine. At some point in your code you are going to have a function to check the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and change the machine code to return true. Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your product and no crackers want to break it. Acy On 11/30/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > My boss (who is new to the company) has gotten it into his head that we > > absolutely MUST have copy protection on our next software product. We make > extremely specialized test tools for development and QA engineers, not > games or graphics apps. In the entire history of our company, we have never > used copy protection, we've never seen any use for it. > > Nonetheless, the new boss is not dissuaded. To that end, I've been ordered > to produce a report on all the available copy protection schemes and make a > recommendation on which one we should use. > > I have written this > > http://www.magicdave.com/private/browse/CopyProtection.pdf > > and I invite any and all to critique/comment on it. I think I've reached a > correct conclusion, but I'd really like this to be bulletproof, my ass may > be riding on it. Feel free to pass it around. I have to present it next > Tuesday. > > Dave Palmer > > > -- > "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice > > > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, > and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 15:58:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:58:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20051201155812.GW2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to check > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and change > the machine code to return true. Online unlocking (decrypting part of the application with a key obtained from a server or a piece of application itself) would do. > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > product and no crackers want to break it. Another model is charge for support. Then you can even opensource your package. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 1 16:32:20 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:32:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", > and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" Although I pretty much agree with your views on this subject I can quibble with the above statement. I am certain that qualia exists because I have access to my direct experience of physical sensation; if you hit me on the head with a hammer I don't need the scientific method to know that it hurts me. I am also certain that my qualia is causal because the outside world (your hammer) can change my qualia, and my qualia (pain) can change things in the outside world (your nose is now bleeding). However there is no way I can prove the existence of my qualia to you because you can not understand my direct experience of physical sensation just as I do without you becoming me. Therefore I just take it as an axiom of existence that other people experience qualia too and it is an inevitable byproduct of intelligence; and I think my axiom is as reasonable sounding as any in mathematics. John K Clark From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 16:43:00 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:43:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201155812.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> <20051201155812.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Online unlocking can be defeated by capturing the decrypted code using SoftICE or a hardware in-circuit emulator. There are numeroues methods for detecting SoftICE and other debuggers, but in the end your only solutions are to use an off-the-shelf copy protection package and accept that you will be cracked or develop your own copy protection, and expect to be cracked unless you hire an expert to develop it specifically for your product. Acy On 12/1/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to check > > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and change > > the machine code to return true. > > Online unlocking (decrypting part of the application with a key > obtained from a server or a piece of application itself) would do. > > > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > > product and no crackers want to break it. > > Another model is charge for support. Then you can even opensource > your package. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDjx2UdbAkQ4sp9r4RAvYeAKCUIgSJzeiEXDl0/ybqXCHmEWSCqwCfT82C > GeRBDlOwn+2f64tgkUJHwls= > =ailr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 1 16:43:32 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:43:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. In-Reply-To: <20051201095415.GQ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200512011643.jB1GhacK003089@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Eugene Leitl, > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:24:35AM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > represents with FF0000, we represent the same > > point in our conscious world with ? drum roll please ? the quale red. > > No. We represent that as a neuronal activity pattern. > The robot has no more internal view of its hardware > layer than you have of your pink and squishy wetware > layer between your ears. Ahhh! This is the type of response I was hopping to get from this post. As I suspected, you are missing a key piece of this theory. And to me this statement clearly shows what it is you are missing. Now notice, I am not saying this qualia theory is absolutely the one that will turn out true when the scientific evidence finally comes in. (But I am still willing to bet that it is and that in 10 years, because of this effing evidence I claim will show up by then, you will understand.) To understand this theory - and to understand what qualia is within this theory you must understand something that statements like this reveal you have no clue about. Of course there is a "neuronal activity pattern" - this is part of the theory (I prefer to call this a "neural correlate"). But what I am talking about here is the view of things from our subjective perspective. I am talking about how we have been architected to know what this information is like - at least from a subjective point of view. If you understood this concept properly you would not say something like "the robot has no more internal view of its hardware layer than you have of your pink and squishy wetware." If you ask the robot what his representation of red is like, and if it was architected to be honest and aware of it, it will say something like "Duu, I represent red with FF0000." We are most definitely architected such that we know what our representations are "like" at least from a subjective point of view. Our knowledge of the difference between red and green is what enables us to be consciously or subjectively aware of the red strawberry amongst the green leaves. When you ask a person a question like - "if you assumed this qualia theory of perception is like reality - what would you say your brain represents red with in your consciousness awareness?" And if this person did indeed correctly understand this theory (and or if this theory turned out to be true and this person was well experienced in effing new qualities he had never experienced before) - he would say something more like: "If this qualia theory of perception is right (or as effing has demonstrably proved to me), the quale red, due to its ineffable nature, cannot be adequately described to you through abstract communication. You must experience it yourself, so that your subjective architecture can know about such things, to know what it is phenomenally like." Are we making progress? Does this help? Brent Allsop From HerbM at learnquick.com Thu Dec 1 16:50:20 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:50:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Acy Stapp > > Dave, I can't reach your server (DNS won't resolve) but here are my > thoughts on copy protection as a game developer: > > It does not work. Never. Every available copy protection scheme has > been cracked at least once, and that crack is made available to those > who want to crack other software. People will crack your copy > protection *for fun*. Acy is correct. Copy protection is ALWAYS defeated by the professional and the serious crackers. Copy protection just irritates legitimate users who are the ONLY ones who cannot easily avoid it; it abuses the trust of your legitimate users and REDUCES your customer base since many of us will NEVER buy or approve the purchase of a copy protected system when any alternative exists. If copy protection works, Microsoft would and other major software producers would use it -- practically all gave it up years ago as a losing (money) proposition. > USB dongles are a pain to use. When we buy software that requires one, > we find a crack so that we don't have to use it. Otherwise some of our > developers would have three or four dongles hanging off of their > machine. > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to check > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and change > the machine code to return true. Yes. Anyone who seriously wants to break the copy protection can do so. > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > product and no crackers want to break it. Exactly. -- Herb Martin From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 1 16:57:21 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:57:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Robin Hanson" > >> You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", >> and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" > > Although I pretty much agree with your views on this subject I can > quibble with the above statement. I am certain that qualia exists > because I have access to my direct experience of physical sensation; > if you hit me on the head with a hammer I don't need the scientific > method to know that it hurts me. I am also certain that my qualia is > causal because the outside world (your hammer) can change my qualia, > and my qualia (pain) can change things in the outside world (your > nose is now bleeding). > > However there is no way I can prove the existence of my qualia to you > because you can not understand my direct experience of physical > sensation just as I do without you becoming me. John, that's like saying that you know water exists because you drink it, but scientific investigation might not be able to find water because our instruments can't actually drink water, only scientists can. Nonetheless we understand water pretty well. H20 as an object of accurate modeling and accurate prediction, and as an object of drinking, are two different ways to interact with the same molecule. I do not think that an STM fails to understand anything about an H2O molecule because someone is standing next to the STM shrieking, "But water is for drinking! Water is for DRINKING!" Drinkableness is not an extra phenomenal aspect of water which no scientific instrument can detect, even though scientific instruments don't drink. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 17:04:25 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:04:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> <20051201155812.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051201170425.GX2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:43:00AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > Online unlocking can be defeated by capturing the decrypted code using > SoftICE or a hardware in-circuit emulator. There are numeroues methods Of course. You can't defeat these attacks my means other than keying to DRM in the CPU (not quite there yet but in game consoles, and a few notebooks). However, this defeats the "just burn me a copy" and "keygen serialz, d3wd!" kinds of attack. And customers react way less grumpy to online unlocking than to chains of dangling dongles. > for detecting SoftICE and other debuggers, but in the end your only > solutions are to use an off-the-shelf copy protection package and No, I would just let the installer pull a critical part of the code from a remote server after authentication. Easy, and pretty difficult to defeat. Extra points for computing a hardware fingerprint, and generate that code server-side as-u-wait (works especially well for firmware). > accept that you will be cracked or develop your own copy protection, > and expect to be cracked unless you hire an expert to develop it > specifically for your product. You wrote the application in the first place. Why do you need an expert for online unlockin? A child of ten could program it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 17:22:28 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:22:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. In-Reply-To: <200512011643.jB1GhacK003089@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <20051201095415.GQ2249@leitl.org> <200512011643.jB1GhacK003089@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <20051201172228.GY2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:43:32AM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > Of course there is a "neuronal activity pattern" - this is part of the > theory (I prefer to call this a "neural correlate"). But what I am talking It is not a correlate. It's the thing itself. The map is the country, in this case. > about here is the view of things from our subjective perspective. I am > talking about how we have been architected to know what this information is How do you know how the robot has been architected? I could very easily grown that robot by darwin in machina (in fact, this is exactly how I would do it, and how it's being done). > like - at least from a subjective point of view. If you understood this > concept properly you would not say something like "the robot has no more Trying to be condescending is still not an argument. > internal view of its hardware layer than you have of your pink and squishy > wetware." > > If you ask the robot what his representation of red is like, and if it was > architected to be honest and aware of it, it will say something like "Duu, I > represent red with FF0000." We are most definitely architected such that we The robot has no effing idea what its representation at the physical layer is any more than you do about yours (you don't actually know when neurons are firing and which, and you could actually never resolve the details while they're occuring anyway). You're not The One. If it has evolved a code to produce "FF0000" when it means red it would say "FF0000". It could also say "it's gleu, with a tinge of prink", or "44c1725b6b306726e6ee5bcd90428aef2bf80efb!". > know what our representations are "like" at least from a subjective point of > view. Our knowledge of the difference between red and green is what enables Of course a robot has a subjective point of view, orelse you wouldn't be able to ask it a question it could answer. > us to be consciously or subjectively aware of the red strawberry amongst the > green leaves. When you ask a person a question like - "if you assumed this > qualia theory of perception is like reality - what would you say your brain > represents red with in your consciousness awareness?" And if this person > did indeed correctly understand this theory (and or if this theory turned > out to be true and this person was well experienced in effing new qualities > he had never experienced before) - he would say something more like: "If I presume you're not color-blind. I'm sorry you never 44c1725b6b306726e6ee5bcd90428aef2bf80efb, it's really quite 3721c61b39e52b74a8f4d9f2042de6f2aec3ca0a in f3611039fb19d37233538bd10679c9090cd25afc. > this qualia theory of perception is right (or as effing has demonstrably > proved to me), the quale red, due to its ineffable nature, cannot be > adequately described to you through abstract communication. You must > experience it yourself, so that your subjective architecture can know about > such things, to know what it is phenomenally like." Somebody made a common-coded statement about a measurement to another instance of a system which has also made statements in the past. If it didn't, the code transmitted didn't glork frappingly. > Are we making progress? Does this help? Nope. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 17:24:12 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:24:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201172412.76579.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And even then, expect to be cracked eventually. The fundamental problem is, your software is operating on the user's computer, which is completely under the user's control. You're not shipping a black box that can't be opened without destroying it. You're shipping a set of instructions, which sufficiently patient users (and users have a lot of patience for getting rid of that which annoys them, copy protection being a prime example) can easily* examine to remove the copy protection bit (unless it's woven into your code, in a way that either degrades performance unacceptably or raises development costs far beyond what can reasonably be paid). * Part of the problem may stem from if your boss has never reverse-engineered software, and thus sees a compiled program as an indecipherable mess of bits. There are very sophisticated tools for reverse-engineering out there, available for free or essentially free. Reverse-engineering is itself a skill that must be learned to be used; try drawing parallels to some technical skill your boss has that an average person would not - programming, preferably, since it is very easy to demonstrate that an average non-programmer sees source code as a mess of stuff well beyond their understanding, then point out that "indecipherable" compiled code is merely the same thing to the untrained. (And training said boss to see this would likely cost waaay more than would be appropriate to spend merely to prove this point, although many of the more advanced of your target users will have the skill as a job requirement, to be able to better point out where the bugs they find are.) Which suggests the one "copy protection" scheme that is actually seeing fair use these days: never put the code on the user's computer in the first place. What the user gets is a client to a service run on central servers you maintain (although, quite a few of these applications use common Web browsers - Mozilla and MSIE at a minimum - as these "clients", so as to avoid installing anything proprietary on the user's computer). All of the critical code runs only on your computers; at no point does the user's computer see (and possibly capture) this code. Of course, the downsides are that you have to keep a constantly-running server farm, which can be quite expensive if your program is computationally expensive and you have a lot of users, and your program becomes useless on computers unable to connect to your computers (or if your company ever goes out of business - which might be no problem for you, but may be a very big perceived problem for certain customers who worry about your potential long-term survival, for instance since you tolerate managers who insist on implementing long-discredited solutions like copy protection). You also generally don't get to "sell" updates to your software (although the recurring service fees from longtime users, and the lack of need to support older versions, can counter the impact of this). In general, it switches your business from a product-based revenue model to a service-based revenue model, and so should not be undertaken lightly. But it really is the only way to make absolutely sure your software is never pirated. Making your money off of support contracts is a halfway step towards this, and would also work (especially if your software is so complex it can't really be used without support - which may well be the case, given your application) in the total absence of hard (and, again, practically worthless) copy protection. --- Acy Stapp wrote: > Online unlocking can be defeated by capturing the decrypted code > using > SoftICE or a hardware in-circuit emulator. There are numeroues > methods > for detecting SoftICE and other debuggers, but in the end your only > solutions are to use an off-the-shelf copy protection package and > accept that you will be cracked or develop your own copy protection, > and expect to be cracked unless you hire an expert to develop it > specifically for your product. > > Acy > > On 12/1/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > > > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to > check > > > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and > change > > > the machine code to return true. > > > > Online unlocking (decrypting part of the application with a key > > obtained from a server or a piece of application itself) would do. > > > > > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > > > product and no crackers want to break it. > > > > Another model is charge for support. Then you can even opensource > > your package. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFDjx2UdbAkQ4sp9r4RAvYeAKCUIgSJzeiEXDl0/ybqXCHmEWSCqwCfT82C > > GeRBDlOwn+2f64tgkUJHwls= > > =ailr > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 17:24:36 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:24:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201172436.99073.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And even then, expect to be cracked eventually. The fundamental problem is, your software is operating on the user's computer, which is completely under the user's control. You're not shipping a black box that can't be opened without destroying it. You're shipping a set of instructions, which sufficiently patient users (and users have a lot of patience for getting rid of that which annoys them, copy protection being a prime example) can easily* examine to remove the copy protection bit (unless it's woven into your code, in a way that either degrades performance unacceptably or raises development costs far beyond what can reasonably be paid). * Part of the problem may stem from if your boss has never reverse-engineered software, and thus sees a compiled program as an indecipherable mess of bits. There are very sophisticated tools for reverse-engineering out there, available for free or essentially free. Reverse-engineering is itself a skill that must be learned to be used; try drawing parallels to some technical skill your boss has that an average person would not - programming, preferably, since it is very easy to demonstrate that an average non-programmer sees source code as a mess of stuff well beyond their understanding, then point out that "indecipherable" compiled code is merely the same thing to the untrained. (And training said boss to see this would likely cost waaay more than would be appropriate to spend merely to prove this point, although many of the more advanced of your target users will have the skill as a job requirement, to be able to better point out where the bugs they find are.) Which suggests the one "copy protection" scheme that is actually seeing fair use these days: never put the code on the user's computer in the first place. What the user gets is a client to a service run on central servers you maintain (although, quite a few of these applications use common Web browsers - Mozilla and MSIE at a minimum - as these "clients", so as to avoid installing anything proprietary on the user's computer). All of the critical code runs only on your computers; at no point does the user's computer see (and possibly capture) this code. Of course, the downsides are that you have to keep a constantly-running server farm, which can be quite expensive if your program is computationally expensive and you have a lot of users, and your program becomes useless on computers unable to connect to your computers (or if your company ever goes out of business - which might be no problem for you, but may be a very big perceived problem for certain customers who worry about your potential long-term survival, for instance since you tolerate managers who insist on implementing long-discredited solutions like copy protection). You also generally don't get to "sell" updates to your software (although the recurring service fees from longtime users, and the lack of need to support older versions, can counter the impact of this). In general, it switches your business from a product-based revenue model to a service-based revenue model, and so should not be undertaken lightly. But it really is the only way to make absolutely sure your software is never pirated. Making your money off of support contracts is a halfway step towards this, and would also work (especially if your software is so complex it can't really be used without support - which may well be the case, given your application) in the total absence of hard (and, again, practically worthless) copy protection. --- Acy Stapp wrote: > Online unlocking can be defeated by capturing the decrypted code > using > SoftICE or a hardware in-circuit emulator. There are numeroues > methods > for detecting SoftICE and other debuggers, but in the end your only > solutions are to use an off-the-shelf copy protection package and > accept that you will be cracked or develop your own copy protection, > and expect to be cracked unless you hire an expert to develop it > specifically for your product. > > Acy > > On 12/1/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > > > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to > check > > > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and > change > > > the machine code to return true. > > > > Online unlocking (decrypting part of the application with a key > > obtained from a server or a piece of application itself) would do. > > > > > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > > > product and no crackers want to break it. > > > > Another model is charge for support. Then you can even opensource > > your package. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFDjx2UdbAkQ4sp9r4RAvYeAKCUIgSJzeiEXDl0/ybqXCHmEWSCqwCfT82C > > GeRBDlOwn+2f64tgkUJHwls= > > =ailr > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 17:24:56 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:24:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201172456.55833.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And even then, expect to be cracked eventually. The fundamental problem is, your software is operating on the user's computer, which is completely under the user's control. You're not shipping a black box that can't be opened without destroying it. You're shipping a set of instructions, which sufficiently patient users (and users have a lot of patience for getting rid of that which annoys them, copy protection being a prime example) can easily* examine to remove the copy protection bit (unless it's woven into your code, in a way that either degrades performance unacceptably or raises development costs far beyond what can reasonably be paid). * Part of the problem may stem from if your boss has never reverse-engineered software, and thus sees a compiled program as an indecipherable mess of bits. There are very sophisticated tools for reverse-engineering out there, available for free or essentially free. Reverse-engineering is itself a skill that must be learned to be used; try drawing parallels to some technical skill your boss has that an average person would not - programming, preferably, since it is very easy to demonstrate that an average non-programmer sees source code as a mess of stuff well beyond their understanding, then point out that "indecipherable" compiled code is merely the same thing to the untrained. (And training said boss to see this would likely cost waaay more than would be appropriate to spend merely to prove this point, although many of the more advanced of your target users will have the skill as a job requirement, to be able to better point out where the bugs they find are.) Which suggests the one "copy protection" scheme that is actually seeing fair use these days: never put the code on the user's computer in the first place. What the user gets is a client to a service run on central servers you maintain (although, quite a few of these applications use common Web browsers - Mozilla and MSIE at a minimum - as these "clients", so as to avoid installing anything proprietary on the user's computer). All of the critical code runs only on your computers; at no point does the user's computer see (and possibly capture) this code. Of course, the downsides are that you have to keep a constantly-running server farm, which can be quite expensive if your program is computationally expensive and you have a lot of users, and your program becomes useless on computers unable to connect to your computers (or if your company ever goes out of business - which might be no problem for you, but may be a very big perceived problem for certain customers who worry about your potential long-term survival, for instance since you tolerate managers who insist on implementing long-discredited solutions like copy protection). You also generally don't get to "sell" updates to your software (although the recurring service fees from longtime users, and the lack of need to support older versions, can counter the impact of this). In general, it switches your business from a product-based revenue model to a service-based revenue model, and so should not be undertaken lightly. But it really is the only way to make absolutely sure your software is never pirated. Making your money off of support contracts is a halfway step towards this, and would also work (especially if your software is so complex it can't really be used without support - which may well be the case, given your application) in the total absence of hard (and, again, practically worthless) copy protection. --- Acy Stapp wrote: > Online unlocking can be defeated by capturing the decrypted code > using > SoftICE or a hardware in-circuit emulator. There are numeroues > methods > for detecting SoftICE and other debuggers, but in the end your only > solutions are to use an off-the-shelf copy protection package and > accept that you will be cracked or develop your own copy protection, > and expect to be cracked unless you hire an expert to develop it > specifically for your product. > > Acy > > On 12/1/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > > > At some point in your code you are going to have a function to > check > > > the copy protection and a cracker will find this function and > change > > > the machine code to return true. > > > > Online unlocking (decrypting part of the application with a key > > obtained from a server or a piece of application itself) would do. > > > > > Really your only hope is to be so obscure that noone wants your > > > product and no crackers want to break it. > > > > Another model is charge for support. Then you can even opensource > > your package. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFDjx2UdbAkQ4sp9r4RAvYeAKCUIgSJzeiEXDl0/ybqXCHmEWSCqwCfT82C > > GeRBDlOwn+2f64tgkUJHwls= > > =ailr > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 17:32:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:32:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report Message-ID: <20051201173211.50313.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry for the triple-post. Mail software hiccup. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 17:32:55 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:32:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200511301654.jAUGsV82000383@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200511301654.jAUGsV82000383@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:54:26 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > I bet there is a whole universe full of phenomenal qualities no humanhas > yet experienced. Surely there is much more than what it is likejust to > be a bat! What about "what it is like" to be an insect? Or what about a bacterium? In your view does the question still make sense? In trying to understand the possibility of so called "effing technology" I find myself wondering more about what you call "phenomenal qualities". Is the red quale a phenomenal property of red light (in which case it is universal)? Or is it a property of the neural correlates of seeing red (in which case it may be different for each person)? -gts From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 17:44:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:44:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201172412.76579.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051201172412.76579.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051201174455.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:24:12AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > And even then, expect to be cracked eventually. The fundamental > problem is, your software is operating on the user's computer, which is Assuming, it's not palladium-plated, or nagscabbed. The XBox key was only snarfed because bus traffic was in clear. If the lane between CPU and chipset is encrypted, or if the key resides within the CPU itself and executes cypher the user never sees plain in the first place. Debuggers and emulators are useless, because they a) never see plain b) don't know the secret which the executable is keyed to. Exploits *could* still work, but not necessarily. Of course this means "your" computer is no longer yours, and by default doesn't trust you and keeps secrets from you. I'm sure they'll try selling you real estate in Brooklyn, next. > completely under the user's control. You're not shipping a black box Don't act too paranoid, but they're changing it *right now*. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 18:24:19 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:24:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201174455.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051201182419.73313.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:24:12AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > And even then, expect to be cracked eventually. The fundamental > > problem is, your software is operating on the user's computer, > which is > > Assuming, it's not palladium-plated, or nagscabbed. There are ways to remove these things. > The XBox > key was only snarfed because bus traffic was in clear. If > the lane between CPU and chipset is encrypted, or if the key > resides within the CPU itself and executes cypher the > user never sees plain in the first place. Hacker: "Ooh! A *challenge*!" (a short while later) Hacker: "Okay, kiddies, here's how you get the cypher..." One can also open up the CPU itself (or maybe the chipset), with the right tools. > Of course this means "your" computer is no longer yours, and > by default doesn't trust you and keeps secrets from you. > I'm sure they'll try selling you real estate in Brooklyn, next. True. As has been pointed out, various executives at major vendors like Microsoft and Intel keep trying to push this and then having to back off when (almost never if) it degenerates into a public relations fiasco (minor or, occasionally, major). > Don't act too paranoid, but they're changing it *right now*. Of course. That's why this thread exists right now: someone's boss is trying to implement this right now, and our friend seeks counter-arguments to stop that right now. > No, I would just let the installer pull a critical part of the > code from a remote server after authentication. Easy, and pretty > difficult to defeat. Nope. Just get one legit install, then pull that critical part of the code onto others. > Extra points for computing a hardware > fingerprint, > and generate that code server-side as-u-wait (works especially well > for firmware). Compare two installs. See where they differ. That's where the fingerprint lies. Figure how to generate the fingerprint, and you've got infinitely many installs. (And, what if the user changes their hardware? They expect it to still work, and may be motivated to change to your competitor if, say, swapping hard drives once a drive breaks invalidates the fingerprint and requires purchasing another install.) > You wrote the application in the first place. Why do you need an > expert for online unlockin? A child of ten could program it. Am expert for unlocking, period. A child of ten would put it in a separate subroutine, where it can simply be removed from the rest of the code (or altered to return whatever the value for "authorized" is) by any user with a hex editor. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 19:28:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:28:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200511301654.jAUGsV82000383@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: This is John Locke talking about Brent's idea of "phenomenal properties". Locke called them "secondary qualities". (Same thing, Brent?) ==== 23. So the qualities that are in bodies are of three sorts. First, the size, shape, number, position, and motion or rest of their solid parts; those are in them, whether or not we perceive them; and when they are big enough for us to perceive them they give us our idea of what kind of thing it is - as clearly happens with artifacts. ?For example, we recognize a clock or a coach from how its visible parts are assembled, without need for guesswork about its submicroscopic features. I call these primary qualities. Secondly, the power that a body has, by reason of its imperceptible primary qualities, to operate in a special way on one of our senses, thereby producing in us the different ideas of various colours, sounds, smells, tastes, etc. These are usually called sensible qualities. ?I call them secondary qualities. Thirdly, the power that a body has, by virtue of the particular set-up of its primary qualities, to change the size, shape, texture or motion of another body so as to make the latter operate on our senses differently from how it did before. Thus the sun has a power to make wax white, and fire to make lead fluid. These are usually called powers. The first of these, I repeat, may be properly called real, original, or primary qualities, because they are in the things themselves, whether or not they are perceived. It is upon different modifications of them that the secondary qualities depend. [A ?modification? of a quality is a special case of it, a quality that involves it and more. Squareness is a modification of shapedness, which is a modification of extendedness.] The other two are only powers to act differently upon other things, which powers result from the different modifications of those primary qualities. John Locke, _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ ==== -gts From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 1 20:21:53 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:21:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201182419.73313.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051201174455.GZ2249@leitl.org> <20051201182419.73313.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:24:19AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Assuming, it's not palladium-plated, or nagscabbed. > > There are ways to remove these things. The system is not going to be officially FIPS 140-1/140-2 certified and is probably not even going to be tamper-responding. However, do you know many who could launch an attack like several described in http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/sc99-tamper.pdf (notice that the state of the art in protection has advanced since), given that you only extract *a single key*? That's got to be some truly expensive piece of software to warrant the effort. Would you spend 200 k$ in order to be able to make copies of one piece of software? > > The XBox > > key was only snarfed because bus traffic was in clear. If > > the lane between CPU and chipset is encrypted, or if the key > > resides within the CPU itself and executes cypher the > > user never sees plain in the first place. > > Hacker: "Ooh! A *challenge*!" > (a short while later) > Hacker: "Okay, kiddies, here's how you get the cypher..." Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. Your hacker will get one (1) key. He will not get a meta-method by which other keys can be extracted. This is different from DVD and BluRay. > One can also open up the CPU itself (or maybe the chipset), with the > right tools. Etching away the packaging (assuming, it won't destroy the secret) alone gives you nothing. "Invasive Attacks Depackaging of Smartcards Invasive attacks start with the removal of the chip package. We heat the card plastic until it becomes flexible. This softens the glue and the chip module can then be removed easily by bending the card. We cover the chip module with 20???50 ml of fuming nitric acid heated to around 60 C and wait for the black epoxy res in that encapsulates the silicon die to completely dissolve (Fig. 1). The procedure should preferably be carried out under very dry conditions, as the presence of water could corrode exposed aluminium interconnects. The chip is then washed with 2 The next step in an invasive attack on a new processor is to create a map of it. We use an optical microscope with a CCD camera to produce several meter large mosaics of high-resolution photographs of the chip surface. Basic architectural structures, such as data and address bus lines, can be identified quite quickly by studying connectivity patterns" Noticed something? Remember, all you for your pain is just one (1) key. > True. As has been pointed out, various executives at major vendors > like Microsoft and Intel keep trying to push this and then having to > back off when (almost never if) it degenerates into a public relations > fiasco (minor or, occasionally, major). TPM is being shipped in many systems as we speak. Just as in DRM (the rights are being taken away from you), with TPM the computer no longer trusts its owner (and the owner no longer can trust his computer). > > Don't act too paranoid, but they're changing it *right now*. > > Of course. That's why this thread exists right now: someone's boss is > trying to implement this right now, and our friend seeks > counter-arguments to stop that right now. The general public a) is not aware what it is buying b) does not oppose DRM because it craves premium content so badly it waives its firstborn in the EULA. > > No, I would just let the installer pull a critical part of the > > code from a remote server after authentication. Easy, and pretty > > difficult to defeat. > > Nope. Just get one legit install, then pull that critical part of the > code onto others. Here's an Office install. Please fashion an installable package from it. Oh, I forgot, it's self-decrypting from system fingerprint, so you'll have do some extra work. Can *you* do it? Do you know many people who can? If you don't -- mission accomplished. > > Extra points for computing a hardware > > fingerprint, > > and generate that code server-side as-u-wait (works especially well > > for firmware). > > Compare two installs. See where they differ. That's where the 1) You will need *two* installs 2) Have you ever compared two live installations? 3) Have you heard of chaff? Watermarks? > fingerprint lies. Figure how to generate the fingerprint, and you've Have fun tracing the (obfuscated and stripped) installer. I have truly not expected demigod hackers on this list, I must admit. > got infinitely many installs. (And, what if the user changes their > hardware? They expect it to still work, and may be motivated to change Three strikes, and you're out (have to call the support line). > to your competitor if, say, swapping hard drives once a drive breaks > invalidates the fingerprint and requires purchasing another install.) Yes, ain't DRM a bitch. > > You wrote the application in the first place. Why do you need an > > expert for online unlockin? A child of ten could program it. > > Am expert for unlocking, period. A child of ten would put it in a > separate subroutine, where it can simply be removed from the rest of > the code (or altered to return whatever the value for "authorized" is) > by any user with a hex editor. You might be surprised that things have changed since the Commodore 64 days. There aren't too many users with hex editors these days, and you don't really want to handle a 300 MByte installation at that level. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 1 20:35:11 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:35:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com> Message-ID: <001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > John, that's like saying that you know water exists because you drink it, > but scientific investigation might not be able to find water because our > instruments can't actually drink water, only scientists can. Nonetheless > we understand water pretty well. H20 as an object of accurate modeling > and accurate prediction, and as an object of drinking, are two different > ways to interact with the same molecule. I do not think that an STM fails > to understand anything about an H2O molecule because someone is standing > next to the STM shrieking, "But water is for drinking! Water is for > DRINKING!" Drinkableness is not an extra phenomenal aspect of water which > no scientific instrument can detect, even though scientific instruments > don't drink. Eliezer I strongly disagree, or at least I think I strongly disagree but I'd better make sure. Luckily I just got delivery by UPS of one of Acme Corporation's new top of the line model 2186 Brain Analyzing Machines; pardon me a second while I put this on my head and... well I'll be damned! Eliezer I owe you an apology because according to the machine I actually think I strongly AGREE with you! I never would have guessed that in a million years but the machine is never wrong and the meter is clearly pegged at "agree". Or at least I think it's pegged at "agree", but I better double check. Oh no! I'm wrong again; the infallible machine says I really think the meter is pegged at "disagree". Or at least I think the meter says I disagree that the meter says I agree with you. But just to make sure I'd better use the machine again and... John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 1 21:03:25 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:03:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com> <001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <438F651D.6020008@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > >> John, that's like saying that you know water exists because you >> drink it, but scientific investigation might not be able to find >> water because our instruments can't actually drink water, only >> scientists can. Nonetheless we understand water pretty well. H20 >> as an object of accurate modeling and accurate prediction, and as >> an object of drinking, are two different ways to interact with the >> same molecule. I do not think that an STM fails to understand >> anything about an H2O molecule because someone is standing next to >> the STM shrieking, "But water is for drinking! Water is for >> DRINKING!" Drinkableness is not an extra phenomenal aspect of >> water which no scientific instrument can detect, even though >> scientific instruments don't drink. > > Eliezer I strongly disagree, or at least I think I strongly disagree > but I'd better make sure. Luckily I just got delivery by UPS of one > of Acme Corporation's new top of the line model 2186 Brain Analyzing > Machines; pardon me a second while I put this on my head and... well > I'll be damned! Eliezer I owe you an apology because according to the > machine I actually think I strongly AGREE with you! I never would > have guessed that in a million years but the machine is never wrong > and the meter is clearly pegged at "agree". Or at least I think it's > pegged at "agree", but I better double check. Oh no! I'm wrong again; > the infallible machine says I really think the meter is pegged at > "disagree". Or at least I think the meter says I disagree that the > meter says I agree with you. But just to make sure I'd better use the > machine again and... So your machine is malfunctioning and producing bad information about your brain. Do you really think that you can disagree with me without there being any readable sign of it in your neural configuration? Can you change from disagreeing to agreeing while your brain remains constant? Seriously, I don't get what you're saying here. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:37:42 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:37:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:08:55 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of > models as what you describe these software robots doing. Thecritical > difference is - all of our conscious knowledge or models arerepresented > with qualia - rather than abstract information representedby arbitrary > causal properties. But perhaps we can consider qualia as a type of idea or abstraction, something like what Acy and Marc have suggested. Acy says: > I assert that qualia are merely tokens to enable conscious cognition > about subconscious processes. And Marc says: > I proposed an equivalence between qualia and mathematical sets. -gts From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 1 21:42:33 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:42:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512012142.jB1LgbpT026840@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts, >>> Is the red quale a phenomenal property of red light (in which case it is universal)? Or is it a property of the neural correlates of seeing red (in which case it may be different for each person)? <<< I think this should be obvious since we could splice a color inverter in your optic nerve so the strawberry is now represented by green and the leaves with red and yet the light or the nature of the strawberry it is reflecting off of have not changed at all. Or you could put a person in a room with no light, stimulate his visual cortex appropriately - and he will experience red. > This is John Locke talking about Brent's idea of "phenomenal properties". > > Locke called them "secondary qualities". (Same thing, Brent?) No, people like Locke and so many others that worked so hard to argue about direct perception and such were just idiots like the robot I described falsely thinking its knowledge was the real thing. >>> Secondly, the power that a body has, by reason of its imperceptible primary qualities, Primary qualities are obviously causal and therefore detectable and therefore perceptible by us and by abstract computers. >>>> to operate in a special way on one of our senses, Anything causally upstream from our senses has nothing to do with qualia and qualia do not "operate in a special way on our senses." Qualia are the final result of the perception process - causally downstream from our senses, in our brain, not the initial cause. That is - if this particular theory is the one that is correct. Brent Allsop From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 21:45:50 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:45:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <438F651D.6020008@pobox.com> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com> <001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> <438F651D.6020008@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512011345n326bdb55u5f91892fed55e055@mail.gmail.com> On 12/1/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > So your machine is malfunctioning and producing bad information about > your brain. Do you really think that you can disagree with me without > there being any readable sign of it in your neural configuration? Can > you change from disagreeing to agreeing while your brain remains > constant? Seriously, I don't get what you're saying here. > I think he's taking the piss out of the "qualia are a mysterious thing distinct from brain functioning, but all will become clear when we invent a special machine to read them" crowd. (I thought it was amusing, though correct me if I'm wrong, John.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 22:15:36 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:15:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > The system is not going to be officially FIPS 140-1/140-2 certified > and is probably not even going to be tamper-responding. However, do > you know many who could launch an attack like several described in > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/sc99-tamper.pdf (notice that the > state of the art in protection has advanced since), given that > you only extract *a single key*? Actually, I do know quite a handful of people who could and would, if (and this is the kicker) they used that software or worked for someone who did, and somehow did not have the authority to reject the software outright because the manufacturer is obviously so worried about their own profits that user functionality is given short shrift, so the customer would get better value for their time and money elsewhere. > That's got to be some truly > expensive > piece of software to warrant the effort. > > Would you spend 200 k$ in order to be able to make copies of one > piece of software? I've seen software where people claimed a single install license was worth at least $200K. Quite a few of them still tried to used copy protection. I don't believe I'm allowed to say how many of them (or which ones at which clients) were hacked as a matter of course, but I can say it wasn't zero. > > > The XBox > > > key was only snarfed because bus traffic was in clear. If > > > the lane between CPU and chipset is encrypted, or if the key > > > resides within the CPU itself and executes cypher the > > > user never sees plain in the first place. > > > > Hacker: "Ooh! A *challenge*!" > > (a short while later) > > Hacker: "Okay, kiddies, here's how you get the cypher..." > > Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. Your hacker will get one (1) key. > He will not get a meta-method by which other keys can be extracted. > This is different from DVD and BluRay. The hacker isn't doing it to get the key. The hacker is testing a procedure to get the key. The hacker then publishes the method. If the hacker's method isn't cheap, other people publish refinements - hacks of the hack, if you will - to make it so. > "Invasive Attacks > Depackaging of Smartcards > > Invasive attacks start with the removal of the chip package. We heat > the card plastic until it becomes flexible. This softens the glue and > the chip module can > then be removed easily by bending the card. We cover the chip module > with 20???50 ml of fuming nitric acid heated to around 60 C and wait > for the black epoxy res > in that encapsulates the silicon die to completely dissolve (Fig. 1). > The procedure should preferably be carried out under very dry > conditions, as the presence > of water could corrode exposed aluminium interconnects. The chip is > then washed with 2 > > The next step in an invasive attack on a new processor is to create a > map of it. We use an optical microscope with a CCD camera to produce > several meter large > mosaics of high-resolution photographs of the chip surface. Basic > architectural structures, such as data and address bus lines, can be > identified quite quickly > by studying connectivity patterns" > > Noticed something? Remember, all you for your pain is just one (1) > key. The basic architectural standards will remain the same from chip to chip. This includes the location of the circuits which encode the key. Simpler methods to obtain the key from similar chips can then be deduced - say, using remote sensing which induces current through the packaging, or a specific (undocumented) series of inputs to the chip. > TPM is being shipped in many systems as we speak. Just as in DRM > (the rights are being taken away from you), with TPM the computer > no longer trusts its owner (and the owner no longer can trust his > computer). You mean this TPM? http://www.hackinthebox.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18613&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 (For those who don't want to click: the link goes to a news post detailing the latest version a set of of TPM hacking tools, implying it's been rather thoroughly defeated.) > The general public a) is not aware what it is buying b) does not > oppose DRM because it craves premium content so badly it waives > its firstborn in the EULA. You mean this type of EULA? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/28/us_court_ruling_nixes_software/ (For those who don't want to click: it's about a ruling in the 2001 case of Adobe vs. Softman that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, that shrinkwrap EULAs are completely invalid. It's only a local court ruling, but it seems to be the highest precedent for EULAs so far. If anyone pressed it to a higher court, and the court upheld the precedent as many courts often do, EULAs would lose their value even as a threat in whatever area the court had jurisdiction over.) ...okay, I'll stop now. ^_^; > Here's an Office install. Please fashion an installable package from > it. > Oh, I forgot, it's self-decrypting from system fingerprint, so you'll > have do some extra work. > > Can *you* do it? Do you know many people who can? If I had sufficient motivation. (No, proving a point in discussion isn't enough, especially if there's doubts that even that would honestly convince you.) I also know people who would do it for enough money - say, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - and a tightly written contract to prevent you from getting out of it with "clarifications of what I meant" after they produce something that will install Office on a Windows computer. Although, frankly, if my motivation was just to get cracked Office software, I'd probably get it faster (and with a lot less effort) by combing the Web for others who have done it. Office isn't $200K per install - closer to $200 - and my time *is* valuable. If I simply want to use the thing for less money - which is, in the end, the most common motivation in these cases - I don't care much about whether I crack it myself, except as a means to an end. > > > Extra points for computing a hardware > > > fingerprint, > > > and generate that code server-side as-u-wait (works especially > well > > > for firmware). > > > > Compare two installs. See where they differ. That's where the > > 1) You will need *two* installs So? The desired end result is lots and lots of installs. Paying for only 2 installs is nothing if you're worried about paying for 100 installs. > 2) Have you ever compared two live installations? > 3) Have you heard of chaff? Watermarks? Yes and yes. So I duplicate the watermarks too. > Have fun tracing the (obfuscated and stripped) installer. I have > truly > not expected demigod hackers on this list, I must admit. *cough* Not to brag too much, but yes, I have been paid to hack systems before. Of course, I'll only cop to completely lawful instances, like this one where some people I built a system for (writing my own code) lost the administrator password, and hired me to hack back in through my own security to fetch it. They owned the system; the only copyright violations were with the full knowledge and consent of all relevant copyright owners. Good thing they only wanted it to be secure against network intrusions, but were willing to give me physical access. I also know hackers who are far, far better than I am, and when to turn to them for a job. > Three strikes, and you're out (have to call the support line). And you're using a competitor's product. The point of this is that trying to require copy protection winds up losing sales - over and above how well it does or doesn't work. > Yes, ain't DRM a bitch. Enough to motivate an average user of that complex a system - and, let's face it, $200K-per-install software kind of implies only technical, sophisticated users with enough business behind them to afford it (and who are smart enough to know when they're being played like this) - to go elsewhere. > You might be surprised that things have changed since the Commodore > 64 days. > There aren't too many users with hex editors these days, and you > don't really > want to handle a 300 MByte installation at that level. Only the hacker needs a hex editor. The hacker can then write a program for script kiddies to download, with knowledge gleaned from the hex editor. (Actually, that's not hypothetical - that's how it really does happen sometimes.) By the way, if you want a good hex editor for Windows, http://www.jbrowse.com/products/axe/ has given me fairly good results. Note their pricing: the price itself is part of the copy protection, because they know most of their users know when something's cheap enough to be easier to buy than to hack. (In fact, it could be argued that this is the only form that really works. Commercial pirating operations have to be able to sell far enough below the manufacturer to be noticed, but high enough above their own costs to make a profit. Noncommercial pirating operations are more about face value than actual money, so they aren't competitors in the traditional sense - and enough has been written about how commercial operations can tolerate or even take advantage of them that I shouldn't have to repeat it here.) From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 22:16:58 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:16:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512012142.jB1LgbpT026840@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512012142.jB1LgbpT026840@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:42:33 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: >> Is the red quale a phenomenal property of red light (in which case it >> is universal)? Or is it a property of the neural correlates of seeing >> red (in which case it may be different for each person)? > ...you could put a person in room with no light, stimulate his visual > cortex appropriately - and he will experience red. I take this to mean you think red is a phenomenal property of the neural correlates of seeing red, which leaves open the question of how we can ever know if A sees red like B sees it. I suspect brains are as unique as fingerprints. But if the red quale is a property of red objects, or in Locke's terms a secondary quality of red objects, then there is something we can call the "absolute red quale". Our job would then be a matter of duplicating that quale in two or more people. >> Locke called them "secondary qualities". (Same thing, Brent?) > > No, people like Locke and so many others that worked so hard to argue > about direct perception and such were just idiots John Locke was an idiot? :) Actually I think his thoughts on this subject might be helpful. > qualia do not "operate in a special way on our senses." That was not his meaning. Locke meant that objects with secondary qualities "operate in a special way on our senses" i.e., that secondary qualities of objects produce qualia. For example "whiteness" is not an *intrinsic* or *primary* quality of snow. After all snow is made of clear water and ice. But white is still a quality of snow, because snow *looks* white. Locke calls that a secondary quality of snow. He viewed secondary qualities (and tertiary qualities, not very relevant here) as *powers* of objects. Secondary qualities are the powers of objects to produce qualia in the experience of an observer. If they exist in any absolute sense then maybe true effing would be possible. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 22:31:43 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:31:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... Message-ID: As is being reported in Wired [1], a number of luddites in Alaska have joined forces to oppose the home installation of a used cyclotron [2] from Johns Hopkins by engineer Albert Swank in his Anchorage home. Now I grew up with some cool things... A "real" pinball machine, a self-built model railroad set, a chemistry set, a basement room full of old electronics equipment, diamond saws, rock polishers and gem grinders, a welding machine, lots of shop tools and have graduated to doing more advanced stuff over the years like building DNA sequencers, CCD cameras (for astronomy but adaptable to DNA sequencing), etc. But never in my wildest dreams did I consider the possibility of a CAH (cyclotron at home). Now, one might ask *why* one would want a cyclotron at home? After all the electricity to run it isn't going to come cheap. The answer of course is to manufacture gadolinium-148. I won't make bets, but I'll buy a drink or two at the next Extro/WTA conference I attend for the person who explains *why* one needs gadolinium-148. :-; Interestingly enough gadolinium popped up in the news today as its oxide may be a possible replacement for SiO2 in semiconductor chips [3]. Robert 1. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69726,00.html?tw=rss.TOP 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron 3. http://www.physorg.com/news8528.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 1 23:06:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > I won't make bets, but I'll buy a drink or two at the next Extro/WTA > conference I attend for the person who explains *why* one needs > gadolinium-148. :-; It's an alpha particle emitter with a 75 year half-life. Pretty stable, among radioactive elements. There are, of course, numerous applications for alpha particles, this being one of the long-studied forms of radiation. That said, on first glance, I can forgive the luddites for being nervous about their neighbor wanting to work with highly radioactive (and, I believe, legislatively controlled) substances in a home (and therefore probably not thoroughly protected) environment. Playing around with radioactives without proper precautions is just begging for trouble - and the worst case could well wind up poisoning the neighbors, so even the strongest libertarians among them would have cause for concern. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 23:27:43 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:27:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> On 12/1/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I won't make bets, but I'll buy a drink or two at the next Extro/WTA > > conference I attend for the person who explains *why* one needs > > gadolinium-148. :-; > Nanomedicine Volume 1: Basic Capabilites, [157-58] Don't you have a copy on the shelf? Okay, try here. http://purpleslurple.net/ps.php?theurl=http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.3.7.1.htm#purp164 How about picking a charity you like instead? Heifer International, perhaps? -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 1 23:29:48 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:29:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512011529o26b0ed0ay72c89147ac2494e7@mail.gmail.com> On 12/1/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Now, one might ask *why* one would want a cyclotron at home? After all the > electricity to run it isn't going to come cheap. The answer of course is to > manufacture gadolinium-148. > > I won't make bets, but I'll buy a drink or two at the next Extro/WTA > conference I attend for the person who explains *why* one needs > gadolinium-148. :-; The most interesting thing I can think of doing with Gd-148 would be making small compact energy sources, possibly for nanodevices. - Jef From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 23:49:32 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:49:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: References: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: To clarify my position, a quale is a neural spike in the reflective component of the brain representing a sense impression and is fundamentally no different than any other mental concept. If I see a black door, there are some neurons firing that are the qualia of "blackness", some firing which are the qualia of "doorness" and some firing which are the qualia of "recognizing blackness and doorness", and some firing which are the qualia of "thinking about qualia" and some firing which are the qualia of "experiencing my own mental state". All of these ascend from different regions in my brain but are integrated in one area where they are reflected upon and processed. Qualia are simply the inputs to my reflective process. Acy On 12/1/05, gts wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:08:55 -0500, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of > > models as what you describe these software robots doing. Thecritical > > difference is - all of our conscious knowledge or models arerepresented > > with qualia - rather than abstract information representedby arbitrary > > causal properties. > > But perhaps we can consider qualia as a type of idea or abstraction, > something like what Acy and Marc have suggested. > > Acy says: > > > I assert that qualia are merely tokens to enable conscious cognition > > about subconscious processes. > > -gts -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 2 00:05:32 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:05:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com><001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> <438F651D.6020008@pobox.com> Message-ID: <01a101c5f6d4$559ded00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer SO. Yudkowsky" > So your machine is malfunctioning and producing bad > information about your brain. No, you're not getting out of this that easily. You say a machines such as I described in Acme's as operating is possible, but the trouble is I have absolutely positively 100% no reason to think my machine is not one of those wonderful perfect machines you were talking about. Well, I dare you, I double dog dare you, show me even a hint that my machine is objectively wrong. In fact I know with absolute positive certainty that my machine is one of those evil pristine perfect entities, I know this because a demigod told it to me in a dream, a demigod who was born on December 25. I am referring of course to Isaac Newton. > Do you really think that you can disagree with me > without there being any readable sign of it in your > neural configuration? I don't know if I can really think that or not, you'll have to wait while I see what the machine says I think; and that machine is every bit as good as the marvelous STM microscope you were talking about, in fact it's one hell of a lot better. > Can you change from disagreeing to agreeing while > your brain remains constant? I have no idea, why ask me? I am not the ultimate authority on what I agree or disagree with; the new Acme Corporation's new top of the line model 2186 Brain Neural Analyzing Machines is the one to ask what I believe. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Fri Dec 2 02:45:21 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:45:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <01a101c5f6d4$559ded00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <438F2B71.5010905@pobox.com><001e01c5f6b7$088eee00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> <438F651D.6020008@pobox.com> <01a101c5f6d4$559ded00$e10d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <438FB541.4000305@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > > I have no idea, why ask me? I am not the ultimate authority on what I agree > or disagree with; the new Acme Corporation's new top of the line model > 2186 Brain Neural Analyzing Machines is the one to ask what I believe. Sorry, I still can't figure out what point you're trying to make. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Dec 2 03:10:05 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:10:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> At 11:32 AM 12/1/2005, John K Clark wrote: >>You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", >>and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" > >Although I pretty much agree with your views on this subject I can quibble >with the above statement. I am certain that qualia exists because I have >access to my direct experience of physical sensation; if you hit me on the >head with a hammer I don't need the scientific method to know that it hurts >me. I am also certain that my qualia is causal because the outside world >(your hammer) can change my qualia, and my qualia (pain) can change >things in the outside world (your nose is now bleeding). > >However there is no way I can prove the existence of my qualia to you >because you can not understand my direct experience of physical sensation >just as I do without you becoming me. Therefore I just take it as an axiom >of existence that other people experience qualia too and it is an inevitable >byproduct of intelligence; and I think my axiom is as reasonable sounding as >any in mathematics. I pretty much agree with Eliezer - If you can see your qualia, then if we could watch your brain closely enough we could see whatever you see. I think it is more accurate to say that we are built to assume that we have direct experience. Our brain is made to tell us that of course we have it. But assuming something is different from having evidence of it. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 04:24:12 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:24:12 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512012024k56d25807j6cb11dd1b7a28364@mail.gmail.com> On 12/2/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > I didn't say anything about "material" causality, whatever that > means; I only talked about causality. We can only ever get any > evidence about things that have causal connections to us, and that > includes dark matter, extra dimensions, God, morality, and > qualia. If qualia properties of things cannot at least indirectly > cause changes in us, they cannot be the cause of our beliefs about > anything, including qualia. And if qualia properties exist and can > cause changes in us, then careful scientific investigation should > eventually find clear evidence of them. Well I totally agree with you here. No disagreement so far. But it doesn't follow that the explanation for consciousness will turn out to be *plain* physics, only that it will be *some* kind of physics. > > You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", > and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" or "qualia > properties are non-causal." Of course you can have beliefs regarding > things of which you have no evidence. > > Again, I'm in full agreement with you. I'm certainly not one of those saying that qualia are non-causal or non-scientific. But see the caveat I mentioned above. > > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 2 05:17:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:17:20 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com><6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <064a01c5f6ff$ab5adfc0$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 11:32 AM 12/1/2005, John K Clark wrote: >>>You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them", >>>and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia" >> >>Although I pretty much agree with your views on this subject I can quibble >>with the above statement. I think I agree with John on this point, though perhaps not for his reasons. Scientific investigation cannot proceed without some investgatory agent (some "scientist" or scientists to do the investigating and apply the method) and there are some experiences that are so fundamental (not magical or mystical just fundamental, like perhaps the experience of seeing something as red) that the tools of science cannot get the individual truthseeking scientist any closer too. Describing the wavelength of red light as red does not tell a scientist any more about what red looks like to him. There would be neurons firing somewhere in the red-perceivers brain and a correlation between what their firing and the subjects reported experience might be drawn, but the subject himself cannot know redness any better as redness by using scientific apparatus. Of course a scientist could use tools to measure reports of seeing red from a variety of subjects, correlate those against wavelenght data, and be more confident than a nonscientist that the reported redness (the word red mapping to an experience based on neural activity) was the same between any two subjects. > I pretty much agree with Eliezer - If you can see your qualia, then if we > could watch your brain closely enough we could see whatever you see. I > think it is more accurate to say that we are built to assume that we have > direct experience. Our brain is made to tell us that of course we have > it. > But assuming something is different from having evidence of it. This surprises me a bit. No amount of close watching makes what is being looked at, the observed, become the observer. I can't understand what you could mean by "seeing". If John's brain sees something there will of course be a physiological (a neurological) basis for that. But that doesn't mean that you can see what he sees by measuring it or by monitoring the neurological changes. Even if you could trigger the actual neurons in Johns brain such that you could cause him to see red and report seeing red at will and with 100% reliabilitity that would not mean that you were "seeing" the red. Or would it, in your opinion? I'm a bit confused as to how you and perhaps Eliezer might think of science I'm wondering if you imagine it as something that can occur without there being even a single scientific agent, a scientist, to do it. I can't. Brett Paatsch From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 05:35:50 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:35:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:10:05 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > I think it is more accurate to say that we are built to assume that we > have > direct experience. Our brain is made to tell us that of course we have > it. But assuming something is different from having evidence of it. Seems true to me. Obviously for example we don't have direct experience of light... if we have experience of color at all then it's experience of the electro-chemical signal sent up the optic nerve to the visual center in the back of the brain. My field of vision seems to be near the front of my brain, somewhere near the general vicinity of my eyes, but actually it's in the back of my brain. Obviously an illusion. I think it's true that qualia are in some sense abstractions or mental constructs (after all, what else could they possibly be?), but I wonder if they have objective reality in a rational or Platonic sense, in the way that numbers seem to. If so then perhaps they *are* communicable, similar to the way 1+1=2 is communicable. -gts From acy.stapp at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 05:54:20 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:54:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 12/1/05, gts wrote: > I think it's true that qualia are in some sense abstractions or mental > constructs (after all, what else could they possibly be?), but I wonder if > they have objective reality in a rational or Platonic sense, in the way > that numbers seem to. If so then perhaps they *are* communicable, similar > to the way 1+1=2 is communicable. > > -gts > That's the whole gist of the entire discussion, isn't it? But qualia are the essence, the atoms of subjectivity. They only make sense in the context of the perceiver as a relationship between a mind and a percept. It's like asking what my marriage would be like if my wife and I were two different people and we lived in Borneo. Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 2 06:47:33 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 07:47:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Geneticists move to Singapore Message-ID: Editorial:"Bush science policies hurt U.S." http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5753658.html "Two of the world's best geneticists will leave the National Cancer Institute and move not to Stanford University, which had heavily recruited them, but to Singapore's Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology. The reason is simple: They will face far fewer restrictions on their research, which involves stem cells." Amara From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 07:12:36 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:12:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Geneticists move to Singapore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520512012312p464c080fo7d5519f2eaf7dd05@mail.gmail.com> It seems evident that advanced biotech will move offshore, not only R&D but also actual therapy. At least, if things don't change in the US. G. On 12/2/05, Amara Graps wrote: > Editorial:"Bush science policies hurt U.S." > http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5753658.html > > "Two of the world's best geneticists will leave the National Cancer > Institute and move not to Stanford University, which had heavily > recruited them, but to Singapore's Institute of Molecular and Cell > Biology. The reason is simple: They will face far fewer restrictions > on their research, which involves stem cells." > > > Amara From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 2 07:14:36 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:14:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Designing Women. And Men. Message-ID: Fantastic!! Amara ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designing Women. And Men. http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/11/25/designing-women-and-men/ EXT. THE HEAVENS - DAY (SIX) [The Grand Old Designer (GOD) is tinkering with his latest creation. Enter the Angel STAN, a close friend.] STAN: Hey, I got your message. Wassup? GOD: Oh, hi, Stan. Just finishing a thing? STAN: Wow, is that Earth down there? It looks great! GOD: Thanks. STAN: Beasts and fishes and everything. You've really put a lot of work into that. And it shows. GOD: Aw, it's just this thing I've been doing, you know. STAN: Well, it's top-notch. So, what's the four one one? GOD: Just the crowning acheivement. They think, they talk, they're all that and a bag of chips? Stan, behold?. Man. [With a flourish, GOD displays his Creation.] STAN: Okayyyy?. GOD: Pretty great, huh? STAN: Yeah, super. [pause.] But - GOD: What? STAN: Well, I don't know. You're the omnipotent one, but? GOD: Come on, what's on your mind? STAN: Well, it sort of looks like you copied some of the skeletal stuff from those "monkeys" down there. GOD: Hey, if it ain't broke? What's your point? STAN: Well, you've got these new things standing upright, correct? GOD: Yes? STAN: So, from a design standpoint, isn't that a little wonky? I mean look at the knees. A bipedal posture is going to wear those down painfully over time. GOD: Sure, but - STAN: And the spine. It's just not set up to take the stress of that gait. A lot of these guys are going to have some pretty intense lower back pain. GOD: Maybe, but - STAN: And don't even get me started on the females? GOD: What's wrong with Eve!? STAN: Nothing, nothing - she's a total cutie. But? look, you pretty much just inflated the monkey skull to twice its normal size, right? GOD: Er, pretty much. STAN: Well, look at that girl's hips. And her? fiddly bits. GOD: What about 'em? STAN: With that skull size and that birth canal, you're letting her in for a world of pain. Thousands of 'em are going to die trying to give birth. GOD: But thousands more will live. STAN: Sure. [pause] GOD: I'll just tell 'em that this is their burden. Cosmic justice and whatnot. STAN: Why do that when you could just design them with a little more headroom down there? I mean, you do want to design this intelligently, right? GOD: Naturally. STAN: So, howsabout you throw in a little more padding on the knees, reinforce the lower spine, give the ladies a wider undercarriage and badaboom! I mean, that'd work better than just a hastily-modified monkey, right? GOD: ? STAN: But hey, what do I know? GOD: Is there anything else? STAN: Wha-? No, I don't think I should say - GOD: No, come on! What's on your mind? STAN: You seem angry. GOD: I'M NOT ANGRY! STAN: You sound angry. Maybe I should go? GOD: THOU SHALT TELL ME YOUR GRIPES! [Thunderclap.] STAN: Okay, okay. Uh? GOD: Go on. STAN: Okay. Putting the reproductive stuff so close to the waste systems is going to cause a lot of infections, see? And look at this thing, this "appendix' - you just left that in there from your horses and whatnot and it's not even going to do anything except occasionally explode and kill its owner, right? And I hate to harp on the upright thing, but couldn't you have reimagined these "feet" to be a little more durable, or do you actually want their arches to collapse and the whole thing to hurt? And this whole genetic system opens the door for spontaneous and/or hereditary mutations that can cause devastating diseases and defects that can be passed down and physically or mentally cripple some of their offspring right outa the gate. [Pause.] STAN: I guess what I'm saying is that with you being all-powerful and all-knowing, why would you use 98% of your chimp design and cut corners on your most important creation? GOD: Maybe? I just work in mysterious ways. Did you ever think of that, Mr. Smartypants? STAN: Of course, of course. So? why not fix some of the obvious design flaws and leave out some of the vestigial junk from other creatures down there? It's one thing to build in an expiration date, but with all your resources, some of this just seems a little bit lazy, don't you think? Why the appendix? Why the monkey knees? GOD: ? STAN: What? GOD: ? not telling. STAN: Aw, come on. GOD: No. STAN: You don't have a reason, do you? GOD: I do too. STAN: So why don't you tell me? GOD: It's a secret. STAN: Bull. GOD: It's true. STAN: Whatever. GOD: You're anti-God, aren't you? STAN: What? No, I'm your friend. GOD [pouty]: It sure doesn't sound like it. STAN: Well I am. Look, what do you say we go get a pizza, huh? Would that make you feel better? GOD: ?maybe. STAN: Okay, come on. [They begin to leave.] GOD: I really worked hard on that. STAN: I know. And you did a great job. GOD: Damn straight I did. STAN: I'm just a quibbler, I guess. GOD: I'll say. [GOD grabs his fedora, turns out the light. We hear a celestial Chevy starting up, peeling out, and driving away.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 2 07:33:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:33:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Designing Women. And Men. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512020735.jB27ZEe06746@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > > GOD: Go on. > > STAN: ...but couldn't you have reimagined these "feet" to be a little > more durable, or do you actually want their arches to collapse and the > whole thing to hurt... > ******************************************************************** > Amara Graps, PhD ... Ja our legs don't seem to be right. If you have a dog or cat, look at her back legs. She walks like we would if we were on the balls of our feet. What looks like a backwards knee on her is actually analogous to our heel, and that which is analogous to our knee is way up close to her hip. That looks like a better design. Wonder if we could modify ourselves to better protect our legs that way. Mechanical and structural engineers can see why the dog's leg is better than the ape's. spike From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 2 08:46:04 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 03:46:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com><6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > If you can see your qualia, then if we could watch your brain closely > enough we could see whatever you see. You know what my brain is doing and you can predict what I will do in any given situation, but do you also know what I feel like when I'm sad? You know my brain is in state X and I will soon perform action Y, so now do you know what it's like to walk in my shoes? I don't think so. If, as you suggest, the sate of the neurons in my head is the ultimate authority of what I'm feeling and even takes priority over my subjective experience then I should look at my brain analyzing machine before I say I'm happy or sad or in pain. And then I must ask the machine if I've read it correctly. And then I must ask the machine if I've read it correctly. And then I must ask the machine if I've read it correctly. [.....] > we are built to assume that we have direct experience. Yes, but how does that contradict anything I said? > But assuming something is different from having evidence of it. I have no need to supply evidence of direct experience as it is the one thing in the universe that takes priority over the scientific method. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 2 08:55:41 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 03:55:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com><6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <008501c5f71e$37961770$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer SO. Yudkowsky" > So your machine is malfunctioning and producing bad > information about your brain. No, you're not getting out of this that easily. You say a machines such as I described in Acme's as operating is possible, but the trouble is I have absolutely positively 100% no reason to think my machine is not one of those wonderful perfect machines you were talking about. Well, I dare you, I double dog dare you, show me even a hint that my machine is objectively wrong. In fact I know with absolute positive certainty that my machine is one of those evil pristine perfect entities, I know this because a demigod told it to me in a dream, a demigod who was born on December 25. I am referring of course to Isaac Newton. > Do you really think that you can disagree with me > without there being any readable sign of it in your > neural configuration? I don't know if I can really think that or not, you'll have to wait while I see what the machine says I think; and that machine is every bit as good as the marvelous STM microscope you were talking about, in fact it's one hell of a lot better. > Can you change from disagreeing to agreeing while > your brain remains constant? I have no idea, why ask me? I am not the ultimate authority on what I agree or disagree with; the new Acme Corporation's new top of the line model 2186 Brain Neural Analyzing Machines is the one to ask what I believe. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 09:07:40 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:07:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> <005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:46:04 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > but do you also know what I feel like when I'm sad? You > know my brain is in state X and I will soon perform action Y, so now do > you know what it's like to walk in my shoes? I don't think so. Now you're talking, John. Whatever it is we're talking about here, it's central to what it means to be human. -gts From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Dec 2 09:47:14 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:47:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: <005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net> <00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu> <7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu> <01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu> <005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051202044009.02fcd6e0@gmu.edu> At 03:46 AM 12/2/2005, John Clark wrote: >>If you can see your qualia, then if we could watch your brain closely >>enough we could see whatever you see. > >You know what my brain is doing and you can predict what I will do in any >given situation, but do you also know what I feel like when I'm sad? You >know my brain is in state X and I will soon perform action Y, so now do you >know what it's like to walk in my shoes? I don't think so. ... > >>But assuming something is different from having evidence of it. > >I have no need to supply evidence of direct experience as it is the one >thing in the universe that takes priority over the scientific method. How does one part of your brain know what the other parts of your brain feel. How do you today know what you felt yesterday? You may draw conclusions about such things, and they may feel direct, but that directness is an illusion. Either you are doing unconscious inference, or you are just making assumptions. To draw reasonable inferences, you would have to depend on signals sent between parts of your brain, and recordings stored in your brain. But then if we can watch those signals and look at those recordings, we will have all the data that you have to make those inferences. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 12:51:00 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 07:51:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses Message-ID: This may be list unrelated for most people, so please reply offlist. I'm attempting to setup a Verizon DSL connection with a Linksys router attached so it can function as a web server (HTTP, perhaps DNS, SMTP, TELNET, etc.). People familiar with this seem to have differing opinions as to whether one can force the router/DSL combination to maintain a static IP address (it normally seems to be allocated from a Verizon 'pool' address set). The router seems to support NAT for individual ports and a combination of static & allocatable local IP addresses but I don't think that will deal with the problem of 'forcing' Verizon to allocate and maintain a single IP address. Direct experience information (or pointers to lists/web pages on the topic) would be appreciated. Thanks, Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 13:28:20 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:28:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/1/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > Nanomedicine Volume 1: Basic Capabilites, [157-58] Ok, Jay wins the prize. Gd-148 is the preferential power source for 'nuclear' nanorobots. Jef gets a honorable mention (half a drink?). Why does one want 'nuclear' nanorobots? Normally one could power nanorobots from fuel cells that 'burn' glucose, but there are certain survival applications such as warming one up when one gets caught in an avalanche, falls through the ice over a lake or overboard at sea, gets stuck in some historic building which hasn't been nano-reinforced during an earthquake, etc. when having long term power sources "on-board" enhances ones survival probability. There are of course "nano-terrorist" applications as well. Gd-148 will be the plutonium of the singularity age... Robert P.S. I do have my copy of NM V. I 'on the shelf'. It, Nanosystems, The Spike, Why We Age and TSIN were the books which physically came with me on my recent relocation across the country. Oh yes, and for those of you were wondering airport security doesn't seem to care if your carry-on bag contains 10 3.5" hard drives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 2 14:11:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 01:11:21 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com><5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <075801c5f74a$45e73cb0$8998e03c@homepc> Robert Bradbury wrote: P.S. I do have my copy of NM V. I 'on the shelf'. It, Nanosystems, The Spike, Why We Age and TSIN were the books which physically came with me on my recent relocation across the country. Oh yes, and for those of you were wondering airport security doesn't seem to care if your carry-on bag contains 10 3.5" hard drives. I just re-read Why We Age, I'm assuming you mean Steve Austad's. Its a good book. Its really irritating that I forget so much of what I read. Do you still remember details of your molecular biol stuff after you work on IT stuff for a while? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 2 15:52:10 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:52:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com><6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu><005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051202044009.02fcd6e0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <002201c5f758$9a4086f0$62064e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > How does one part of your brain know what the other parts of your brain > feel. Signals of some sort but other than that I have no idea, if I did I'd know enough to make a brain. > How do you today know what you felt yesterday? Memory. > You may draw conclusions about such things, and they may feel direct They do indeed. > but that directness is an illusion. You almost make that sound like a bad thing. Illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon and subjectivity is what we're talking about. Yes it's an illusion, when I experience an emotion, intense joy for example, all that happens is that trillions of neurons in my head go into a certain state, but the illusion doesn't look anything like a neuron and seems to be one very powerful thing not trillions of little things. That illusion is by far the most important part of me and is the part I want to continue. > To draw reasonable inferences, you would have to depend > on signals sent between parts of your brain, and recordings > stored in your brain. But then if we can watch those signals > and look at those recordings, we will have all the data that > you have to make those inferences So if your inference after examining my brain is that I feel sad and my rating on the sadness scale is 2.682942 you now know what it's like for me to feel sad? Well.... rather than say if I agree or disagree with that the prudent and reasonable thing for me to do is to analyze my brain with my brain machine and it will tell me if I agree or disagree with you; assuming of course that I read it correctly, but I can always ask the machine about that too. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 2 15:59:38 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 07:59:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512021601.jB2G1je30815@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ...Oh yes, and for those of you were wondering airport security doesn't seem to care if your carry-on bag contains 10 3.5" hard drives. Those slacker security guards endanger us all! Robert could have easily gone crazy, taken those drives out of his bag and begun hurling them at fellow passengers, or beaning them to unconsciousness, thereby allowing him to take over the aircraft and slam it into Microsoft's headquarters. It should be illegal I tells ya. spike From allsop at extropy.org Fri Dec 2 16:25:13 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 09:25:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512021625.jB2GPHRU009178@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts, > My field of vision seems to be near the front of my brain, somewhere near > the general vicinity of my eyes, but actually it's in the back of my > brain. Obviously an illusion. You've almost got it! Your knowledge of your field of vision seems to be near the front of your knowledge of your brain (or skull) somewhere near the general vicinity of your knowledge of your eyes. Some of this knowledge is accurate and some of it is inaccurate - or deceiving. And some of it - your knowledge of yourself looking out of your skull - has no referent in reality at all. But this doesn't mean your phenomenal knowledge of yourself doesn't exist. Brent Allsop From brian at posthuman.com Fri Dec 2 16:56:20 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:56:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43907CB4.9050600@posthuman.com> You can't force your ISP to not expire your dynamic IP address. They can do what they want. Also by the way, if you're using a consumer connection the terms of service will almost always ban you from running any kind of "server" ports or services. The point of it all is they want you to pay for a "business" DSL line and some static IPs. It's probably cheaper to go online and compare hosting providers and just purchase access to a dedicated linux box sitting in a remote location to use for your desired server services. Or use a shared box for even cheaper price. Running your stuff at home in your own "datacenter" is a luxury/folly generally. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mfj.eav at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 17:09:07 2005 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 11:09:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Geneticists move to Singapore In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512012312p464c080fo7d5519f2eaf7dd05@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512012312p464c080fo7d5519f2eaf7dd05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <61c8738e0512020909y41117e1as57e5b00bf6ee498f@mail.gmail.com> It's like in my business the NHP business. If we can sell hemp for vet with little or no regs in the USA we won't bother to even start a market in Canada. Life is too short to work around bureaucracies. If nothing else, it will drive the lesson home because those regulators are not going to change their ways until major shortfalls in economic activity drive the message right to the top that fundamental security to move forward freely must be built into the whole system. I can cite the example of hyperbaric hydrogen therapy for cancer that was killed in Texas in 1975 for simle liability reasons. It never came back. The same might be with biotech. I see the same ridiculous things with the integration herbal and nutraceutical polypharmacy R&D and commercialization into mainstream medicine. You have to go where the least restricted market is and unfortunately once there it is quite a stretch to backtrack. MFJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 2 17:19:56 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:19:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> References: <20051201174455.GZ2249@leitl.org> <20051201182419.73313.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202112233.073ef700@unreasonable.com> I vote with my dollars against unpalatable treatment when I can, but the alternatives are not always viable. What do y'all do when there's no real substitute for software that has onerous protection mechanisms? For instance, Paint Shop Pro and GIMP are capable, but if you want to get hired for an on-site job as a graphic artist, you'd better know Photoshop CS. Period. One end-around is to personally own an earlier version, before the garbage was put in, and let your employer deal with the headaches inherent in the newer release. I do this for my Windows machines, running 2000 because there's nothing new I care enough about to put up with XP. But at least in the case of the Adobe suite, there are capabilities and incompatibilities in CS that nix making-do with prior versions of component products. -- David. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 17:54:38 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:54:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As a followup... Sometime over the last year or so I got interested in Gd-148 and did some research on it. Dr. R. Karen Corzine (now Karen Kelly?), who was/is a nuclear physicist at Los Alamos, who is perhaps one of the world experts on Gd-148 synthesis in accelerators (like cyclotrons) was a bit surprised to learn that it was the preferred fuel for nanorobots. At the time I was investigating whether we could turn nuclear waste (currently the stuff slated for Yucca mountain) into Gd-148. Karen seemed to feel that building lower mass elements (e.g. Ba/I/Sn/Xe) up to Gd-148 would be easier than splitting heavier elements (in the waste) down into Gd-148. She did not explain the best method for doing the synthesis and I didn't take the research as far as reading her papers to see if the details were in them. Of course, if one has lots of nuclear waste and energy is relatively cheap, finding ways of transmuting it into Gd-148 [1] is one way of achieving the nanotechnologist's "Alchemist's Dream" (turning "lead" into "gold") [2]. A key component of this is having single proton/neutron massometers (also in NM V. I) that can perform inexpensive, rapid, high volume separation of isotopes (read "nano-scale parallelization") into pure isotope streams to feed into the accelerators. [Pure isotope streams are required to have the desired nuclear reactions take place most of the time.] So once nanotechnology engineering becomes sufficiently robust the entire nuclear waste longevity concern used against nuclear power tends to become a specious/red herring argument. Of course the ultimate goal for nanotechnological & nuclear based transmutation for those interested in human body longevity is to remove the endo-radioisotopes (40K, 14C, T & 226Ra) and the most dangerous exo-radioisotope (222Rn) entirely from the human body, water & food supplies and the inhabited environment. Ref [3] provides a relatively brief (but interesting) discussion of various radioisotopes. Robert 1. 138Ba and 137Ba would be relatively abundant natural isotopes that could be converted to 148Gd but the actual cost depends upon the nuclear reactions required. Radioactive waste isotopes such as 137Cs and 129I should also not be particularly difficult to convert either. Radioisotopes (in waste or the environment) such as 90Sr, 60Co, 99Tc and [various]Pu & 141Am would be somewhat more difficult because the number of build-up/break-down reactions are likely to be greater.. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone 3. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 18:13:55 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:13:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses In-Reply-To: <43907CB4.9050600@posthuman.com> References: <43907CB4.9050600@posthuman.com> Message-ID: Brian is right that you can't force Verizon to give you a static IP, but they may sell you one for some extra money. Or you can fake a static IP address through a dynamic DNS redirector like http://www.no-ip.com/. This is a really cool and low cost way to host a website on your home PC even with a dynamic IP address. Less than 10$ per year for the basic service. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 18:19:43 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:19:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: <075801c5f74a$45e73cb0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> <075801c5f74a$45e73cb0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 12/2/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Its really irritating that I forget so much of what I read. Do you > still remember details of your molecular biol stuff after you work on IT > stuff for a while? > The question should probably be reversed. It generally comes back fairly quickly either way. Interestly, I recently saw a televised class from the Univ. of Washington in which the Prof. was discussing applications of graph theory (big in Comp. Sci.) to the problem of self-assembly of nanotechnological devices/systems. Brought me back to the days when graph theory was almost 'everything' (to a hard-core compiler -> assembly language optimization person). Interestingly, the Prof. apparently has funding (presumably DARPA) to build a large air-hockey table with big fans to blow around little semi-intelligent "pucks" which compute whether to bind (according to graph-based assembly rules) to other pucks they bump into. (Its a much larger version of molecular motion/diffusion based chemical assembly.) The graph based rules are used to determine whether one ends up with a useful assembled product in the end or a pile of waste materials (aka crap). Also of interest is that computer science shows up in TSIN in Kurzweil's discussion of work by Fredkin & Wolfram's work regarding cellular automata and whether our Universe might be based on them (Chp. 2). The CA work intersects with the Graph Theory & Self-Assembly work and the question of whether or not we are running in a simulation. But don't ask me questions on this as I'm currently throwing out random associations that my mind came up with and haven't read the necessary background sources or thought about it in depth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 18:28:03 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:28:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: <200512021601.jB2G1je30815@tick.javien.com> References: <200512021601.jB2G1je30815@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/2/05, spike wrote: > > Robert could have easily gone crazy, taken those drives out of his bag > and begun hurling them at fellow passengers... I take it you are assuming I'm not already there... Many offlist, including several SeaTac police sitting around in the Starbucks Cafe at the airport who were discussing how long it would be until they could retire (Ray K. would presumably call them linear thinkers) would presumably think so. I casually pointed out to them that they couldn't project that far into the future because everything they were basing their discussion on is going to change (for better or worse) while holding up a copy of TSIN as evidence. I wouldn't advise this as a general approach for educating people with respect to some ideas that many on the list are comfortable with. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 2 18:33:00 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:33:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet. References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051122214858.01c32070@mail.comcast.net><00d801c5f048$ff8c3f20$8d054e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051127224421.02e4ef68@gmu.edu><7a5e56060511301958s4af97e15y6050a6e4363332ea@mail.gmail.com><6.2.5.6.2.20051201062042.02f2d880@gmu.edu><01e601c5f694$d8851440$d0074e0c@MyComputer><6.2.5.6.2.20051201220641.02f92f78@gmu.edu><005001c5f71c$dcb26170$0a0b4e0c@MyComputer> <6.2.5.6.2.20051202044009.02fcd6e0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <007801c5f76e$dc450060$62064e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > How does one part of your brain know what the other parts of your brain > feel. Signals of some sort but other than that I have no idea, if I did I'd know enough to make a brain. > How do you today know what you felt yesterday? Memory. > You may draw conclusions about such things, and they may feel direct They do indeed. > but that directness is an illusion. You almost make that sound like a bad thing. Illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon and subjectivity is what we're talking about. Yes it's an illusion, when I experience an emotion, intense joy for example, all that happens is that trillions of neurons in my head go into a certain state, but the illusion doesn't look anything like a neuron and seems to be one very powerful thing not trillions of little things. That illusion is by far the most important part of me and is the part I want to continue. > To draw reasonable inferences, you would have to depend > on signals sent between parts of your brain, and recordings > stored in your brain. But then if we can watch those signals > and look at those recordings, we will have all the data that > you have to make those inferences So if your inference after examining my brain is that I feel sad and my rating on the sadness scale is 2.682942 you now know what it's like for me to feel sad? Well.... rather than say if I agree or disagree with that the prudent and reasonable thing for me to do is to analyze my brain with my brain machine and it will tell me if I agree or disagree with you; assuming of course that I read it correctly, but I can always ask the machine about that too. John K Clark From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 2 18:56:50 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:56:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: <200512021601.jB2G1je30815@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051202185650.49757.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Those slacker security guards endanger us all! Robert could > have easily gone crazy, taken those drives out of his bag > and begun hurling them at fellow passengers, or beaning > them to unconsciousness, thereby allowing him to take > over the aircraft and slam it into Microsoft's > headquarters. It should be illegal I tells ya. Those who possess hard drives are presumed to exercise at least mild responsibility. Kind of like how martial artists don't have to leave their hands in their carry-on baggage. (Given the extremely confined spaces and ample cover, the usual counter to martial artists - a gun - isn't as effective on an airplane.) Besides, what they're really worried about is some passenger hacking into the (closed, and therefore not really hackable) airplane control systems. They figure they'll have time to check anyone running a computer if it happens mid-flight, but during takeoff and landing...well, why do you think they ask that all electronic devices be turned off? From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 2 18:50:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat][conc] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses In-Reply-To: <43907CB4.9050600@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20051202185048.47189.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Robert asked for offlist replies, but since the replies have been onlist... --- Brian Atkins wrote: > You can't force your ISP to not expire your dynamic IP address. They > can do what > they want. Also by the way, if you're using a consumer connection the > terms of > service will almost always ban you from running any kind of "server" > ports or > services. What he said - and I'm one of the few who can get away with it. (http://www.wingedcat.com/ runs out of my spare bedroom.) Even if you can find technical workarounds, the amount of traffic you're getting will eventually be a giveaway - and your ISP will shut you down for breach of contract. (My solution was to purchase a business connection, with static IPs. It is more expensive, but I happened to luck into a situation where, in short, someone else pays for my connection because they need me to have this level of service.) > Running your stuff at home in your own "datacenter" is a luxury/folly > generally. Emphasis on "luxury/folly". If you can justify the cost (a poor justification being folly), it is a nice luxury to have these days. From scerir at libero.it Fri Dec 2 19:29:49 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:29:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 't Hooft, QC, complexity References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com><5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003701c5f776$c3cb2840$39b91b97@administxl09yj> Gerard 't Hooft writes something, on Physics World http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/12/2/1 which seems (to me) a bit confusing. Specifically he seems to consider QT - because of the essential indeterminism, the essential symmetries, the essential principle of 'indistinguishability' (superposition, entanglement, interference, and so on) - as a temporary model. (On the contrary it seems, to me, that such essential principles allow a sort of 'freedom', a sort of evolution, etc.) But the main problem is at the end of the paper. It seems that P. Davies (or is G. 't Hooft?) writes: <> Now there are many problems here, like these. 1) Is information physical (Landauer principle)? 2) Is physics much more reach than its informational content? 3) Is there a strict relation between the global information processed since the Big-Bang and the information we can process in the future? Etc. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 2 20:20:58 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:20:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat][conc] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20051202185048.47189.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <43907CB4.9050600@posthuman.com> <20051202185048.47189.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051202202058.GF2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:50:48AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > You can't force your ISP to not expire your dynamic IP address. They > > can do what Some ISPs reassign the same IP. Some periodically separate the connection, and reissue a new one. Few services require static IPs, and http://www.dyndns.com/ (clients typically built-in into most domestic routers) picks up an IP change in realtime, so it's a no-brainer. These days, a Linksys WRT54GS or any devices listed in http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware is a veritable powerhouse (the equivalent of once SGI workstation Indy), runs webservers, half a dozen of services and can even use an USB drive -- with the right firmware, of course. Admittedly, it's a bit excessive to natively build packages on a MIPSel brick with gcc, but some people are kinky that way. Of course, in times of 30 EUR/month 10 MBit flat rodent servers (2.6 TByte/month) and 5 EUR/month VServers there's not that much sense in running a private server, unless you're using the connection for something else, anyway (mine has a RAID for movies and such, and also does overnight backups and is a third DNS server). > > they want. Also by the way, if you're using a consumer connection the > > terms of > > service will almost always ban you from running any kind of "server" Then you've gots a really lousy ISP and I suggest you finds yerself a better one. > > ports or > > services. > > What he said - and I'm one of the few who can get away with it. > (http://www.wingedcat.com/ runs out of my spare bedroom.) Even I've had absolutely no problems with huge gobs of server and P2P traffic on residential DSL. If you do, you've got a lousy ISP. > if you can find technical workarounds, the amount of traffic > you're getting will eventually be a giveaway - and your ISP will I pay a pretty penny for my service. I don't pay for the ISP to be breaching the terms of contract, and starting traffic shaping, blocking, or wrongful termination, and other shenanigans. I think I would be not amused. I might even sue. > shut you down for breach of contract. (My solution was to > purchase a business connection, with static IPs. It is more > expensive, but I happened to luck into a situation where, in I pay ~80 EUR/month for ISDN, including telephony, 512/6000 kBit ADSL and static IP. In other places, you get 100 MBit Fast Ethernet for half that (and in some places even GBit Ethernet, I hear). > short, someone else pays for my connection because they need me > to have this level of service.) > > > Running your stuff at home in your own "datacenter" is a luxury/folly > > generally. > > Emphasis on "luxury/folly". If you can justify the cost (a poor > justification being folly), it is a nice luxury to have these > days. A major advantage is having physical control of the hardware layer. Of course, you could also put tamperproofed hardware in the rack, and stick a few USB cams on it streaming stuff offsite. An USB crypto fob can be a poor man's TPM. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 2 20:31:58 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:31:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat][conc] Net connection query: DSL & V4 IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20051202202058.GF2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051202203158.25503.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > they want. Also by the way, if you're using a consumer connection > the > > > terms of > > > service will almost always ban you from running any kind of > "server" > > Then you've gots a really lousy ISP and I suggest you finds yerself a > better one. The point is that most consumer connection ISPs (at least in the US) are, as you put it, really lousy. They're also cheap. You get what you pay for. The ones that aren't lousy - that don't forbid you from running servers - are more expensive (again, at least in the US), to the point that most small businesses (including home businesses) that have their own server on the public 'Net (for email, Web, or whatever) prefer to rack-mount at a colocation facility. > I pay a pretty penny for my service. I don't pay for the ISP to be > breaching the terms of contract, and starting traffic shaping, > blocking, > or wrongful termination, and other shenanigans. I think I would be > not amused. I might even sue. They "really lousy but cheap" ISPs specify (or at least imply so well that I recall it standing up in court) in their contracts that they may traffic shape, block, and - if they find you running server - terminate your service. If you run a server using those connections, you're the only one breaching contracts. From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Dec 2 20:40:51 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:40:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202112233.073ef700@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: > From: David Lubkin > > I vote with my dollars against unpalatable treatment when I can, but > the alternatives are not always viable. Right. > What do y'all do when there's no real substitute for software that > has onerous protection mechanisms? When there is no viable alternative and the software is necessary then perhaps it must be purchased despite the poor practices of some company (including copy protection.) But fewer copies can be bought usually. Alternatives can be sought. Purchases and upgrades delayed. Encouraging others to avoid the software works too. Avoiding other software and products by the same company is another method. BTW, we do this with non-software products also. When an airline or hotel gives terrible service AND refuses to take even an interest in fixing the problem then it seems reasonable to avoid that business long enough to cost them several times the "amount involved". > For instance, Paint Shop Pro and GIMP are capable, but if you want to > get hired for an on-site job as a graphic artist, you'd better know > Photoshop CS. Period. Sure. But you only need one copy for that. All other home machines can run an alternative. Maybe you don't need the latest version. You might avoid purchasing the other (less critical) products from the same company. Add in, advertising for the alternative products and helping to bring them to maturity as alternatives to the poor company's "critical application" etc.... > One end-around is to personally own an earlier version, before the > garbage was put in, and let your employer deal with the headaches > inherent in the newer release. I do this for my Windows machines, > running 2000 because there's nothing new I care enough about to put > up with XP. Right. (In principle, but my opinion of WinXP is different from yours in practice but that is irrelevant to the topic.) > But at least in the case of the Adobe suite, there are capabilities > and incompatibilities in CS that nix making-do with prior versions of > component products. And I am not quite as negative about Adobe as you are either, although I could probably be convinced pretty easily and again my opinion isn't relevant to the discussion. -- Herb Martin From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 2 20:58:13 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:58:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202112233.073ef700@unreasonable.com> References: <20051201174455.GZ2249@leitl.org> <20051201182419.73313.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051202112233.073ef700@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051202205813.GQ2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:19:56PM -0500, David Lubkin wrote: > What do y'all do when there's no real substitute for software that > has onerous protection mechanisms? Bite the wax tadpole, and download a cracked version, of course. (Notice that what professes to be keygens are mostly thingly disguised malware, and are best used in a VMWare jail, then reverted to previously saved snapshot, regardless whether keys are bogus or genuine). Oh, and best used in a clinical detachment mode, lest you get hooked on proprietary features, and slaver euphoric drool all over the keyboard. > For instance, Paint Shop Pro and GIMP are capable, but if you want to > get hired for an on-site job as a graphic artist, you'd better know > Photoshop CS. Period. Gimp is a UI nightmare, and really hokey in the bargain. I think they're planning to rip off Photoshop's menu mapping. > One end-around is to personally own an earlier version, before the > garbage was put in, and let your employer deal with the headaches > inherent in the newer release. I do this for my Windows machines, > running 2000 because there's nothing new I care enough about to put > up with XP. XP runs just fine in VMPlayer jail. > But at least in the case of the Adobe suite, there are capabilities > and incompatibilities in CS that nix making-do with prior versions of > component products. Open sores has abandonware problem and version rot, too. Still, that tadpole is way more palatable. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 2 21:54:20 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:54:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <20051130202633.56C5057F5B@finney.org> <200511302109.jAUL8x4q024813@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <20051202215420.GV2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of models as > what you describe these software robots doing. The critical difference is - > all of our conscious knowledge or models are represented with qualia - > rather than abstract information represented by arbitrary causal properties. What is "abstract information represented by arbitrary causal properties", please? I think you're a piece of pretty abstract information. Convince me of the opposite. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 2 22:07:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:07:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 't Hooft, QC, complexity In-Reply-To: <003701c5f776$c3cb2840$39b91b97@administxl09yj> References: <20051201230638.10598.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b0512011527n18b73877m193515b31e006fea@mail.gmail.com> <003701c5f776$c3cb2840$39b91b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051202160637.01e5a4b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:29 PM 12/2/2005 +0100, Serafino wrote: >Gerard 't Hooft writes something, on Physics World >http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/12/2/1 > >But the main problem is at the end of the paper. >It seems that P. Davies (or is G. 't Hooft?) writes: That's Paul's section of the little symposium. Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:17:46 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:17:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia should be blatantly obvious, very simple, and crystal clear. In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512010157s3782d4f6n8a96ac62aec397b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051201020805.01c5f598@mail.comcast.net> <7a5e56060512010157s3782d4f6n8a96ac62aec397b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:57:36 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > I believe that I am the only person on Earth who understands qualia at > this time. If so then it's a great honor to have you here. > -But if I'm deluded then I'm in good company - all the other > scientists and philosophers failed too- ;) I want to share in your delusion. ;) > I proposed an equivalence between qualia and mathematical sets. Now a > 'set' is the fundamental unit of mathematics. Everything can bedefined > as a set. Since a 'number' is a mathematical object, a 'number' is also > a set. And if I'm right that a 'Set' and a 'Quale' are equivalent, then > 'numbers' are indeed identical to qualia. Remember, that 'numbers' are > abstract too - 'numbers' are not physical! I think I understand what you are talking about when you talk about a mathematical set of numbers in your head. Why can't you communicate qualia in the same way? -gts From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 2 22:30:35 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:30:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:15:36PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > The system is not going to be officially FIPS 140-1/140-2 certified > > and is probably not even going to be tamper-responding. However, do > > you know many who could launch an attack like several described in > > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/sc99-tamper.pdf (notice that the > > state of the art in protection has advanced since), given that > > you only extract *a single key*? > > Actually, I do know quite a handful of people who could and would, if I call bullshit. Your friends can convince me by booting Linux on the Xbox360, or extracting the secret from my GSM or banking smartcard. (All of this can be done with finite effort. I just don't think you know anyone who can and would care, which is my point -- it's about the threat model, stupid! I don't care if the Mossad could do it. Can Gretchen Schneider do it?). > (and this is the kicker) they used that software or worked for someone Hello, do you copy? I'm talking about physical attacks. Not software. You can convince me by fpting 60 ml of fuming nitric acid, a beaker, a person who can handle 200 k$ worth of equipment, and said equipment. (If you can do that, you can probably also fax 20 lb of C4 to the assclown currently playing POTUS, detonator included. I would be your first paying customer if you could that). > who did, and somehow did not have the authority to reject the software > outright because the manufacturer is obviously so worried about their > own profits that user functionality is given short shrift, so the > customer would get better value for their time and money elsewhere. DRM is rampant across the console gaming and premium content industry. > I've seen software where people claimed a single install license was > worth at least $200K. Quite a few of them still tried to used copy The target group of 200 K$ software is very select. They don't form a percolation network for elite warez. > protection. I don't believe I'm allowed to say how many of them (or If I was in the business of selling 200 k$/license software, I'd sell them a tamperproof appliance. > which ones at which clients) were hacked as a matter of course, but I > can say it wasn't zero. > > The hacker isn't doing it to get the key. The hacker is testing a > procedure to get the key. The hacker then publishes the method. If > the hacker's method isn't cheap, other people publish refinements - > hacks of the hack, if you will - to make it so. The methods are published already. It starts with "dissolve the epoxy by gently agitating the package in 60 ml of fuming nitric acid, then...". Clandestine chemists publish plenty of such methods, too. I've found that most people are not very good at following instructions (even if they have 200 k$ spare change for a bunch of esoteric equipment, and m4d ski1llZ to operate such). > The basic architectural standards will remain the same from chip to Yes, most chips are packaged in epoxy. Most nukes also contain plutonium. I guess this means most people can build a working nuke from WalMart supplies. > chip. This includes the location of the circuits which encode the > key. Simpler methods to obtain the key from similar chips can then be You're confabulating, again. You don't know where the secret is on the die. You have to look at the floorplan (I would be very surprised if you personally could do very much with a 100 MTransistor die floorplan). > deduced - say, using remote sensing which induces current through the > packaging, or a specific (undocumented) series of inputs to the chip. This is not a bullshit session. Please don't invent things which you wished were true. > You mean this TPM? > http://www.hackinthebox.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18613&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 > > (For those who don't want to click: the link goes to a news post > detailing the latest version a set of of TPM hacking tools, implying > it's been rather thoroughly defeated.) Do you read the stuff you post? Are you aware that there is no MacTel hardware yet but the developer prototypes? That there is no TPM to defeat? > > The general public a) is not aware what it is buying b) does not > > oppose DRM because it craves premium content so badly it waives > > its firstborn in the EULA. > > You mean this type of EULA? > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/28/us_court_ruling_nixes_software/ > > (For those who don't want to click: it's about a ruling in the 2001 I realize that nobody reads these URLs I post. You sure enough don't read them. > case of Adobe vs. Softman that software purchases be treated as sales > transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, > that shrinkwrap EULAs are completely invalid. It's only a local court > ruling, but it seems to be the highest precedent for EULAs so far. If > anyone pressed it to a higher court, and the court upheld the precedent > as many courts often do, EULAs would lose their value even as a threat > in whatever area the court had jurisdiction over.) Of course EULAs are not valid in the EU. Will you sue to find that out? You, personally? How deep are your pockets? > > Can *you* do it? Do you know many people who can? > > If I had sufficient motivation. (No, proving a point in discussion > isn't enough, especially if there's doubts that even that would > honestly convince you.) I also know people who would do it for enough I don't know whether you can actually do it. I'm not sure you can. I'm pretty damn sure 99.99% of people who buy Office can't. > money - say, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - and a > tightly written contract to prevent you from getting out of it with > "clarifications of what I meant" after they produce something that will > install Office on a Windows computer. Allright, talk is cheap. > Although, frankly, if my motivation was just to get cracked Office > software, I'd probably get it faster (and with a lot less effort) by > combing the Web for others who have done it. Office isn't $200K per > install - closer to $200 - and my time *is* valuable. If I simply want If your time was truly valuable, you wouldn't waste by arguing pointless stuff on this list just for the point of arguing. > to use the thing for less money - which is, in the end, the most common > motivation in these cases - I don't care much about whether I crack it > myself, except as a means to an end. > > > 2) Have you ever compared two live installations? > > 3) Have you heard of chaff? Watermarks? > > Yes and yes. So I duplicate the watermarks too. The point of chaff is that you don't know precisely where the relevant difference is. The point of watermarks is that a leak can be traced to you. > *cough* Not to brag too much, but yes, I have been paid to hack > systems before. Of course, I'll only cop to completely lawful > instances, like this one where some people I built a system for > (writing my own code) lost the administrator password, and hired me to > hack back in through my own security to fetch it. They owned the If you could hack though your own security, you botched the job. > system; the only copyright violations were with the full knowledge and > consent of all relevant copyright owners. Good thing they only wanted > it to be secure against network intrusions, but were willing to give me > physical access. > > I also know hackers who are far, far better than I am, and when to turn > to them for a job. How do you motivate these hackers for the job? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From allsop at extropy.org Fri Dec 2 22:38:03 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:38:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia In-Reply-To: <20051202215420.GV2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200512022238.jB2Mc8v2006940@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Eugen, I believe I described what "abstract information represented by arbitrary causal properties" are in other posts. Basically, today, our computers represent "abstract" information by something physical. It could be anything from holes in punch cards to pits on a CD, to voltages on wires. The only way something physical works for this purpose is if it has "causal properties" to enable communication of the information it is representing. Anything with such "causal properties" can "arbitrarily" be used to represent "abstract" computer information. The particular physical representation doesn't matter. But with qualia, in our conscious minds, what they are phenomenally like does matter. Brent allsop > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 2:54 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Creating software with qualia > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > We do very similar thinking things with similar different kinds of > models as > > what you describe these software robots doing. The critical difference > is - > > all of our conscious knowledge or models are represented with qualia - > > rather than abstract information represented by arbitrary causal > properties. > > What is "abstract information represented by arbitrary causal properties", > please? > > I think you're a piece of pretty abstract information. Convince me of the > opposite. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:43:27 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:43:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200511301654.jAUGsV82000383@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: Does anyone see value in this idea of Locke's? "Secondly, the power that a body has, by reason of its imperceptible primary qualities, to operate in a special way on one of our senses, thereby producing in us the different ideas of various colours, sounds, smells, tastes, etc. These are usually called sensible qualities. ? I call them secondary qualities." - John Locke We like to talk about our "powers of observation" but consider that we really have no powers of observation. I have powers to *analyse* my observations but I am completely at the mercy of the world with respect to observation itself. I have no choice but to see snow as white and the sky as blue. These qualia-type qualities are powers of the objects of my observation. -gts From allsop at extropy.org Fri Dec 2 22:56:00 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:56:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts: > I have powers to *analyse* my observations but I am completely at the > mercy of the world with respect to observation itself. I have no choice > but to see snow as white and the sky as blue. These qualia-type qualities > are powers of the objects of my observation. But you do have a choice. You can wear filtering glasses (or camera/tv system or optical nerve splice...) that maps blue to white and visa versa. Ultimately, we will be able to alter our brains so that whatever lands on our retina - we'll be able to represent it with whatever we want. Right? Brent Allsop From acy.stapp at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 23:05:58 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:05:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Any content protection system can be hacked if there is sufficient motivation to do so. That motivation can be fame, curiosity, money, or any other human motivator. If a product costs $200K then the purchaser has several options: 1) Pony up the cash and be done with it 2) Borrow usage from a legitimate licensee 3) Try to get the product at a lower price, perhaps on a service instead of purchase basis 4) Find and pay an attacker to break the security of the system I'm sure there are more. Now let's approach this as a security problem. There are several attack vectors for this hypothetical $200K application. 3A) Hardware attack - figure out how to emulate the smartcard. This is expensive, and probably not worth it unless you intend to resell the application on the black market. Such is the case with satellite decoders etc. 3B) Software attack - Figure out how to bypass the smart card. Challenge depends on the skill of the original developers and can range from trivial to devilish 3C) Human attack - con or bribe someone into procuring a smart card for you. Perhaps a disgruntled employee at the developers firm or at the firm making the smartcards. This is probalby the least expensive attack but has the most criminal risk. You guys are wasting your time discussing how difficult a physical attack is. As the most difficult and most expensive attack, it's the last thing your attacker will try. The fact is, your client will pay what he percieves is a fair and just price for the product. If he believes the product is only worth $50K, and he needs your product, and there is no competing product, then he will assess the risk and viability of stealing it and then spend up to $50K to do so. If he thinks it's worth $200K then he'll just buy it. Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 23:09:24 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:09:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:56:00 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > But you do have a choice. You can wear filtering glasses No, in that case the glasses become another object of my observation, with powers to produce qualia in my experience. I would have no choice then but to see world through my rose-qualed glasses. Qualia (what Locke calls secondary qualities) seem to be powers of the objects of our observation. Although not primary qualities of objects, they are derived from those real primary qualities. For our purposes here I would really like to call these secondary qualities "phenomenal properties", or even better, "phenomenal powers" of objects, and say that they exist in some real sense. -gts From davidmc at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 23:51:48 2005 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:51:48 -0700 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: <200511282251.jASMpnT4001020@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051128172303.02e80ca0@gmu.edu> <200511282251.jASMpnT4001020@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 11/28/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > When, in your field of vision you see a patch of red, next to a patch of > green, next to a patch of a new phenomenal property that you have never > experienced before (say a tetrachromat is effing to you who is a normal > trichromat) you will know you are effing. Even if it is turtles all the way > down (yea right!) who will care? Right? I don't think so. Let's assume that we experiment with a real effing machine. We find a group of stones that all look like the same colour (blue) to us normal trichromats but a tetrachromat is able to separate the stones into two groups. We can tell the tetrachromat perceives them differently because they can repeatedly separate them into the same groups even if they are first randomized outside the tetrachromat's sight. Let's assume that the distinction becomes obvious to normal trichromats if an ultraviolet light is used to illuminate the stones. Now we hook you up the tetrachromat with the effing machine and find that you too can repeatedly separate the stones into two groups in normal light. Before they all looked blue, but when hooked up to the effing machine they appear to you as dark blue and light blue. So you separate the stones and your choices are validated after with the ultraviolet light. So does that mean you experienced the same qualia as the tetrachromat? There is no way to tell. It is possible, but it is also possible the tetrachromat sees the stones as dark green and light green, or as yellow and orange, or as rough and smooth, or as warm and cold, or something else we have no words for. So even if the effing machine works it still doesn't tell us what it like to be a tetrachromat. :D From acy.stapp at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 00:22:02 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:22:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 12/2/05, gts wrote: > Qualia (what Locke calls secondary qualities) seem to be powers of the > objects of our observation. Although not primary qualities of objects, > they are derived from those real primary qualities. For our purposes here > I would really like to call these secondary qualities "phenomenal > properties", or even better, "phenomenal powers" of objects, and say that > they exist in some real sense. > > > -gts > Nope. Qualia are qualities of the observational interaction between the observer and the observed. They may or may not exist in some real sense but they certainly are not properties of the objects themselves. Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 00:37:28 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:37:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:22:02 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > Nope. Qualia are qualities of the observational interaction between > the observer and the observed. They may or may not exist in some real > sense but they certainly are not properties of the objects themselves. Right, not intrinsic or primary properties, but secondary qualities or *powers*. Snow looks white, and there's not a darned thing I can do to change that fact. The power to look white comes from the snow. I have no power here. The snow has the power. The snow also has *primary* qualities. These exist even when no one is observing it. The primary qualities of snow are what we normally consider the "objective science" of snow. The secondary quality of "looking white", the *power* to look white, is in some sense real because it "result[s] from the different modifications of those [real] primary qualities." -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 3 00:49:32 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:49:32 -0800 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051128172303.02e80ca0@gmu.edu> <200511282251.jASMpnT4001020@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512021649w2313319auef524af78c9a7b8b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/2/05, David McFadzean wrote: > On 11/28/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > When, in your field of vision you see a patch of red, next to a patch of > > green, next to a patch of a new phenomenal property that you have never > > experienced before (say a tetrachromat is effing to you who is a normal > > trichromat) you will know you are effing. Even if it is turtles all the way > > down (yea right!) who will care? Right? > > I don't think so. Let's assume that we experiment with a real effing machine. > We find a group of stones that all look like the same colour (blue) to us > normal trichromats but a tetrachromat is able to separate the stones into > two groups. We can tell the tetrachromat perceives them differently because > they can repeatedly separate them into the same groups even if they are > first randomized outside the tetrachromat's sight. Let's assume that the > distinction becomes obvious to normal trichromats if an ultraviolet > light is used to illuminate the stones. > > Now we hook you up the tetrachromat with the effing machine and find that > you too can repeatedly separate the stones into two groups in normal light. > Before they all looked blue, but when hooked up to the effing machine they > appear to you as dark blue and light blue. So you separate the stones and your > choices are validated after with the ultraviolet light. > > So does that mean you experienced the same qualia as the tetrachromat? > There is no way to tell. It is possible, but it is also possible the > tetrachromat > sees the stones as dark green and light green, or as yellow and orange, or > as rough and smooth, or as warm and cold, or something else we have no > words for. > > So even if the effing machine works it still doesn't tell us what it > like to be a tetrachromat. > It's more subtle than that. There is no homunculus within, observing relative differences in qualia as if there were such a reference frame. The only way for anyone-including the system itself--to know what the system observes is by interrogating the system. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 3 00:52:32 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:52:32 -0800 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512021649w2313319auef524af78c9a7b8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051128172303.02e80ca0@gmu.edu> <200511282251.jASMpnT4001020@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <22360fa10512021649w2313319auef524af78c9a7b8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512021652j126758e6k4aeee38be5c7be45@mail.gmail.com> Sorry--One wrong word in my previous statement. Corrected below. - Jef On 12/2/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 12/2/05, David McFadzean wrote: > > On 11/28/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > > > When, in your field of vision you see a patch of red, next to a patch of > > > green, next to a patch of a new phenomenal property that you have never > > > experienced before (say a tetrachromat is effing to you who is a normal > > > trichromat) you will know you are effing. Even if it is turtles all the way > > > down (yea right!) who will care? Right? > > > > I don't think so. Let's assume that we experiment with a real effing machine. > > We find a group of stones that all look like the same colour (blue) to us > > normal trichromats but a tetrachromat is able to separate the stones into > > two groups. We can tell the tetrachromat perceives them differently because > > they can repeatedly separate them into the same groups even if they are > > first randomized outside the tetrachromat's sight. Let's assume that the > > distinction becomes obvious to normal trichromats if an ultraviolet > > light is used to illuminate the stones. > > > > Now we hook you up the tetrachromat with the effing machine and find that > > you too can repeatedly separate the stones into two groups in normal light. > > Before they all looked blue, but when hooked up to the effing machine they > > appear to you as dark blue and light blue. So you separate the stones and your > > choices are validated after with the ultraviolet light. > > > > So does that mean you experienced the same qualia as the tetrachromat? > > There is no way to tell. It is possible, but it is also possible the > > tetrachromat > > sees the stones as dark green and light green, or as yellow and orange, or > > as rough and smooth, or as warm and cold, or something else we have no > > words for. > > > > So even if the effing machine works it still doesn't tell us what it > > like to be a tetrachromat. > > > > It's more subtle than that. There is no homunculus within, observing > relative differences in qualia as if there were such a reference > frame. The only way for anyone-including the system itself--to know > what the system experiences is by interrogating the system. > > - Jef > From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 01:40:58 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:40:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:56:00 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > Ultimately, we will be able to alter our brains so that whatever lands on > our retina - we'll be able to represent it with whatever we want. Right? I suppose so. Suppose we implant a device behind the retinas along the optic nerve, one that changes red signals to blue signals, and blue to red. Probably we would then see blue as red and red as blue. Would this disprove Locke? Would it then be incorrect to state, as Locke might, that blue objects have a secondary quality called "blueness"? It's not immediately clear to me that Locke would be proved wrong. We cannot blame the blue object for the fact that we now see it as the red. Blue objects are still blue, but we've screwed up our color vision. -gts From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Dec 3 03:41:40 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:41:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051203034140.39182.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > How do you motivate these hackers for the job? If you don't already know this, then this discussion is over, as nothing I say will seem to make sense to you (or at least to be credible). Which, indeed, seems to be the case. Sorry to waste your time. From HerbM at learnquick.com Sat Dec 3 04:05:23 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:05:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051203034140.39182.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:42 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > How do you motivate these hackers for the job? > > If you don't already know this, then this discussion is over, > as nothing I say will seem to make sense to you (or at least to > be credible). Which, indeed, seems to be the case. Sorry to > waste your time. I too am bored with this thread (and most any thread that goes on to the point that the same things are said back and forth) but just so your correspondent won't think you have tacitly admitted defeat by refusing to play this admitted silly back and forth game: Presume there is such an expensive AND essential program (the figure $200,000 value was thrown around). This in itself is the motivation the hacker needs, since if a hacker, on speculation can be reasonably certain, of finding even one customer world wide who will pay: $10,000-$100,000 ...for a program that SOME consider essential then the program is not safe from the world wide hacker communtity. Also, note that all the really GOOD encryption and certificate methods, like those using SmartCards, can be defeated (not quite trivially) AS LONG AS the Source Code is available. You don't defeat the SmartCard, you merely remove the calls to the SmartCard from the software. (Said, by someone who learned to program in Assembler by doing just that almost thirty years ago.) My introduction to Assembly Language programming was through reverse engineering protection schemes (legally, I might add. ) [If anyone wishes to start a DIFFERENT argument, I will be happy to take the position that such SmartCards CAN BE used to create a virtually unbeatable "National ID Card" and thus stop almost all illegal immigration, and control criminals and terrorists much better, with no serious NEW burdens on the honest citizen. We in the US, already have a de facto natinal ID in drivers' licenses and credit card, and those in other countries have them in fact in most cases. Such will be safe unless and until a fully functional quantum computer is generally available -- and at that time the system can be converted to use quantum encryption techniques to defeat quantum decryption.] But that is off topic so please don't take my suggestion seriously.... -- Herb Martin From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 07:14:17 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:14:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051203071417.91087.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> Robert, You wrote: > ... on my recent relocation across the country. If it's not a secret,...where'd you land? Jeff __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From support at imminst.org Sat Dec 3 04:43:23 2005 From: support at imminst.org (Immortality Institute) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:43:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Conf. Video Message-ID: IMMINST UPDATE TERASEM MOVEMENT EVENT Join a toll-free conference call to participate in the 1st Colloquium on the Law of Transhuman Persons on Dec. 10th, 2005... http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=69&t=7868 IMMINST CONFERENCE VIDEO Watch 5 speaker videos thus far uploaded... http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=191&t=8486 LYSO-SENS PROJECT Help anti-aging research by sending in soil samples... http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=44&t=8580 WORD CONTEST Pick one word to describe a healthy, exuberant 500 year old... http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=202&t=8654 SUPPORT IMMINST Join more than 190 ImmInst Full Members... http://www.imminst.org/fullmembers Please Paste following link to Un-subscribe : http://www.imminst.org/maillist/unsubscribe.php?mail=Extropy-chat at extropy.org&id=2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sat Dec 3 10:47:01 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 18:47:01 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Slashdot has this story: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/03/065211&from=rss About a company claiming development of the first true AI. Mmm... Jack Parkinson From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 3 10:48:00 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:48:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <20051203034140.39182.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051203104800.GI2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:05:23PM -0800, Herb Martin wrote: > > Also, note that all the really GOOD encryption and certificate > methods, like those using SmartCards, can be defeated (not > quite trivially) AS LONG AS the Source Code is available. Of course if the binary is ecnrypted to the secret embedded on die or the proprietary platform refuses to load unsigned binaries you don't have the source. > You don't defeat the SmartCard, you merely remove the calls > to the SmartCard from the software. > -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 13:48:02 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:48:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: I find it interesting that we have power over what we consider the "truth" about snow, its real or primary qualities, but we have no power whatsoever over what we consider "the mere appearances" or qualia of snow, its secondary qualities. I have a theory about hydrogen and oxygen and frozen H20 molecules and how they react with electromagnetic radiation, a theory that I have the power to change at any time. I seem powerless however to change the whiteness of snow. If I feel certain of anything about snow, it is that snow is white. Everything else seems a matter of opinion. The white quale is a power of snow, not a power of mind. Our opinions about the world are communicable via words and mathematics, but our certain knowledge seems ineffable. -gts From sentience at pobox.com Sat Dec 3 15:12:07 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:12:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <4391B5C7.8030202@pobox.com> Jack Parkinson wrote: > Slashdot has this story: > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/03/065211&from=rss > About a company claiming development of the first true AI. > > Mmm... > Jack Parkinson No. Sincerely, Eliezer Yudkowsky. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 16:02:36 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:02:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stupid luddites oppose home cyclotrons... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/1/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > As is being reported in Wired [1], a number of luddites in Alaska have > joined forces to oppose the home installation of a used cyclotron [2] from > Johns Hopkins by engineer Albert Swank in his Anchorage home. > > And I'd be rather worried if I knew one of my neighbours had an X-ray machine, gamma steriliser or high power directional microwave transmitter installed and working. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Dec 3 16:06:02 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: <4391B5C7.8030202@pobox.com> References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> <4391B5C7.8030202@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Jack Parkinson wrote: >> Slashdot has this story: >> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/03/ >> 065211&from=rss About a company claiming development of the first >> true AI. >> Mmm... >> Jack Parkinson > > No. > > Sincerely, > Eliezer Yudkowsky. No, slashdot doesn't have this story? No, the company doesn't claim this? No, this isn't the first? No, this isn't AI? No, we shouldn't say "Mmm..."? No, Jack shouldn't post this? No, what? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From sentience at pobox.com Sat Dec 3 16:12:54 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:12:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> <4391B5C7.8030202@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4391C406.9040606@pobox.com> Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > No, slashdot doesn't have this story? > No, the company doesn't claim this? > No, this isn't the first? > No, this isn't AI? > No, we shouldn't say "Mmm..."? > No, Jack shouldn't post this? > No, what? It's not the first, it's not AGI, and it doesn't deserve an "Mmm..." -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 18:22:51 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:22:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: It occurs to me that we already have a sort primitive effing technology. We call it art. Music, poetry, literature, painting... these are attempts by the artist to evoke experience in others. I receive a classic poem each day in my e-mail, from about.com. I was struck by this poem by Emily Dickinson. To me it seems to capture "what it is like" to watch a bird, if not also what it's like to be one. A Bird Came Down by Emily Dickinson. A bird came down the walk: He did not know I saw; He bit an angle-worm in halves And ate the fellow, raw. And then he drank a dew From a convenient grass, And then hopped sidewise to the wall To let a beetle pass. He glanced with rapid eyes That hurried all abroad,-- They looked like frightened beads, I thought; He stirred his velvet head Like one in danger; cautious, I offered him a crumb, And he unrolled his feathers And rowed him softer home Than oars divide the ocean, Too silver for a seam, Or butterflies, off banks of noon, Leap, splashless, as they swim. From acy.stapp at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 20:04:47 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:04:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 12/2/05, gts wrote: > On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:22:02 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > Nope. Qualia are qualities of the observational interaction between > > the observer and the observed. They may or may not exist in some real > > sense but they certainly are not properties of the objects themselves. > > Right, not intrinsic or primary properties, but secondary qualities or > *powers*. > > Snow looks white, and there's not a darned thing I can do to change that > fact. The power to look white comes from the snow. I have no power here. > The snow has the power. Here's where I disagree. The snow does not look white, nor does the power to look white come from snow. The power to look white comes from "me looking at the snow", an *act*. The qualia is a property of the act, of a scenario involving me and some particular snow. Without me *and* the snow, there is no "looking white". One can generalize the snow to get "all snow looks white to me" or one can generalize the person to get "this snow looks white to humans", or one can generalize both to get "all snow looks white to humans". The observer needs to be on an equal footing with the observed. Locke is, perhaps justifiably, assuming that all of his readers are humans and thus generalizes to all of them, but in my mind the failure to make the distinction leads to a faliure of understanding. To a blind man snow has no property of whiteness at any level. > > The snow also has *primary* qualities. These exist even when no one is > observing it. The primary qualities of snow are what we normally consider > the "objective science" of snow. > We say this because these properties can be fully generalized to all observers with no exceptions. In this case the observer is not relevant. > The secondary quality of "looking white", the *power* to look white, is in > some sense real because it "result[s] from the different modifications of > those [real] primary qualities." > I have no idea what this means. > > -gts > Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 20:43:40 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:43:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:04:47 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > Here's where I disagree. The snow does not look white, nor does the > power to look white come from snow. The power to look white comes from > "me looking at the snow", an *act*. The qualia is a property of the > act, of a scenario involving me and some particular snow. Without me > *and* the snow, there is no "looking white". I don't disagree, nor does Locke, that secondary qualities exist only in observation. This is why he calls them powers. Secondary qualities are the powers of an object to produce qualia in the experience of the observer. But I will disagree with you here that observing is an "act". We act when we think and reflect and behave in response to experience but perception itself seems passive. Here the objects of awareness are the actors. They act on our senses, producing qualia. > Locke is, perhaps justifiably, assuming that all of his readers are > humansand thus generalizes to all of them, but in my mind the failure to > makethe distinction leads to a faliure of understanding. To a blind man > snow has no property of whiteness at any level. I'm not certain he's making that mistake. A blind man would not see the whiteness of snow, but this does not mean snow is not white. Seems to me that objects can have many secondary qualities that you and I cannot experience. However an object may "look" to a blind bat via sonar, that quale would be another secondary quality of the object. >> The secondary quality of "looking white", the *power* to look white, is >> in some sense real because it "result[s] from the different >> modifications of those [real] primary qualities." >> > > I have no idea what this means. Locke means that snow's secondary quality of whiteness is derived from the real primary qualities of water and ice and light. Clean snow in normal light *must* appear white for real physical reasons. In that sense whiteness is a real quality or power of snow. Primary qualities are "size, shape, number, position, and motion or rest of [an object's] solid parts" These exist intrinsically in the object, without reference to an observer. The secondary and tertiary qualities of an object are powers that "result from the different modifications of those primary qualities." -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 3 21:05:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 21:52:09 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:52:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/3/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm > > Assuming that there is such a thing as 'Human nature' then it is reasonable to attribute its development to evolutionary pressures. The question then becomes one of defining Human characteristics that are pretty much time and culture independent. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Sat Dec 3 21:53:30 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:53:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 1:06 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? > > http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm > The author(s) of this editorial offer little criticism that is not true in general of the vast majority of "psychological research" and papers on the subject, as opposed to arguments directly against "evolutionary psychology." They MAY have a point, but the method was to set up a straw man (it's admitted the example was concocted for the article) example and then attack it. BTW, the method under attack has also been criticized in "evolutionary" studies (as opposed the the psychological specialty) as well. IIRC, 'evolutionary explanations' have been derided as containing many "just so stories" with little or no evidence except an appeal to some sort of common sense notion of what seems, and therefore presumably must, be true. [Note: I entertain this criticism only in SPECIFIC cases lacking facts, and not to the general case made by ID or SC advocates.] None of the above makes the article wrong, but it is clearly an "editorial" and not itself an attempt to follow good scientific principles of argument.... That entire page is curiously skewed politically -- no matter what one's politics it is clearly so -- in all of it's editorials. The page even misrepresents the (in)famous comments by Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, "suggesting that biological differences between the sexes may be one explanation" when it would be more accurate to indicate that he actually suggested it MIGHT BE WORTH STUDYING to determine if this exerts an influence. >From this misrepresentation it proceeds to suggest that Summers is suffering from possible "brain damage". Weird "editorial" page for what I remember as being a credible and interesting scientific news publication (from the time when I subscribed to the printed verions.) -- Herb Martin From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 3 21:58:32 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:58:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051203215832.GM2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 05:05:58PM -0600, Acy Stapp wrote: > Any content protection system can be hacked if there is sufficient > motivation to do so. That motivation can be fame, curiosity, money, or The major difference with individually keyed DRM that the attack is expensive (it has to be physical, always), and is not an attack against a device class as a whole but against the single member of a class (the individual device, always). If you break DVD encryption, you have broken all of them, in eternity, amen. BluRay and similiar is almost the same, only here you have more device classes, and revokable keys take out an entire product line. I don't expect BluRay & Co to last. In comparision, if you've broken one individually keyed DRM, you've broken one invididually keyed DRM. And the next time you want to break another instance, you have to go through the whole physical attack process, again. You don't get any shortcuts. The point is that if you raise the cost of the attack sufficiently high it is no longer worth trying. It will no longer hurt your sales. And this is what all the content protection folks care about. > I'm sure there are more. Now let's approach this as a security > problem. There are several attack vectors for this hypothetical $200K > application. > 3A) Hardware attack - figure out how to emulate the smartcard. This is In Soviet Russia, the DRM runs you. (The entire system is your dongle. The encrypted application is decrypted within the system during execution). Your only chance is to physically extract the secret and put it into an emulator. That trojan can be use for purchasing protected systems and trivially breaking them (why, you can see decrypted code execute in the virtual jail). Individual watermarking (the blob is crypted to your system's key already, so extra watermarking is just another pass) allows you to trace the source of the leak, and revoke the key. User authentication can be made mandatory to government smartcard ID (yes, Virginia, they're coming to a country near you), so that watermark can be tracked back to a particular warm body (a pretty unhappy warm body, soon, even if it's an unwitting dupe). Notice that individual system keys and content keyeing to such, and watermarking of said content is not yet in any use in a commercial system, to the best of my knowledge. You can be damn certain you will see this fielded in less than a decade, probably in half that. > expensive, and probably not worth it unless you intend to resell the > application on the black market. Such is the case with satellite > decoders etc. > 3B) Software attack - Figure out how to bypass the smart card. > Challenge depends on the skill of the original developers and can > range from trivial to devilish Your app is an encrypted blob. Your only chance to bring execution under your control is an exploit. While there are ways to run a tight ship it's a complex, consumer application in the first place, so you've got a food in the door there. Notice that if the hardware is proprietary, having the running cleartext code does you jack, if you have to port it to an undongled system first. It would be easier to write it from scratch. > 3C) Human attack - con or bribe someone into procuring a smart card > for you. Perhaps a disgruntled employee at the developers firm or at > the firm making the smartcards. This is probalby the least expensive > attack but has the most criminal risk. You already own the smartcard. It's been keyed during production, or to your national ID after the purchase. > You guys are wasting your time discussing how difficult a physical > attack is. As the most difficult and most expensive attack, it's the I'm sorry if I'm unable to make myself clear. The individually keyed DRM systems are deliberately designed to require physical attacks. This is why it's so hard to clone a GSM smartcard. It's never been done by crooks in the wild, as far as I know (which is not much). Cloning GMS cards is certainly an event sufficiently rare to not cut into sales. > last thing your attacker will try. The fact is, your client will pay > what he percieves is a fair and just price for the product. If he > believes the product is only worth $50K, and he needs your product, > and there is no competing product, then he will assess the risk and > viability of stealing it and then spend up to $50K to do so. If he > thinks it's worth $200K then he'll just buy it. The whole point of DRM is not to make attacks impossible (nothing human-made is ever impossible) but to sufficiently costly to be not worth the effort. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 22:54:08 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:54:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051203215832.GM2249@leitl.org> References: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> <20051203215832.GM2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 12/3/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > User authentication can be made mandatory to government smartcard ID > (yes, Virginia, they're coming to a country near you), so that watermark > can be tracked back to a particular warm body (a pretty unhappy warm > body, soon, even if it's an unwitting dupe). > > Notice that individual system keys and content keyeing to such, and watermarking > of said content is not yet in any use in a commercial system, to the > best of my knowledge. You can be damn certain you will see this fielded > in less than a decade, probably in half that. > Did you notice this news article? FBI to get veto power over PC software? September 27, 2005 11:37 AM PDT The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves. No, really. In an obscure "policy" document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision. According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement." Read the last seven words again. ----------------------- It may well happen that in a few years time the Supreme court will decide that the FCC have exceeded their powers a trifle here. But in the meantime.......... BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 01:21:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:21:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512040123.jB41NAe03685@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? > > http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm Cool thanks Damien! I engage in evolutionary psychology often, and never realized I was doing it, or that it had an actual name. spike From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Sun Dec 4 02:56:56 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 00:56:56 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512040056.57059.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> I disagree Much of the knowledge that evolutionary studies brought to us is not based on hipotesis about the pleistocene, but about the behavior of animals with whom we have a near common ancestor, and of behaviors inferred from archeological evidence of people of the past. Evolutionary psicology is based on facts, not on speculation only. Diego Em S?bado 03 Dezembro 2005 19:05, Damien Broderick escreveu: > http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra. > Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite > http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=diegocaleiro&_ >l=1,1133643973.327442.11233.chipata.terra.com.br,2707,Des15,Des15 > > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 02/12/2005 / Vers?o: > 4.4.00/4642 Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 4 03:08:09 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:08:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <200512040056.57059.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203150504.01edbc50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512040056.57059.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051203215741.07493528@unreasonable.com> BTW, there's a mailing list for evolutionary psychology that I'm on, which is reachable through http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvolutionaryPsychology2/ Many of the participants are scientists in the field. No one has commented on the Science Week editorial, but there was some discussion of the previous editorial, "Brain Size and the National Review," so I imagine someone will get to this one before long. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 03:46:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 19:46:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> When one has a deep-seated incorrect notion in one's memetic infrastructure, one takes an interest in how it got there to start with. When Samantha chided me into becoming educated on the dangers of drug overdose, I did so and found I had worried for nothing. I found a bunch of other interesting stuff while I was at it. What follows is a short report, written mostly for your Saturday evening entertainment. A very credible looking medical research site claimed there have been 8 known cases that can be classified as fatal LSD overdose, with no other medical issues and no other drugs involved. These were thought to have occurred in those rare cases where the victim had a very large amount of LSD in the unusual form that could be mistaken for cocaine, and had ingested a very large amount up the old schnozzola. In those cases the victim inhaled huge amounts, hundreds of times the ordinary LSD dose. Even Timothy Leary would have dropped out permanently. So LSD has been around since the 60s. Eight cases since then, and those under very unusual circumstances: less risky than being devoured by an alligator. As for those cooking up their own at home and accidentally poisoning themselves, I found no cases of that. The web has been with us a dozen years and the internet for over three decades. If it hasn't happened by now, it evidently isn't a risk. So now I ask myself how I got the notion to start with. One site suggested that many newspapers report LSD overdose incorrectly. I heard of one a couple years ago because it happened in my wife's home town of Spokane Washington. Turns out it was something else besides LSD, an experimental substitute that the prole used and managed to poison herself. Perhaps much of what is sold as LSD may be something else, such as strychnine. Rat poison is cheap and legal. Deaths from this might be reported as LSD overdose, especially if the victim's friends also thought they were getting acid. A google search on fatal drug overdose reveals some interesting findings. Evidently the most common drug overdose is from heroin, followed by... alcohol! I never realized how common that is. Of course there are circumstances to muddy the waters, such as deaths from a complicated mixture of drugs. Which pill slew Elvis? And there are other dangers to certain drugs, even if the substance does not pose a risk of fatal overdose. It is said by some sites that LSD can cause flashbacks. And of course with each hit, one runs the risk of becoming more Howard-Sternlike. That risk alone would cause me to flee, horrified. To the question was how I got the idea of fatal LSD overdose to start with, I offer three suggestions: As an impressionable child I recall rock stars were dropping like flies on DDT: Jimi Hendrix (who could play guitar with his teeth), Janis Joplin, who could imitate an actual rock star if you have the sound muted, Jim Morrison of the Doornails for instance. (I had heard of none of these before the news reports of their drug-related demise, with little detail on which drugs were involved). I did learn that Jim Morrison, who was known to request infants to light his fire, was from Melbourne Florida, Harvey Newstrom's home town and just a short ride from where I misspent my own youth and childhood. Another possibility is accidental or intentional misreporting of a cause of death in the news. If a hopeless junky is found perished, perhaps news agencies would report it as a drug overdose without getting too careful on which drug. Possibly even the local coroner would do little more than cite drug overdose, leaving the local news agencies to supply details. Perhaps the local police chief is unwilling to admit that there is heroin available in the neighborhood, or wishes to scare the proletariat into eschewing certain pharmaceuticals. In the case of rock stars, their agents may have both the money and the connections to influence the medics to list the cause of death as something that may help protect the rock star's legacy and the agent's cut of the future record sales. (Morrison's heart attack, for instance.) Lastly, I figure it is all the fault of Hollywood Inc. About 15 years ago, I saw a movie called 1969, starring Wynona Ryder, Keifer Sutherlin and Robert Downy Jr. If you have not seen this one, rush right out to the video place and rent something else. Anything else. Even with that cast, it was the dumbest movie since Easy Rider (which is truly difficult to beat in in the stupid category). Downy's character offers LSD to Sutherlin who refuses, then to Ryder, who also declines, perhaps to meet an appointment with the local clothing retailer to do some shoplifting. Downy then devours all the LSD, presumably twice or thrice the normal dose. Bad circumstances result. He survives, barely. But the all time classic is "Reefer Madness" which is now available on DVD. This alarming but strangely hilarious docudrama warns of how clean-cut republican young people can be twisted into monstrous creatures, by merely "toking" on these "reefers" of the devil's harvest. (Picture Wally Cleaver showing up wearing only a tie-dye T-shirt and beating June: take THAT pearl bitch!). These "reefer" high schoolers soon become "hep cats" engaging in such behaviors as murder and really wild jazz piano playing. Oh dear. So I was wrong about the potential of death due to LSD overdose, but it's all Hollywood's fault. And that Howard Stern thing still scares me senseless. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 03:51:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 19:51:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] forwarded comments on security systems In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512040353.jB43rte23516@tick.javien.com> Former ExI poster Mike Lorrey wrote: All of the huffing and puffing about this topic demonstrates a poor understanding of the whole purpose of realistic security. I think Harvey will agree with me that it is just impossible to make anything 100% secure, but it is also unrealistic to go by the absurd demands that hackers make of system security. Traditional lock picking and safe cracking have demonstrated that security technology is really only good at keeping honest people honest. This doesn't mean you shouldn't put locks or security cameras on your home. This is because the real point of security technology is to create such a barrier to entry that those who are intent on breaking through them have to engage in such overt and intentional acts that they leave a sufficient evidence trail that will lead to their capture and convince a jury of the need to convict. Honest people do not intentionally break through security systems in the real world unless they are hired to do so by their owner, or as part of their vocational training for careers in security, in an educational setting. Security systems are of minor use in deterring dishonest folk from criminal enterprise. They tend to try to find was around or through them without getting caught. No security system is a substitute for a .45 caliber at deterring those intent on no good. Of course, you can't shoot bullets over a computer network... or can you? Few people have noticed that the powers that be have essentially imposed total victim disarmament on the internet. They do not allow a 2nd Amendment when it comes to the internet. You may not fry, defensively, the systems of an intruder, with viruses, trojans, worms, etc. without commiting a crime to do so. Is it any wonder, then, that the net is rife with spam, viruses, trojans, worms, dos attacks, spyware, malware, and many thousands of technology crimes every day? No, it isn't, because very few of the perpetrators are ever caught. We saw a Russian spammer beaten to death in his apartment earlier this year, but that was as likely done by a competitor of his. Once in a while a hacker is arrested. A malware perp is busted. Sony comes under investigation, but if a person exercises their right of affirmative defense against hackers, he commits a crime in the eyes of the 'law'. That being said, back to the topic at hand: copy protection systems. Just because internet logging and dongles can be gotten around is no reason not to implement. They keep the vast majority of people honest. The pirating problem will not be solved so long as China, and other governments, refuse to live up to their obligations regarding IP protection. It is a political problem. Moreover, you should expect pirating if your software is any good. Pilferage is the greatest flattery for a developer. You can choose to not pursue prosecution of pirates, merely make them pay the true cost through the technical support system by having multiple tiers of service: free or low cost support for fully paid licensees, and high cost paid support for pirates. They may not pay you for a license, but they will pay you for your support of what is really still your own product, and through that you can recoup the original license fees anyways, thus through the market, you make a deterrent against piracy of your product, if the users wind up paying more in the end to use pirated software than licensed software. Mike Lorrey Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 04:12:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:12:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512040414.jB44EFe25894@tick.javien.com> Evidently it is possible to perish from cocaine if it is injected and accompanied by methadone (whatever the heck that is). http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/03/powerball.grandchild.ap/index.html From davidmc at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 04:34:52 2005 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:34:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/3/05, spike wrote: > A very credible looking medical research site claimed > there have been 8 known cases that can be classified as > fatal LSD overdose, with no other medical issues and no > other drugs involved. These were thought to have > occurred in those rare cases where the victim had a > very large amount of LSD in the unusual form that > could be mistaken for cocaine, and had ingested a very large > amount up the old schnozzola. In those cases the victim > inhaled huge amounts, hundreds of times the ordinary > LSD dose. Even Timothy Leary would have dropped out > permanently. Spike, I did a search too and came across the case I think you reference on http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml Notably, none of the 8 died. "With supportive care, all patients recovered." Coma, hyperthermia, and bleeding associated with massive LSD overdose, a report of eight cases. Klock JC, Boerner U, Becker CE. Clin Toxicol 1975;8(2):191-203 [ Abstract ] Eight patients were seen within 15 min of intranasal self-administration of large amounts of pure D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tartrate powder. Emesis and collapse occurred along with sign of sympathetic overactivity, hyperthermia, coma, and respiratory arrest. Mild generalized bleeding occurred in several patients and evidence of platelet dysfunction was present in all. Serum and gastric concentrations of LSD tartrate ranged from 2.1 to 26 ng/ml and 1000 to 7000 mug/100 ml, respectively. With supportive care, all patients recovered. Massive LSD overdose in humans is life-threatening and produces striking and distinctive manifestations. From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 4 04:44:03 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:44:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: > From: spike > > When one has a deep-seated incorrect notion in one's > memetic infrastructure, one takes an interest in how > it got there to start with. When Samantha chided me > into becoming educated on the dangers of drug overdose, > I did so and found I had worried for nothing. I found > a bunch of other interesting stuff while I was at it. What > follows is a short report, written mostly for your > Saturday evening entertainment. [Snip a bunch of "other interesting stuff", that I enjoyed reading...] > So I was wrong about the potential of death due to > LSD overdose, but it's all Hollywood's fault. And > that Howard Stern thing still scares me senseless. > > spike It is rare on the Internet to find anyone so intellectually honest, and rare pleasure. I congratulate you Spike. You are to be emulated and envied for the ability to look deeper and learn in spite of preconceptions and strong beliefs. Salute! BTW, I am fairly certain that (pure) LSD use actually is one of the better 'cures' for (other) drug abuse although I doubt there is any way I can show the evidence that would cleanly support this notion. LSD is non-addictive in the physical sense, and of those I know who preferred using it it did not seem to be addictive psychologically more so than any other substance (including cigarettes and food.) LSD is difficult to use "daily" since after engaging in it's use it is ineffective for several days (radically less effective at best.) LSD seems to be a catalyst to some reaction within the nervous system and my suspicion is that that substance which actually causes the reaction is "used up" and requires rebuilding to enable (again) the reaction. (I may have read that some thirty years ago somewhere.) -- Herb Martin From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 4 04:58:35 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:58:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512032058l766ea9a4hb3c29935ba31268b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/3/05, spike wrote: > So LSD has been around since the 60s. Eight cases since > then, and those under very unusual circumstances: less > risky than being devoured by an alligator. > > As for those cooking up their own at home and accidentally > poisoning themselves, I found no cases of that. The web > has been with us a dozen years and the internet for over > three decades. If it hasn't happened by now, it evidently > isn't a risk. > > So now I ask myself how I got the notion to start with. One Spike - You and I are about the same age, and I remember the memetic source most influencial to me regarding the dangers of LSD was the Reader's Digest which, in the 60s, published some extremely dramatic articles on people taking LSD, thinking they could see God, or were God, and flying out of windows and such. If I remember correctly, the articles also tended to conflate LSD use with death by other drugs by prominent examples of non-Christian living such as Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison. I was only in my first decade of life, but I remember reading the Digest each month and then laughing to my mother about how obvious was its propaganda, whether about the dangers of drugs, rock music, or communism. Later, in my early twenties I researched LSD both objectively and (briefly) subjectively, and learned that the physical risk is quite minimal. It does open one up to understanding the crucial importance of subjective viewpoint, but I think it does pose a very real danger in terms of accentuating a tendency to experience "aha" moments and mistake them for true understanding. - Jef From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 4 04:59:39 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:59:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051203215741.07493528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: From: David Lubkin > BTW, there's a mailing list for evolutionary psychology that I'm on, > which is reachable through > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvolutionaryPsychology2/ > > Many of the participants are scientists in the field. > > No one has commented on the Science Week editorial, but there was > some discussion of the previous editorial, "Brain Size and the > National Review," so I imagine someone will get to this one > before long. > -- David. Thank you. At times, I question the value of the ExI chat list, but have gained a wealth of knowledge from the postings by those who recommend (as you do) other lists, books, and articles, e.g.: PhysOrg.com is very interesting to me, and I learned about it here. Please keep posting the sources you find of value, whether lists, sites, or books. And of course, on occasion one of the long back and forth discussions will unearth a tidbit of real useful information . (Which is probably as critical of my posts as anyone else's. ) It's just we have to wade through so much chaff for the nuggets. -- Herb Martin From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 05:12:57 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:12:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512040514.jB45Ese00697@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David McFadzean > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:35 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David McFadzean ... > > Spike, I did a search too and came across the case I think you > reference on http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml > > Notably, none of the 8 died. "With supportive care, all patients > recovered." The reference I found wasn't that one, but in retrospect I'm not certain my own reference specified that the patients actually perished. The site referenced animal studies, including an elephant(!). I don't think I would want to be in the neighborhood with an LSD-crazed elephant. {8^D In any case, clearly the dangers of LSD are not in direct overdose, but rather in finding oneself in prison being used as currency by larger and meaner inmates. Like the case of legally-required smoke detectors, the government may be protecting us to death. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 4 05:27:55 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:27:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040514.jB45Ese00697@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040514.jB45Ese00697@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203232654.01caebf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:12 PM 12/3/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >I don't think I would want to be in the >neighborhood with an LSD-crazed elephant. Don't worry, they just sit there with their eyeballs spinning... remembering... Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 05:39:28 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:39:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051203232654.01caebf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051204053928.82489.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:12 PM 12/3/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > >I don't think I would want to be in the > >neighborhood with an LSD-crazed elephant. > > Don't worry, they just sit there with their eyeballs > spinning... remembering... Yeah, until one of them stumbles upon the epiphany that all flesh is grass... then the trouble starts. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 05:46:20 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:46:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512032058l766ea9a4hb3c29935ba31268b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512040548.jB45mHe04338@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > > > So now I ask myself how I got the notion to start with. spike... > > Spike, you and I are about the same age... Jef the tragic part is we lived down the street from each other for a couple years and never met face to face. How did we let that happen? {8-[ > ... Reader's Digest which, in the 60s, published some extremely dramatic articles... Ja, they are good at that. {8^D ... > flying out of windows and such... That I vaguely remember in TV shows. "I can flyyyyyy..." (cue decreasing pitch whistle sound, followed by a muffled boom, much like the sound Wile E. Coyote made on a regular basis.) > If I remember correctly, the articles > also tended to conflate LSD use with death by other drugs by prominent > examples of non-Christian living such as Janis Joplin and Jim > Morrison... Ja, I honestly do not recall if the notion actually came from Readers Digest or other sources, but had it come from the Digest I would have had exactly zero reference points to disprove it. My home town was squaresville USA. I never knew other places were any different. > I was only in my first decade of life, but I remember > reading the Digest each month and then laughing to my mother about how > obvious was its propaganda, whether about the dangers of drugs, rock > music, or communism... Jef thou Philistine! Hey at least they were right about the communism part. {8^D > > Later, in my early twenties I researched LSD both objectively and > (briefly) subjectively, and learned that the physical risk is quite > minimal. It does open one up to understanding the crucial importance > of subjective viewpoint, but I think it does pose a very real danger > in terms of accentuating a tendency to experience "aha" moments and > mistake them for true understanding. > > - Jef Interesting insight Jef. I do hope my comments are not interpreted by anyone as saying I think LSD and other drugs are not dangerous, just the opposite. I see plenty of dangers there. My previous comments say that fatal overdose with LSD is not one of the dangers, which is a misunderstanding that I carried around for decades. Like Humphrey Bogart, I was misinformed. My two closest friends from childhood both ended up seriously screwed up, first from drugs, later from alcohol (that being far cheaper than drugs). Both were trying to sober up at 40, but last time I was with them they both made a comment I found interesting. The biggest challenge they faced in staying sober was that after more than two decades of drugs and alcohol, nothing seemed fun to them. Everything was boring, the world a dull gray, kinda like Dorothy's place back in Kansas. It was almost as if the endorphin glands were worn out. They couldn't get no satisfaction. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 05:57:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:57:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <20051204053928.82489.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512040558.jB45wwe05761@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:39 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure > > > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 09:12 PM 12/3/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > > > >I don't think I would want to be in the > > >neighborhood with an LSD-crazed elephant. > > > > Don't worry, they just sit there with their eyeballs > > spinning... remembering... > > Yeah, until one of them stumbles upon the epiphany > that all flesh is grass... then the trouble starts. ;) The Avantguardian No that's the *normal* dosage. With the experimental super overdose, they get the epiphany that all flesh is ass. Thats when the *real* trouble starts. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 4 06:04:17 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:04:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040548.jB45mHe04338@tick.javien.com> References: <22360fa10512032058l766ea9a4hb3c29935ba31268b@mail.gmail.com> <200512040548.jB45mHe04338@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051204000120.01ca9e68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> > > flying out of windows and such... > >That I vaguely remember in TV shows. "I can flyyyyyy..." >(cue decreasing pitch whistle sound, followed by a muffled >boom, much like the sound Wile E. Coyote made on a regular >basis.) Sometime famous USian TV personality Art Linkletter's dead daughter was a source of much FUD: http://www.answers.com/topic/art-linkletter October 4 1969 by jumping out of her sixth floor kitchen window. She was 20 years old. Several contradictory stories were brought forward, and Art concluded that she committed suicide because she was on or having a flashback from an LSD trip. Several reports claimed that there was no involvement from LSD, but Art still continued to speak out against drugs for the rest of his career.> From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 06:28:05 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:28:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why the Spike did not happen Message-ID: <470a3c520512032228y65c4bfe3na0985d50662e6546@mail.gmail.com> Interesting story on the Singularity. In 2104, an historian explain what "Singularity" meant and why it did not happen in the previous century. The main argument is that the complexity of the *interesting* problems to be solved increase exponentially with the capacity to solve them, thus the rate of progress stay linear. For example, even with computers with more processing capacity than the human brain, they don't have yet anything resembling a human intelligence embodied in a machine. The Searle argument is quoted. I am not sure if I buy this argument, but I also suspect that the "gentle hill of progress" will continue as such, at least from the point of view of those who are climbing it. Ambient Irony : "And that's what killed the Spike. The Technological Singularity relied on the assumption that we would have ever-increasing computational resources to address the problem of, well, increasing our computational resources, but that the problems we would have to solve would not increase at the same rate. When it turned out that the complexity of the problems increased as fast as - or even faster than - our ability to solve them, the inevitable Spike turned into the gentle hill of progress. And instead of the transhuman era, we ended up with a very human era indeed". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 4 06:31:46 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:31:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051204000120.01ca9e68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512040633.jB46Xhe10306@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure > > > > > flying out of windows and such... > > > >That I vaguely remember in TV shows. "I can flyyyyyy..." > >(cue decreasing pitch whistle sound, followed by a muffled > >boom, much like the sound Wile E. Coyote made on a regular > >basis.) > > Sometime famous USian TV personality Art Linkletter's dead daughter was a > source of much FUD: Thanks Damien. Had I remembered in time, I might have cited James Swayze, former ExI poster and cryonics enthusiast. http://home.comcast.net/~swayzej/jspage_main.html As I recall, his paralysis resulted from a drug-induced flight out a window onto unforgiving pavement below. His was an accidental overdose: he was using marijuana to treat glaucoma, not for kicks, but some ass put PCP in it without telling him. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 4 08:45:49 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 00:45:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: References: <20051201202153.GC2249@leitl.org> <20051201221536.73650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051202223035.GW2249@leitl.org> <20051203215832.GM2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3F6ABD7A-5DD2-4519-AC20-30C1C7D740A9@mac.com> The FCC should be disbanded as utterly useless and in the way. Their "powers" are arbitrary and pernicious. What exactly do they do that needs doing and that wouldn't be done better by a free market? - samantha On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, BillK wrote: > On 12/3/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> >> User authentication can be made mandatory to government smartcard ID >> (yes, Virginia, they're coming to a country near you), so that >> watermark >> can be tracked back to a particular warm body (a pretty unhappy warm >> body, soon, even if it's an unwitting dupe). >> >> Notice that individual system keys and content keyeing to such, >> and watermarking >> of said content is not yet in any use in a commercial system, to the >> best of my knowledge. You can be damn certain you will see this >> fielded >> in less than a decade, probably in half that. >> >> > > > Did you notice this news article? > > > FBI to get veto power over PC software? > September 27, 2005 11:37 AM PDT > > The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use > software on your computer only if the FBI approves. > > No, really. In an obscure "policy" document released around 9 p.m. ET > last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision. > > > > According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that > characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run > applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of > law enforcement." Read the last seven words again. > > ----------------------- > > It may well happen that in a few years time the Supreme court will > decide that the FCC have exceeded their powers a trifle here. But in > the meantime.......... > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 4 08:53:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 00:53:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040414.jB44EFe25894@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040414.jB44EFe25894@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Cocaine is a CNS stimulant. Overdose is quite possible, generally from respiratory arrest but stroke is also not uncommon if too much coke is ingested. Here is a little blurb. The fatal dose of cocaine has been approximated 1.2 g, although severe toxic effects have been reported from doses as low as 20 mg. SYMPTOMS: The symptoms of cocaine poisoning are referable to the CNS, namely the patient becomes excited, restless, garrulous, anxious and confused. Enhanced reflexes, headache, rapid pulse, irregular respiration, chills, rise in b.d. temperature, mydriasis, exophthalmos, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain are noticed in severe overdoses, delirium, Cheyne-Stokes respiration, convulsions, unconsciousness and death from respiratory arrest result. Acute poisoning by cocaine is rapid in developing. TREATMENT: The specific treatment of acute cocaine poisoning is the intravenous administration of a short-acting barbiturate or diazepam. Artificial respiration may be necessary. It is important to limit absorption of the drug. If entrance of the drug into circulation can be checked, and respiratory exchange maintained, the progress is favorable since cocaine is eliminated fairly rapidly. - samantha On Dec 3, 2005, at 8:12 PM, spike wrote: > > Evidently it is possible to perish from cocaine if it > is injected and accompanied by methadone (whatever the > heck that is). > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/03/powerball.grandchild.ap/index.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 09:29:11 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:29:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] forwarded comments on security systems In-Reply-To: <200512040353.jB43rte23516@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> <200512040353.jB43rte23516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, spike wrote: > > Former ExI poster Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > No security system is a substitute for a .45 caliber at deterring those > intent on no good. Of course, you can't shoot bullets over a computer > network... or can you? Few people have noticed that the powers that be have > essentially imposed total victim disarmament on the internet. They do not > allow a 2nd Amendment when it comes to the internet. You may not fry, > defensively, the systems of an intruder, with viruses, trojans, worms, etc. > without commiting a crime to do so. > > Is it any wonder, then, that the net is rife with spam, viruses, trojans, > worms, dos attacks, spyware, malware, and many thousands of technology > crimes every day? No, it isn't, because very few of the perpetrators are > ever caught. We saw a Russian spammer beaten to death in his apartment > earlier this year, but that was as likely done by a competitor of his. Once > in a while a hacker is arrested. A malware perp is busted. Sony comes under > investigation, but if a person exercises their right of affirmative defense > against hackers, he commits a crime in the eyes of the 'law'. > The problem with retaliation over the internet is that you rarely can find the source to attack. One virus writer spreads to millions of forwarding computers. Spam is sent by thousands of infected computers. Most times you would just be destroying computers used by the clueless or less careful users. Everyone who got a new computer would be like a newbie joining an online shooter game and getting killed within minutes. Sign on to the internet, ten minutes later you get a virus, twenty minutes later some vigilante fries your hard disk? Or, say you talked someone into breaking into Mike's house? Pretending it was your house and you'd locked your keys inside. Does gullibility justify the death penalty? Extreme penalties require the commission of extreme crimes. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 4 10:05:52 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 02:05:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Herb Martin wrote: > > LSD seems to be a catalyst to some reaction within the > nervous system and my suspicion is that that substance > which actually causes the reaction is "used up" and > requires rebuilding to enable (again) the reaction. > (I may have read that some thirty years ago somewhere.) > At the tail end of the sixties I took my Leary, Alpert, Huxley very seriously. I really got into acid for a few years. From experience I found that it was impossible to trip more often than once about every three days. At least a week between attempts was better. I never did find out just what was being depleted. Whatever it was seemed to be recovered faster with heavy doses of vitamins, especially C. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 4 10:16:40 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:16:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051204101640.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 07:46:04PM -0800, spike wrote: > inhaled huge amounts, hundreds of times the ordinary Thousands of times, actually. Some ~100 mg instead of some 10 ug. > LSD dose. Even Timothy Leary would have dropped out > permanently. > > As for those cooking up their own at home and accidentally > poisoning themselves, I found no cases of that. The web That's because (unlike some other drugs) LSD is quite nontrivial do synthesize at home, even by a trained chemist. And those few who can, can tell micrograms and milligrams apart. > has been with us a dozen years and the internet for over > three decades. If it hasn't happened by now, it evidently > isn't a risk. LSD can be overwhelming, especially to novices. Even in a proper set and setting the experience can turn nasty, and cause a panic (you're completely convinced you're dying or see dead people in the cars on the highway). Add to this the subjective impression than time stops (you don't see the second hand move, even though you know that this can't be), and you'll see that things can become quite interesting. > So now I ask myself how I got the notion to start with. One > site suggested that many newspapers report LSD overdose > incorrectly. I heard of one a couple years ago because it > happened in my wife's home town of Spokane Washington. Turns > out it was something else besides LSD, an experimental > substitute that the prole used and managed to poison > herself. Perhaps much of what is sold as LSD may be > something else, such as strychnine. Rat poison is cheap LSD is sold either as blotter, microdots or as liquid. There's not enough volume in a microdot or a blotter for a strychnine dosage to have any detectable physiological effects. Newspapers reports and depictions in flicks and other media (starting with Reefer Madness hilariousness) are almost always inaccurate, whether from sheer ignorance, or due to a targeted defamation campaign. > and legal. Deaths from this might be reported as > LSD overdose, especially if the victim's friends > also thought they were getting acid. > > A google search on fatal drug overdose reveals > some interesting findings. Evidently the most > common drug overdose is from heroin, followed by... > alcohol! I never realized how common that is. > > retailer to do some shoplifting. Downy then devours all the > LSD, presumably twice or thrice the normal dose. Bad > circumstances result. He survives, barely. Another bogus report. People frequently drop 2-3 of the baseine experience. Remember, it takes 1000x to take you out for good. That's a lot of petty cash, and inert filler to swallow. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 4 10:42:11 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:42:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Why the Spike did not happen In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512032228y65c4bfe3na0985d50662e6546@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512032228y65c4bfe3na0985d50662e6546@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051204104211.GE2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 07:28:05AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > For example, even with computers with more > processing capacity than the human brain, they don't have yet anything Let's say I have a computer with more processing capacity than a human brain in the volume of a sugar cube (cm^3). A m^3 gives me 10^6 that. Surely a factor of a mere million is going to make a tiny, very minor, insignificant little difference? And, surely, a cubic mile of the same is going to make a bit more of the same? How about a planet's volume, as a circumsolar computronium cloud? Even if things scale linearly (I don't think intelligence scales linearly with the processing volume, at least for small volumes) there is a lot of headroom by just adding more processing volume. > resembling a human intelligence embodied in a machine. The Searle argument > is quoted. Searle has catched himself in a trap of his own making, just as the qualia crowd. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 4 11:36:46 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 03:36:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? In-Reply-To: <200512040123.jB41NAe03685@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040123.jB41NAe03685@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7555383F-2049-4BC2-99EF-F08309F3BD0A@mac.com> I am really impressed with the quality of pseudoscienceweek.com. - samantha On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:21 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >> Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience? >> >> http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm >> > > Cool thanks Damien! I engage in evolutionary psychology > often, and never realized I was doing it, or that it had > an actual name. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 11:46:55 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:46:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Why the Spike did not happen In-Reply-To: <20051204104211.GE2249@leitl.org> References: <470a3c520512032228y65c4bfe3na0985d50662e6546@mail.gmail.com> <20051204104211.GE2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520512040346p7f43c770k2a80b946e103b7cb@mail.gmail.com> They seem to buy Searle's argument and think that the development of computational intelligence will run into unforeseen fundamental problems. Of course this may well be the case, but for the time being I prefer to side with Occam and make the simplest assumption: that if evolution has built an intelligent computer, we can do the same. G. On 12/4/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 07:28:05AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > For example, even with computers with more > > processing capacity than the human brain, they don't have yet anything > > Let's say I have a computer with more processing capacity > than a human brain in the volume of a sugar cube (cm^3). > A m^3 gives me 10^6 that. Surely a factor of a mere million is going > to make a tiny, very minor, insignificant little difference? > > And, surely, a cubic mile of the same is going to make a bit > more of the same? How about a planet's volume, as a circumsolar > computronium cloud? > > Even if things scale linearly (I don't think intelligence scales > linearly with the processing volume, at least for small volumes) > there is a lot of headroom by just adding more processing volume. > > > resembling a human intelligence embodied in a machine. The Searle argument > > is quoted. > > Searle has catched himself in a trap of his own making, just > as the qualia crowd. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 13:12:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:12:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512032058l766ea9a4hb3c29935ba31268b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10512032058l766ea9a4hb3c29935ba31268b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > You and I are about the same age, and I remember the memetic source > most influencial to me regarding the dangers of LSD was the Reader's > Digest which, in the 60s, published some extremely dramatic articles > on people taking LSD, thinking they could see God, or were God, and > flying out of windows and such. If I remember correctly, the articles > also tended to conflate LSD use with death by other drugs by prominent > examples of non-Christian living such as Janis Joplin and Jim > Morrison. I was only in my first decade of life, but I remember > reading the Digest each month and then laughing to my mother about how > obvious was its propaganda, whether about the dangers of drugs, rock > music, or communism. You ought to look into the connection between Readers Digest and the CIA http://archive.salon.com/sneaks/sneakpeeks961113.html Later, in my early twenties I researched LSD both objectively and > (briefly) subjectively, and learned that the physical risk is quite > minimal. It does open one up to understanding the crucial importance > of subjective viewpoint, but I think it does pose a very real danger > in terms of accentuating a tendency to experience "aha" moments and > mistake them for true understanding. > Which is why people like me do 'reality testing' - we take those insights and test them for utility. One can argue over the nature of reality, but utility is a pretty objective criteria. I made a lot of money using LSD for 'business trips'. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 13:19:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:19:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] forwarded comments on security systems In-Reply-To: <200512040353.jB43rte23516@tick.javien.com> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> <200512040353.jB43rte23516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, spike wrote: > > > Former ExI poster Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > No security system is a substitute for a .45 caliber at deterring those > intent on no good. Of course, you can't shoot bullets over a computer > network... or can you? Few people have noticed that the powers that be > have > essentially imposed total victim disarmament on the internet. They do not > allow a 2nd Amendment when it comes to the internet. You may not fry, > defensively, the systems of an intruder, with viruses, trojans, worms, > etc. > without commiting a crime to do so. > > That's not really true. If I have a nasty piece of s/w on my machine and someone hacks into it, releasing it to trash *their* machine - that is not illegal. Putting that s/w on a website would be illegal because it would not require a criminal act to access it. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 4 15:27:10 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 10:27:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? Message-ID: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> Sadly, Thomas J. Thompson's "An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze Age India and the State in History" is only currently available in the print edition of _The Independent Review_ 10(3) [Winter 2006]. Anyhow, I recommend it even if I'm not completely satisfied with Thompson's argument for Harappan civilization being stateless... But he offers a compelling case given the limits of the evidence. If he's right, this would be a whole civilization and the stateless period seems to have lasted about 700 years. I've noticed a tendency among critics of anarchism to claim that no society of any appreciable size has remained anarchist for long. When one points to Medieval Iceland, one problem is, of course, that even though the stateless period lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society during that time never formed cities -- it was an essential non-urban or pre-urban society. Well, Harappan civilization did. So, if the stateless thesis is correct, it presents an interesting case of a long lived, _urban_ civilization without a state. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 15:42:25 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:42:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? In-Reply-To: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > Sadly, Thomas J. Thompson's "An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze > Age India and the State in History" is only currently available in the > print edition of _The Independent Review_ 10(3) [Winter 2006]. Anyhow, > I recommend it even if I'm not completely satisfied with Thompson's > argument for Harappan civilization being stateless... But he offers a > compelling case given the limits of the evidence. > > If he's right, this would be a whole civilization and the stateless > period seems to have lasted about 700 years. I've noticed a tendency > among critics of anarchism to claim that no society of any appreciable > size has remained anarchist for long. When one points to Medieval > Iceland, one problem is, of course, that even though the stateless > period lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society during that time > never formed cities -- it was an essential non-urban or pre-urban > society. Well, Harappan civilization did. So, if the stateless thesis > is correct, it presents an interesting case of a long lived, _urban_ > civilization without a state. > > Not even a city-state? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Sun Dec 4 16:08:04 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:08:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> References: <438E8825.3020804@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > My boss (who is new to the company) has gotten it into his head that we > absolutely MUST have copy protection on our next software product. Better update your resume. If you end up annoying your customers, you know what'll happen to your company... -- "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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Dec 4 17:04:28 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:04:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? In-Reply-To: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net> Technotranscendence wrote: >When one points to Medieval >Iceland, one problem is, of course, that even though the stateless >period lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society during that time >never formed cities -- it was an essential non-urban or pre-urban >society. > Another problem would be that medieval Iceland was not really "stateless", despite what David Friedman might maintain. It maintained a complex (and written) system of laws (see, for example, Gr?gas) and courts (?ing and al?ing) in which to pursue those laws, and was enough of a state to be able to engage in foreign relations with other states (Norway being a prime example, with which treaties were undertaken). Power was very carefully and formally concentrated in the hands of a few leaders (the go?ar), and the island itself was divided into various well-defined districts which determined which court one took one's cases to. The very fact that the entire island could officially convert from paganism to Christianity by an act of the al?ing should dispell the idea as well (I am well aware of the nuances and the period of dual faith, but the essential fact remains). Some of the work of Jesse Byock ("Viking Age Iceland" and "Feud in the Icelandic Saga" in particular) should be helpful in this regard. I should point out that it's usually referred to as "The Commonwealth Period" by scholars; "The Stateless Period" is certainly not in the mainstream among scholars in the field. Joseph From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun Dec 4 17:43:22 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:43:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <3F6ABD7A-5DD2-4519-AC20-30C1C7D740A9@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051204174322.57908.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > The FCC should be disbanded as utterly useless and in the way. Their > > "powers" are arbitrary and pernicious. What exactly do they do > that needs doing and that wouldn't be done better by a free market? Make sure no one corporation owns all the TV stations or similar media outlets in any area with more than a few of them (which would let them impose legal censorship - corporations not being governed by the First Amendment). Keeps people from jamming various frequencies, intentionally or unintentionally, so that certain forms of wireless communication don't work. And that's just off the top of my head. One might wonder if their mission, justified by the scarcity of resources in any communications medium, is obsolete with respect to the Internet, but radio, TV, and newspapers do still exist offline. From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 4 19:39:30 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 14:39:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <005801c5f90a$72caa700$ad893cd1@pavilion> Not if I'm reading Thompson correctly. Of course, the big problem is that he's going from physical evidence that's from around 3,000 BCE. Unlike with other examples of anarchic or stateless societies -- the key recent one being Iceland from about 900 CE to 1200 CE -- there's no oral or written history of this civilization. It's written works remain un-deciphered. So, the case is based on archaeological evidence and arguments from that. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? On 12/4/05, Technotranscendence wrote: Sadly, Thomas J. Thompson's "An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze Age India and the State in History" is only currently available in the print edition of _The Independent Review_ 10(3) [Winter 2006]. Anyhow, I recommend it even if I'm not completely satisfied with Thompson's argument for Harappan civilization being stateless... But he offers a compelling case given the limits of the evidence. If he's right, this would be a whole civilization and the stateless period seems to have lasted about 700 years. I've noticed a tendency among critics of anarchism to claim that no society of any appreciable size has remained anarchist for long. When one points to Medieval Iceland, one problem is, of course, that even though the stateless period lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society during that time never formed cities -- it was an essential non-urban or pre-urban society. Well, Harappan civilization did. So, if the stateless thesis is correct, it presents an interesting case of a long lived, _urban_ civilization without a state. Not even a city-state? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 4 23:04:58 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:04:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> <4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:04 PM Joseph Bloch transhumanist at goldenfuture.net wrote: >> When one points to Medieval Iceland, one problem >> is, of course, that even though the stateless period >> lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society >> during that time never formed cities -- it was an >> essential non-urban or pre-urban society. > > Another problem would be that medieval Iceland > was not really "stateless", despite what David > Friedman might maintain. It maintained a complex > (and written) system of laws (see, for example, Gr?gas) > and courts (?ing and al?ing) in which to pursue those > laws, None of which defines a state, especially since all these relied on consensus and there were no centers of power as such. I.e., nothing like a state. Law does not a state make and even a complex set of laws can exist without a state. (How the heck would international law come about without an overarching state to enforce it?:) > and was enough of a state to be able to engage in > foreign relations with other states (Norway being a > prime example, with which treaties were undertaken). IIRC, one treaty was mainly about how Icelanders would be treated in Norway and was agreed not by someone in Iceland acting as a state or representative of an Icelandic state, but by representatives of all the chiefs there. > Power was very carefully and formally concentrated > in the hands of a few leaders (the go?ar), and the > island itself was divided into various well-defined > districts which determined which court one took one's > cases to. Not exactly. The leaders depended on making decisions that would be accepted by those they were laid upon and until after the Christian conversion, there was nothing to stop someone from going to a rival leader -- meaning there was no regional monopoly of legal authority. At least, I got this from reading one of the books you've cited below -- as well as from reading stuff by Friedman and Roderick Long.* > The very fact that the entire island could officially > convert from paganism to Christianity by an act of > the al?ing should dispell the idea as well (I am well > aware of the nuances and the period of dual faith, > but the essential fact remains). Well, the process seems to have been voluntary, though not without ramifications when the tithe was adopted. See the second essay by Long cited in my footnote below. > Some of the work > of Jesse Byock ("Viking Age Iceland" and "Feud > in the Icelandic Saga" in particular) should be > helpful in this regard. I've only read the former and even Byock seems to agree more with me than you. E.g., on page 28 he states, "From the start, Icelandic society operated with well-developed concepts of private property and law, but, in an unusual combination, it lacked most of the formal institutions of government which normally protect ownership and enforce judicial decisions." > I should point out that it's usually referred to as > "The Commonwealth Period" by scholars; "The > Stateless Period" is certainly not in the > mainstream among scholars in the field. While true, I think this is perhaps because of the reluctance to call it what it is or because it had some features that look like a state. E.g., a few works I've read -- and they have been few -- seem to think that the "al?ing" was basically like a modern parliament, when it seems more to me like a flea market for law. :) Also, there is work out there that shows that the concepts are not mutually exclusive -- the concepts of stateless and commonwealth -- such as Birgir T. Runolfsson Solvason's dissertation "Ordered Anarchy, State, and Rent-Seeking: The Icelandic Commonwealth." Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ * Two of Long's works of note in this area are: "Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?" at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html and "The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland" at http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Dec 4 23:55:36 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:55:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? In-Reply-To: <004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion> References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> <4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net> <004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <439381F8.8000504@goldenfuture.net> Technotranscendence wrote: >On Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:04 PM Joseph Bloch >transhumanist at goldenfuture.net wrote: > > >>>When one points to Medieval Iceland, one problem >>>is, of course, that even though the stateless period >>>lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society >>>during that time never formed cities -- it was an >>>essential non-urban or pre-urban society. >>> >>> >>Another problem would be that medieval Iceland >>was not really "stateless", despite what David >>Friedman might maintain. It maintained a complex >>(and written) system of laws (see, for example, Gr?gas) >>and courts (?ing and al?ing) in which to pursue those >>laws, >> >> > >None of which defines a state, especially since all these relied on >consensus and there were no centers of power as such. I.e., nothing >like a state. > I suppose we could dosey-do around this for a week without getting anywhere unless we agree upon what constitutes a "state", because otherwise every example I give of what I think constitutes an Icelandic state during the Commonwealth will simply be met by "well, that doesn't make a state". One could say that any modern nation-state "relies on consensus". And as far as the Icelandic Commonwealth having "no centers of power as such" I would submit that the go?ar and the al?ing (perhaps the former moreso than the latter) constitute an oligarchic collection of centers of power. I'll go with Mirriam-Webster definition 1a for purposes of this discussion: "A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; /esp/ One that is sovereign" From what I know about Commonwealth-era Iceland (which is quite considerable), it satisfies that definition of statehood. What's your definition of "state", in this context? Joseph From neptune at superlink.net Mon Dec 5 00:05:54 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:05:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> <4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net><004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion> <439381F8.8000504@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <007e01c5f92f$a9d1b840$dc893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:55 PM Joseph Bloch transhumanist at goldenfuture.net wrote: > I'll go with Mirriam-Webster definition 1a for > purposes of this discussion: > > "A politically organized body of people > usually occupying a definite territory; > /esp/ One that is sovereign" > > From what I know about Commonwealth- > era Iceland (which is quite considerable), > it satisfies that definition of statehood. > > What's your definition of "state", in this context? An institution having a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a given geographic area. (As a corollary, in any contest between it and its subjects, it [the state] decides the outcome -- i.e., no one inside it has the legal right to appeal to an authority outside it. If it ceases to have this power, then it ceases to be a state.) Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From neptune at superlink.net Mon Dec 5 00:12:12 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:12:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Announcing Warp-Pod.com Message-ID: <009a01c5f930$8ac463c0$dc893cd1@pavilion> From: Dennis L. May dennislmay at yahoo.com To: howtobuildaspacehabitat at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:56 PM Subject: [How to build a Space Habitat] Announcing Warp-Pod.com My web site for collecting physics and space information. http://www.warp-pod.com/ Dennis May From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 00:19:32 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:19:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? In-Reply-To: <007e01c5f92f$a9d1b840$dc893cd1@pavilion> References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion> <4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net> <004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion> <439381F8.8000504@goldenfuture.net> <007e01c5f92f$a9d1b840$dc893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 12/5/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > An institution having a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a > given geographic area. (As a corollary, in any contest between it and > its subjects, it [the state] decides the outcome -- i.e., no one inside > it has the legal right to appeal to an authority outside it. If it > ceases to have this power, then it ceases to be a state.) > Brits can take their case to the European Court after they have exhausted UK court procedures. The European Court quite often rules against the UK government and instructs them to recompense the complainant. Does that mean the UK is not a state? BillK From neptune at superlink.net Mon Dec 5 01:14:05 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:14:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization? References: <00bf01c5f8e7$325b3860$91893cd1@pavilion><4393219C.7020102@goldenfuture.net><004101c5f927$274b1540$dc893cd1@pavilion><439381F8.8000504@goldenfuture.net><007e01c5f92f$a9d1b840$dc893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <00c001c5f939$3027e460$dc893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:19 PM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: >> An institution having a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a >> given geographic area. (As a corollary, in any contest between it and >> its subjects, it [the state] decides the outcome -- i.e., no one inside >> it has the legal right to appeal to an authority outside it. If it >> ceases to have this power, then it ceases to be a state.) > > Brits can take their case to the European Court after they have > exhausted UK court procedures. The European Court quite often rules > against the UK government and instructs them to recompense the > complainant. > > Does that mean the UK is not a state? EU seems on the way to becoming _the_ sole state in Europe. However, it's too early to tell if this process will actually create such a state or if legal sovereignty really rests with the traditional nation states making up the EU. (I tend to accept the [neo]realist claim that such agreements only remain in force as long as nation states let them remain in force. I.e., international institutions do not, for the most part, socialize nation states as much as they [international institutions] mask their [nation states'] intentions and actions. Of course, nation states themselves are not permanent actors on this stage. They do come and go.) However, to answer your question directly: No. The case here however is a little different. The UK still decides the issue and, I bet, if any decision from the European Court threatens its sovereignty, it will opt out. If not, then, yes, it will cease to be a state and will, at best, be a subsidiary of the EU -- much as one can in the US take local cases to federal courts. Of course, this could get complicated with the UK accepting such decisions for a while, then deciding enough is enough. (To be sure, one would have to define here just when such cases before the Court are threatening and not mere nuisances, which might seem subjective. And, of course, maybe some observers who claim the era of the nation state is at an end and we're entering another period of divided sovereignty like the one that preceded the rise of nation states. There's nothing that makes such a thing impossible and it might be that I'm overstating the case here...) Regards, Dan From allsop at extropy.org Mon Dec 5 16:49:39 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:49:39 -0700 Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512051649.jB5Gnd6V027838@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Hi David, Thanks for joining this conversation! Absolutely speaking, you are right. This kind of simple effing will not prove much absolutely. Just as like now, for the time being, we must accept the possibility that we are a brain in a vat (or matrix). But I think it is a safe (and more importantly a productive) bet to assume we are not - and that most people experience color qualia with some amount of consistency. But, when we do finally discover just what phenomenal properties are and precisely what there neural correlates are (a requirement before we will be able to eff in any way) I bet the correlation between the objectively observed causal properties and the subjectively observed phenomenal properties will be such that it will be obvious why red is the way it is, why salty, sound and other qualia are so different from red and each other, and so on. And I bet it is a good bet that there will be absolute consistency between what we can objectively observe (and experience in ourselves as red) and what everyone else claims is the same red. In other words, there will be no unexplainable subjective exceptions to the newly discovered correlation between some particular correlate that turns out to be red, and real always and forever subjective red. So after this discovery of what qualia are (or how they correlate to causal matter) we will know with much more surety what other minds are like and what they are experiencing. But the ultimate proof will come when we are able to merge multiple minds into single conscious worlds - like our pair of brain hemispheres are merged into a single conscious world. If we experience red in our left hemisphere and green in our right hemisphere at the same time - it is absolutely proven to us what each of these are and how they are different from each other. Eventually, when there are multiple conscious entities in the same conscious world - they too - will know with absolute surety since they will be experiencing or ware of the same phenomenal properties in the same unified or shared mind not just the same kind of phenomenal properties in a different mind. And when we are doing things like this - it will prove once and for all that the matrix movies are just fiction - that we are not in a simulation, and we will finally know that we can, as far as epistemology is concerned, reliably know things. And the world will be a drastically different place - all thanks to the discovery of Qualia - what will surely be by far the most significant scientific achievement to date. All if this theory of mind turns out to be the one that is right. Brent Allsop > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David McFadzean > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:52 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) > > On 11/28/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > When, in your field of vision you see a patch of red, next to a patch of > > green, next to a patch of a new phenomenal property that you have never > > experienced before (say a tetrachromat is effing to you who is a normal > > trichromat) you will know you are effing. Even if it is turtles all the > way > > down (yea right!) who will care? Right? > > I don't think so. Let's assume that we experiment with a real effing > machine. > We find a group of stones that all look like the same colour (blue) to us > normal trichromats but a tetrachromat is able to separate the stones into > two groups. We can tell the tetrachromat perceives them differently > because > they can repeatedly separate them into the same groups even if they are > first randomized outside the tetrachromat's sight. Let's assume that the > distinction becomes obvious to normal trichromats if an ultraviolet > light is used to illuminate the stones. > > Now we hook you up the tetrachromat with the effing machine and find that > you too can repeatedly separate the stones into two groups in normal > light. > Before they all looked blue, but when hooked up to the effing machine they > appear to you as dark blue and light blue. So you separate the stones and > your > choices are validated after with the ultraviolet light. > > So does that mean you experienced the same qualia as the tetrachromat? > There is no way to tell. It is possible, but it is also possible the > tetrachromat > sees the stones as dark green and light green, or as yellow and orange, or > as rough and smooth, or as warm and cold, or something else we have no > words for. > > So even if the effing machine works it still doesn't tell us what it > like to be a tetrachromat. > > :D > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From allsop at extropy.org Mon Dec 5 16:58:55 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:58:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512051658.jB5Gwt6V028849@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts, > Snow looks white, and there's not a darned thing I can do to change that > fact. The power to look white comes from the snow. I have no power here. > The snow has the power. But gts, how can you say this? Sure, evolution hasn't wired a control mechanism into which quale we use to represent snow (part of the deception that makes us think it is some external "power" or that our knowledge of the object is the real object.) But surely, when we start hacking our minds, effing and so on, we will be adding such control mechanism and we will clearly be able to represent the supposed whiteness of snow with any effing phenomenal property we want. Brent Allsop From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 17:01:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:01:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies. Message-ID: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Thought you all might appeciate this. Many of them I had heard about before but there were some surprises for me like the U.K. They won't eat GM crops but they will allow therapeutic cloning? Bizarre. http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 17:19:14 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:19:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Printing Organs on Demand Message-ID: <470a3c520512050919va7f47eey21817737e150fb1d@mail.gmail.com> Wired News: Led by University of Missouri-Columbia biological physics professor Gabor Forgacs and aided by a $5 million National Science Foundation grant, researchers at three universities have developed bio-ink and bio-paper that could make so-called organ printing a reality.Here's how it works: A customized milling machine prints a small sheet of bio-paper. This "paper" is a variable gel composed of modified gelatin and hyaluronan, a sugar-rich material. Bio-ink blots -- each a little ball of cellular material a few hundred microns in diameter -- are then printed onto the paper. The process is repeated as many times as needed, the sheets stacked on top of each other.Once the stack is the right size -- maybe two centimeters' worth of sheets, each containing a ring of blots, for a tube resembling a blood vessel -- printing stops. The stack is incubated in a bioreactor, where cells fuse with their neighbors in all directions. The bio-paper works as a scaffold to support and nurture cells, and should be eaten away by them or naturally degrade, researchers said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 18:18:37 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:18:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 12/2/05, gts wrote: > Snow looks white, and there's not a darned thing I can do to change that > fact. The power to look white comes from the snow. I have no power here. > The snow has the power. > Just one question here: How can you have "looking white" without the "looking"? Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 5 21:15:19 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:15:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051204174322.57908.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051204174322.57908.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4738BAFA-D44F-4910-BED1-7DABE4C843D1@mac.com> On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> The FCC should be disbanded as utterly useless and in the way. Their >> >> "powers" are arbitrary and pernicious. What exactly do they do >> that needs doing and that wouldn't be done better by a free market? >> > > Make sure no one corporation owns all the TV stations or similar > media outlets in any area with more than a few of them (which > would let them impose legal censorship - corporations not being > governed by the First Amendment). hehehehe. This is the internet age. Once we have fiber to the home anyone who wants to can broadcast the equivalent (and better) to TV under whatever commercial/non-commercial terms they wish. TV stations are dinosaurs. There is no effective censorship in the internet age. > > Keeps people from jamming various frequencies, intentionally or > unintentionally, so that certain forms of wireless communication > don't work. > It is trivially to track jammers and does not require a federal bureaucracy to do so. > And that's just off the top of my head. One might wonder if > their mission, justified by the scarcity of resources in any > communications medium, is obsolete with respect to the Internet, > but radio, TV, and newspapers do still exist offline. Wireless technology has improved to the point where there is no longer a very compelling reason to sell broadcasters fixed slices of the spectrum. Of course for a little while the required transmitter/ receiver tech is not common and available at a reasonable price. But the FCC stands in the way of some of that instead of helping it along. - samantha From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 21:42:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:42:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies. In-Reply-To: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/5/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Thought you all might appeciate this. Many of them I > had heard about before but there were some surprises > for me like the U.K. They won't eat GM crops but they > will allow therapeutic cloning? Bizarre. > > http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html > Why? I'm one of those. Why do we need GM food? It's already cheap and good enough. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's all downside as far as I'm concerned. The same cannot be said of the Human body. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 5 21:42:39 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <4738BAFA-D44F-4910-BED1-7DABE4C843D1@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051205214239.54286.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> The FCC should be disbanded as utterly useless and in the way. > Their > >> > >> "powers" are arbitrary and pernicious. What exactly do they do > >> that needs doing and that wouldn't be done better by a free > market? > > > > Make sure no one corporation owns all the TV stations or similar > > media outlets in any area with more than a few of them (which > > would let them impose legal censorship - corporations not being > > governed by the First Amendment). > > hehehehe. This is the internet age. True, but quite a few people do still rely on TVs, radios, and dead tree edition newspapers for their media. It may be a market of increasingly less significance, but it continues to exist. Until TV et al completely go away, for even the most Luddite citizen - and they probably never will, for that reason alone - the "physics" of their world will continue to exist in a meaningful context (even if one of meaning to fewer people as time goes on), and continue to imply the necessity for a federal beauracracy to manage them. The question is whether the FCC has or should have any relevance to the Internet. The FCC of course wants the answer to be "yes", but so far it's been mostly confined to fairly mundane parts of it - like making sure one ISP can't get away with arbitrarily blocking content provided by partners of a rival ISP, and trying to make sure that multiple ISPs can compete to provide service to any given major market (so we don't run into the problems where one company owns all the 'Net pipes in a certain large city, and can effectively censor the 'Net for that city - and as China proves, less-than-perfect-but-still-enough-to-heavily-damage censorship is technically possible if you do own all the pipes). > > Keeps people from jamming various frequencies, intentionally or > > unintentionally, so that certain forms of wireless communication > > don't work. > > It is trivially to track jammers and does not require a federal > bureaucracy to do so. But it does require someone to set the rules as to what legally counts as "jamming". If two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency, and are not obviously just trying to stomp out each others' content, someone has to decide how far apart they must be and how much overlap of their signals will be tolerated. Given that radio waves don't respect state boundaries, this was tossed up to the federal level. Again, this applies more to old-style media than the Internet, but again, the old-style media are still relevant today. > > And that's just off the top of my head. One might wonder if > > their mission, justified by the scarcity of resources in any > > communications medium, is obsolete with respect to the Internet, > > but radio, TV, and newspapers do still exist offline. > > Wireless technology has improved to the point where there is no > longer a very compelling reason to sell broadcasters fixed slices of > > the spectrum. Of course for a little while the required transmitter/ > > receiver tech is not common and available at a reasonable price. But > > the FCC stands in the way of some of that instead of helping it > along. Actually, the FCC has been trying to help that along, and has been facing major resistance (lethargy/"Idunwannas" from lack of immediate profit to all concerned, mainly) from those who would transmit and, to some extent, from those who would receive. The transition to HDTV alone has had much written about it, and that's merely one particular example of trying to optimize use of a certain slice of the spectrum. There's also the fact that very few TV stations have, so far, willingly put their feeds up for people to access over the Internet, and some have even taken legal action against those who try to do so for the benefit of their viewers. Just because you and I know that it helps them, does not mean they do not view it as a threat to their existence. We're still in transition, and will be for a long time, so we can't yet completely abandon the old support structures. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 22:22:12 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:22:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:18:37 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > Just one question here: How can you have "looking white" without the > "looking"? I don't think you can have "looking white" without the "looking" but whiteness seems nevertheless to be an objective property of white objects, a secondary quality or power in Locke's terms, and not a mere pigment of our imagination. When we think otherwise then we find ourselves speaking absurdities. For example you started your previous message to me with these words: > Here's where I disagree. The snow does not look white... Philosophy sometimes causes people to say funny things. :) Of course snow looks white! We can disagree about our scientific theories about the way frozen H2O molecules act in sunlight, (about the primary qualities of snow), and about how the mind works, about the nature of consciousness and awareness, and about many other fancy concepts we hold in our minds, but we cannot disagree about the plain simple fact that snow looks white. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 22:49:13 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:49:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512051658.jB5Gwt6V028849@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512051658.jB5Gwt6V028849@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:58:55 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > But surely, when we start hacking our minds, effing and so on, we will be > adding such control mechanism and we will clearly be able to represent > the supposed whiteness of snow with any effing > phenomenal property we want. Sure, but Locke might argue that we have in that case not changed the white quality of white objects; we have only altered our perception of whiteness. White objects are still white but we have doctored our perception, in principle no different from wearing colored glasses. Locke might be wrong but I don't see a logical argument to disprove his position. Do you? His common sense ideas here might seem out-dated and old-fashioned, but then perhaps they are not. Perhaps whiteness really is a quality of white objects, just as common sense would have us believe. Locke's idea of secondary qualities of objects is what I originally thought you meant by "phenomenal properties of matter". For example the red quale would be a phenomenal property of red ink. -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 6 00:27:30 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:27:30 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. References: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0bc901c5f9fb$d81109f0$8998e03c@homepc> From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:42 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. On 12/5/05, The Avantguardian wrote: Thought you all might appeciate this. Many of them I had heard about before but there were some surprises for me like the U.K. They won't eat GM crops but they will allow therapeutic cloning? Bizarre. http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html Why? I'm one of those. Why do we need GM food? It's already cheap and good enough. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's all downside as far as I'm concerned. The same cannot be said of the Human body. Most GM is aimed at reducing the cost of producing it to the manufacturer rather than conferring advantages to the consumer that the consumer wants. To get the end consumer on side there needs to be something positive in it for them. Insulin produced recombinantly doesn't face the same sort of problems. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 00:33:09 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:33:09 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 12/5/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Thought you all might appeciate this. Many of them I > > had heard about before but there were some surprises > > for me like the U.K. They won't eat GM crops but they > > will allow therapeutic cloning? Bizarre. > > > > http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html > > > > Why? I'm one of those. > Why do we need GM food? It's already cheap and good enough. > If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's all downside as far as I'm concerned. > > The same cannot be said of the Human body. And that food has to support the human body, thus we are not making the food better for the food's own sake we are doing to make our bodies better or rather allow them to run at peak performance. Although as Brett said any GMing is usually done for the manufacturers rather than for consumers. Personally, if they grew fruit that produced whatever the active ingrediant in gingko biloba is, along with piracetam and modafinil then I'd buy it rather than having to pop numerous pills everyday ;D -Joel From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 00:35:57 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:35:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: <0bc901c5f9fb$d81109f0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051205170115.91360.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <0bc901c5f9fb$d81109f0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > *From:* Dirk Bruere > *To:* ExI chat list > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:42 AM > *Subject:* Re: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear > transferpolicies. > > > > On 12/5/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > Thought you all might appeciate this. Many of them I > > had heard about before but there were some surprises > > for me like the U.K. They won't eat GM crops but they > > will allow therapeutic cloning? Bizarre. > > > > http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html > > > > Why? I'm one of those. > Why do we need GM food? It's already cheap and good enough. > If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's all downside as far as I'm concerned. > > The same cannot be said of the Human body. > > Most GM is aimed at reducing the cost of producing it to the manufacturer > rather than conferring advantages to the consumer that the consumer > wants. > Or, even more cynically, they want to patent what is currently several millenia out of patent. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Tue Dec 6 01:19:14 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:19:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Perpetuity Law & Cyronic Preservation Message-ID: <200512060119.jB61JAe03246@tick.javien.com> I'm currently researching cyronics as an option for myself. I am interested in the current set of case law regarding cyronics as well as the relationship between corporate and trust law and cyronics. In particular, I am interested in any links or information regarding state and federal perpetuity laws, trust funds, corporate holdings, and cyronics companys. These questions stem from thought exercises regarding the transference of wealth in a pre and post-death environment. For example, if I were to die or know that I was going to die, would it be possible to transfer my personal wealth to a corporation held in part by myself and a cryonics company. This corporation could operate under certain rules of conduct, allowing the cryonics company to use the funds in certain situations. For example, if the cryonics company were facing terminal financial ruin, they would be able to access corporate funds to help stay in operation. (This would apply to the maintenance of all the preserved, to protect me from litigation upon revival. I.e.: if they can only use the funds to make sure my tank isn't switched off, I could potentially be sued by the families of the preserved who were switched off.) The cryonics company would then return control of the holding company's assets upon my revival. Ideally, there would be some program for the vesting of assets held by the company. I'm certain this kind of thinking isn't new, so I'm curious what direction it's taken so far. I haven't found much by googling, although I did discover the "Reanimation Foundation." They claim to create personal trusts in Lichtenstein, which supposedly has no perpetuity laws. I have no idea if this entity is solvent in 2005. Most references to them are early 90s and refer to compuserve.com email addresses! Certainly, I would expect companies like Alcor to have pursued research in this direction. It seems like a potential way to help secure their company's survival, while also securing the future of those who have chosen cyronic preservation. I suspect there are members of this list much more experienced with the issues in question so any direction would be greatly appreciated. (I also posted this to ImmInst.org cryonics forum.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 02:25:31 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:25:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051206022531.93013.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > wrote: > > No. > > No, slashdot doesn't have this story? > No, the company doesn't claim this? > No, this isn't the first? > No, this isn't AI? > No, we shouldn't say "Mmm..."? > No, Jack shouldn't post this? > No, what? > No, please dear God, no! Can't be true, mustn't be true. It's my dream to be first. No. (Apologies to Eliezer. Undoubtedly, the AI claim is "exaggerated".) Best, Jeff Davis "Enjoying being insulting is a youthful corruption of power. You lose your taste for it when you realize how hard people try, how much they mind, and how long they remember." Martin Amis __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 02:34:36 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:34:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 12/5/05, gts wrote: > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:18:37 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > > Here's where I disagree. The snow does not look white... > > Philosophy sometimes causes people to say funny things. :) > OK, let's do a thought experiment. Assume you are red/green color blind. Both red and green objects are the same color, which I will call 'reen'. I hand you two balls, one red and one green. You observe that they are both reen. I reply that one is red and one is green, and that neither ball has reenness. In fact, to me the quale of reen is nonsensical. Nanosanta arrives and everyone suddenly has perfect tricolor vision. Does the quale of reen still exist? [1] Acy [1] I hate to put it this way because most mammals (squirrels and primates excepting) are r/g colorblind and I assume that some of them experience reen. I would rather say "... still exist in humans?". Or just assume that we uplift all of the mammals to human-equivalent color vision. -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 02:36:56 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:36:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On 12/5/05, Acy Stapp wrote: > OK, let's do a thought experiment. Assume you are red/green color > blind. Both red and green objects are the same color, which I will > call 'reen'. I hand you two balls, one red and one green. You observe > that they are both reen. I reply that one is red and one is green, and > that neither ball has reenness. In fact, to me the quale of reen is > nonsensical. > > Nanosanta arrives and everyone suddenly has perfect tricolor vision. > Does the quale of reen still exist? [1] Or rather, Are the balls still reen, even though no being is able to perceive said color? -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:05:57 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:05:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512022256.jB2Mu4v2008132@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:36:56 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > Or rather, Are the balls still reen, even though no being is able to > perceive said color? I think Locke would be forced to answer in the affirmative: the balls are still reen even though no being can see the color reen. In that case his secondary qualities of objects are better defined as the powers of objects to cause qualia in the experience of beings capable of experiencing them. For example, to blind bats equipped with sonar, object X has a sonar quale. That quale of object X would be a quality of object X even if bats were extinct. Even if bats were extinct, the sonar quale of object X would still be a secondary quality of object X. That quale could perhaps be experienced by human minds. -gts From transcend at extropica.com Tue Dec 6 04:13:20 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:13:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> So for any object there are an infinite number of qualia of defined and undefined nature among any number of known or unknown dimensions? Or must the quale be perceived in order to come into being and from that point forward always exist? Or cease to exist when the last thing to perceive it or have remembered perceiving it ceases to do so? If a person is under the influence of some mind-altering substance and perceives an orange to have a multicolored hue they term "bervish" does bervish exist as a quale? If so, it is a quale of the orange or of the orange combined with the effects of the substance? Qualia seem to share similar properties as consciousness itself. Perhaps unconscious entities do not perceive qualia. Qualia could be a byproduct of the conscious interpretation of data (pattern matching, etc) and not an inherent property of an object. If I feed input into a program and it processes that data, is it experiencing some qualia of the input? If not, at what point does computation/pattern matching become complex enough to perceive qualia? If the program is experiencing qualia, then this would seem to imply that objects have infinite qualia of undefined nature. Which really means nothing of consequence to me other than "how do I use it to encode/store data?" Subjective computing? If something has to be conscious to perceive qualia and we could isolate qualia or somehow associate an objective test with it, could this be a path to a solution to the zombie problem? (An objective proof of consciousness.) I'm just shooting the BS here, for fun. Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] effing On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:36:56 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > Or rather, Are the balls still reen, even though no being is able to > perceive said color? I think Locke would be forced to answer in the affirmative: the balls are still reen even though no being can see the color reen. In that case his secondary qualities of objects are better defined as the powers of objects to cause qualia in the experience of beings capable of experiencing them. For example, to blind bats equipped with sonar, object X has a sonar quale. That quale of object X would be a quality of object X even if bats were extinct. Even if bats were extinct, the sonar quale of object X would still be a secondary quality of object X. That quale could perhaps be experienced by human minds. -gts _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 6 04:17:01 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:17:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) RFC: copy protection report In-Reply-To: <20051205214239.54286.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051205214239.54286.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F29C48A-C190-47CA-B509-D6EFA1A70F05@mac.com> On Dec 5, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >>> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>>> The FCC should be disbanded as utterly useless and in the way. >>>> >> Their >> >>>> >>>> "powers" are arbitrary and pernicious. What exactly do they do >>>> that needs doing and that wouldn't be done better by a free >>>> >> market? >> >>> >>> Make sure no one corporation owns all the TV stations or similar >>> media outlets in any area with more than a few of them (which >>> would let them impose legal censorship - corporations not being >>> governed by the First Amendment). >>> >> >> hehehehe. This is the internet age. >> > > True, but quite a few people do still rely on TVs, radios, and > dead tree edition newspapers for their media. It may be a market > of increasingly less significance, but it continues to exist. Sufficient to need a FCC? I don't think so. The FCC is the biggest source of censorship in US media. > > Until TV et al completely go away, for even the most Luddite > citizen - and they probably never will, for that reason alone - > the "physics" of their world will continue to exist in a > meaningful context (even if one of meaning to fewer people as > time goes on), and continue to imply the necessity for a federal > beauracracy to manage them. > What for? The airwaves aren't really so limited after all. TV is going digital. Cable/satellite penetration is huge and growing. And why would it be government's job even assuming it somehow needed to be centrally managed? > The question is whether the FCC has or should have any relevance > to the Internet. The FCC of course wants the answer to be "yes", > but so far it's been mostly confined to fairly mundane parts of > it - like making sure one ISP can't get away with arbitrarily > blocking content provided by partners of a rival ISP, and trying > to make sure that multiple ISPs can compete to provide service to > any given major market (so we don't run into the problems where > one company owns all the 'Net pipes in a certain large city, and > can effectively censor the 'Net for that city - and as China > proves, less-than-perfect-but-still-enough-to-heavily-damage > censorship is technically possible if you do own all the pipes). > There is not much of a problem as long as the internet is an end-to- end mechanism. How the heck would you get a total monopoly on pipes except through government fiat? Without the FCC we would be less likely to get such monopolistic control on internet content than with it. > >>> Keeps people from jamming various frequencies, intentionally or >>> unintentionally, so that certain forms of wireless communication >>> don't work. >>> >> >> It is trivially to track jammers and does not require a federal >> bureaucracy to do so. >> > > But it does require someone to set the rules as to what legally > counts as "jamming". If two radio stations broadcast on the same > frequency, and are not obviously just trying to stomp out each > others' content, someone has to decide how far apart they must be > and how much overlap of their signals will be tolerated. This is increasingly irrelevant. > > >>> And that's just off the top of my head. One might wonder if >>> their mission, justified by the scarcity of resources in any >>> communications medium, is obsolete with respect to the Internet, >>> but radio, TV, and newspapers do still exist offline. >>> >> >> Wireless technology has improved to the point where there is no >> longer a very compelling reason to sell broadcasters fixed slices of >> >> the spectrum. Of course for a little while the required transmitter/ >> >> receiver tech is not common and available at a reasonable price. But >> >> the FCC stands in the way of some of that instead of helping it >> along. >> > > Actually, the FCC has been trying to help that along, and has > been facing major resistance (lethargy/"Idunwannas" from lack of > immediate profit to all concerned, mainly) from those who would > transmit and, to some extent, from those who would receive. The > transition to HDTV alone has had much written about it, and > that's merely one particular example of trying to optimize use > of a certain slice of the spectrum. > The FCC is not helping. > There's also the fact that very few TV stations have, so far, > willingly put their feeds up for people to access over the > Internet, and some have even taken legal action against those who > try to do so for the benefit of their viewers. Just because you > and I know that it helps them, does not mean they do not view it > as a threat to their existence. We're still in transition, and > will be for a long time, so we can't yet completely abandon the > old support structures. FCC is not supportive. Censorship by definition can only be done by governments. The FDA makes a great tool for censorship. Monopolies are primarily granted and maintained by government force. The FCC has acted throughout its history to support de facto monopolies and sell monopoly rights. The old support structures had questionable justification under old conditions. As those conditions increasingly are not present they have none at all. Do we really need an organization to raise hell about an exposed breast? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 04:23:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:23:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts ... > > Here's where I disagree. The snow does not look white... > > Of course snow looks white! We can disagree about our scientific theories > about the way frozen H2O molecules act in sunlight... -gts Please, effing qualia-ists, help me understand something that has driven me crazier for years. That snow is white is interesting, that frozen H2O molecules interact with light in the way that they do is interesting. But why is it that snowflakes seem to have this pi/3 symmetry? Check out these really cool photos: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/sn owcrystals/class/013002-a007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomi c/snowcrystals/class/class.htm&h=570&w=694&sz=38&tbnid=5lDaJyb--MUJ:&tbnh=11 2&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsnowflakes%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start= 3 SnowCrystals.com {8^D Who woulda thought? Don't you love the web? Nowthen, when a snowflake forms, there must be H20 molecules in the air that come together in a certain way, perhaps they start at some point and radiate. That the radial branches should be pi/3 radians makes sense I suppose, but then if the branches then grow outward, how do they all know to do kinda the same thing? Why aren't all the branches different? It is almost like the molecules know what the other molecules are doing somehow, the ones that are on the other five branches, and that somehow causes them all to do almost the same thing six times simultaneously. How can that be? Isn't that evidence we are living in some kind of a simulation? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 04:31:33 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:31:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512060433.jB64XRe25087@tick.javien.com> Fixed link below: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >...But why is it that > snowflakes seem to have this pi/3 symmetry? Check out these > really cool photos: > > > > SnowCrystals.com {8^D Who woulda thought? Don't you love > the web?... > > Isn't that evidence we are living in some kind of a simulation? > > spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 6 04:39:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:39:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> References: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205223732.01ccb6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:23 PM 12/5/2005 -0800, Spike wrote: >Why aren't all the branches different? It >is almost like the molecules know what the other molecules are >doing somehow, the ones that are on the other five branches, and >that somehow causes them all to do almost the same thing >six times simultaneously. How can that be? > >Isn't that evidence we are living in some kind of a simulation? No, silly puppy; god forms *each snowflake by Hand*, and tacks on its whiteness quale. The interesting question is what makes god so damned symmetrical. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 6 04:48:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:48:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow In-Reply-To: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> References: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205224550.01cf4cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:23 PM 12/5/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > But why is it that >snowflakes seem to have this pi/3 symmetry? but seriously: spontaneous broken symmetry, of course: http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00025ADD-C9A7-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 05:00:25 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:13:20 -0500, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > So for any object there are an infinite number of qualia of defined and > undefined nature among any number of known or unknown dimensions? Or must > the quale be perceived in order to come into being and from that point > forward always exist? Or cease to exist when the last thing to perceive > it or have remembered perceiving it ceases to do so? This problem has occurred to me also. I think Locke might be forced to concede that objects have an infinite number of possible secondary qualities. However his essay is entitled "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" not "An Essay Concerning All Theoretical Kinds of Understanding". > If a person is under the influence of some mind-altering substance and > perceives an orange to have a multicolored hue they term "bervish" does > bervish exist as a quale? I wonder if people under the influence of mind-altering substances can truly experience non-existent colors. I think not. I once thought of writing a children's book about a child who discovers a new color. It's an interesting idea and might make an entertaining story for children, but to me it seems impossible. > Perhaps unconscious entities do not perceive qualia. True, and this is a possible hole in my own theory about about consciousness and awareness. It is possible for example that organisms that seem to be aware but unconscious, insects for example, experience nothing whatsoever. However there exists a phenomenon in certain blind humans in which they seem to be able to experience vision with no conscious awareness of the experience. Put a chair in front of them and they will walk around it even with no conscious awareness of seeing it. Apparently their brains can see, but they have no conscious awareness of seeing. Their experience of seeing qualia seems to be separate from their conscious awareness of their experience of seeing qualia. I think insect minds work this way. They see and experience the world, but don't know it -- similar and perhaps no different from the way unconscious cameras see the world. > If I feed input into a program and it processes that data, is it > experiencing some qualia of the input? Maybe! But perhaps it's a type of experience we cannot fathom. > I'm just shooting the BS here, for fun. Yeah, me too. :) -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 05:07:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:07:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205224550.01cf4cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512060509.jB659Qe30284@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:48 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow > > At 08:23 PM 12/5/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > > > But why is it that > >snowflakes seem to have this pi/3 symmetry? > > but seriously: spontaneous broken symmetry, of course: > http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00025ADD-C9A7-1C71- 9EB7809EC588F2D7 hmmmm, I like Howard Evans' answer but Miriam Rossi's answer seems to pretend to know without actually telling. The tile analogy kinda works for why a branch looks the way it does, but it somehow lacks in why the edges stop growing all at about the same place. If we could get small enough to see individual H20, what would be different about those out on the edges of each ice crystal? I tried to fix the link before, but still it didn't go thru right. Try this: and if that doesn't work, google on snowflake and hit the image on the top right, then in SnowCrystals.com hit photo collections, or google on snowcrystals.com and go to http://radar.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/crystal/gallery.html spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 6 05:23:07 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:23:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow In-Reply-To: <200512060509.jB659Qe30284@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205224550.01cf4cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512060509.jB659Qe30284@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >If we could get small enough to see >individual H20, Incidentally < and yes, I'm a boring pedant >, what's with all this Hydrogen Twenty that people keep talking about? H2O, dear friends, H2O. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 6 05:27:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:27:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232404.01cfde38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:00 AM 12/6/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >I once thought of writing a children's book about a child who discovers a >new color. It's an interesting idea and might make an entertaining story >for children, but to me it seems impossible. Ah, you've never read David Lindsay's famously weird novel A VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS, then? http://www.litrix.com/arcturus/arctu006.htm "Another remarkable plant was a large, feathery ball, resembling a dandelion fruit, which they encountered sailing through the air. Joiwind caught it with an exceedingly graceful movement of her arm, and showed it to Maskull. It had roots and presumably lived in the air and fed on the chemical constituents of the atmosphere. But what was peculiar about it was its colour. It was an entirely new colour--not a new shade or combination, but a new primary colour, as vivid as blue, red, or yellow, but quite different. When he inquired, she told him that it was known as "ulfire." Presently he met with a second new colour. This she designated "jale." The sense impressions caused in Maskull by these two additional primary colors can only be vaguely hinted at by analogy. Just as blue is delicate and mysterious, yellow clear and unsubtle, and red sanguine and passionate, so he felt ulfire to be wild and painful, and jale dreamlike, feverish, and voluptuous." From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 05:38:16 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:38:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512060540.jB65eHe02153@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:23 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow > > > >If we could get small enough to see > >individual H20, > > Incidentally < and yes, I'm a boring pedant >, what's with all this > Hydrogen Twenty that people keep talking about? H2O, dear friends, H2O. A pedant with a very sharp eye. Hydrogen twenty is an extremely rare form of very short half-lived radioactive hydrogen with 19 neutrons tacked on to the proton with a lone electron out there in the S orbital. This curious isotope is known as icosotium, with its antimatter counterpart called vigintium. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 05:45:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:45:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] xcor in the news In-Reply-To: <200512060509.jB659Qe30284@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512060547.jB65lCe03153@tick.javien.com> Mike Lorrey has reminded me where is to be found our old friend Doug Jones the rocket plumber, who once posted here often. He is still with XCOR, which made the news today: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/12/05/xcor.rocket/index.html spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 06:14:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:14:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Brett wrote: > > Most GM is aimed at reducing the cost of producing > it to the manufacturer > > rather than conferring advantages to the consumer > that the consumer > > wants. Ok, I will concede that most of the early GM agriculture was aimed at reducing the production costs to the manufacturers but wouldn't that translate into lower prices for the consumer? Isn't it a win/win situation? What about pest-resistant crops that reduce the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? Is that not beneficial for the consumer? And finally what about the nutraceutical crops that they are coming out with like "golden rice" that has beta carotene genes? Would Brits feel the same about GM livestock? Like chicken eggs with omega-3 fatty acids and cows that make milk with human insulin in it? --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Or, even more cynically, they want to patent what is > currently several > millenia out of patent. Well most of the early patents in biotech were completely ludicrous. This is mostly due to the lack of knowledge by the lawyers that filed and judged the patent than anything else. Most biotech consists of taking genes that been around for millions of years out of one organism and putting it into another organism that has been around for millions of years. So where do you draw the line? Think about how some cancer patient feels when some company files a patent on a mutated form of a gene that the company "lifted" from one of his own cancer cells. Most scientists don't think that the patent system is all that sensible in regards to biotech. But if others are getting rich by exploiting these loopholes then there is a strong incentive to do likewise. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 06:17:15 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:17:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232404.01cfde38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232404.01cfde38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:27:30 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > "But what was peculiar about it was its colour. It was an entirely new > colour--not a new shade or combination, but a new primary colour, as > vivid as blue, red, or yellow, but quite different. When he inquired, > she told him that it was known as "ulfire." Presently he met with a > second new colour. This she designated "jale." The sense impressions > caused in Maskull by these two additional primary colors can only be > vaguely hinted at by analogy. Just as blue is delicate and mysterious, > yellow clear and unsubtle, and red sanguine and passionate, so he felt > ulfire to be wild and painful, and jale dreamlike, feverish, and > voluptuous." http://www.litrix.com/arcturus/arctu006.htm This is poetry. Given sufficiently advanced poetry, could a blind person be persuaded to see color? -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 06:30:59 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:30:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > >If we could get small enough to see > >individual H20, > > Incidentally < and yes, I'm a boring pedant >, what's with all this > Hydrogen Twenty that people keep talking about? H2O, dear friends, H2O. Do you guys remember the bad old fortran days, when you accidentally typed a zero for an O, or the reverse? That was one of the hardest bugs to find, mainly because the fortran error messages were often cryptic to the point of being nearly useless. I congratulated Damien on his visual acuity, but then I became suspicious as I recalled his comment that his vision was not so great. So how had he spotted the H2O vs H20 bug? Perhaps he had his computer read the messages out loud, hmmmm? {8-] Speaking of finding bugs, I finished a program the other day which solves sudokus. In order to save much time entering the puzzles by hand, I wrote a piece of code that generates the puzzles by starting with a solved sudoku 9x9 matrix, then randomly blanking out some number of squares, then solving the puzzle. I lost interest in sudoku after learning from the software that one need not know anything about sudoku to solve it: the software has very little smarts programmed in. So I wrote an experimental version that solves the sudoku, then records how many initial blanks it started with and how long in seconds it took to solve. Below are the results. If you want to copy the column and drop it into microsloth excel, graph it as an XY plot and set the Y axis to logarithmic, you will see an interesting pattern that I cannot readily explain. Why is there a branch that kind of looks like main sequence stars on a reversed Hertzsprung Russell diagram, with the white dwarves below? Here's the data: Number of blanks seconds to solve 49 94.3 46 93.0 50 156.8 49 79.0 52 173.0 53 411.7 49 63.3 51 222.2 45 109.4 46 39.8 53 273.8 50 260.0 50 242.9 47 333.8 51 385.0 53 2497.1 41 26.0 57 277.1 45 54.6 50 148.6 48 156.0 44 118.0 50 191.5 51 200.3 58 610.4 54 326.4 47 110.4 42 117.1 52 313.7 47 278.2 51 511.1 47 234.9 50 314.0 50 410.4 48 528.1 47 485.3 47 1010.1 54 648.6 49 785.5 44 375.8 48 603.9 47 445.0 45 224.0 35 88.5 50 674.0 48 551.3 52 973.0 48 349.2 45 454.8 46 442.5 50 786.5 47 477.7 45 301.1 47 432.7 43 137.5 49 722.6 47 415.7 50 834.6 45 562.4 56 1023.0 52 608.1 45 316.1 48 517.1 52 634.0 44 154.0 48 525.7 59 913.8 42 114.9 48 1813.2 52 678.6 46 485.6 45 284.6 50 940.1 42 193.9 54 1052.1 41 249.1 42 199.0 54 883.3 50 497.0 50 813.3 44 251.0 50 139.5 50 80.5 50 160.5 50 150.4 44 65.9 50 175.4 43 88.8 52 352.3 53 257.6 44 40.6 55 370.8 48 414.2 41 157.2 51 211.1 53 354.4 55 623.0 44 129.6 39 63.5 51 352.6 45 386.5 61 1964.1 56 756.7 44 177.0 50 610.5 43 367.9 45 261.0 41 134.8 50 660.7 42 115.5 40 132.6 46 288.8 43 150.2 44 233.5 54 2517.7 50 434.5 48 377.4 47 377.7 52 587.8 53 918.7 53 747.4 47 365.1 56 1103.9 46 336.3 47 454.8 45 418.7 49 427.9 48 560.9 51 494.4 50 660.9 53 1123.5 50 945.0 45 157.6 46 251.2 51 693.7 55 924.6 46 414.6 55 649.3 45 488.0 50 698.9 47 289.1 40 92.1 57 956.2 46 496.3 41 227.9 51 170.2 43 52.2 37 72.4 47 117.5 51 381.8 45 111.3 46 60.0 48 104.1 57 341.7 44 118.6 52 357.7 48 175.2 50 263.3 50 209.0 50 205.9 56 594.4 52 1210.9 48 257.9 45 224.0 53 665.6 49 544.5 52 714.3 57 922.0 43 119.2 38 210.1 50 581.1 49 391.5 51 740.2 47 562.3 51 601.1 43 346.6 47 279.5 42 171.0 50 224.2 44 214.8 47 319.8 44 210.0 54 770.8 51 769.5 44 329.1 51 660.3 44 124.5 52 718.2 48 257.1 51 1834.4 48 430.5 52 549.7 51 632.3 52 635.1 50 530.1 46 576.4 50 1202.3 47 401.5 46 246.1 49 596.4 38 101.6 53 532.0 47 981.2 45 469.3 45 247.9 51 462.7 54 853.7 50 655.0 45 355.5 54 800.8 58 1069.6 45 387.4 38 101.5 51 748.0 42 139.4 63 374.5 64 385.7 59 303.3 60 368.3 58 338.8 54 391.4 55 759.4 51 294.0 57 1180.1 51 443.6 59 970.6 58 1016.8 57 1036.9 60 1128.3 60 1920.2 51 551.4 64 2333.9 56 883.1 58 1069.8 60 1177.2 62 1174.2 51 464.2 56 824.1 53 495.5 58 1065.5 60 1079.0 61 1091.2 51 566.5 60 1131.6 56 1016.7 51 482.9 60 5543.8 59 1955.7 56 736.7 53 715.0 24 19.2 31 25.4 33 36.1 33 43.9 25 18.9 35 31.5 40 109.7 27 22.6 36 43.6 36 62.5 38 33.4 29 21.6 25 21.5 34 26.8 37 42.6 45 172.9 26 31.1 20 15.7 32 46.0 29 19.9 25 18.2 32 26.6 30 22.9 36 39.3 33 29.5 32 27.5 42 46.1 37 46.1 30 23.3 30 27.4 33 27.6 33 48.5 28 18.3 35 39.2 35 34.4 35 40.5 31 31.9 35 49.7 32 39.7 28 22.8 29 19.4 30 37.2 35 33.5 29 20.2 34 40.0 30 33.0 35 109.6 32 42.6 29 28.5 31 28.9 32 31.1 35 61.1 26 22.8 26 25.1 30 29.4 36 79.6 26 25.1 32 39.4 33 38.2 32 59.1 31 33.1 30 39.0 30 34.3 31 40.6 24 34.1 35 65.5 34 72.6 22 22.7 39 106.4 31 41.5 36 48.1 31 42.1 38 39.6 50 292.1 39 118.4 43 65.7 40 58.9 39 40.0 31 29.3 38 42.2 46 107.5 43 105.3 39 54.3 45 103.9 38 66.3 38 40.8 43 65.1 39 53.4 40 70.9 30 28.0 44 113.4 42 66.7 42 92.4 41 55.4 42 143.2 38 44.4 33 46.1 29 28.5 37 85.8 34 52.6 42 113.5 38 70.6 31 76.7 45 177.7 29 51.1 44 96.9 50 314.5 38 78.1 46 193.6 45 114.5 44 82.6 44 215.2 42 143.3 42 284.5 41 213.3 42 267.8 46 417.5 47 409.1 37 107.5 34 77.7 43 214.2 41 111.7 40 297.5 32 60.3 37 122.5 39 182.4 40 105.0 43 188.1 35 205.7 43 202.6 38 109.8 37 249.6 39 138.1 44 176.8 39 130.5 37 92.5 43 281.9 39 174.6 39 205.7 46 293.4 34 88.4 43 230.8 40 107.8 39 89.9 40 182.6 45 339.9 34 84.0 47 293.0 45 450.5 45 344.5 45 318.6 45 416.0 39 170.7 46 338.4 37 112.1 39 190.2 38 192.6 41 281.7 47 498.3 45 219.9 30 99.6 43 131.9 35 97.2 42 181.0 45 228.8 44 483.7 37 94.4 41 196.4 41 127.2 37 123.9 33 65.0 43 147.5 35 96.8 40 120.9 39 127.7 42 242.0 43 340.1 31 60.8 36 97.3 37 65.8 32 64.9 37 91.5 37 120.9 40 113.3 37 107.8 36 110.5 37 94.6 41 231.0 43 130.9 39 229.0 40 113.5 46 353.9 37 72.6 34 83.2 47 479.2 40 220.4 38 127.1 37 124.1 51 1518.3 36 98.7 40 90.5 46 298.3 42 240.8 35 70.1 45 359.9 31 69.4 43 196.3 38 221.4 42 234.5 46 217.4 44 267.1 41 284.5 38 110.4 34 78.3 36 215.1 47 461.5 40 181.8 39 142.6 46 297.5 37 158.5 41 188.0 38 180.2 44 217.4 42 165.1 32 64.2 49 468.6 38 131.4 43 353.3 45 483.6 36 116.9 46 310.4 33 80.0 39 240.8 35 160.4 39 158.8 54 975.9 41 210.1 35 74.0 38 139.2 44 390.9 16 13.1 21 27.2 18 14.6 26 18.1 17 17.6 17 13.3 23 20.1 20 16.2 34 37.7 39 92.2 34 47.5 32 37.0 41 79.5 39 46.5 36 40.3 41 98.2 37 59.7 27 52.2 36 61.3 33 28.4 42 63.9 33 39.7 32 26.4 34 38.1 34 42.2 39 62.8 28 26.1 41 66.0 36 29.4 43 138.0 41 94.8 33 50.1 36 62.3 45 102.8 35 34.5 43 150.7 39 45.1 45 163.6 38 52.4 36 56.4 38 73.0 37 59.3 32 45.4 49 764.1 36 74.9 37 155.9 42 98.6 28 35.1 36 159.5 35 65.2 41 161.3 34 127.0 39 273.9 32 59.3 36 108.1 28 63.0 40 341.2 28 45.5 31 53.6 45 267.6 38 145.2 36 87.9 39 220.4 37 183.6 32 67.7 33 82.3 35 72.5 35 200.1 37 193.3 43 181.5 39 287.6 42 183.8 42 208.3 41 242.9 25 61.2 49 1342.1 34 118.2 38 138.4 30 90.7 35 94.4 37 94.1 28 57.5 36 220.8 35 131.0 33 84.2 45 503.2 32 76.0 43 385.1 38 225.0 33 95.3 44 362.7 33 106.4 35 345.8 35 213.2 26 55.9 38 253.2 41 291.8 39 314.1 37 82.1 32 68.9 36 81.6 35 96.2 36 107.3 37 253.3 34 116.6 42 463.6 46 249.4 39 107.9 34 119.1 34 155.4 36 101.4 40 136.4 38 262.1 40 294.1 37 121.7 41 112.6 34 170.3 25 53.0 39 149.2 38 200.7 40 163.6 36 102.8 31 75.8 35 84.4 40 186.1 35 117.3 43 246.3 38 221.8 40 164.9 33 114.1 38 141.5 42 415.2 38 118.5 46 667.6 36 96.1 33 122.5 28 61.8 40 165.2 39 104.4 38 98.1 37 94.1 38 150.2 32 84.4 35 88.0 29 61.5 40 150.9 37 104.3 34 82.8 33 88.6 39 134.3 36 142.5 37 128.7 38 151.6 40 158.9 37 105.3 31 74.8 30 63.6 43 132.8 38 121.1 31 64.3 43 530.6 45 461.5 37 141.3 29 63.5 36 92.6 40 242.0 46 504.0 35 137.1 38 179.4 37 113.5 36 175.0 34 102.3 36 148.0 48 399.0 35 314.8 36 168.1 31 74.8 42 408.8 43 195.0 36 107.5 41 297.9 40 116.1 40 259.2 32 219.9 36 187.4 39 128.7 40 130.5 33 103.7 30 78.4 33 70.6 42 221.9 40 189.4 40 166.6 42 370.9 30 101.4 33 110.0 38 138.0 39 106.0 34 83.9 38 105.5 33 87.8 34 110.5 30 70.2 36 151.6 27 78.3 40 138.1 35 103.0 35 131.1 39 176.2 30 89.1 39 134.5 34 95.0 37 108.0 46 279.7 30 72.0 37 98.5 35 136.6 39 227.2 31 95.3 38 101.3 38 168.5 36 80.5 29 70.7 50 710.7 36 84.8 36 164.3 40 415.5 31 91.3 38 168.0 37 209.7 36 111.5 34 76.5 34 181.6 25 52.4 40 143.7 38 347.2 45 360.6 36 108.8 42 164.8 34 91.0 34 113.9 35 89.4 38 107.1 41 165.3 37 94.7 34 115.4 40 120.2 42 452.8 36 88.0 38 128.8 38 129.5 42 208.1 38 102.2 33 110.5 41 219.7 38 98.1 46 610.3 35 102.9 37 136.4 33 107.4 40 209.9 38 207.2 38 98.0 37 191.1 35 90.0 43 274.7 35 115.7 38 127.3 33 70.9 27 56.8 45 469.2 From neptune at superlink.net Tue Dec 6 12:49:06 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:49:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku References: <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <00c501c5fa63$7251d8c0$e7893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:30 AM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: > I lost interest in sudoku after learning from the > software that one need not know anything about > sudoku to solve it: the software has very little > smarts programmed in. Did you lose interest in chess for the same reason? :) Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 6 12:57:16 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:57:16 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Printing Organs on Demand References: <470a3c520512050919va7f47eey21817737e150fb1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ce501c5fa64$95ea21b0$8998e03c@homepc> Guilio, your referenced article looks to be similar if not the same as the link Adrian posted recently. Organs are tissues. This free article from the Nature group of journals might be of interest Gene Therapy Progress and Prospects: In tissue engineering http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v12/n24/full/3302651a.html#bib19 Here's a cut n paste from the article of some "current limitations". (Note. TE = tissue engineering.) ---- Clinical application of TE strategies needs to meet a variety of challenges: Although tissue engineered skin substitutes and cartilage grafts have been used with some success for several years, most clinical applications of TE constructs need to be considered as experimental at this time due to the following limitations: 1 Cell source: At present, the only reliable cell source is autologous cells from the patient. This source has serious limitations of numbers of cells available and ability of the cells to maintain a phenotype capable of generating a viable ECM. Cloned, immortal cell lines are capable of proliferating but usually lack the differentiation needed for stable tissue repair. 2 Stable 3-D constructs: All tissues and organs have a complex interdependence of cell types with an interconnected 3-D architecture. Most tissue engineered constructs involve only one, or at most two, cell phenotypes grown primarily in a two-dimensional configuration. This compromise in structure limits the clinical viability of the constructs. 3 Vascularization: All tissues/organs have an interpenetrating network of blood vessels connected to the circulatory system to provide nutrition and eliminate waste products. Tissue engineered constructs at present lack this vital network when they are transplanted. The host tissues must quickly infiltrate the TE graft with a blood supply or the cells will die. A major challenge of TE is to achieve angiogenesis rapidly after implantation and maintain a viable nutrient supply as the construct becomes integrated. 4 Interfacial stability: The limitations of TE constructs listed above often result in problems at the host tissue-graft interface. Shrinkage, infiltration by new tissue or breakdown of the interface leads to less than desirable clinical outcomes. 5. Sterilization: Maintaining sterility of a TE construct containing living cells is a serious challenge in manufacturing, handling, storage, transport and regulation. Most methods used for sterilization of nonliving implants and devices, such as gamma-irradiation and autoclaving kill cells. Sterility must be achieved during processing and maintained until implantation is complete. 6 Cost: All of the above factors add to the manufacturing costs and presently limit many TE applications to exploratory patients. 7 Survivability: Long-term survivability of TE constructs is uncertain. Consequently, in many cases use is restricted to applications where no other procedure is available, as required by ethical and legal considerations. These 'worse-case' surgical scenarios make it difficult to assess viability and success of the new procedures. 8 Regulatory considerations: Tissue engineered products are subject to the same regulatory procedures as nonliving biomaterials and devices. At present, only few products have been produced to meet these regulatory requirements. Costs and risk/benefit factors are often hard to predict because of the uncertainty of regulatory approval. ----- Brett Paatsch From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 14:05:36 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:05:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... > > >If we could get small enough to see > > >individual H20, > > > > Incidentally < and yes, I'm a boring pedant >, what's with all this > > Hydrogen Twenty that people keep talking about? H2O, dear friends, H2O. > > > Do you guys remember the bad old fortran days, when > you accidentally typed a zero for an O, or the > reverse? That was one of the hardest bugs to find, > mainly because the fortran error messages were often > cryptic to the point of being nearly useless. > > Which reminds me. Is D2O snow the same as H2O snow? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 14:18:02 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:18:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205223732.01ccb6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512060425.jB64PHe24072@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051205223732.01ccb6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 08:23 PM 12/5/2005 -0800, Spike wrote: > > >Why aren't all the branches different? It > >is almost like the molecules know what the other molecules are > >doing somehow, the ones that are on the other five branches, and > >that somehow causes them all to do almost the same thing > >six times simultaneously. How can that be? > > > >Isn't that evidence we are living in some kind of a simulation? > > No, silly puppy; god forms *each snowflake by Hand*, and tacks on its > whiteness quale. > > The interesting question is what makes god so damned symmetrical. > > The interesting bit is why pi shows up in so many places where one would least expect it. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Tue Dec 6 14:19:18 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:19:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > What about pest-resistant crops that reduce > the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they want without worrying about the plants. Almost as evil as patenting an already existing gene, and then trying to use the courts to forbid self-sustaining farmers in eg. India from sowing previously harvested seeds that happen to have the gene in it (and have had said gene for hundreds of years). -- "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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 14:15:17 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Brett wrote: > > > > Most GM is aimed at reducing the cost of producing > > it to the manufacturer > > > rather than conferring advantages to the consumer > > that the consumer > > > wants. > > Ok, I will concede that most of the early GM > agriculture was aimed at reducing the production costs > to the manufacturers but wouldn't that translate into > lower prices for the consumer? Isn't it a win/win > situation? What about pest-resistant crops that reduce Only if the possible benefits outweight the possible risks very significantly. At present anyone in Britain can buy enough cheap food out of their spare cash to eat themselves to death. So what if they can get it 5% cheaper? On the risk end of things, we have gene transfers to other crops and plants plus new allergies. the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? Is Or how about making the plants resistant to those pesticides so more can be used? That has happened too. that not beneficial for the consumer? And finally what No. Again, we have a skewed balance of benefits/risks. about the nutraceutical crops that they are coming out > with like "golden rice" that has beta carotene genes? The only problem that I have seing addressed, and which is a real problem, is GE rice with Vitamin A to alleviate the deciciency in the diets of poor people in the Third World. Personally though, I don't need it. Would Brits feel the same about GM livestock? Like > chicken eggs with omega-3 fatty acids and cows that > make milk with human insulin in it? If there is *no* downside whatsoever, and it does not in any way harm the animal , then 'perhaps'. But it's just a solution looking for a problem IMO. --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Or, even more cynically, they want to patent what is > > currently several > > millenia out of patent. > > Well most of the early patents in biotech were > completely ludicrous. This is mostly due to the lack > of knowledge by the lawyers that filed and judged the > patent than anything else. Most biotech consists of > taking genes that been around for millions of years > out of one organism and putting it into another > organism that has been around for millions of years. > So where do you draw the line? Think about how some I do not think any naturally occurring gene should be patentable. cancer patient feels when some company files a patent > on a mutated form of a gene that the company "lifted" > from one of his own cancer cells. Most scientists > don't think that the patent system is all that > sensible in regards to biotech. But if others are > getting rich by exploiting these loopholes then there > is a strong incentive to do likewise. > > True. I have 'played the system' - but I won't support it just because of that. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 15:15:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:15:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: <00c501c5fa63$7251d8c0$e7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200512061517.jB6FH6e14480@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > I lost interest in sudoku after learning from the > > software that one need not know anything about > > sudoku to solve it: the software has very little > > smarts programmed in. > > Did you lose interest in chess for the same reason? :) > > Regards, > > Dan No. But it is an interesting question. Some of the top chess players have expressed a variation of this notion. They said something like they were concerned the masses would lose interest in the game after computers became better than humans. Well computers are better than humans now, and there is still plenty of interest in the game. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2758 spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 15:31:35 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:31:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: No. It should fall slightly faster and make slightly more painful snowballs. Of course T2-292UUh would be even more painful but you have to throw them *really* really fast. Robert On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere wrote > > Which reminds me. > Is D2O snow the same as H2O snow? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 15:36:48 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:36:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051205232100.01cf5fc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512060632.jB66Wre10550@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: For those (like myself) who do not know what SuDoku is, there is a good wikipedia page on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuDoku R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 16:20:56 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:20:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/5/05, gts wrote: > True, and this is a possible hole in my own theory about about > consciousness and awareness. It is possible for example that organisms > that seem to be aware but unconscious, insects for example, experience > nothing whatsoever. > > However there exists a phenomenon in certain blind humans in which they > seem to be able to experience vision with no conscious awareness of the > experience. Put a chair in front of them and they will walk around it even > with no conscious awareness of seeing it. Apparently their brains can see, > but they have no conscious awareness of seeing. > > Their experience of seeing qualia seems to be separate from their > conscious awareness of their experience of seeing qualia. I think insect > minds work this way. They see and experience the world, but don't know it > -- similar and perhaps no different from the way unconscious cameras see > the world. > I wish I had a reference, but there are some people who are blind because of brain injury who can make decisions about objects in their field of view who do not have any conscious visual perception. Acy -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 16:22:39 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:22:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Acy Stapp wrote: > On 12/5/05, gts wrote: > > However there exists a phenomenon in certain blind humans in which they Doh, I read over the "blind" in this sentence :) -- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw From Ola.Bini at ki.se Tue Dec 6 17:01:17 2005 From: Ola.Bini at ki.se (Ola Bini) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:01:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051206180116.02bfae48@mail.ki.se> >I wish I had a reference, but there are some people who are blind >because of brain injury who can make decisions about objects in their >field of view who do not have any conscious visual perception. > >Acy Hi. Daniel C Dennets Consciousness Explained have some discussions about qualia, and specifically about these weird cases when the higher level processing of visual input have been disabled, but the persons such afflicted can still unconsciously react to visual input. Regards Ola Bini From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 17:46:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:46:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:20:56 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > I wish I had a reference, but there are some people who are blind > because of brain injury who can make decisions about objects in their > field of view who do not have any conscious visual perception. Exactly. We're referring here to the same phenomenon. Imagine a person who had this sort of "blind-sight" for all his senses, such that he could hear without experiencing sound, taste without experiencing flavor, feel without experiencing tactile sensations, etc. This person would seem no different from a normal person. If you encountered him on the street you would think he was just like you, but unlike you he would have no inner life. -gts From allsop at extropy.org Tue Dec 6 17:57:10 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512061757.jB6HvDpm029929@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts: > Imagine a person who had this sort of "blind-sight" for all his senses, > such that he could hear without experiencing sound, taste without > experiencing flavor, feel without experiencing tactile sensations, etc. > This person would seem no different from a normal person. If you > encountered him on the street you would think he was just like you, but > unlike you he would have no inner life. No, he would not be exactly like us. He wouldn't be trying to figure out what phenomenal properties were. When you asked him what red was like - he would say it wasn't phenomenally like anything. And once you looked at his brain, you would see that he does not have whatever the neural correlates are that we have that have phenomenal properties. Right? But other than this - he could be like us. That is, after all, what an abstract unconscious computer is. That is why commander data is always wanting to know what emotions are like and so on. Brent Allsop From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 17:58:18 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:58:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512060413.jB64DGe22789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Ahh, but he would not be like me. He would be unable to reflect on his percepts and this distinguishing factor would be quite noticeable. Me: "Nice Day, isn't it?" He: "Huh?" Me: "It's lovely out. I'm so glad winter is here." He: "What?" And so forth :) On 12/6/05, gts wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:20:56 -0500, Acy Stapp wrote: > > > I wish I had a reference, but there are some people who are blind > > because of brain injury who can make decisions about objects in their > > field of view who do not have any conscious visual perception. > > Exactly. We're referring here to the same phenomenon. > > Imagine a person who had this sort of "blind-sight" for all his senses, > such that he could hear without experiencing sound, taste without > experiencing flavor, feel without experiencing tactile sensations, etc. > This person would seem no different from a normal person. If you > encountered him on the street you would think he was just like you, but > unlike you he would have no inner life. > > -gts -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 18:23:19 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:23:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512061757.jB6HvDpm029929@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512061757.jB6HvDpm029929@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:57:10 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: >> Imagine a person who had this sort of "blind-sight" for all his senses, >> such that he could hear without experiencing sound, taste without >> experiencing flavor, feel without experiencing tactile sensations, etc. >> This person would seem no different from a normal person. If you >> encountered him on the street you would think he was just like you, but >> unlike you he would have no inner life. > > No, he would not be exactly like us. He wouldn't be trying to figure out > what phenomenal properties were. He might know about them but only by hear-say, like a blind man has heard about color but has no idea what it's like to experience color. He would be like our neuroscientist Mary trapped in a black and white world, but worse. > And once you looked at his > brain, you would see that he does not have whatever the neural correlates > are that we have that have phenomenal properties. Right? Given that he has blind-sight, I would suspect that the neural correlates do exist in his brain, but that his brain lacks the connection between those correlates and that part of the brain that manifests conscious experience. Apparently a part of his brain sees and experiences qualia but he has no conscious awareness of that qualia. I'm reluctant even to say he has consciousness, which I have defined as awareness of awareness. He is aware but not aware of his awareness, thus not conscious. > But other than this - he could be like us. That is, after all, what an > abstract unconscious computer is. Right. -gts From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 6 19:04:46 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:04:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4395E0CE.2030507@sasktel.net> That's where that open-sourcing concept might prove beneficial. Collaborative GM +Collaborative marketing +Collaborative marketing economics +multinational Collaborative Strategic Planning. Linux is a good model to transfer to GM-Bio. It might stimulate Coopetition that can end-run Stodgy old highly structured monopolies. Especially since the countries that are GM friendly are sort of the wild-west of Patent enforcement, this linux-style IP would actually be a step up in IP protection from what is already there. The chem resistant crops part was simply the first use of GM because it was an extension or improvment to traditional agriculture. Once the transition to GM-bioproduct Pharming truly gets going those roundup-resistant modifications are going to look like "stone knives and bearskins", to quote "captain Janeway from a Star Trek -Vogager episode" Let me tell you as a practicing farmer transitioning to Pharmer I look forward to this industry gaining new prominence as a supplier of diverse bio-products to enhance every facet of human activity. Farming is the last bastian of luddite clusterings. If its any indication let me relate this: A farmer education program was started here in our province this summer. It was to provide 6 million @18K/participant in a 5 year program. We are now 5 months into it and it is be 300% over budget with 1100 or the 10,000 farmers in Sask. already subscribed to it. I am using it to get my HACCP credentials and am simply amazed that there are new signups every day. I think Agriculture is is about to change more in the next 15 years than it has in the 10,000 years to date. Combine this with the conversion of 10% of the arable land to agroforestry over the next 20 years and I think 20 years hence that Ag 2025 and Ag 2005 will compare with sumerian tablets VS the internet. Morris Johnson Rik van Riel wrote: >On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > >>What about pest-resistant crops that reduce >>the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? >> >> > >I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified >specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and >herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they >want without worrying about the plants. > >Almost as evil as patenting an already existing gene, and >then trying to use the courts to forbid self-sustaining >farmers in eg. India from sowing previously harvested seeds >that happen to have the gene in it (and have had said gene >for hundreds of years). > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From allsop at extropy.org Tue Dec 6 19:09:06 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:09:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512061909.jB6J96Qr003187@ra.pacificwebworks.com> gts: > Given that he has blind-sight, I would suspect that the neural correlates > do exist in his brain, but that his brain lacks the connection between > those correlates and that part of the brain that manifests conscious > experience. Apparently a part of his brain sees and experiences qualia but > he has no conscious awareness of that qualia. > > I'm reluctant even to say he has consciousness, which I have defined as > awareness of awareness. He is aware but not aware of his awareness, thus > not conscious. Yes, sometimes when they sever the corpus collasum (it connects the hemispheres of our brain) there is evidence that there could be another conscious world than the one you are talking to. (speech is mainly in one hemisphere.) But if you show something to one side of the field of vision, the same side hand could pick that item up - and the conscious world talking to you will not know that the item even exists. It'd sure be nice to know what is required to connect two conscious worlds together like this. I bet we'll know before 10 years. Brent Allsop From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Dec 6 19:27:06 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:27:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The interesting bit is why pi shows up in so many places where one would least expect it. >Dirk Such as? -- Herb Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Dec 6 19:32:15 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:32:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] symmetrical snow and sudoku In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For those (like myself) who do not know what SuDoku is, there is a good wikipedia page on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuDoku There are plenty of computerized solvers also; some of them use brute force (as seems to be described earlier in this thread) and others restrict themselves to using logical methods that are (easily) available to humans. Generally when solving a Sudoku, I also restrict myself to the logical methods and avoid doing the, "well what if I just try # here, and see what happens." I find the fun is to discover how the 'logical rules' can solve the puzzle. There are sites which describe both 'beginner' level and more advanced rules. (I can likely look up my notes if you need them.) Gnu Sudoku comes with source code. (Python if I recall correctly.) -- Herb Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 19:52:45 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:52:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing snow in a simulated universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Herb Martin wrote: > > >The interesting bit is why pi shows up in so many places where one would > least expect it. > >Dirk > *Such as?* > > Prime Number theory for one. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 6 21:09:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:09:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > >> What about pest-resistant crops that reduce >> the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? >> > > I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified > specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and > herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they > want without worrying about the plants. > These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is unlikely. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 21:14:23 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:14:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] Message-ID: I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to human stem cell engineering. It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic problems we currently face and its solutions. First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- every year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is highly unextropic because all of the energy, matter and time that went into creating, growing and teaching those human beings is completely lost! For references see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. For comparison purposes this is approximately equal to crashing a 747 full of people (more than 70% children) into the side of a mountain every 30 minutes. Another way of looking at it is that the death toll is equivalent to more than 6 911's every day. This goes on day after day every year. Now one use for GMO is to enhance the nutritional value of the foods. This has been achieved (and scientifically proven) with iron-enhanced rice recently [7,8]. Previous developments included "golden rice" enhanced for vitamin A. Researchers are working on zinc and vitamin-E enhanced rice as well. If you read [6] carefully you will find that the people who funded the development are unlikely to be filing patents which would prevent it from being used by people in poorer nations. (Not that many "less-developed" nations respect the patent (or copyright) laws of many "developed" nations anyway... but that's another discussion.) In the case of "golden rice" the Rockefeller Foundation funded much of the development research [9] and Monsanto gave away its patent rights [10]. Part of the global problem is one of basic nutrition (which can in part be solved by GMOs as the previous paragraph shows). This is one of the things which makes accurate numbers of deaths caused by poor nutrition difficult. One might die from cholera but the actual cause could well be a poor immune system due to nutritional deficiencies. Another use of GMO is to increase the production of and shelf life of those foods which are produced. Estimates of food production lost to non-human consumption (mostly insects) and spoilage (in part fungi or bacterial consumption) range from 10-45% (more authoritative estimates seem to be from 15-25%). More food translates into cheaper food (if the basic principles of economics are applied). Cheaper food means people are more likely to consume sufficient vitamins, minerals, amino acids, carbohydrates and fats which prevent starvation, promote brain development, allow the maintenance of a robust immune system, etc. I.e. More (cheaper) food is a highly extropic goal. Now, in the developed countries the use of GMO could certainly be questioned since we don't really need more food (obesity is significantly contributing to premature deaths). But this gets into the politics of agricultural production, farm subsidies (which I believe are as bad or worse in Europe than they are in the U.S., etc.). I strongly doubt that one could present an argument that engineering organisms to produce compounds/materials which are more efficient energy sources (esp. since they take their carbon out of the atmosphere) is a bad thing. The anti-GMO backlash was in part fueled by farmers (esp. those in Europe) who did not want increased production as that would lower crop prices still further and drive the smaller (less efficient [family]?) farms out of business. As many U.S. farms are largely industrialized "businesses" there was much less resistance in the U.S. than there was in Europe to GMOs. The governments did not want GMOs either as that would result in pressure to increase subsidies to the farmers. This tended to be more balanced in the U.S. because agricultural products are a significant source of export revenues. The "health" value of non-GMO (organic) foods have little or no scientific standing (and should not be promoted by Extropians who believe in "rational thought"). You can justify preferring them on the basis of wanting to support small family farms which is an personal choice argument. You might justify them on the basis of the environmental reasons but the debate is quite complex. Just don't try to justify them on a "health" basis. Bottom line is that sometime in the next 10-15 years we are going to be able to engineer "bio-gruel" which can be grown in solar ponds, makes highly efficient use of solar energy, has a completely balanced and healthy mixture of vitamins, minerals, amino-acids, fats and carbohydrates, is relatively resistant to other organisms which might consume it and is based on GMOs (consider it to be a highly engineered form of the lactobacillis found in "live" yogurt crossed with spirulina). This will be significantly "healthier" than any "natural" food now found on the planet. Regarding corporations & patents -- I've seen programs that the genetic engineering of crops used in Africa *is* taking place in Africa. The idea that all GMOs are being produced by Monsanto, ADM or other corporations and being withheld from the third world derives from debates of the mid-90's and isn't a valid argument anymore. The rice genome started out with a private effort but was rapidly transcended by public efforts [11]. The rate at which information is becoming available is too fast to be concerned with corporations locking down significant fractions of it. Nature has evolved different solutions for many problems and locking down one of them doesn't give you a 20 year exclusive on any of them anymore. Regarding growing crops that manufacture drugs in addition to their natural mixture of compounds (many of which are probably "poisons" to prevent consumption by insects) the probability is low for this. To efficiently engineer GMOs to produce most drugs there has to already be an enzymatic process somewhere in nature that produces that molecule. Aspirin and most antibiotics are examples of this. But if it is a "novel" drug which doesn't closely resemble molecules which can be found in nature then the engineering of the enzymes to produce it in plants or animals is likely to be prohibitively expensive. It also isn't likely to lower the drug costs much as one still has to deal with things like purification and manufacturing specific doses. Supporting GMOs to reduce deaths due to starvation or poor nutrition [12] is probably the second most extropic thing one can do -- after supporting the correction of the human genetic program to eliminate deaths due to aging (and age related diseases). Robert 1. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm 2. http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/international.html 3. http://www.thp.org/ 4. http://www.napsoc.org/ 5. http://www.starvation.net/ 6. http://old.developmentgateway.org/node/130622/bboard/message?message%5fid=497640&forum%5fid=139988&mode=m (good discussion of conflicts in the quoted numbers) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/overview/famine.pdf (another good discussion) 7. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov05/rice.iron.ssl.html 8. http://www.irri.org/media/press/press.asp?id=115 9. http://www.developments.org.uk/data/09/goldeneye.htm 10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/865946.stm 11. http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/externe/English/Projets/Projet_CC/organisme_CC.html 12. One could argue that there are lots of political activities that could reduce these categories (famine, starvation & poor nutrition) of deaths as well but the arguments quickly become complex due to trade offs between benefits to oneself, benefits to ones family, benefits to ones "tribe", benefits to humanity, etc. so I'm not including them here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 21:34:02 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:34:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to human stem > cell engineering. > > It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic problems we > currently face and its solutions. > > First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- every > year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is highly unextropic > because all of the energy, matter and time that went into creating, growing > and teaching those human beings is completely lost! > > Which has nothing to do with GM foods. The problem of malnourishment is a *political* problem - not a technological one. There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. If the starving poor cannot access or pay for normal food then GM food will certainly not solve the problem. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 21:35:07 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:35:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > > >> What about pest-resistant crops that reduce > >> the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? > >> > > > > I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified > > specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and > > herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they > > want without worrying about the plants. > > > > These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is > unlikely. > Not if the cost of extra spraying is offset by greater yield. Screw the rest of Nature. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 21:57:44 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:57:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > I do not think any naturally occurring gene should be patentable. > Generally speaking they aren't. today one would most likely have problems with the "novelty" part of patent requirements. Generally speaking what one patents is the novel application (i.e. the use) of a gene in a new way -- engineered into a new organism, involved in a new genetic test, etc. A lot of the patenting that may have gone on early in the biotech era has now been transcended by the rapid rate of development (one can find similar genes/pathways in other organisms, etc.). Gene sequences were only worth something in the late '90s or early in this decade. Now they don't even justify the cost of the lawyers. This is a case where the usefullness of a patent expires long before the patent itself does. I would suggest that people not extremely familiar with the current realities in this area should not be citing "old" knowledge bases, particularly any that might be based on past "press" publications rather than a detailed understanding of patent law, reading actual patents, and the state of progress with respect to technical aspects of genomics and the genomics knowledge bases. I do have some knowledge in these areas and even I hesitate to comment because I realize how imperfect my own knowledge base may be. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 6 22:51:07 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:51:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of GM stategic planning and policies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <439615DB.4070901@sasktel.net> That is the basis of roundup resistant crops. One chemical replaces many and in this case is so innocuous a compound that the surfactant/carrier is actually more of a health hazard than the herbicide. Roundup was a bit of a fluke though. It was just a simple, cheap to make compound that could be sold for a shitload of money because it was one of a kind. Then as luck had it nature already had resistant genes in the backwoods and cooincidentally the gene was easy to work with and actually worked when transferred into a whole whack of unrelated plants. In 34 years we have not seen anything with those attributes come along again. Now in the GMO world the only thing rivalling roundup that could be created would be a singel gene for perennialism and environmental ruggedness that would make numerous annuals into high performing perennials. That would revolutionize the energy in VS energy out agricultureal production equation. Making ethanol and oil based biodiesel from high input annual crops is a disaster of the highest magnitude in the making. If the energy equation could be shifted by one decimal point ag biotech would replace conventional biomaterial sources and would change world economics as much as the microchip changed computation. We live in Saskatchewan where I am told there is in the works a nuclear reactor or 2 to put the tar sands into full production as well as one of the world's most plentyful sources of uranium , but still we have to plan for what to do once that is all extracted and we are left with declining production from ever more marginal energy reserves. When I sit down to give our government advice that is where my thoughts come from. Morris Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 12/6/05, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > > > On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > > >> What about pest-resistant crops that reduce > >> the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? > >> > > > > I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified > > specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and > > herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they > > want without worrying about the plants. > > > > These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is > unlikely. > > > Not if the cost of extra spraying is offset by greater yield. > Screw the rest of Nature. > > Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 23:01:19 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:01:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox time-saver tip Message-ID: This may be a bit offtopic for some but highly useful to others on these lists. For those of you who have made the transition to Firefox, you will notice that after the common URL entry box at the top there is an additional entry box to the right of it. This box has a pulldown menu for search engines (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, etc.). So rather than taking several clicks to pull up an additional query page you can type in what you want to query for (e.g. Rose MR) and select which search engine you want to use from the pull down menu. The interesting thing is that they have made this so it can be user-extended. So, if from the pull-down menu, I select "Add Engines" I go to [1] and can add search engines like WebMD or Ask Jeeves. But more importantly, I can query a database [2] to see if someone has created an interface to databases I often use. And sure enough [3] points out that there are interfaces to PubMed Central, NCBI PubMed and PubMed Books. For the typical PubMed interface one wants to add (click on) the "NCBI PubMed" (nlm.nih.gov) [4] and it will show up in your personal search engine list. I suspect if one wants you could easily do things like tailor this to interfaces to search public lists (local newspapers, TV stations, etc.) and private lists (e.g. organization memberships, patient lists, etc.) Not a breakthrough of monumental proportions but a clear time saver for those who function under time constraints. The above comments are with respect to Firefox 1.0.7 though I expect they would apply to other versions, esp. 1.5. They do not appear to apply to the early versions (7.0) of Netscape based on Mozilla. Robert 1. https://addons.mozilla.org/search-engines.php 2. http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ 3. http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=PubMed&submitform=Search 4. javascript:addEngine('pubmed','png','Health','0') -- note I suspect it only works if one has loaded the URL from [3] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 6 23:41:55 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:41:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439621C3.9000908@sasktel.net> My argument to balance off economics with GMO policies is that good GMO would indeed increase basic food volumes but control over the IP of medicinal and complex bioproducts would create a cash value which would replace farm subsidies as GM farmers using HACCP , GPS, automated equipment and on-farm GMO germplasm production would be given by the market sufficient resources and profit margin as to guarantee TQM. The basic food would be a worthless by-product which could be given away to every person in the world so as to generate the healthy warm bodies needed to maufacture the consumer goods based upon natural resources and bio-products. The energy in and out part of agriculture however must be signifiantly modified before this entire scheme has long term sustainability. I remember a fellow in 1975 who developed a wheat that manufacured 85% of its own Nitrogen fertilizer requirements. He was employed by Agriculture Canada at the time. Within a year of publishing this work he was hired by Esso/Imperial Oil and no further published work ever came accross my path. This was before "peak oil" and all that stuff but demonstrates that there is much dormant work out there that could be revived if the economics and players with the power to fund projects decided it was a priority. So I ust beg to differ and say that indweed it is the 3.3 trillion dollar health economy that has the money to pay for GMO bioreactors. The strategy is to use food crop non-food relatives though. I have seen for example rather than use medicago-alfalfa, a feed crop as a bioreactor the close relative medicago-medics is targeted. Same biochemistry without cross-contamination of gene pools. I'm also in favor of converting numerous tree species to bioreactors as they are perennials. With environment, water and inputs poplars grow 110 ft mature trees in 4-5 years. A GMO tree that can grow without as many inputs and much less water could revolutionize biomass production and yield extractable high value bio-products. As well, converting certain ruminants like sheep to bioreactors and extracting rumen manufactured bioproducts is a totally novel meshing of food and GMO industrial products. Just put a PHD in every farmyard and you won't believe your eyes what will happen next. MFJ Robert Bradbury wrote: > I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to human > stem cell engineering. > > It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic problems > we currently face and its solutions. > > First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- > every year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is highly > unextropic because all of the energy, matter and time that went into > creating, growing and teaching those human beings is completely lost! > > For references see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. > > For comparison purposes this is approximately equal to crashing a 747 > full of people (more than 70% children) into the side of a mountain > every 30 minutes. Another way of looking at it is that the death toll > is equivalent to more than 6 911's every day. This goes on day after > day every year. > > Now one use for GMO is to enhance the nutritional value of the foods. > This has been achieved (and scientifically proven) with iron-enhanced > rice recently [7,8]. Previous developments included "golden rice" > enhanced for vitamin A. Researchers are working on zinc and vitamin-E > enhanced rice as well. If you read [6] carefully you will find that > the people who funded the development are unlikely to be filing > patents which would prevent it from being used by people in poorer > nations. (Not that many "less-developed" nations respect the patent > (or copyright) laws of many "developed" nations anyway... but that's > another discussion.) In the case of "golden rice" the Rockefeller > Foundation funded much of the development research [9] and Monsanto > gave away its patent rights [10]. > > Part of the global problem is one of basic nutrition (which can in > part be solved by GMOs as the previous paragraph shows). This is one > of the things which makes accurate numbers of deaths caused by poor > nutrition difficult. One might die from cholera but the actual cause > could well be a poor immune system due to nutritional deficiencies. > > Another use of GMO is to increase the production of and shelf life of > those foods which are produced. Estimates of food production lost to > non-human consumption (mostly insects) and spoilage (in part fungi or > bacterial consumption) range from 10-45% (more authoritative estimates > seem to be from 15-25%). More food translates into cheaper food (if > the basic principles of economics are applied). Cheaper food means > people are more likely to consume sufficient vitamins, minerals, amino > acids, carbohydrates and fats which prevent starvation, promote brain > development, allow the maintenance of a robust immune system, etc. > I.e. More (cheaper) food is a highly extropic goal. > > Now, in the developed countries the use of GMO could certainly be > questioned since we don't really need more food (obesity is > significantly contributing to premature deaths). But this gets into > the politics of agricultural production, farm subsidies (which I > believe are as bad or worse in Europe than they are in the U.S., > etc.). I strongly doubt that one could present an argument that > engineering organisms to produce compounds/materials which are more > efficient energy sources (esp. since they take their carbon out of the > atmosphere) is a bad thing. The anti-GMO backlash was in part fueled > by farmers (esp. those in Europe) who did not want increased > production as that would lower crop prices still further and drive the > smaller (less efficient [family]?) farms out of business. As many > U.S. farms are largely industrialized "businesses" there was much less > resistance in the U.S. than there was in Europe to GMOs. The > governments did not want GMOs either as that would result in pressure > to increase subsidies to the farmers. This tended to be more balanced > in the U.S. because agricultural products are a significant source of > export revenues. > > The "health" value of non-GMO (organic) foods have little or no > scientific standing (and should not be promoted by Extropians who > believe in "rational thought"). You can justify preferring them on > the basis of wanting to support small family farms which is an > personal choice argument. You might justify them on the basis of the > environmental reasons but the debate is quite complex. Just don't try > to justify them on a "health" basis. Bottom line is that sometime in > the next 10-15 years we are going to be able to engineer "bio-gruel" > which can be grown in solar ponds, makes highly efficient use of solar > energy, has a completely balanced and healthy mixture of vitamins, > minerals, amino-acids, fats and carbohydrates, is relatively resistant > to other organisms which might consume it and is based on GMOs > (consider it to be a highly engineered form of the lactobacillis found > in "live" yogurt crossed with spirulina). This will be significantly > "healthier" than any "natural" food now found on the planet. > > Regarding corporations & patents -- I've seen programs that the > genetic engineering of crops used in Africa *is* taking place in > Africa. The idea that all GMOs are being produced by Monsanto, ADM or > other corporations and being withheld from the third world derives > from debates of the mid-90's and isn't a valid argument anymore. The > rice genome started out with a private effort but was rapidly > transcended by public efforts [11]. The rate at which information is > becoming available is too fast to be concerned with corporations > locking down significant fractions of it. Nature has evolved > different solutions for many problems and locking down one of them > doesn't give you a 20 year exclusive on any of them anymore. > > Regarding growing crops that manufacture drugs in addition to their > natural mixture of compounds (many of which are probably "poisons" to > prevent consumption by insects) the probability is low for this. To > efficiently engineer GMOs to produce most drugs there has to already > be an enzymatic process somewhere in nature that produces that > molecule. Aspirin and most antibiotics are examples of this. But if > it is a "novel" drug which doesn't closely resemble molecules which > can be found in nature then the engineering of the enzymes to produce > it in plants or animals is likely to be prohibitively expensive. It > also isn't likely to lower the drug costs much as one still has to > deal with things like purification and manufacturing specific doses. > > Supporting GMOs to reduce deaths due to starvation or poor nutrition > [12] is probably the second most extropic thing one can do -- after > supporting the correction of the human genetic program to eliminate > deaths due to aging (and age related diseases). > > Robert > > 1. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm > 2. http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/international.html > 3. http://www.thp.org/ > 4. http://www.napsoc.org/ > 5. http://www.starvation.net/ > 6. > http://old.developmentgateway.org/node/130622/bboard/message?message%5fid=497640&forum%5fid=139988&mode=m > > (good discussion of conflicts in the quoted numbers) > http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/overview/famine.pdf > (another good discussion) > 7. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov05/rice.iron.ssl.html > 8. http://www.irri.org/media/press/press.asp?id=115 > 9. http://www.developments.org.uk/data/09/goldeneye.htm > 10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/865946.stm > 11. > http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/externe/English/Projets/Projet_CC/organisme_CC.html > 12. One could argue that there are lots of political activities that > could reduce these categories (famine, starvation & poor nutrition) of > deaths as well but the arguments quickly become complex due to trade > offs between benefits to oneself, benefits to ones family, benefits to > ones "tribe", benefits to humanity, etc. so I'm not including them here. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Wed Dec 7 00:05:24 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:05:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox time-saver tip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: << For those of you who have made the transition to Firefox, you will notice that after the common URL entry box at the top there is an additional entry box to the right of it. This box has a pulldown menu for search engines (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, etc.). So rather than taking several clicks to pull up an additional query page you can type in what you want to query for (e.g. Rose MR) and select which search engine you want to use from the pull down menu. The interesting thing is that they have made this so it can be user-extended. >> Cool. I mostly use Firefox for website compatibility testing but I do use it some. << So, if from the pull-down menu, I select "Add Engines" I go to [1] and can add search engines like WebMD or Ask Jeeves. But more importantly, I can query a database [2] to see if someone has created an interface to databases I often use. And sure enough [3] points out that there are interfaces to PubMed Central, NCBI PubMed and PubMed Books. For the typical PubMed interface one wants to add (click on) the "NCBI PubMed" ( nlm.nih.gov) [4] and it will show up in your personal search engine list. >> <> If you wish to customize how Firefox views individual webpages it seems you really should look at GreaseMonkey (pretty cool idea and it may change the Web in large ways): Greasemonkey will blow up business models (as well as your mind) http://www.nivi.com/blog/article/greasemonkey-and-business-models/ Or this link from Reddit which is a blog pointer site of quite a bit of interest to me (and possibly to those on this list): http://reddit.com/goto?id=15970 Reddit http://reddit.com/ (seriously worth trying) -- Herb Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Dec 7 02:25:07 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:25:07 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies. In-Reply-To: References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1133922307.13247.140.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 13:09 -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified > > specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and > > herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they > > want without worrying about the plants. > > > > These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is > unlikely. > > Glyphosate prices dropped, so its use went up http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php From megao at sasktel.net Wed Dec 7 02:45:53 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:45:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] glyphosate In-Reply-To: <1133922307.13247.140.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <20051206061426.17013.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <1133922307.13247.140.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <43964CE1.8090508@sasktel.net> Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: >On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 13:09 -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: >> >> >>>I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified >>>specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and >>>herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they >>>want without worrying about the plants. >>> >>> >>> >>These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is >>unlikely. >> >> >> >> >Glyphosate prices dropped, so its use went up >http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php > > But proportionately when adjusted for inflation of equipment and other inputs and bulk transportation costs and flattened or reduced gross crop prices it has not dropped but at very best remained the same. In 1975 when grain was 5.50/60 pound bushel I bought my first 4X4 SUV for 6500 now with net grain at 3.50 that SUV is over 35,000. Fuel was 45 cents per gallon not $4.50 as it is now. Freight was 27 cents per bushel not 1.35 as it is now. Fertilizer was 200/tonne not 550 as it is now. Yes farms of 25,000 acres now do relatively as well as farms of 1000 acres did then, but there is some arbitrage by buying undervalued assets from those in financial crisis as opposed to bidding over FMproductive value as was the fashion then. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 7 03:43:24 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:43:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] What happened to cyborgdemocracy.net? Message-ID: <200512070343.jB73hIe04067@tick.javien.com> Does anyone know what happened to the blog at cyborgdemocracy.net? Brandon Reinhart transcend at extropica.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 7 04:01:08 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:01:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 12/6/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to human > stem cell engineering. > > It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic > problems we currently face and its solutions. > > First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- > every year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is > highly unextropic because all of the energy, matter and time that > went into creating, growing and teaching those human beings is > completely lost! > > > Which has nothing to do with GM foods. > The problem of malnourishment is a *political* problem - not a > technological one. > There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. Proof please. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 04:53:07 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:53:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] UNESCO: Guide to Establishing Bioethics Committees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051207045307.76416.qmail@web32810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Guide N?.1 Establishing Bioethics Committees UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION DIVISION OF ETHICS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNESCO 2005 Available online as PDF file [74p.] at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001393/139309e.pdf ? The need to reflect on the moral dimension of advances in science and technology, as well as the desire to enhance the public?s health has, in many areas of the world, led to the establishment of various forms of Bioethics Committees, four of which are described and discussed in this Guide. These committees have received various titles: (1) ?ethics committee?, ?ethics or bioethics commission?, and ?council on bioethics? at the national level; (2) ?health-professional association bioethics committees? at the national and regional levels; (3) ?health care/hospital ethics committees?, usually established at the local level; and (4) ?research ethics committees?, established at different levels in various Member States. The Guide has been prepared not only for the use of ministers, but also for their policy advisers at the national, regional and local levels, leaders and members of professional and scientific research associations, and chairpersons and members of various forms of bioethics committees. Each of them, of course, is at liberty to affirm its purposes, articulate its functions and determine its routine working procedures ..? Establishing bioethics committees may be a first step for States to create platforms and bodies for ethical debate, analysis and policy development. Continuous reflection on the bioethical issues raised by advances along the spectrum of the biological sciences and various biotechnologies will giv Content: INTRODUCTION Part I THE CHALLENGES AND TASKS OF BIOETHICS COMMITTEES 1. Human Dignity and the Doctrine of Informed Consent 2. The New Applied Bioethics of the Health Professions 3. What are Bioethics Committees? 4. Reasons for Establishing Bioethics Committees 5. Possible Misunderstanding of the Purposes and Functions of Bioethics Committees Part II ESTABLISHING BIOETHICS COMMITTEES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 1. National level 2. Regional level 3. Local level Part III DIFFERENT FORMS OF BIOETHICS COMMITTEES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 1. Policy-Making and/or Advisory Bioethics Committees/Commissions/Councils (PMAs) at the National Level Background, Purposes, Functions, Committee Size, Recruiting Chairpersons and Members , Funding Bioethical Dilemmas: Cases for PMAs 2. Health-Professional Associations (HPA) Bioethics Committees Background, Purposes, Functions, Committee Size Recruiting Chairpersons and Members, Funding, Bioethical Dilemmas: A Case for HPA Committees 3. Health care/Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs) 4. Research Ethics Committees (RECs (i) The Use of Animals in Biological, Biomedical and Behavioural Research (ii) The Imperative to Protect Human Participants Involved in Biological, Biomedical and Behavioural Research (iii) Fundamental Dilemmas in Research Ethics (iv) Bioethics and Transnational Research: External and Host States Part IV PROCEDURES AND OPERATIONS Part V EVALUATING BIOETHICS COMMITTEES Part VI RECOMMENDED READING APPENDIX La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 04:54:24 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:54:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A New Ultra-Secret Government Agency In-Reply-To: <20051130093711.A2D5D2F9DA@azuki.lava.net> Message-ID: <20051207045424.66994.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> OMB Watch Home : Publications : The OMB Watcher : OMB Watcher Vol. 6: 2005 : November 29, 2005 Vol. 6, No. 24 : Published on 11/29/2005 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3195/1/404 A New Ultra-Secret Government Agency Legislation is moving in the Senate to create a new government agency to combat bioterrorism that will operate, unlike any other agency before it, under blanket secrecy protection. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) has introduced the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005, S1873, that would create a new agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to research and develop strategies to combat bioterrorism and natural diseases. While Congress has created several agencies recently in response to homeland security concerns, most notably the Department of Homeland Security, Burr proposes for the first time ever to completely exempt this new agency from all open government laws. The legislation has already passed out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and is now before the full Senate. The Act creates the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) to work on countering bioterrorism and natural diseases. Apparently in an attempt to protect any and all sensitive information on U.S. counter-bioterrorism efforts or vulnerabilities to biological threats, Burrs has included in the legislation the first-ever blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The legislation states that, "Information that relates to the activities, working groups, and advisory boards of the BARDA shall not be subject to disclosure" under FOIA "unless the Secretary [of HHS] or Director [of BARDA] determines that such disclosure would pose no threat to national security." Neither the CIA nor the Defense Department has such an exemption. Burr?s spokesperson argues that the exemption is necessary to protect national security claiming that "there will be times where for national security reasons certain information would have to be withheld." For instance, the BARDA should not, according to the spokesperson, be required to publicly disclose information pertaining to a deadly virus. FOIA, however, already includes an exemption for national security information, as well as eight other exemptions ranging from privacy issues to confidential business information and law enforcement investigations. If the public disclosure of information would threaten national security, then the government may withhold the requested information. "The well-established and time-tested FOIA provisions already address Burr's concerns," explains Sean Moulton, OMB Watch senior policy analyst, "thereby making the blanket exemption for BARDA unnecessary and unwise." Congress established and strengthened FOIA over the years to create a reasonable, consistent level of accountability among government agencies. Under FOIA, when the public requests agency records, the agency is compelled to collect and review the requested information. The only decision for the agency is whether specific records can or can not be released under the law based on the exemptions from disclosure written into the law. However, the Burr legislation reverses the process: it does not require BARDA to collect or review the requests for disclosure. Instead, the agency can automatically reject requests. Still more troubling, the law prohibits any challenges of determinations by the Director of BARDA or Secretary of HHS, stating that the determination of the Director or Secretary with regards to the decision to withhold information "shall not be subject to judicial review." Mark Tapscott at the Heritage Foundation writes that "BARDA will essentially be accountable to nobody and can operate without having to worry about troublesome interference from courts or private citizens like you and me." This move to restrict the reach of FOIA appears in stark contrast to the recent Senate vote to strengthen open government. Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) co-sponsored FOIA reform legislation, passed by the Senate in June, that "will bring additional sunshine to the federal legislative process, and was another step toward strengthening the Freedom of Information Act." The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act also exempts BARDA from important parts of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires public disclosure of advice given to the executive branch by advisory committees, task forces, boards and commissions. Other provisions of the bill compound the troubling secrecy provisions. They include: * Giving BARDA the authority to sign exclusive contracts with drug manufacturers and forbidding the agency from purchasing generic versions of these drugs or vaccines. * Authorizing BARDA to issue grants and rebates for drug companies to produce vaccines. * Providing liability protection to drug manufacturers for drugs and vaccines not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, by requiring the secretary of HHS find that a drug company willfully caused injury. The FOIA exemption in combination with these provisions would prevent the public from knowing whether BARDA is effectively completing these duties. Only information on agency actions could establish if the new agency is protecting the public from bioterrorism and infectious disease or if it is simply providing handouts to drug companies that creates no added security. "It is essential that open government safeguards remain in place for all agencies," Moulton continues. "It is extremely important to ensure that the nation is protected against pandemics and bioterrorist attacks, but such efforts must not be excluded from open government. By providing the mechanisms for government accountability, these safeguards ensure that the government meets its responsibility to protect the public. In the end, an accountable government is a stronger government which acts to effectively meet all threats, including pandemics and bioterrorism." Burr is still in the process of revising the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act, and, with the Senate's incredibly tight schedule, the timing of the bill's introduction on the floor remains uncertain. In the meantime, supporters are rumored to be seeking out a Democratic cosponsor to give it momentum. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 04:57:55 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:57:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Altran Foundation for Innovation 2006 Award: Innovation & energy In-Reply-To: <7C6B180F-4BC2-11DA-A30D-000D934962C8@educationhumanitas.org> Message-ID: <20051207045755.27755.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The 2006 Altran Foundation for Innovation Award will go to most > innovative project(s) dealing with the global concern about energy. > From exploration and transformation of energy sources to environmental > impact management and energy efficiency. > > Whereas the globe?s population has only been multiplied 4 times, > worldwide energy consumption is 10 times higher today than it was at > the start of the 20th Century. This trend could be confirmed in the > future: estimates show that the world?s energy consumption could > increase by 60% between 2000 and 2020 and double again by 2050. > Moreover, energy distribution in the world is highly unequal. Indeed, > half of the earth?s available energy is consumed by only 15% of the > world population. > > Providing a better productivity, a better availability and an > increased safety, research and innovation can lead to a sustainable > energy in line with environmental concerns and benefiting all. > > Deadline for submission of applications: January, 11th 2006. > > Information: www.altran-foundation.org > > Some likely areas of research are: > > Production and transformation of energy > - Energy sources: fossil, nuclear, renewable > - Hydrogen > - Fuel cell > - Biofuels > - > > Energy storage and transportation > - Storage and transportation safety > - Storage and transportation productivity and performance > - Transportation technologies and management > - Storage technologies > - ... > > Energy optimization (energy efficiency and safety) > - Housing > - Industry > - Transport > - Education and training on energy consumption > - > > Energy and the environment > - Reduction of green house effect gas emissions > - Waste management > - Management of production sites? environmental impact > - > > This above list is by no means complete and is only given as a guide. > If you have further questions, please contact the Foundation at: +33 1 > 44 09 54 47 > .. > Information: www.altran-foundation.org > candidate at altran-foundation.org > > A European leader in innovation and technology consulting, Altran > created the Foundation in 1996 to promote and sustain technological > innovation for human benefit. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 7 05:09:48 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:09:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community Message-ID: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> I am speaking as a relatively new transhumanist. Those of you who are long standing, highly active members of this community should not be offended by my comments. I do not intend to indict or insult. - It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low rates of participation and conversion. Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: 1. Favoring email lists instead of open forums. As far as I can tell, neither the WTA nor the Extropy Institute have public web forums. Instead, the two organizations rely on majordomo style email lists to facilitate communication. In my opinion this is a mistake. First, forums are more easily accessible than email lists. Any forum with a modern thread view and search facility provides a simple UI for quickly reading up on the latest discussion. If a reader wants to convert to participant, they are probably more familiar with the account creation and activation process of the major forum kits than majordomo, which is a relatively aged piece of software. Second, forums are potentially less "hostile" than email discussion lists. The email discussion list pushes data to the reader. Busy lists push so much discussion as to be unusable in real-time. Users have to be fairly interface-savvy in order to either A) filter the list into a separate folder in their email client or B) request the server send a digest. I suspect that the rapid-push nature of email lists could even alienate certain users in the "unwanted email == spam" environment we live in today. While it is probably reasonable to assume that most transhumanists are highly computer-literate, it is no reason to make quality transhumanist discussion only comfortably accessible to the class of individuals who are computer-literate. Certainly, forums take more work to maintain, generally, than email lists. The lowered barrier to accessibility means a somewhat lower signal-to-noise ratio. Forums have to be monitored and abusive users have to be silenced. Nonetheless, forums are very familiar to most web users, even at very low levels of computer-literacy. Computer literacy is not, in my opinion, a prerequisite to being transhumanist. After all, we extropians believe that art, music, and culture is an integral part to creating a Nice Place To Live and many artists aren't necessarily going to understand how to interact with majordomo, etc. 2. Not having any community at all. I'm _amazed_ that the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence has no forum what-so-ever. SIAI interests do maintain the SL4 mailing list but it is clearly intended for highly technical discussion, not general evangelism or community building. The SIAI seems to greatly desire an increased audience for the "singularity is AI dammit!" meme, Yudkowsky's philosophies in FAI and AGI construction, etc. Get a forum! Let people respond! Get someone to answer those posts and actively engage your readers. It isn't the only, final, or even necessarily the best path to getting that audience, but it is a relatively simple start. 3. Utilize blog style focused content delivery and then direct conversation to your forum. A front page with a blog structure is a great way to constantly push new events in your organization. The organization must seem to be alive in order to attract ongoing attention. If your front page hasn't been updated in three months, people will stop visiting. On the other hand, if you update with interesting (even if trivial) news about your organizations efforts, people will return to learn and discuss. In my opinion, the blog should be the initial page (with direction to "who we are" type of inquiries on a side panel menu). A few sites that do have blogs have a static main page and a "read our blog" type of link buried somewhere. This doesn't seem to be very effective. And yeah, I'm not walking the walk here either. Extropica is a potentially cool name for a transhumanist-evangelist site, but I have neglected it. 4. Not pushing people to community in an intuitive way. I just popped open the ExI site in my browser. In the center of the page I see something interesting: The Proactionary Principle. What is this? I want to read about it. It's compelling content. I click on it and see a draft of something interesting! Posted for public comment, awesome! But at the bottom: "please submit your comments to Extropy Board of Directors." What? No! There should be a link to a public forum saying "comment and discuss this and other ExI projects in our forums." Push those readers to the conversation. We are talking about smart people. They want to talk about what they just read. Or maybe just read what other people think. If they post, you've more or less guaranteed they will return to your organization's site and check the responses to their post. 5. Asking for the email address, before providing interesting information. I think that organizational updates sent by email are not as effective as posting those updates on the main site, perhaps with a forum to seed a discussion. SIAI has a "Free eBulletin" but an examination of the site's front page reveals no way to get this information without giving them my email address. Get with the 90s! I know few people who will give out their email address to an automated form when it isn't required (i.e.: not buying something online or performing security validation). It seems to me that the information regarding what conferences you're sending so-and-so to and what research papers whats-his-name is working on are critical donation engines and that information would always be as easily available as possible. This emphasis on forums and community is only important because we are currently a very issue and subject based community with relatively few participants. A forum for an organization like the Red Cross wouldn't really make sense, as they are extremely well established and aren't a small community organization. They have much more effective funding-mechanisms in place. CONVERSELY, - People need to participate more. If I pop open the imminst.org forums, I see a very low post-to-view ratio in a lot of the forums. People are reading the threads, but not responding. Maybe part of this comes from the complexity of transhuman subjects. People don't want to look like idiots. But we need people posting their questions so they can get answers, so there can be a much wider ranging dialog than exists currently. - People need to write more. There are a thousand interesting core concepts out there that have barely been scratched. When I read a series of articles, I generally see the same names popping up over and over. The Max Mores, the Kurzweils, the Anissimovs, etc. I cannot possibly believe that there are only a handful of people doing interesting thinking about transhumanist issues. I suspect that many will disagree with me, but I see the need for more arm-chair transhumanist evangelists. I think there is a need for people who can translate the concepts behind FAI and cryonics (etc) in a language that is not hostile, heavy handed, or nerdy. - People need to avoid meaningless dogma: http://www.singinst.org/interviews/nanomag-05.html What's with pressing the need to differentiate between the Kurzweil "singularity" and the Vinge "singularity"? It's counterproductive. Make up a new word or something! Its okay to let "singularity" go. We can steal a new word. If the media or public, as a result of Kurzweil's book and evangelism, ultimately latch onto a non-Vinge definition of singularity, that's fine. Celebrate that one of the critically interesting transhumanist memes is getting greater attention. Of course there will always be some meaningful internal conflict: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0206/4104.html And that kind of exchange should happen. Anyway, I'm mostly a lurker, but I thought I'd post my thoughts. Gotta think about ways to encourage people to learn about the singularity and get involved. I'm really in the "we have to push to make this happen" camp not the "singularity is an inevitable result of market forces" camp. I don't even know if those two camps really exist, or are just the result of miscommunication among individuals. Brandon Reinhart transcend at extropica.com From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 05:29:39 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:29:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> References: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> Brandon, there have been many attempts to create transhumanist web boards and move the discussion there from the mailing lists, but there has been a lot of inertia and after a while we always went back to mailing lists. For example the WTA forum is (login required): http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/forums/ but apparently participants prefer to use the email list wta-talk. I understand this, as also for me email is more immediate and convenient. I see something interesting in my inbox, read it, reply immediately is I wish. Since I use gmail I am also able to find old posts by searching my mail. Or perhaps we are just too used to email. I am involved in some new thing that will be a mix of mailing list, blogging system, web board, tagged repository, etc., something very web2.0 - but I realize that to make people use something instead than mailing lists, this something has to be much better and easier to use than a list. G. On 12/7/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > I am speaking as a relatively new transhumanist. Those of you who are long > standing, highly active members of this community should not be offended by > my comments. I do not intend to indict or insult. > > - > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When I look > at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low rates of > participation and conversion. > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: > > 1. Favoring email lists instead of open forums. > > As far as I can tell, neither the WTA nor the Extropy Institute have public > web forums. Instead, the two organizations rely on majordomo style email > lists to facilitate communication. In my opinion this is a mistake. > > First, forums are more easily accessible than email lists. Any forum with a > modern thread view and search facility provides a simple UI for quickly > reading up on the latest discussion. If a reader wants to convert to > participant, they are probably more familiar with the account creation and > activation process of the major forum kits than majordomo, which is a > relatively aged piece of software. > > Second, forums are potentially less "hostile" than email discussion lists. > The email discussion list pushes data to the reader. Busy lists push so much > discussion as to be unusable in real-time. Users have to be fairly > interface-savvy in order to either A) filter the list into a separate folder > in their email client or B) request the server send a digest. I suspect that > the rapid-push nature of email lists could even alienate certain users in > the "unwanted email == spam" environment we live in today. While it is > probably reasonable to assume that most transhumanists are highly > computer-literate, it is no reason to make quality transhumanist discussion > only comfortably accessible to the class of individuals who are > computer-literate. > > Certainly, forums take more work to maintain, generally, than email lists. > The lowered barrier to accessibility means a somewhat lower signal-to-noise > ratio. Forums have to be monitored and abusive users have to be silenced. > Nonetheless, forums are very familiar to most web users, even at very low > levels of computer-literacy. > > Computer literacy is not, in my opinion, a prerequisite to being > transhumanist. After all, we extropians believe that art, music, and culture > is an integral part to creating a Nice Place To Live and many artists aren't > necessarily going to understand how to interact with majordomo, etc. > > 2. Not having any community at all. > > I'm _amazed_ that the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence has > no forum what-so-ever. SIAI interests do maintain the SL4 mailing list but > it is clearly intended for highly technical discussion, not general > evangelism or community building. The SIAI seems to greatly desire an > increased audience for the "singularity is AI dammit!" meme, Yudkowsky's > philosophies in FAI and AGI construction, etc. Get a forum! Let people > respond! Get someone to answer those posts and actively engage your readers. > It isn't the only, final, or even necessarily the best path to getting that > audience, but it is a relatively simple start. > > 3. Utilize blog style focused content delivery and then direct conversation > to your forum. > > A front page with a blog structure is a great way to constantly push new > events in your organization. The organization must seem to be alive in order > to attract ongoing attention. If your front page hasn't been updated in > three months, people will stop visiting. On the other hand, if you update > with interesting (even if trivial) news about your organizations efforts, > people will return to learn and discuss. > > In my opinion, the blog should be the initial page (with direction to "who > we are" type of inquiries on a side panel menu). A few sites that do have > blogs have a static main page and a "read our blog" type of link buried > somewhere. This doesn't seem to be very effective. > > And yeah, I'm not walking the walk here either. Extropica is a potentially > cool name for a transhumanist-evangelist site, but I have neglected it. > > 4. Not pushing people to community in an intuitive way. > > I just popped open the ExI site in my browser. In the center of the page I > see something interesting: The Proactionary Principle. What is this? I want > to read about it. It's compelling content. I click on it and see a draft of > something interesting! Posted for public comment, awesome! But at the > bottom: "please submit your comments to Extropy Board of Directors." > > What? No! > > There should be a link to a public forum saying "comment and discuss this > and other ExI projects in our forums." Push those readers to the > conversation. We are talking about smart people. They want to talk about > what they just read. Or maybe just read what other people think. If they > post, you've more or less guaranteed they will return to your organization's > site and check the responses to their post. > > 5. Asking for the email address, before providing interesting information. > > I think that organizational updates sent by email are not as effective as > posting those updates on the main site, perhaps with a forum to seed a > discussion. SIAI has a "Free eBulletin" but an examination of the site's > front page reveals no way to get this information without giving them my > email address. > > Get with the 90s! I know few people who will give out their email address to > an automated form when it isn't required (i.e.: not buying something online > or performing security validation). It seems to me that the information > regarding what conferences you're sending so-and-so to and what research > papers whats-his-name is working on are critical donation engines and that > information would always be as easily available as possible. > > This emphasis on forums and community is only important because we are > currently a very issue and subject based community with relatively few > participants. A forum for an organization like the Red Cross wouldn't really > make sense, as they are extremely well established and aren't a small > community organization. They have much more effective funding-mechanisms in > place. > > CONVERSELY, > > - People need to participate more. If I pop open the imminst.org forums, I > see a very low post-to-view ratio in a lot of the forums. People are reading > the threads, but not responding. Maybe part of this comes from the > complexity of transhuman subjects. People don't want to look like idiots. > But we need people posting their questions so they can get answers, so there > can be a much wider ranging dialog than exists currently. > > - People need to write more. There are a thousand interesting core concepts > out there that have barely been scratched. When I read a series of articles, > I generally see the same names popping up over and over. The Max Mores, the > Kurzweils, the Anissimovs, etc. I cannot possibly believe that there are > only a handful of people doing interesting thinking about transhumanist > issues. > > I suspect that many will disagree with me, but I see the need for more > arm-chair transhumanist evangelists. I think there is a need for people who > can translate the concepts behind FAI and cryonics (etc) in a language that > is not hostile, heavy handed, or nerdy. > > - People need to avoid meaningless dogma: > http://www.singinst.org/interviews/nanomag-05.html > What's with pressing the need to differentiate between the Kurzweil > "singularity" and the Vinge "singularity"? It's counterproductive. Make up a > new word or something! Its okay to let "singularity" go. We can steal a new > word. If the media or public, as a result of Kurzweil's book and evangelism, > ultimately latch onto a non-Vinge definition of singularity, that's fine. > Celebrate that one of the critically interesting transhumanist memes is > getting greater attention. > > Of course there will always be some meaningful internal conflict: > http://www.sl4.org/archive/0206/4104.html > And that kind of exchange should happen. > > Anyway, I'm mostly a lurker, but I thought I'd post my thoughts. Gotta think > about ways to encourage people to learn about the singularity and get > involved. I'm really in the "we have to push to make this happen" camp not > the "singularity is an inevitable result of market forces" camp. I don't > even know if those two camps really exist, or are just the result of > miscommunication among individuals. > > Brandon Reinhart > transcend at extropica.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian at posthuman.com Wed Dec 7 06:03:02 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:03:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> References: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43967B16.3040103@posthuman.com> I'll just pop in and say we do have a forum and blog "on the verge of happening" (the verge lasts a while sometimes). Also, more news coming soon - be on the lookout. Regarding the newsletter, it is available directly off the home page by clicking the news link on the left side. It takes you here: New newsletter coming quite soon. We're quite busy working on stuff actually, but yes expressing that externally needs more work. Want to help? Email Jeff Medina, Tyler, or Michael A. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed Dec 7 07:37:43 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:37:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: The largest and most active web-based transhumanist communities are, I believe: a) Betterhumans ( http://www.betterhumans.com ) b) Immortality Institute ( http://www.imminst.org/forum/ ) Both are larger in terms of activity and membership than the transhumanist mailing lists I'm aware of, although I'm sure we could debate just what constitutes a transhumanist forum or list. Reason From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 7 07:45:43 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:45:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A New Ultra-Secret Government Agency In-Reply-To: <20051207045424.66994.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051207045424.66994.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7A0AAB74-9437-4596-8762-BD6A549A9E18@mac.com> An agency dealing in deadly materials that is exempt from all oversight? Why? Unaccountable government is a far worse threat than any real potential for bioterrorism. The FOIA and other current oversight legislation already allows huge protections for supposedly sensitive information. If this agency wants vastly more than that then that is a great red flag that dirty deeds are very likely if not already planned. For instance, there have been incidents of government programs doing experiments on non-volunteer civilian populations in the past. With oversight disabled completely those incidents and perhaps worse to come would never be known. - samantha From bluesteel_0 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 7 08:46:47 2005 From: bluesteel_0 at yahoo.co.uk (bluesteel_0 at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:46:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Lists vs Boards (was Transhumanist Community) In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051207084647.14217.qmail@web26710.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I prefer web boards/forum style systems, but one of the problems with both the WTA and Extropy is that forum access is rather hidden. Look on the home page of both organisations and there is no obvious Forum link. For the WTA as far as I can see, one must register as a member then log in before the 'chat on boards' option becomes visible, and for the Extropy Institute one must click on 'subscribe to email list' or 'extropy chat', then the ExI BBS option (third down). Not exactly obvious, especially for new users. If both of those organisations had a Forum link or button on the homepage there may be more usage. I subscribe to the lists now as its easier to gather things together in one location (and some messages on the ExI BBS from some posters always seem empty, unless viewed via the list). This is fine when there is low to moderate traffic, but one a thread takes off, ones inbox can be inundated. Also with lists, often messages are cross-posted, which means double the volume. Maybe we need a central page for links to all H+ Boards? Julian --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Brandon, > there have been many attempts to create > transhumanist web boards and > move the discussion there from the mailing lists, > but there has been a > lot of inertia and after a while we always went back > to mailing lists. > For example the WTA forum is (login required): > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/forums/ > but apparently participants prefer to use the email > list wta-talk. > I understand this, as also for me email is more > immediate and > convenient. I see something interesting in my inbox, > read it, reply > immediately is I wish. Since I use gmail I am also > able to find old > posts by searching my mail. > Or perhaps we are just too used to email. > I am involved in some new thing that will be a mix > of mailing list, > blogging system, web board, tagged repository, etc., > something very > web2.0 - but I realize that to make people use > something instead than > mailing lists, this something has to be much better > and easier to use > than a list. > G. > > On 12/7/05, Brandon Reinhart > wrote: > > > > I am speaking as a relatively new transhumanist. > Those of you who are long > > standing, highly active members of this community > should not be offended by > > my comments. I do not intend to indict or insult. > > > > - > > > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in > a sorry state. When I look > > at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I > see very low rates of > > participation and conversion. > > > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, > and mistakes: > > > > 1. Favoring email lists instead of open forums. > > > > As far as I can tell, neither the WTA nor the > Extropy Institute have public > > web forums. Instead, the two organizations rely on > majordomo style email > > lists to facilitate communication. In my opinion > this is a mistake. > > > > First, forums are more easily accessible than > email lists. Any forum with a > > modern thread view and search facility provides a > simple UI for quickly > > reading up on the latest discussion. If a reader > wants to convert to > > participant, they are probably more familiar with > the account creation and > > activation process of the major forum kits than > majordomo, which is a > > relatively aged piece of software. > > > > Second, forums are potentially less "hostile" than > email discussion lists. > > The email discussion list pushes data to the > reader. Busy lists push so much > > discussion as to be unusable in real-time. Users > have to be fairly > > interface-savvy in order to either A) filter the > list into a separate folder > > in their email client or B) request the server > send a digest. I suspect that > > the rapid-push nature of email lists could even > alienate certain users in > > the "unwanted email == spam" environment we live > in today. While it is > > probably reasonable to assume that most > transhumanists are highly > > computer-literate, it is no reason to make quality > transhumanist discussion > > only comfortably accessible to the class of > individuals who are > > computer-literate. > > > > Certainly, forums take more work to maintain, > generally, than email lists. > > The lowered barrier to accessibility means a > somewhat lower signal-to-noise > > ratio. Forums have to be monitored and abusive > users have to be silenced. > > Nonetheless, forums are very familiar to most web > users, even at very low > > levels of computer-literacy. > > > > Computer literacy is not, in my opinion, a > prerequisite to being > > transhumanist. After all, we extropians believe > that art, music, and culture > > is an integral part to creating a Nice Place To > Live and many artists aren't > > necessarily going to understand how to interact > with majordomo, etc. > > > > 2. Not having any community at all. > > > > I'm _amazed_ that the Singularity Institute for > Artificial Intelligence has > > no forum what-so-ever. SIAI interests do maintain > the SL4 mailing list but > > it is clearly intended for highly technical > discussion, not general > > evangelism or community building. The SIAI seems > to greatly desire an > > increased audience for the "singularity is AI > dammit!" meme, Yudkowsky's > > philosophies in FAI and AGI construction, etc. Get > a forum! Let people > > respond! Get someone to answer those posts and > actively engage your readers. > > It isn't the only, final, or even necessarily the > best path to getting that > > audience, but it is a relatively simple start. > > > > 3. Utilize blog style focused content delivery and > then direct conversation > > to your forum. > > > > A front page with a blog structure is a great way > to constantly push new > > events in your organization. The organization must > seem to be alive in order > > to attract ongoing attention. If your front page > hasn't been updated in > > three months, people will stop visiting. On the > other hand, if you update > > with interesting (even if trivial) news about your > organizations efforts, > > people will return to learn and discuss. > > > > In my opinion, the blog should be the initial page > (with direction to "who > > we are" type of inquiries on a side panel menu). A > few sites that do have > > blogs have a static main page and a "read our > blog" type of link buried > > somewhere. This doesn't seem to be very effective. > > > > And yeah, I'm not walking the walk here either. > Extropica is a potentially > > cool name for a transhumanist-evangelist site, but > I have neglected it. > > > > 4. Not pushing people to community in an intuitive > way. > > > > I just popped open the ExI site in my browser. In > the center of the page I > > see something interesting: The Proactionary > Principle. What is this? I want > > to read about it. It's compelling content. I click > on it and see a draft of > > something interesting! Posted for public comment, > awesome! But at the > > bottom: "please submit your comments to Extropy > Board of Directors." > > > > What? No! > > > > There should be a link to a public forum saying > "comment and discuss this > > and other ExI projects in our forums." Push those > readers to the > > conversation. We are talking about smart people. > They want to talk about > > what they just read. Or maybe just read what other > people think. If they > > post, you've more or less guaranteed they will > return to your organization's > > site and check the responses to their post. > > > > 5. Asking for the email address, before providing > interesting information. > > > > I think that organizational updates sent by email > are not as effective as > > posting those updates on the main site, perhaps > with a forum to seed a > > discussion. SIAI has a "Free eBulletin" but an > examination of the site's > > front page reveals no way to get this information > without giving them my > > email address. > === message truncated === "Fahrkarte bis zur Endstation!" ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 7 10:27:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:27:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051207102749.GE2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 06:29:39AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Brandon, > there have been many attempts to create transhumanist web boards and > move the discussion there from the mailing lists, but there has been a That would not be a good idea. Both media cater to their individual communities. Gateways web2mail and back can be easily built. Mailman already archives posts in a web-visible archive. Full-text searches are trivial with swish-e or half a dozen of similiar packages. Mail is push, web is poll. Email can both thread and serialize, web is typically nonlinear. Email has mature spam blocking, web forums are only starting to catch up. Email is self-archiving, and is creates multiple local copies. Web forum is a single point of failure, and typically not globally visible. Web forums typically have lousy search engines, too. > lot of inertia and after a while we always went back to mailing lists. > For example the WTA forum is (login required): > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/forums/ > but apparently participants prefer to use the email list wta-talk. > I understand this, as also for me email is more immediate and Realtime quality of mailing lists is just one tiny aspect of it. > convenient. I see something interesting in my inbox, read it, reply > immediately is I wish. Since I use gmail I am also able to find old > posts by searching my mail. There are free desktop search engines which index and search local mail in realtime, regardless of operating system (Beagle, Spotlight, Copernicus, Google desktop search, etc). > Or perhaps we are just too used to email. > I am involved in some new thing that will be a mix of mailing list, > blogging system, web board, tagged repository, etc., something very > web2.0 - but I realize that to make people use something instead than > mailing lists, this something has to be much better and easier to use > than a list. Do not start developing before you understand the problem set fully. It is very easy to produce a subset of features that is inferior to both media. If this is going to be a serious effort we should hash out the details first, whether on-list, or off-list. > G. > > On 12/7/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > > > I am speaking as a relatively new transhumanist. Those of you who are long > > standing, highly active members of this community should not be offended by > > my comments. I do not intend to indict or insult. > > > > - > > > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When I look > > at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low rates of > > participation and conversion. > > > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: > > > > 1. Favoring email lists instead of open forums. > > > > As far as I can tell, neither the WTA nor the Extropy Institute have public > > web forums. Instead, the two organizations rely on majordomo style email > > lists to facilitate communication. In my opinion this is a mistake. > > > > First, forums are more easily accessible than email lists. Any forum with a > > modern thread view and search facility provides a simple UI for quickly > > reading up on the latest discussion. If a reader wants to convert to > > participant, they are probably more familiar with the account creation and > > activation process of the major forum kits than majordomo, which is a > > relatively aged piece of software. > > > > Second, forums are potentially less "hostile" than email discussion lists. > > The email discussion list pushes data to the reader. Busy lists push so much > > discussion as to be unusable in real-time. Users have to be fairly > > interface-savvy in order to either A) filter the list into a separate folder > > in their email client or B) request the server send a digest. I suspect that > > the rapid-push nature of email lists could even alienate certain users in > > the "unwanted email == spam" environment we live in today. While it is > > probably reasonable to assume that most transhumanists are highly > > computer-literate, it is no reason to make quality transhumanist discussion > > only comfortably accessible to the class of individuals who are > > computer-literate. > > > > Certainly, forums take more work to maintain, generally, than email lists. > > The lowered barrier to accessibility means a somewhat lower signal-to-noise > > ratio. Forums have to be monitored and abusive users have to be silenced. > > Nonetheless, forums are very familiar to most web users, even at very low > > levels of computer-literacy. > > > > Computer literacy is not, in my opinion, a prerequisite to being > > transhumanist. After all, we extropians believe that art, music, and culture > > is an integral part to creating a Nice Place To Live and many artists aren't > > necessarily going to understand how to interact with majordomo, etc. > > > > 2. Not having any community at all. > > > > I'm _amazed_ that the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence has > > no forum what-so-ever. SIAI interests do maintain the SL4 mailing list but > > it is clearly intended for highly technical discussion, not general > > evangelism or community building. The SIAI seems to greatly desire an > > increased audience for the "singularity is AI dammit!" meme, Yudkowsky's > > philosophies in FAI and AGI construction, etc. Get a forum! Let people > > respond! Get someone to answer those posts and actively engage your readers. > > It isn't the only, final, or even necessarily the best path to getting that > > audience, but it is a relatively simple start. > > > > 3. Utilize blog style focused content delivery and then direct conversation > > to your forum. > > > > A front page with a blog structure is a great way to constantly push new > > events in your organization. The organization must seem to be alive in order > > to attract ongoing attention. If your front page hasn't been updated in > > three months, people will stop visiting. On the other hand, if you update > > with interesting (even if trivial) news about your organizations efforts, > > people will return to learn and discuss. > > > > In my opinion, the blog should be the initial page (with direction to "who > > we are" type of inquiries on a side panel menu). A few sites that do have > > blogs have a static main page and a "read our blog" type of link buried > > somewhere. This doesn't seem to be very effective. > > > > And yeah, I'm not walking the walk here either. Extropica is a potentially > > cool name for a transhumanist-evangelist site, but I have neglected it. > > > > 4. Not pushing people to community in an intuitive way. > > > > I just popped open the ExI site in my browser. In the center of the page I > > see something interesting: The Proactionary Principle. What is this? I want > > to read about it. It's compelling content. I click on it and see a draft of > > something interesting! Posted for public comment, awesome! But at the > > bottom: "please submit your comments to Extropy Board of Directors." > > > > What? No! > > > > There should be a link to a public forum saying "comment and discuss this > > and other ExI projects in our forums." Push those readers to the > > conversation. We are talking about smart people. They want to talk about > > what they just read. Or maybe just read what other people think. If they > > post, you've more or less guaranteed they will return to your organization's > > site and check the responses to their post. > > > > 5. Asking for the email address, before providing interesting information. > > > > I think that organizational updates sent by email are not as effective as > > posting those updates on the main site, perhaps with a forum to seed a > > discussion. SIAI has a "Free eBulletin" but an examination of the site's > > front page reveals no way to get this information without giving them my > > email address. > > > > Get with the 90s! I know few people who will give out their email address to > > an automated form when it isn't required (i.e.: not buying something online > > or performing security validation). It seems to me that the information > > regarding what conferences you're sending so-and-so to and what research > > papers whats-his-name is working on are critical donation engines and that > > information would always be as easily available as possible. > > > > This emphasis on forums and community is only important because we are > > currently a very issue and subject based community with relatively few > > participants. A forum for an organization like the Red Cross wouldn't really > > make sense, as they are extremely well established and aren't a small > > community organization. They have much more effective funding-mechanisms in > > place. > > > > CONVERSELY, > > > > - People need to participate more. If I pop open the imminst.org forums, I > > see a very low post-to-view ratio in a lot of the forums. People are reading > > the threads, but not responding. Maybe part of this comes from the > > complexity of transhuman subjects. People don't want to look like idiots. > > But we need people posting their questions so they can get answers, so there > > can be a much wider ranging dialog than exists currently. > > > > - People need to write more. There are a thousand interesting core concepts > > out there that have barely been scratched. When I read a series of articles, > > I generally see the same names popping up over and over. The Max Mores, the > > Kurzweils, the Anissimovs, etc. I cannot possibly believe that there are > > only a handful of people doing interesting thinking about transhumanist > > issues. > > > > I suspect that many will disagree with me, but I see the need for more > > arm-chair transhumanist evangelists. I think there is a need for people who > > can translate the concepts behind FAI and cryonics (etc) in a language that > > is not hostile, heavy handed, or nerdy. > > > > - People need to avoid meaningless dogma: > > http://www.singinst.org/interviews/nanomag-05.html > > What's with pressing the need to differentiate between the Kurzweil > > "singularity" and the Vinge "singularity"? It's counterproductive. Make up a > > new word or something! Its okay to let "singularity" go. We can steal a new > > word. If the media or public, as a result of Kurzweil's book and evangelism, > > ultimately latch onto a non-Vinge definition of singularity, that's fine. > > Celebrate that one of the critically interesting transhumanist memes is > > getting greater attention. > > > > Of course there will always be some meaningful internal conflict: > > http://www.sl4.org/archive/0206/4104.html > > And that kind of exchange should happen. > > > > Anyway, I'm mostly a lurker, but I thought I'd post my thoughts. Gotta think > > about ways to encourage people to learn about the singularity and get > > involved. I'm really in the "we have to push to make this happen" camp not > > the "singularity is an inevitable result of market forces" camp. I don't > > even know if those two camps really exist, or are just the result of > > miscommunication among individuals. > > > > Brandon Reinhart > > transcend at extropica.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 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 10:32:25 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:32:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520512062129k16206960wfe694f0cfaf2752b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/7/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Brandon, > there have been many attempts to create transhumanist web boards and > move the discussion there from the mailing lists, but there has been a > lot of inertia and after a while we always went back to mailing lists. > For example the WTA forum is (login required): > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/forums/ > but apparently participants prefer to use the email list wta-talk. > I understand this, as also for me email is more immediate and > convenient. I see something interesting in my inbox, read it, reply > immediately is I wish. Since I use gmail I am also able to find old > posts by searching my mail. I agree with Giu1i0. Most people on Exi or WTA seem to be pretty busy. I doubt if very often they say 'I've got a free hour now, maybe I'll go to a forum and have a chat'. They probably have much more important things to do with a free hour. To me chat forums are synonymous with kids uttering inanities about pop stars or boy friends. An email reply to the list usually takes more thought, some research, and may get edited through several versions as other responses appear on the list. I see a difference between considered discussion and instantaneous 'chat'. There are FAQs for new visitors. But these should be reviewed regularly as this year's questions may be different in the light of new events. There's a job for you. :) As a fairly new transhumanist you may have some good suggestions for the FAQs. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 11:05:02 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:05:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> References: <200512070509.jB759he14889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512070305t3ce59009m58e4ad69735f8642@mail.gmail.com> On 12/7/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > 1. Favoring email lists instead of open forums. For me, web forums are a nonstarter for a very simple reason: there are just _too damn many_ of them to have a prayer of keeping track. Of course there are a number of mailing lists too, but Gmail gathers them all into one place so I only have one thing to keep track of. For web forums to work for me, one of three things would need to happen: 1) All the people who want to create forums get together and agree that they will create just one forum between them. Obviously this isn't going to happen. 2) Forums provide an option to get messages by email. This would be quite straightforward to implement (especially since read-only would be quite adequate, the mail could contain a link "click here to go to the web site if you want to reply"), just needs someone to sit down and do it. (Not me, unfortunately; I'm snowed under with my own projects.) 3) Someone to create a service that provides centralized access to forums the way Gmail does for mailing lists (either by making them all look like a single forum, or by making them look like mailing lists). Again this would be quite straightforward, hopefully someone with more free time than me will implement it eventually. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emerson at singinst.org Wed Dec 7 11:35:36 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 03:35:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community Message-ID: <200512071135.jB7BZVe29067@tick.javien.com> Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When > I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low > rates of participation and conversion. > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: Suggestions are welcomed, sure, but they have greater weight when the suggester says what *they* are doing, and what they have done. Simon Cooper: "He who says it, does it." ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org?| http://www.singinst.org From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 14:40:30 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:40:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <200512061909.jB6J96Qr003187@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <200512061909.jB6J96Qr003187@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:09:06 -0500, Brent Allsop wrote: > It'd sure be nice to know what is required to connect two conscious > worlds together like this. I bet we'll know before 10 years. Here's a step in that direction, concerning the neural correlates of color perception: == Neuroimage 2004 Apr;21(4):1665-73 (ISSN: 1053-8119) Morita T; Kochiyama T; Okada T; Yonekura Y; Matsumura M; Sadato N Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. It is well established that seeing color activates the ventral occipital cortex, including the fusiform and lingual gyri, but less is known about whether the region directly relates to conscious color perception. We investigated the neural correlates of conscious color perception in the ventral occipital cortex. To vary conscious color perception with the stimuli-remaining constant, we took advantage of the McCollough effect, an illusory color effect that is contingent on the orientation of grating stimuli. Subjects were exposed to a specific combination of chromatic grating patterns for 10 min to induce the McCollough effect. We compared brain activities measured while the subjects viewed achromatic grating stimuli before (PRE) and after the induction of the McCollough effect (POST) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). There were two groups: one group was informed that they would perceive illusory color during the session (INFORMED group), whereas the other group was not informed (UNINFORMED group). The successful induction of the McCollough effect was confirmed in all subjects after the fMRI experiment; nevertheless, only approximately half of the UNINFORMED subjects had been aware of the color during the POST session, while the other half had not. The left anterior portion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex, presumably V4alpha, was significantly active in subjects who had consciously perceived the color during MR scan. This study demonstrates the activity in a subregion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex directly related to conscious color perception. === Interesting that the brains of all the test subjects registered the McCollough effect but only half of the uninformed test subjects noticed it. One might ask, "Where did the qualia happen?" One answer seems to be *conscious awareness of the qualia* happened in the left anterior portion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex, presumably V4alpha. But conscious awareness of a quale may not be the actual quale, and is not according to the theory I've been entertaining here. Did the quale exist in the minds of those who didn't notice it? As we've been discussing here, there is the phenomenon I call "blind-sight" which seems to suggest that conscious awareness of qualia is separate from the basic awareness of them. This abstract states that successful induction of the McCollough effect was confirmed in all subjects but does not explain how they knew this. Perhaps the answer to that question is a better answer to the question of where the qualia happened. One could then say that in this study all the uninformed subjects were *aware* of the effect but only half were *conscious* of it, i.e., only half were aware of their awareness of the effect. Here's an online illustration of the McCollough effect: http://research.lumeta.com/ches/me/ -gts From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 7 14:50:58 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:50:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512071135.jB7BZVe29067@tick.javien.com> References: <200512071135.jB7BZVe29067@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051207082714.04f65b90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:35 AM 12/7/2005, Tyler wrote: >Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When > > I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low > > rates of participation and conversion. > > > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: > >Suggestions are welcomed, sure, but they have greater weight when the >suggester says what *they* are doing, and what they have done. I pretty much agree with what everyone has said so far. There are so many forums that the community has become dissipated in overlapping directions rather than a formalized, smart and planned architecture for multiple directions is amiss. Also, rather than accepting diversity within transhumanism, transhumanists had been pitting one sub-transhumanist groups against each other. What I envision is a reuniting of the community in working together to achieve a vision for all of transhumanity and separate goals. For example, rather than one political group against another, why not agree that certain polices must be achieved in order to realize transhumanism's future. No one political group can achieve this on its own because the world is not dependent on one political theory. Thus, there must be an agreement between diverse viewpoints that, in the end, support transhumanism. This will be a mature, intelligent and timely move and one that I would like to see happen. Another example is the varied membership organizations. There are so many membership organizations asking for money and support that it becomes a toss up as to which group to give money to and when that money is most needed for the organize to move forward and realize its own mission. Instead of so many hands in the money pot, there ought to be a team-spirited approach to helping each other move along in the unique and desired direction of each organization. This would require not repeating the very same work that another organization has already done and is striving to achieve. I see this as being a major problem of transhumanism. Rather than tearing one organization down to build another up, the leaders would work together leaving their egos at the door. What is a good leader? A good leader is comprised of a strong sense of will and a humility. Most people think of leaders as being charismatic and "in their face" types of people. However this is a misnomer. A good leader is not based on Hollywood's standards for who speaks the loudest. If you look at the good leaders over time, it becomes evident that they have two seemingly conflicting characteristics will and humility. We also need great managers. People who see the vision of transhumanism and help to get people excited. What we need right now is a refreshing of transhumanism. If you would like to look at my talk at the TransVision 2005 conference, I tried to address this. I'm not sure how well I achieved this, but at least I am continuing to work on it. Click on the image that says Transhumanism 2.0 at http://www.natasha.cc The good news is that we can change our direction at any time and plan what we would like to see happen and make it so through progress and action. ProAct! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 15:30:52 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:30:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512061909.jB6J96Qr003187@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: As is often the case when I fool around with philosophy, it turns out that my ideas here with respect to Locke have already been explored by people far more qualified than me. "Color realism" is discussed in this article: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/col-real.htm Color realism is the view that colors are really "out there" in the world for us to perceive. Tomatoes don't merely look red; tomatoes really *are* red. In Locke's terms tomatoes have the secondary quality or power of redness. To a color realist this red quality of tomatoes is primary or real. Qualia are then just our senses perceiving the real objective qualities of objects. Apparently this is also what Dennett means when he denies the existence of qualia. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 15:42:48 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:42:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. I tend to agree with Samantha -- I'd like to see hard data that backs up this claim. It would be safe to say there is *not* plenty of food for everyone on the planet at a price that everyone can afford. It is also safe to say that there will not be plenty off food in the future if current unsustainable agricultural practices continue. (Sufficient water and fish protein are two problems which immediately come to mind where overharvesting has created shortages and will create more significant problems in the future.) If the starving poor cannot access or pay for normal food then GM food will > certainly not solve the problem. It will if it makes the cost of producing the food cheaper! If I have two choices (a) make hundreds of millions or billions of people richer or (b) make more/cheaper food then (b) wins every time because it has lower inertia. I can produce the seeds (or bacteria) required to totally transform an agricultural system in only a few years. It is impossible to transform an economy in a similar time frame. India and China are providing good examples but they have been at it for years and it is only successful in limited areas of those countries (northern India and rural China have not experienced significant economic improvement). I would suggest that you consider the biology. Bacteria can have doubling times as low as 20 minutes, eukaryotic cells have doubling times of ~24 hours, large organisms (crop grains, fish, farm animals, etc.) have growth and doubling times measured in months to years. I can grow a quantity of "GMO-bio-gruel" in a solar pond significantly faster than I can grow the same quantity of rice, corn, ham, beef, etc. (In fact bacteria are doing most of the essential chemical conversions necessary to allow you to grow the meat at all.) I can easily engineer the GMO-BG to produce more protein which is one of the major reasons people consume meat (or fish or poultry). Fundamental point -- if I can grow it faster using the available resources more efficiently it is going to be cheaper than products produced using traditional methods. Would this have been possible 20 years ago -- no. Then the only solution one could envision was making people wealthier to allow them to be able to pay more for the food. Now the biotechnology knowledge base and its industrial infrastructure are sufficiently robust that they enable alternate solutions for these problems (famine, starvation, malnutrition, losses during production, etc.). Now many people might not like the idea of consuming GMO biogruel. But if you had your choice of eating biogruel or becoming a prostitute with significant risk of contracting HIV (quite common in parts of Africa, India, Thailand, etc.) *which* would you choose? If you want to choose the "economic development" path I *challenge* you to show me how growing the economies in those countries by building the schools, educating the people, creating the entrepreneurs and investors to finance them and having them become wealthier so they can afford sufficient food is *faster* than the "GMO development path" which simply makes the food cheaper! This isn't something I'm uneducated about. The Hunger Project has been around for ~25 years and for many of those years I supported their efforts to pursue what could be called the "economic development" path. After I became more educated about microbiology and biotechnology it became clear that the GMO route would be much faster and save many more lives. Thinking about this problem requires some deep thought about how long it takes to educate people and uplift an entire economy vs. how long it takes to build solar ponds and seed them with engineered GMOs with doubling times of 20 minutes. (Doubling times of 20 minutes allow bacteria to grow to the mass of the Earth within 2 days -- *if * they can be fed sufficient resources.) To solve the nutrition problem for humanity requires combining the machinery of existing genomes (that are capable of many chemical transformations) with the ability of humans to collect, concentrate and transport resources (C, H, O & N along with trace elements). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 7 15:50:58 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:50:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community In-Reply-To: <200512071135.jB7BZVe29067@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512071550.jB7Fote22157@tick.javien.com> That is absolutely true. My activism bit has only recently been flipped. This is rare for me. I have never been an activist before. I despise American political dualism (no party represents my interests) and issues based activism never appealed to me. I registered extropica.com a year ago to build a transhumanist blog and forum, but have not had the time. I now have the time and this project will move forward. It will only have value if I can write compelling content for it and compelling transhumanist content is dependent on my issues education level, so for the most part I've spent a lot of time since registering the domain reading. I have set up community forums in the past, primarily related to MMO gaming hobbyist groups, and I've had a lot of success with them. When I see how a small community of 40 guild members can post hundreds of emails in a week discussing game related strategy, I wonder why the same isn't possible for a transhumanist group that not only includes more individuals, but could include a lot more. I am busy (working at a game development startup as senior technical designer), but not so busy that I don't spend an hour a night consuming information on the web and at some point that will turn from consuming content to writing new content. I apologize if my post sounded particularly harsh toward the SIAI, it was not intended to be. I used that site as an example because I've recently been reading and re-reading a lot of the articles there. I'm also in the process of developing a personal "donations fitness curve" to figure out where my money should go in what priority and I wanted easy access to information regarding how my money would be used (I'm not rich, donations would be small, but I can be a skeptic and so I want to be sure I'm supporting the right groups.) The SIAI has some of the best information out there and I greatly respect it. Clearly, we don't need another organization. We need some other kind of content or communication method. A stronger blogspace might be one way of raising awareness. And that's the core of my post. Not forums. Forums were a suggestion. I want to find ways to raise awareness. For me, it has to be a low cost, don't give up the day job thing, that taps my creative writing, design, or programming abilities. It should not have taken me so long to become aware of the transhumanist movement. There are supporters out there who don't know they are supporters yet. Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tyler Emerson Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:36 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When > I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low > rates of participation and conversion. > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: Suggestions are welcomed, sure, but they have greater weight when the suggester says what *they* are doing, and what they have done. Simon Cooper: "He who says it, does it." ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org?| http://www.singinst.org _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 7 15:53:19 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:53:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanist Community Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051207094842.02d8e5b8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:35 AM 12/7/2005, Tyler wrote: >Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > > > It seems to me that transhumanist community is in a sorry state. When > > I look at sites that are well known to transhumanists, I see very low > > rates of participation and conversion. > > > > Some thoughts on possible changes, improvements, and mistakes: > >Suggestions are welcomed, sure, but they have greater weight when the >suggester says what *they* are doing, and what they have done. I'm sorry - I'm not good at proofing. Let me restate: I pretty much agree with what everyone has said so far. There are so many forums that the community has become dissipated in overlapping directions. What is amiss is a planned design, or architecture for multiple directions for transhumanism's growth. Also, rather than accepting diversity within transhumanism, transhumanists had, from seven years ago up until very recently, been pitting one sub-transhumanist group against another. What I envision is a reuniting of the community in working together to achieve a vision for all of transhumanity and separate goals. For example, rather than one political group against another, why not agree that certain polices must be achieved in order to realize transhumanism's future. No one political group can achieve this on its own because the world is not dependent on one political theory. Thus, there must be an agreement between diverse viewpoints that, in the end, support transhumanism. This will be a mature, intelligent and timely move and one that I would like to see happen. Another example is the varied membership organizations. There are so many membership organizations asking for money and support that it becomes a toss up as to which group to give money to and when that money is most needed for the organize to move forward and realize its own mission. Instead of so many hands in the money pot, there ought to be a team-spirited approach to helping each other move along in the unique and desired direction of each organization. This would require not repeating the very same work that another organization has already done and is striving to achieve. I see this as being a major problem of transhumanism. Leaders need to work together on the Big picture of transhumanism. What is a good leader? A good leader is comprised of a strong sense of will and a humility. Most people think of leaders as being charismatic and "in their face" types of people. However this is a misnomer. A good leader is not based on Hollywood's standards for who speaks the loudest. If you look at the good leaders over time, it becomes evident that they have two seemingly conflicting characteristics will and humility. We also need great managers. People who see the vision of transhumanism and help to get people excited. What we need right now is a refreshing of transhumanism. If you would like to look at my talk at the TransVision 2005 conference, I tried to address this. I'm not sure how well I achieved this, but at least I am continuing to work on it. Click on the image that says Transhumanism 2.0 at http://www.natasha.cc The good news is that we can change our direction at any time and plan what we would like to see happen and make it so through progress and action. ProAct! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 7 16:02:40 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:02:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: References: <200512061909.jB6J96Qr003187@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051207095509.02a59a08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:30 AM 12/7/2005, gts wrote: >As is often the case when I fool around with philosophy, it turns out that >my ideas here with respect to Locke have already been explored by people >far more qualified than me. > >"Color realism" is discussed in this article: > >http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/col-real.htm I'd like to sit in on a discussion of this with Colorists (Rubens, Ingres, etc.) and other genre designers and artists whose life work is to understand the relationship of color and shape and perspective. :-) Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Dec 7 17:04:39 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:04:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] effing In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051207095509.02a59a08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <02a801c5fb50$4fa05430$74550318@ZANDRA2> Since these statistics were reported by a email newsletter, I'm not sure how much credence should be given it. But on the bright side I'm sure we still have a much lower death by bombing rate. >> If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 17:21:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:21:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Almost, but not completely, unlike A.I. or "scramble the rat fighters!" Message-ID: <20051207172157.56855.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Teaser: 'A brain nurtured in a Petri dish learns to pilot a fighter plane as scientists develop a new breed of "living" computer.' Read on . . . http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/06/1102182227308.html If this is legitimate,and it is pursued, it singlehandedly pushes my estimated time of arrival of the singularity up by several decades to a mere 15 years away. If 25,000 rat neurons interfaced to a PC can fly an F-22 in a hurricane, imagine what 10^12 neurons (rat, goat, human... I don't think it matters although I would go with human because then we could appeal to its nepotism) interfaced to a Cray or a Blue-gene could do? Even a mystic neovitalist such as myself sees the post-human writing on the wall with tech like this being developed. No need to reverse engineer the animus for your mind children when you can just comandeer it from already living cells. Brilliant and scary. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 18:26:01 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051207182601.37526.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > This isn't something I'm uneducated about. The > Hunger Project has been > around for ~25 years and for many of those years I > supported their efforts > to pursue what could be called the "economic > development" path. After I > became more educated about microbiology and > biotechnology it became clear > that the GMO route would be much faster and save > many more lives. I tend to agree with you here, Robert. I think empowered biotechnology is the best hope for salvation of the world in terms of hunger, medicine, and as Morris pointed out, the energy crisis. It's not by accident that I chose microbiology as my profession. It IS however a shame that the bureacratic hurdles that even good scientists have to jump through in order get funding are so immense. In the U.S. grant funding commitees are hopelessly politicized with "who knows whom" taking the place of the simple scientific merits of an idea. I think a double-blind system, similar to what is used by FDA drug-studies would be an improvement over simple peer-review as it is practiced which is in all honesty a "good old boy network". Add to this the fact that the funding pool goes up and down at the whim of clueless politicians and the system seems to be quite clearly broken. Even if we develop superintelligent AGI and ask it to save us, I think its answer is going to be rather predictably simple, "Give me access to immense capital and I will see what I can do." The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 18:34:28 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:34:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food In-Reply-To: <439621C3.9000908@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20051207183428.15932.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: >The > energy in and out > part of agriculture however must > be signifiantly modified before this entire scheme > has long term > sustainability. Yes, and I think bioreactors and engineered industrial ecosystems are our best hope for sustainability. We must try to at least match nature's efficiency in resource management, if not surpass it, or we will be a mere blip in the fossil record. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 7 18:38:09 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:38:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Almost, but not completely, unlike A.I. or "scramble the rat fighters!" In-Reply-To: <20051207172157.56855.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051207172157.56855.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051207123610.01eda528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:21 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, Stuart wrote: >If this is legitimate,and it is pursued, it >singlehandedly pushes my estimated time of arrival of >the singularity up by several decades to a mere 15 >years away. If 25,000 rat neurons interfaced to a PC >can fly an F-22 in a hurricane, imagine what 10^12 >neurons (rat, goat, human... I don't think it matters >although I would go with human because then we could >appeal to its nepotism) interfaced to a Cray or a >Blue-gene could do? Charlie Stross projected this outcome some years ago using lobsters rather than rats. That story forms the opening of his singularity novel ACCELERANDO. Damien Broderick From HerbM at learnquick.com Wed Dec 7 20:21:27 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:21:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site Message-ID: There is a quite a lot of useful information on the Science & Consciousness Review web site: http://www.sci-con.org While it is possible to create an Artificial Consciousness without first understanding biological (and human) consciousness, or to create an AI without consciousness, these fields are certainly related and may inform each other. Some of the articles are just Abstracts, but many are full articles or lead to the sources where those articles are available without subscriptions. For example: The Memory Prediction Theater By: Carl Carpenter http://www.sci-con.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=105 Another topic: I am considering the purchase of "Being No One : The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity" (Bradford Books)by Thomas Metzinger and would be curious to hear if any of your have read this book. It is not very expensive, but it is is long will take an effort (even for a speed reader) to plow through probably so I would prefer not to waste money on something that will never be read. Reviews I have found online (and at Amazon are encouraging.) It is not available very cheaply from Amazon "Used and New" (which is how I currently feed my major book habit) since I will no longer buy ANYTHING from "A1_Books" (and now avoid any seller with less than about a 95% positive rating.) A1 is the only company which has given me any serious trouble fixing THEIR problem, even though I buy many thousands of dollars of merchandise on the Internet annually -- and probably several thousand dollars in books most years. -- Herb Martin From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 20:41:52 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:41:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Almost, but not completely, unlike A.I. or "scramble the rat fighters!" In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051207123610.01eda528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051207172157.56855.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051207123610.01eda528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512071241s3061a851u33238a30a3e0ce3e@mail.gmail.com> Wednesday, 7 December 2005 Ahh...work's firewall blocks access to the on-line copy. I thought the lobsters were wholly synthetic neural nets. All code, no meat. The bio-computer smart weapons were based on cats. That was why his ex-girlfriend kept sending Manfred trepanned kitten corpses sans brain. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 20:51:14 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:51:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a form of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the so-called "religion" of evolution. Pro-evolution site sued over public funding http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/ This Kansas professor criticised ID and its proponents and plans to offer a course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" putting ID where it rightly belongs: in courses about religion. So the anti-evolutionists beat him up, supporting the theory that humans really are descended from ape-like ancestors... Kan. Professor Attacked Along Rural Road http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/creationism_class;_ylt=AmrYanLrxIOV6hQhXP76GToDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUlm -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 7 20:57:07 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:57:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> On 12/7/05, Herb Martin wrote: > I am considering the purchase of "Being No One : The Self-Model > Theory of Subjectivity" (Bradford Books)by Thomas Metzinger > and would be curious to hear if any of your have read this > book. It is not very expensive, but it is is long will take > an effort (even for a speed reader) to plow through probably > so I would prefer not to waste money on something that will > never be read. Herb - I have Metzinger's book in my library I posted very briefly to this list my favorable impression. It very clear, precise, and detailed, but slow-going. I'd suggest that you would gain the same general understanding, but more quickly and easily, from Dennett's books such as _Consciousness Explained_, unless you've already read Dennett and are looking for more detailed scientific research. I'll look into sending you an excerpt from the book (easy to do since my entire library is digitized) that may convey the flavor of the book to help you decide. - Jef From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Dec 7 21:30:41 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:30:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Almost, but not completely, unlike A.I. or "scramble the rat fighters!" In-Reply-To: <20051207172157.56855.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051207213041.47582.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Flying isn't the hard part of flying. Navigation, taking off, landing safely, and executing combat actions while under fire (specifically, hitting your target and not getting hit), are more complex, in increasing order of difficulty. That said, if this is legitimate, it is a good existence proof that artificial neural networks really do act like real neurons, and thus that the theory and software developed for the former can be ported to the latter. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > Teaser: > > 'A brain nurtured in a Petri dish learns to pilot a > fighter plane as scientists develop a new breed of > "living" computer.' > > Read on . . . > > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/06/1102182227308.html > > If this is legitimate,and it is pursued, it > singlehandedly pushes my estimated time of arrival of > the singularity up by several decades to a mere 15 > years away. If 25,000 rat neurons interfaced to a PC > can fly an F-22 in a hurricane, imagine what 10^12 > neurons (rat, goat, human... I don't think it matters > although I would go with human because then we could > appeal to its nepotism) interfaced to a Cray or a > Blue-gene could do? Even a mystic neovitalist such as > myself sees the post-human writing on the wall with > tech like this being developed. No need to reverse > engineer the animus for your mind children when you > can just comandeer it from already living cells. > Brilliant and scary. > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is > the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a > stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good > as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." > > - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) > > > > __________________________________________ > Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 22:35:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:35:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A New Ultra-Secret Government Agency In-Reply-To: <7A0AAB74-9437-4596-8762-BD6A549A9E18@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051207223544.23667.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, Samantha. This is the scarier than the USA PATRIOT act by far. I can't believe they would even propose such a thing. This has got to be big pharm's bid to supplant the military-industrial complex as the power base of the U.S. economy. --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > An agency dealing in deadly materials that is exempt > from all > oversight? Why? Unaccountable government is a far > worse threat than > any real potential for bioterrorism. The FOIA and > other current > oversight legislation already allows huge > protections for supposedly > sensitive information. If this agency wants vastly > more than that > then that is a great red flag that dirty deeds are > very likely if not > already planned. For instance, there have been > incidents of > government programs doing experiments on > non-volunteer civilian > populations in the past. With oversight disabled > completely those > incidents and perhaps worse to come would never be > known. > > - samantha > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 8 00:54:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:54:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell andnuclear transfer policies] References: Message-ID: <0f6901c5fb91$f5bd49e0$8998e03c@homepc> Robert Bradbury wrote: On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. I tend to agree with Samantha -- I'd like to see hard data that backs up this claim. You could work it out pretty easily.. Food is energy (joules or calories). Food is also vitamins, minerals, nutrients. You can come up with an average daily energy requirement - say 10MJ per person and multiply it by the population then see if there is that much food produced. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure there is. You could do the same with vitamins, minerals and nutrients using recommended daily allowances etc. It would be safe to say there is *not* plenty of food for everyone on the planet at a price that everyone can afford. Perhaps, but it would be a huge leap to infer that because food isn't currently available at prices all people can afford that making it cheaper to produce would solve the problem for those people who can't afford to buy enough currently. To avoid having anyone starve its necessary for the people and the food to be in the same place. It is also safe to say that there will not be plenty off food in the future if current unsustainable agricultural practices continue. (Sufficient water and fish protein are two problems which immediately come to mind where overharvesting has created shortages and will create more significant problems in the future.) If the starving poor cannot access or pay for normal food then GM food will certainly not solve the problem. It will if it makes the cost of producing the food cheaper! To avoid having anyone starve its necessary for the people and the food to be in the same place. If I have two choices (a) make hundreds of millions or billions of people richer or (b) make more/cheaper food then (b) wins every time because it has lower inertia. What do you mean by "inertia"? The word as I understand it isn't applicable in this case. I can produce the seeds (or bacteria) required to totally transform an agricultural system in only a few years. It is impossible to transform an economy in a similar time frame. India and China are providing good examples but they have been at it for years and it is only successful in limited areas of those countries (northern India and rural China have not experienced significant economic improvement). I would suggest that you consider the biology. Bacteria can have doubling times as low as 20 minutes, eukaryotic cells have doubling times of ~24 hours, large organisms (crop grains, fish, farm animals, etc.) have growth and doubling times measured in months to years. I can grow a quantity of "GMO-bio-gruel" in a solar pond significantly faster than I can grow the same quantity of rice, corn, ham, beef, etc. But can you do it in sufficient scale Robert? You don't have a solution unless you actually manufacture your gruel in sufficient amounts. (In fact bacteria are doing most of the essential chemical conversions necessary to allow you to grow the meat at all.) I can easily engineer the GMO-BG to produce more protein which is one of the major reasons people consume meat (or fish or poultry). Fundamental point -- if I can grow it faster using the available resources more efficiently it is going to be cheaper than products produced using traditional methods. Would this have been possible 20 years ago -- no. Then the only solution one could envision was making people wealthier to allow them to be able to pay more for the food. Now the biotechnology knowledge base and its industrial infrastructure are sufficiently robust that they enable alternate solutions for these problems (famine, starvation, malnutrition, losses during production, etc.). Now many people might not like the idea of consuming GMO biogruel. But if you had your choice of eating biogruel or becoming a prostitute with significant risk of contracting HIV (quite common in parts of Africa, India, Thailand, etc.) *which* would you choose? If you want to choose the "economic development" path I *challenge* you to show me how growing the economies in those countries by building the schools, educating the people, creating the entrepreneurs and investors to finance them and having them become wealthier so they can afford sufficient food is *faster* than the "GMO development path" which simply makes the food cheaper! You haven't given enough information to provide a comparison. How *much* bio-gruel can you produce? Would your bio-gruel be safe to eat or contaminated because of the way you produced it? Would food authorities have to trust you that it was safe or would you have to produce your bio-gruel under the same testing regimes as other food producers? This isn't something I'm uneducated about. The Hunger Project has been around for ~25 years and for many of those years I supported their efforts to pursue what could be called the "economic development" path. After I became more educated about microbiology and biotechnology it became clear that the GMO route would be much faster and save many more lives. See above comments. Your bio-gruel has to be made somewhere on earth and in sufficient quantities. It looks completely impractical to me. Thinking about this problem requires some deep thought about how long it takes to educate people and uplift an entire economy vs. how long it takes to build solar ponds and seed them with engineered GMOs with doubling times of 20 minutes. (Doubling times of 20 minutes allow bacteria to grow to the mass of the Earth within 2 days -- *if * they can be fed sufficient resources.) Thats an excellent point - what are you going to feed your bio-gruel producers to make them grow (and contain the right nutrients)? Bio-gruel maybe? :-) (What was the movie that solved the problem by inventing Soylent Green ?) To solve the nutrition problem for humanity requires combining the machinery of existing genomes (that are capable of many chemical transformations) with the ability of humans to collect, concentrate and transport resources (C, H, O & N along with trace elements). Certain schemes are just not practical because they cannot be done politically. For food to provide nourishment it has to be at the same place as the the people that have to eat it - that's the problem. Would you have you saving Africans or whatever sprinkle bio-gruel into local puddles? They don't have that much control over that much real estate. Starvation is a political phenomenon. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 01:02:29 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:02:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/7/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 12/6/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to human stem > > cell engineering. > > > > It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic problems we > > currently face and its solutions. > > > > First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- every > > year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is highly unextropic > > because all of the energy, matter and time that went into creating, growing > > and teaching those human beings is completely lost! > > > > > Which has nothing to do with GM foods. > The problem of malnourishment is a *political* problem - not a > technological one. > There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. > > > Proof please. > http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we09.htm Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Thu Dec 8 02:05:47 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:05:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef wrote> > I have Metzinger's book in my library I posted very briefly to this > list my favorable impression. I recently (independently) conjectured something quite similar to Metzinger, and this sent me on a search for any published or developed theories along the same lines (since usually an amateurs conjectures are well-known in the field if they have any value at all.) My conjecture is (on first view) different from Metzinger in some limited but important ways, and these may address some of the criticisms offered by those who generally favor his exposition. BTW, your recommendation was enough to tip the balance, but don't feel "to blame" since I was practically ready to order in any case. THANKS for the help. (If I am wrong now, I did due diligence, and can just say, "Tough" if it doesn't work out. ) > It very clear, precise, and detailed, but slow-going. I'd suggest > that you would gain the same general understanding, but more quickly > and easily, from Dennett's books such as _Consciousness Explained_, > unless you've already read Dennett and are looking for more detailed > scientific research. I have read some (older) Dennett, and have the following on order: Sweet Dreams : Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness Dennett (MIT 2005) Freedom Evolves -- Dennett In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind by Bernard J. Baars I also have ordered some newer Edelmann titles: A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination Topobiology: An introduction to molecular embryology > I'll look into sending you an excerpt from the book (easy to do since > my entire library is digitized) that may convey the flavor of the book > to help you decide. > > - Jef Excellent. I read the first 3 pages in the Amazon "Look Inside". I also read several (academic) reviews - even the negatives intrigued me. BTW, how do you digitize you library -- a guess would make your "entire library" rather large....? (I have a scanner but cannot seriously imagine actually scanning all of my books; actually it would be tedious to do even one.) I am also considering: The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach (Hardcover) by Christof Koch (Of Francis Crick and Koch fame.) $45 (or less) Sample chapter here: http://www.questforconsciousness.com/chapt.html Consciousness: An Introduction - Susan Blackmore $28 The Birth Of The Mind: How A Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought - Gary F. Marcus Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness (Cognition Special Issue) - Stanislas Dehaene If I didn't budget my book purchases I would not be able to afford sufficient bookCASES. -- Herb Martin From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Dec 8 03:00:01 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 22:00:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What happened to cyborgdemocracy.net? Message-ID: > Does anyone know what happened to the blog at cyborgdemocracy.net? Still there: http://cyborgdemocracy.net/blogger.html Justice de Thezier is doing most of the blogging there now, with a very eclectic set of interests. Some of the energy of the "CybDemites" moved to the technoliberation list and http://http://technoliberation.net website. -------------------------------------------- James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director World Transhumanist Assoc. Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech. http://transhumanism.org http://ieet.org director at transhumanism.org director at ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA (office) 860-297-2376 From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 8 03:32:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:32:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID > > These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a form > of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the > so-called "religion" of evolution. > > Pro-evolution site sued over public funding > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/ ... > > -gts Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually discover this line of reasoning. This may actually be a bigger threat to US science education than is the whole ID business. spike {8-[ From quantumcat49 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 04:07:21 2005 From: quantumcat49 at yahoo.com (Daniel Waters) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 20:07:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello World! Message-ID: <20051208040721.1730.qmail@web52203.mail.yahoo.com> Hello My Handle is Quantumcat, I managed to produce some very interesting ideas in my time. Here is one for Global Warming.. Oceanic Food & Fuel Growing Floating Hydroponic Greenhouses all materials being produced right out of the pacific ocean, Thermal Depolymerization can produce fossil fuels to sell to support feeding the world. Good bye el nino la nina eh? just add some additional equipment. And here is one for right now.. Magic Motorhome First generation will have hydroponic garden and would gradually build up vegetable oil to power the engine it will be aerogel insulated. Second generation will include a hybrid engine and lighter framming and what not. Third generation will include a thermal depolymerizer and fab lab!!! So I need tools and resources to get this started or help it if it comes to be if there are going to be magic motorhome's I want to earn one somehow! Ok maybe I am a bit of a Techno Gypsy (I coined it in this time line) but I got some valuable attributes that need to be exploited. Sincerely, Daniel Hazelton Waters Olympia WA USA Silver Dollar Only NORFED --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 04:18:05 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 17:18:05 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet Message-ID: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> The comparison between 'Qualia' and 'Numbers' is well made. Because the same general kinds of philosophical arguments that are made about phenomenal entities also apply to mathematical entities. If I could just ask Robin (Hanson): Where does the number '4' exist? Is the proof of 'Fermat's Last Theorem' real or a fiction? If the proof is real, is it part of the causal processes taking place in the brain? What about other mathematical entities? Are they real or fiction? How do they fit into physical causal networks? I think you (Robin) can see that the 'Qualia' question is not as clear cut as you are making out. Again, if you are prepared to believe in the objective existence of mathematical entities, and if you agree that the relationship between mathematical entities and causal brain-networks is not a direct one, then why could the same not be true for Qualia? Of course it's trivially true that all metaphysical entities have to be related to causal processes *in some sense* (in order to produce observable effects). But this by itself establishes little. It doesn't follow that all metaphysical entities are fully reducible to descriptions in terms of *physical* causality at all - where I am here defining physical causality as: 'cause and effect relations between objects with spatial extensions and the forces and motions associated with these objects'. To try to explain away Qualia by demanding that everything be fully describable in terms of physical causality is simply to presuppose the very thing you are trying to prove (circular reasoning). A believer in Qualia could easily rebut simply by redefining the definition of 'causality' and demanding that everything be explained, not in terms of physical causality, but in terms of direct experience. Now it *may* well prove to be the case that talk of Qualia can be eliminated and replaced entirely by explanations in terms of physical causality (eliminative materialism). But it may not. The facts of the matter can only be determined through a combination of theory and observation, just like everything else in science. Suppose for instance that there's some kind of fundamental law of cognitive science and information theory such that no explanation phrased entirely in terms of physical causality can fully predict sentient behavior? For instance suppose that for some *in principle* theoretical reason computational intractability prevents accurate real-time predictions of sentient behavior if these predictions are phrased solely in terms of physical processes? Suppose that in order to achieve an accurate model of sentient behavior one needs to introduce mental concepts into one's explanations right from the start - i.e. suppose this is an *in principle* requirement? Then one would have to conclude that some mental concepts are just as 'real' and fundamental as physical ones. So you see, the philosophical arguments advanced in this thread that Qualia have to be a part of the 'causal networks of the brain' don't prove a thing about Qualia one way or the other. On the contrary, the argument is weak, as gts and I have shown by pointing out examples of abstract entities (mathematical concepts) that many (Platonists) take to be objectivity real, yet clearly don't directly fit into the causal networks of the brain at all. The philosophical position known as 'Eliminative materialism'(the idea that 'qualia' don't exist but are simply misrepresentations of what are really entirely material processes ? which seems to be the position Eliezer and Robin are arguing for) is based on arguments by philosophers Paul and Patricia Churchland and Daniel Dennett (in fact the position traces back to earlier arguments by philosophers Paul Feyerabend an d Quine), to the effect: that (a) qualia are simply abstract (or theoretical entities) and (b) should be replaced by the objective scientific viewpoint. But the argument undermines itself. *Of course* I believe that 'Qualia' are 'theoretical abstractions' and *of course* I agree that the correct view-point requires an objective scientific account, but the conclusion that Qualia are fictions doesn't follow from (a) and (b) at all! It's a total non-sequitur. In fact the very arguments applied by Eliminative materialism to argue *against* Qualia can be used to argue for them! Let look at the first argument of the Qualia skeptics: (a) 'Qualia' are abstractions. I say, of course they are! But this doesn't prove a thing against Qualia. On the contrary, we could take a Platonic view of these abstractions just as some philosophers do for mathematics. In fact what I was suggesting was not just that Qualia are *similar* to mathematical entities, but that Qualia are in fact *identical* to mathematical entities. That is to say, I think mathematical entities are just Qualia from a different perspective. I think the reason we're all so confused about Qualia is due to a limitation of the human brain - as others have pointed out - we can't *see* qualia from an objective perspective, only a subjective one. This allows skeptics to claim that they're fictional entities and all that exists are material processes. But as gts rightly pointed out, the fact we can only view Qualia subjectively doesn't mean that Qualia are not objectively real. Eliezer of all people should have known better. The argument against Qualia is based solely on a limitation of the *human* brain and it is folly to suppose that this limitation applies to minds in general. The fact that *we* (humans) can only ever view Qualia from a subjective perspective does not mean that more advanced minds couldn't view them from an *objective* perspective. Now the human brain does not appear to be capable of direct perception of mathematical entities. I think if the human brain *was* so capable, it would be obvious to everyone that Qualia and mathematical entities are one and the same i.e. we would be having second-order Qualia capable of objectively viewing first-order Qualia. If it's possible to objectivity view Qualia, the second argument of the Qualia skeptics is also exposed as a total non-sequitur. Recall that the eliminative materialists argue that (b) The most accurate view-point of something is the objective scientific view-point. The believer in Qualia can just say: well of course I agree with (b), but so what? For *Qualia themselves are a part of objective science* ! As I suggested earlier, if it proves that accurate models of sentient behaviour are *in principle* impossible without introducing mental concepts into one's explanations (perhaps due to some theorem involving computational intractability), then one would have to conclude that some mental concepts are just as fundamental and real as physical concepts and the ontology of objective science would have to be broadened to include these mental concepts. So you see, both the arguments of Eliminative materialists are simply without philosophical merit. But if Qualia and mathematical entities are equivalent as I claim and if as I said, the human brain is not capable of direct perception of mathematical entities. Then how is it that we have qualia at all? The answer, I think, lies in the truth of mathematical Platonism. The human brain cannot directly generate perceptions of mathematical entities, but if mathematics is *out there* in reality, then the actions of the brain will still *indirectly* involve mathematical relations (since according to Platonism math is the fabric of reality itself). Hence even without explicit modeling of mathematical entities, there can still be *indirect* Qualia associated with the brain. Clever eh? Are you familiar with Bertrand Russell's theory of 'Dual-aspect monism' gts? Well basically, my philosophical theory is vaguely like that, but extended to a more complex 'Seven-fold-aspect monism'. In the Dual-aspect monism of Russell, the *Intrinsic* properties of reality were equated with mental concepts, and the *Relational* properties of reality were equated with physical concepts. But in my theory, I have Seven different general 'aspects' instead of just the two of the original Russell theory. My core idea, as I've explained, is to equate Qualia wih mathematical entities. Panpsychism is a secondary consequence of my theory. Whilst critics of Panpsychism are right to point out that Panpsychism *by itself* doesn't explain anything, it is perfectly logically acceptable to have Panpsychism emerging as a *secondary consequence* of one's metaphysics i.e. a theorem of a deeper explanatory theory. Sooner or later someone smarter than me will independently discover the principles of my Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) and develop them in rigorous mathematical way. When that happens, the arguments of the Qualia skeptics will collapse, and with them the entire rotten edifice of the current AGI paradigm will crumple (including the ridiculous ideas that you can have general intelligence without qualia, that reasoning is entirely reducible to Bayes etc). -- To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. -William Blake Please visit my web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 06:03:46 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 22:03:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] "reading " DNA electrically In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051208060346.65628.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> Nifty enough to pass along. ASU researchers 'wire' DNA to identify mutations http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/asu-ar120605.php In the technique, chemical linker groups that form a tight bond with gold electrodes are attached to the ends of DNA. A drop of a DNA solution is then placed between the two electrodes. The DNA sticks to the surface of the electrodes spontaneously. As the tip is pulled away and the two electrodes teased apart, the molecules of DNA are eventually dispersed to the point of measuring the current of a single DNA molecule. Best, Jeff Davis "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" Louie Armstrong __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From transcend at extropica.com Thu Dec 8 06:18:28 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 00:18:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512080618.jB86ILe07241@tick.javien.com> * including the ridiculous ideas that you can have general intelligence without qualia, that reasoning is entirely reducible to Bayes etc) Please demonstrate. Brandon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Thu Dec 8 06:32:59 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 00:32:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <200512080618.jB86ILe07241@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512080632.jB86Wne08685@tick.javien.com> Er, that got chopped off. Was writing a separate email response, but somehow messed up both. But I gave up writing my response. Brandon _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Reinhart Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:18 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet * including the ridiculous ideas that you can have general intelligence without qualia, that reasoning is entirely reducible to Bayes etc) Please demonstrate. Brandon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 07:02:59 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:02:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Just a question Spike:) How come when I press your link for msn threw hotmail it goes to it..but when other people post links from the extropy chat on my computer, it doesn't go to that link and it just says done? Just curious Anna >From: "spike" >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: "'ExI chat list'" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] against ID >Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:32:56 -0800 > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID > > > > These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a form > > of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the > > so-called "religion" of evolution. > > > > Pro-evolution site sued over public funding > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/ > >... > > > > -gts > >Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually >discover this line of reasoning. This may actually >be a bigger threat to US science education than is >the whole ID business. > >spike > >{8-[ > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 8 07:21:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:21:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512080719.jB87JVe14203@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Tylor > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:03 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] against ID > > Just a question Spike:) > How come when I press your link for msn threw hotmail it goes to it..but > when other people post links from the extropy chat on my computer, it > doesn't go to that link and it just says done? > Just curious > Anna > Ya stumped me Anna. Of course when it comes to computers I am easily stumped. Ask me about motorcycles or differential equations, I might be able to come thru for you. I'm not sure what you mean by "just says done." If you hold down the control key when you point to the link, does that change anything? Did you mean it doesn't go to the site? Hmmmm. Just to make sure however Anna: you do realize that this discussion automatically goes to the entire ExI list, eh. (Love that term, "eh". Some Canuck friends taught me that, eh. Do they say eh in Montreal eh?) But now that that is cleared up, does anyone here know why Anna's hotmail account does what it does? {8^D spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Tylor > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:03 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] against ID > > Just a question Spike:) > How come when I press your link for msn threw hotmail it goes to it..but > when other people post links from the extropy chat on my computer, it > doesn't go to that link and it just says done? > Just curious > Anna > > > >From: "spike" > >Reply-To: ExI chat list > >To: "'ExI chat list'" > >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] against ID > >Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:32:56 -0800 > > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID > > > > > > These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a > form > > > of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the > > > so-called "religion" of evolution. > > > > > > Pro-evolution site sued over public funding > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/ > > > >... > > > > > > -gts > > > >Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually > >discover this line of reasoning. This may actually > >be a bigger threat to US science education than is > >the whole ID business. > > > >spike > > > >{8-[ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 07:32:02 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:32:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512072332m6ea01b8bi7ce0571ecb2484f0@mail.gmail.com> We should really say SD (Stupid Design), there is a lot to be improved in the current release. Improving it is what this list is about. Now concerning whether I am or not against ID, or better SD, of course I am against it, but with some caveats. One is not for or against a scientific theory like one is for or against a football team. In science, "I am for theory X" means "on the basis of the results of the experiments which have been performed so far, their analysis and interpretation by scientists I respect, and my own reasoning, I think theory X may be (more) useful (than former theory Y) as a model of reality". Or something like that, you see what I mean. Now suppose ID/SD is formulated like: "I believe there is sufficient experimental evidence against Darwin?s hypothesis that random mutation and selection processes are sufficient to explain today's biology, therefore I think we should consider also other possible processes, including purposeful design by intelligent entities", it becomes a scientific statement. Of course I would wish to know what the experimental evidence is. I might take it seriously as I have some gut feeling that four billion years are not enough to produce a human from single cell organisms on the basis of classic Darwinian processes alone. I might then consider ID-like hypotheses, such as design by aliens in this or a higher level universe (like, we are their SIMS). Of course, ID/SD is not presented as a scientific theory, but only on the basis of religious dogma. Moreover, the current push for ID is really a political process that must be seen in the context of the more general push for the talibanization of the US society. Therefore, I am against ID. G. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 08:50:14 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:50:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:32:56 -0500, spike wrote: >> These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a form >> of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the >> so-called "religion" of evolution. > Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually > discover this line of reasoning. This may actually > be a bigger threat to US science education than is > the whole ID business. Absolutely, the idea that empiricism amounts to a type of religion is a huge threat to public science education wherever there is a separation of church and state. This debate is not only about evolution. It is about science itself. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that some 15 years ago I defended metaphysical idealism against empiricism by criticising the empiricist idea of logical positivism. Positivism, the doctrine that propositions are valid only if they can in principle be verified empirically, is easily refuted by pointing out that the positivist proposition cannot itself be verified empirically. It is impossible to prove empirically that propositions are valid only if they can be proved empirically. Positivism thus fails its own test for meaning, and so must by the positivist's own standards be a meaningless proposition or a statement of religious belief. At the time I did not question the validity of science or evolution, but arguments similar to my own are now surfacing in the public debate about evolution vs Intelligent Design. In Kansas, proponents of Intelligent Design have succeeded in redefining science itself. Whereas science in Kansas once meant: "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us" It now means: "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, perhaps even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement that science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation for natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example astrology as an explanation for human personality. Fortunately for clear thinkers, the 'religion' of positivism is not really essential to science. I misled my interlocutors when I implied otherwise in my defense of idealism. Popper's philosophy is I think a superior philosophy of science, better than positivism, and one that does not rely on anything resembling religion. Not coincidently, Popper's evolutionary epistemology is an extension of biological evolution into the world of science and ideas. Science is not about finding true beliefs about the world. It is about finding workable conjectures that solve problems. -gtso From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Dec 8 15:09:01 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:09:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Online Participation in Law of Transhuman Persons Colloqium, Sat Dec 10 Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Robert A. Daye, Jr, 321-676-3690, robert at terasemweb.org INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MARKED BY COLLOQUIUM ON THE LAW OF TRANSHUMAN PERSONS Public Access Welcome Via Conference Call Line 8:30AM to 5:30PM EDT, Saturday December 10th, 2005 December 8, 2005, Space Coast, Florida -- The Terasem Movement announced today that it will sponsor a toll-free conference call dial-in line for public participation in the 1st Colloquium on the Law of Transhuman Persons, to be held December 10, 2005. The pioneering meeting of legal and artificial intelligence experts is being held in Space Coast, Florida in honor of International Human Rights Day. "We encourage interested people to call in to listen or ask questions," said Bina Aspen, Project Director. "All of the expert presentations will be audiocast over the conference call line, and after each one, we will open the phone lines for questions." To participate in the Colloquium, phone 1-800-500-0311 (U.S. callers) or 1-719-457-2698 (international callers). To view the program for the Colloquium, visit http://www.transhumanlaw.org/program.htm. The Terasem Movement defines "transhumans" as conscious entities who have or who aspire to have human rights, regardless of being of flesh, electronics or a bioelectronic combination. The legal status of transhumans is believed to be an impending fundamental issue for society. About the Terasem Movement The Terasem Movement, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charity endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness. The Terasem Movement accomplishes its objectives by convening publicly accessible symposia, publishing explanatory analyses, conducting demonstration projects, issuing grants and encouraging public belief in a positive technologically-based future. For more information, please visit http://terasemfoundation.org. From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Dec 8 15:44:48 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:44:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051208103542.022eff68@gmu.edu> At 11:18 PM 12/7/2005, Marc Geddes wrote: >The comparison between 'Qualia' and 'Numbers' is well >made. Because the same general kinds of philosophical arguments >that are made about phenomenal entities also apply to mathematical entities. > >If I could just ask Robin (Hanson): Where does the number '4' >exist? Is the proof of 'Fermat's Last Theorem' real or a >fiction? If the proof is real, is it part of the causal processes >taking place in the brain? What about other mathematical >entities? Are they real or fiction? How do they fit into physical >causal networks? > >I think you (Robin) can see that the 'Qualia' question is not as >clear cut as you are making out. Again, if you are prepared to >believe in the objective existence of mathematical entities, and if >you agree that the relationship between mathematical entities and >causal brain-networks is not a direct one, then why could the same >not be true for Qualia? > >Of course it's trivially true that all metaphysical entities have to >be related to causal processes *in some sense* (in order to produce >observable effects). But this by itself establishes little. It >doesn't follow that all metaphysical entities are fully reducible to >descriptions in terms of *physical* causality at all - where I am >here defining physical causality as: 'cause and effect relations >between objects with spatial extensions and the forces and motions >associated with these objects'. I talked about a network of causation of brain states, but did not require spatial extensions, forces, motions, or objects. Numbers, and most math objects, are patterns, i.e., abstractions. Things that sit in our networks of causation have many things in common, and we can describe those common features with patterns. The patterns themselves, as opposed to their instances, do not as far as we know separately sit in our network of causation, though brain states that describe and think about those patterns do. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 8 18:04:01 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:04:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:50 AM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >Whereas science in Kansas once meant: > >"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us" > >It now means: > >"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, >measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead >to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." > >The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, perhaps >even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement that >science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation for >natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example >astrology as an explanation for human personality. But what is your objection to examining astrology as an explanation for human personality? Theoretically, it seems incoherent with a current understanding of the size and dynamics of the cosmos, whereas it once appeared at least superficially possible, given the limited understanding of the size of the cosmos in cultures that originated and first supported astrology. Empirically, current versions of astrology are inconsistent with each other, and usually lack empirical support when tested rigorously. The first objection is grave, but hardly a knockdown argument, since our understanding of the cosmos is constantly modified precisely through the activity of science, and if anything we seem to learn more each year about unexpected connections between phenomena at various scales. The second objection is not a reason for rejecting astrology apriori as unscientific, but rather for showing it to be testable but false. On the other hand, certain quasi astrological claims (those of the Gauquelins, for example, concerning the so-called "Mars effect") have proved to be unnervingly robust, even when tested by sceptics. On the whole, I think I rather prefer the second formulation to the first. Giving priority to "natural" explanations might seem sensible, given the success of materialist reductionist explanatory schemata compared to the frailty and sterility of allegedly non-materialist "holist" models, but it risks premature theoretical foreclosure. "Natural" is a word to be wary of. Don't forget the spurious moral objections to homosexuality, for example, on the grounds that such practices are allegedly "unnatural". Granted, this is not the same value for "natural" as the usage above, but does stem from the same logical problem, the "naturalistic fallacy". More simply still: if empirical evidence, to the surprise of most scientists, turned out to link personality types with subtle annual regularities of the general kind advanced by astrologers, and gave rise to elegant theory consistent with the rest of physics and psychology, astrology would suddenly become "natural". If it turned out that the emergence and development of primitive life on Earth, indeed throughout the cosmos, had been massively accelerated by Singularity Minds that emerged swiftly in the storm immediately following the big bang, this explanation would be no less "natural" than domestication by farmers and stock breeders, and certainly inconsistent with the witterings of the IDers, yet it doesn't seem to fall easily and intuitively into either current classification. Damien Broderick From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 18:05:29 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:05:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/7/05, gts wrote: > This Kansas professor criticised ID and its proponents and plans to offer > a course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, > Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" putting ID where it rightly > belongs: in courses about religion. > > Actually, I *hate* to burst your bubble :-; but ID could well belong in courses on science related to whether or not we were (a) setup as an evolutionary experiment (as I pointed out in various MBrain discussiosn -- 'natural' evolution may be able to explore certain computational development paths better than 'designed' computation can); (b) whether the universe itself is based upon cellular automata -- recently discussed by Kurzweil based on work by Fredkin & Wolfram in TSIN; and/or (c) whether or not "we" are completely running in a simulation (ala the Matrix et al) [after all an MBrain can most likely support > 10^24 human brains]. Now of course, a *GOOD* discussion of ID doesn't focus on how "complex" our *perceived* universe happens to be (actually "my" universe since none of you are really out there...). A *GOOD* discussion focuses on what would be required to create "our" universe (after all, if MBrain level capabilities can dismantle planets, assembling solar systems as evolutionary starting points for 'natural' computations isn't that much harder. So the "I" in "ID" may simply be post-singularity civilizations performing experiments in accordance with our perceived understanding of the 'natural' laws of physics. Now if they have elevated it to the level that we are running in a sim, then all bets are off with regard to our understanding (and proving) anything (IMO). It is worth pointing out that the above ID scenarios are *not* going to make people falling into the "creationist" frame of mind particularly happy. Added to the discussion they do however turn ID vs. Evolution into something which merits serious consideration. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 18:13:31 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:13:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/8/05, Herb Martin wrote: > > > BTW, how do you digitize you library -- a guess would make your > "entire library" rather large....? (I have a scanner but cannot > seriously imagine actually scanning all of my books; actually it > would be tedious to do even one.) > > Photograph each page and run them through an OCR as a batch job. That has to be the quickest method. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 18:19:54 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:19:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:18:05 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > But as gts rightly pointed out, the fact we can only view Qualia > subjectively doesn't mean that Qualia are not objectively real. Yes, and as you've argued, if qualia are objectively real then they must be real in a platonic sense, like numbers. As I've argued here, in Lockean terms qualia should perhaps be considered real (primary) rather than secondary qualities of objects. Locke's primary qualities include the platonic idea of "number". The problem of course is how it is that a secondary quality like color can be said to be objectively real in same sense as number or any other primary quality. Red objects reflect red light, so one might say that when we look at a red object, we are seeing every color it is *not*. In physical terms, a red object is anything *but* red. This is the kind of stumbling block that leads to the denial of objective qualia. The answer is that if redness exists objectively then it must exist platonically, like numbers, just as you say. When we look at 5 red tomatoes, it is true to say not only that they are "objectively 5" but also that they are "objectively red". > Are you familiar with Bertrand Russell's theory of 'Dual-aspect monism' > gts? I found this definition of dual-aspect monism: "Neutral Monism. Also known as dual aspect monism. Espoused by Lewes in the 19th century. The argument runs that there is only one kind of stuff. Mind and body differ only in the arrangement of the stuff or in the perspective from which it is apprehended." This is exactly what I meant when I wrote (to Dirk I think) that the difference between materialism and pan-psychism seems only to be a matter of perspective. I don't (yet) understand what you mean by "seven-fold-aspect monism" but it looks like we've arrived at more or less the same conclusion. I'm thinking also that we should dispense with the idea of the so-called "Cartesian Theater". The idea that we (or any robots we might design) must represent the external world internally with some "mental model" or "subjective movie" leads to an infinite regress. The little men inside our heads who watch those movies must also have movies inside their heads, etc... Perhaps it's better to say that the mind really does experience the world *directly*. Red things look red because they really are red. Redness is not a mere pigment of our imagination. This leads me also to think of objectivist epistemology. Have you compared your ideas to David Kelly's? -gts From megao at sasktel.net Thu Dec 8 19:27:14 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:27:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sense of purpose Message-ID: <43988912.9000508@sasktel.net> Read a piece on the chinese space program aspirations. It seems that countries that divert military resources towards progressive mega-projects should be a lesson to all those countries engaged in squandering resources in military and ideological warlike activity. Question: How can one unravel the deep history of national/tribal agression on a global scale? I'm sure that a few strategic planners might advocate the swords to ploughshares if there was a sense of a final goal that was equally as profitable as cranking out armaments and churning the military/industrial infrastructures. Am I right to suppose that the military/industrial/ideological complex sees peace as unprofitable and thus something that should be propagandized but never really want to be cornered into bring into fruition. MFJ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:35:53 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:35:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:04:01 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: >> The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, >> perhaps even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement >> that >> science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation >> for natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example >> astrology as an explanation for human personality. > > But what is your objection to examining astrology as an explanation for > human personality? None, technically. My use of language here is evolving. Astrology should be rejected as science because it doesn't explain or predict anything. Similarly, Intelligent Design doesn't explain or predict anything. It suffers for two reasons: 1) there is no solid evidence that so-called "irreducibly complex" structures really exist in biology, and 2) even if they do exist, the so-called theory of ID does not explain how those structures come into existence. I found this quote of Behe (the chief protagonist of ID), from a lecture in which a physicist pressed him for an explanation of how structures alleged to be irreducibly complex (for example bacterial flagella) come into existence. ===== On November 11, 2002, Larry Arnhart reported on a lecture by Behe at Hillsdale: At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of smoke!" A physicist in our group asked, "Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?" And Behe answered: "Yes." http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Puff_of_Smoke ===== So it happens in a puff of smoke! The least Behe could do is explain how the Intelligent Designer's smoke does this magic. How does the magical smoke enter into the physical world, and how does it rearrange organic materials? What is the mechanism? If he could answer that question then he might have a falsifiable theory. I agree with you that "natural" is a troublesome word. I have used "naturalism" to mean something close to "positivism," but that is I think the wrong way to approach the problem. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 19:55:18 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:55:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Probably depends upon how the hypertext link is encoded by either the email or the receiving software you are using. It may also depend upon which browser the hypertext link is being sent to. When in doubt, try to look at the hypertext source (for the original), copy out the hypertext link (e.g. the "http://Internet.Address/path/to/file.extension" and paste it into your browser URL address box (and hit enter, the go button, or whatever works...). It may depend upon whether you are looking at the "text" or "hypertext" version of the message -- some mail programs send only text, some send hypertext, some send both and allow the mail reader to select that which is preferred. This is one reason I generally post the "raw" URL (link) path in my postings rather than a copied hypertext link. If you have an "intelligent" mail reader it will recognize the URL syntax and turn it into a hyperlink so you only have to click on it. Robert On 12/8/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > > Just a question Spike:) > How come when I press your link for msn threw hotmail it goes to it..but > when other people post links from the extropy chat on my computer, it > doesn't go to that link and it just says done? > Just curious > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu Dec 8 20:01:26 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:01:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sense of purpose References: <43988912.9000508@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <000f01c5fc32$2d633d50$c8be1b97@administxl09yj> > Am I right to suppose that the military > /industrial/ideological complex > sees peace as unprofitable and thus > something that should be propagandized > but never really want to be cornered into > bring into fruition. > > MFJ '... politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.' - Harold Pinter (from his Nobel lecture, I suppose) From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 8 20:05:40 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:05:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:35 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >>But what is your objection to examining astrology as an explanation for >>human personality? > >None, technically. My use of language here is evolving. Astrology should >be rejected as science because it doesn't explain or predict anything. Astrology *doesn't predict anything*??? Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 20:35:20 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:35:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051208103542.022eff68@gmu.edu> References: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051208103542.022eff68@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:44:48 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > Numbers, and most math objects, are patterns, i.e., abstractions. Things > that sit in our networks of causation have many things in common, and we > can describe those common features with patterns. The patterns > themselves, as opposed to their instances, do not as far as we know > separately sit in our network of causation, though brain states that > describe and think about those patterns do. You seem to be describing an Aristotelian rather than a Platonic understanding of mathematics. When you say "patterns" I hear "universals," but this is not what Plato meant and probably not what Marc means. In another message I asked Marc to explain, according to his theory, how it is that we seem to understand each other when we speak about numbers but can't be sure when we speak about qualia. For example I think I know exactly what you mean when you say, "I am thinking of the number 5" but I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say, "I am thinking of the color green." For all I really know you see green the way I see red. Marc has not answered my question but I after thinking about his ideas and combining them with my own I think I can offer an answer. In platonic terms, we understand each other when we speak about mathematics because we are accessing the same objective information. You see the same 5 that I see because there is only one 5 "out there". Five is not merely an abstract pattern common to groups things of which there are five (as Aristotle might say). Five exists in its own right, separate from and and prior to any instances of five-ness in the world (as Plato would say). If qualia exist in a platonic sense then there may be only one true "green." The green quale may exist objectively, like the number 5, and be a real primary quality of green objects rather than a Lockean secondary quality. If so then we all see green the same way, at least in principle, because we are accessing the same information. Are we in agreement here, Marc? Perhaps we all live in same world after all. :) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 20:47:06 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:47:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:05:40 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Astrology *doesn't predict anything*??? No better than does random chance, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Someone here applauded the idea of opening science to any theory, natural or otherwise, with predictive power or not. Okay, but as I mentioned here previously, the real question is more pragmatic: "What should public schools teach in science class?" Teachers have only so many days in a school year to teach real science, and real science is about solutions to real problems. I think they shouldn't be forced to waste time and public funds teaching imaginary solutions to non-existent problems. -gts From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 8 21:09:55 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:09:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4398A123.9040001@pobox.com> gts wrote: > > Whereas science in Kansas once meant: > > "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us" > > It now means: > > "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, > measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to > lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." > > The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, > perhaps even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement > that science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* > explanation for natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including > for example astrology as an explanation for human personality. The reason ID isn't science is that it doesn't *work*, not that it's not "natural". If someone invents a mathematizable ghosts-and-spirits explanation that produces precise predictions bourne out by the evidence, superior to the existing theory, then yay ghosts. If the genes had been written by a cognitive process analogous to a human computer programmer, then ID would be the scientifically correct explanation. But they weren't so it's not. "Natural" is a meaningless term. Whatever is, is natural. Since the beginning, not one unnatural thing has ever happened. "The important difference between magic and science is not that one deals in chants, incantations and crystal balls and the other deals in equations, computer code and electron microscopes. The difference is that one works and the other does not." -- John K Clark -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 8 21:15:32 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:15:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/8/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 12/8/05, Herb Martin wrote: > > > > BTW, how do you digitize you library -- a guess would make your > > "entire library" rather large....? (I have a scanner but cannot > > seriously imagine actually scanning all of my books; actually it > > would be tedious to do even one.) > > > > > > Photograph each page and run them through an OCR as a batch job. > That has to be the quickest method. I've digitized over 500 books in my library, starting about three years ago. Main motivator was that with a few full bookcases and a few hundred pounds of books in boxes since my last change of residence, they were a chore to move and manage and I didn't have good visibility or access when I wanted one of them. I process the books by first cutting off the binding. I took the first hundred or so to Kinko's and paid a dollar each for them to cut the bindings off, but I found that they often cut too close to the binding, leaving some pages glued together. I learned that I can remove the bindings easily myself, using two slices with an Exacto knife to remove the front and back cover, and then carefully pulling loose about 30 pages at a time by hand. I then trim the sheets, about 20 at a time, using a paper slicer. Next step is to feed through a *good* scanner with sheet feeder attachment. I've used a few models and they keep getting better. With my current setup, I can strip the binding, trim the sheets and scan double-sided to PDF at 300*300 resolution a 300-page book in about 30-40 minutes. I then inspect the scanned pages, rescan any that need improved grayscale or color, and make sure no pages are missing (from sticking and going through the scanner together.) Next I run the PDF through Omnipage (currently V15) and come back in an hour or so to save the OCRd file, usually as PDF image overlaying text, and also as an RTF file to be moved onto my PDA. The OCR is so good these days that I almost never bother with any correcting. >From that point, I do most of my reading from the OCR'd PDF on my notebook PC. From there, I can highlight, add comments and search for text accross my entire library. The PDA copy is most useful for fiction (no commenting or highlighting usually) and for reading while waiting in line or traveling without my notebook. Total time investment is about an hour for a standard 300-400 page book, creating a PDF file of typically 20MB and an RTF file of about 500kB to 1MB. I buy a lot of books from Amazon and partners, and usually convert them the same day as received (throwing away the dead tree corpse) so that I can read with all the electronic benefits. I've tried buying e-books, but after a half-dozen experiments have decided that the copy protection interferes too much with my intended usage, and it's not worth the effort necessary to work around the protection for each one. Lizbeth and I both read in bed most nights, with our self illuminating, one-handed holding and easy scrolling books on PDA, or when I'm studying, on the notebook PC. A little further into the future, my intention is to have the entire collection, including my annotations, indexed and cross-referenced automatically and available to a personal agent to augment my relatively weak and unreliable biological memory. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 8 21:16:24 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:16:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:47 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >>Astrology *doesn't predict anything*??? > >No better than does random chance, unless you have evidence to the >contrary. Oh--you mean astrology doesn't make *accurate* or *correct* predictions (beyond those expected by sheer chance coincidence), not that it doesn't make predictions. But the test of a supposed discipline's status as a science isn't -- for Popper, at any rate -- the accuracy of its predictions, but the fact that they can be tested empirically, and *in principle* falsified. Hence, psychoanalysis is regarded by Popperian critical rationalists as a non science (everything and nothing is consistent in any given case with its doctrines), while Marxism is regarded as a science, but a falsified one. If you wish to make a strong case against astrology, you need to support your claim that no astrological prediction has been warranted. I've already given the example of the Gauquelins' "Mars effect" as a quasi astrological prediction that appears to have passed the falsification test (although of course this is disputed by most sceptics, especially those who haven't looked into the matter). Do some googling on the CSICOP sTARBABY scandal. Damien Broderick [ not an astrologer ] From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:16:56 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:16:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051208103542.022eff68@gmu.edu> Message-ID: As young children, my friends and I knew exactly what colors were. I knew what my friends meant when they said things like, "Let me have that green crayon." Then we grew up and tripped over our brains. :) -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 8 21:17:53 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:17:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512081317w438828bfi797ee52c0e8c8292@mail.gmail.com> > scan double-sided to PDF at 300*300 resolution a 300-page book in Sorry, should have said 300dpi. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:40:13 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:40:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:16:24 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > But the test of a supposed discipline's status as a science isn't -- for > Popper, at any rate -- the accuracy of its predictions, but the fact > that they can be tested empirically, and *in principle* falsified. Yes. > If you wish to make a strong case against astrology, you need to support > your claim that no astrological prediction has been warranted. Or that another more comprehensive theory explains the facts better than astrology. One interesting question is what to do about an observed anomaly to a successful theory. Is the theory then automatically falsified? If we observe that one of the planets is orbiting in a manner contrary to what we know about gravity, do we say then that our theory of gravity is falsified? Or do we theorize the existence of an unobserved body of matter acting on the rogue planet? Astronomers have faced this problem before while learning about our solar system, and still deal with the same problem concerning the hypothesized dark matter in the universe. -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 8 21:43:53 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:43:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208153222.01c8f3a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:16 PM 12/8/2005 -0600, I probably confusingly wrote: >But the test of a supposed discipline's status as a science isn't -- for >Popper, at any rate -- the accuracy of its predictions, but the fact that >they can be tested empirically, and *in principle* falsified. While that's true (in a more complicated frame of reference that invokes Type I and Type II statistical errors, etc), what I meant to say was: the test isn't the simple *fact* that it makes predictions, but whether those predictions can be tested sharply against alternative predictions and thus in principle falsified. Not just: if I do X, the result will be Y, but: if I do X, and theory A is correct, the result will be Y, whereas if theory B is correct, the result will not be Y but Z. It's a matter of excluding specifiable alternatives. What Eliezer said about ID. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 8 22:00:13 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:00:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208155553.01d27ad0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:40 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >One interesting question is what to do about an observed anomaly to a >successful theory. Is the theory then automatically falsified? That's why I prefer Imre Lakatos to Popper: his model of "hard core" postulates and their "protective belts" fits better with the way science actually accommodates anomalies. e.g.: http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28667 Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 22:13:50 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:13:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208153222.01c8f3a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208153222.01c8f3a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Popper also wrote about the interesting concept of "verisimilitude". verisimilitude \ver-uh-suh-MIL-uh-tood; -tyood\, noun: 1. The appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true. 2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real. He was criticized for attempting to quantify verisimilitude, and ended up calling it an "intuitive" idea. Popper's definition of verisimilitude: "Theory A is closer to the truth than theory B if and only if (i) all the true consequences of B are true consequences of A, (ii) all the false consequences of A are consequences of B, and (iii) either and some true consequences of A are not consequences of B or some false consequences of B are not consequences of A." In principle one of any two false theories should be closer to the truth than the other, but his critics showed otherwise for Popper's definition. His critic Tich? says [instead] that "A is closer to the truth than B because A makes one mistake but gets two things right, while B is wrong on all three counts. One mistake is better than three mistakes, so A has greater verisimilitude or truthlikeness. Now it is possible for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another." (from http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_10.html) Given the fact that we do not and may never know the total absolute truth about everything, it's pretty important to know which lies we should teach in science class. :) -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 8 22:47:25 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:47:25 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet References: <7a5e56060512072018l29e69f46ve1bc1cea0746075c@mail.gmail.com><7.0.0.16.2.20051208103542.022eff68@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <111501c5fc49$5c02b2a0$8998e03c@homepc> gts wrote: > As young children, my friends and I knew exactly what colors > were. I knew what my friends meant when they said things like, > "Let me have that green crayon." Then we grew up and tripped > over our brains. :) Sets of childrens crayons, pencils, textas etc usually consist of only 12 or 24 discrete colours from within the range of visible light. If, as an adult, you or someone close to you decides to paint a room and you go to buy the paint you'll probably see a colour chart with 24 or more different "greens" to choose from. I remember high school physics when 5 was deemed the wrong answer to 2.00 + 3.00 because 5 didn't account for the significant figures. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 8 23:14:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:14:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <112a01c5fc4d$27f77fa0$8998e03c@homepc> Jef Allbright wrote: > I've digitized over 500 books in my library, starting about three > years ago. Just with A4 scanners or did you pay for an A3 ? Brett Paatsch From femmechakra at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 23:25:42 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:25:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Thank you, i'll try that Anna >From: Robert Bradbury >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID >Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:55:18 -0500 > >Probably depends upon how the hypertext link is encoded by either the email > or the receiving software you are using. It may also depend upon >which browser the hypertext link is being sent to. When in doubt, try to >look at the hypertext source (for the original), copy out the hypertext >link >(e.g. the "http://Internet.Address/path/to/file.extension" and paste it >into >your browser URL address box (and hit enter, the go button, or whatever >works...). > >It may depend upon whether you are looking at the "text" or "hypertext" >version of the message -- some mail programs send only text, some send >hypertext, some send both and allow the mail reader to select that which is >preferred. > >This is one reason I generally post the "raw" URL (link) path in my >postings >rather than a copied hypertext link. If you have an "intelligent" mail >reader it will recognize the URL syntax and turn it into a hyperlink so you >only have to click on it. > >Robert > > >On 12/8/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > > > > Just a question Spike:) > > How come when I press your link for msn threw hotmail it goes to it..but > > when other people post links from the extropy chat on my computer, it > > doesn't go to that link and it just says done? > > Just curious > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 9 00:24:10 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:24:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site In-Reply-To: <112a01c5fc4d$27f77fa0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com> <112a01c5fc4d$27f77fa0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10512081624l46491dc6t11545b359c26f27d@mail.gmail.com> On 12/8/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I've digitized over 500 books in my library, starting about three > > years ago. > > Just with A4 scanners or did you pay for an A3 ? Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your question. I've used a variety of scanners, mostly limited to A4 or US Letter size. The main difference being the quality and performance of the sheet feeders, and the cheapest ones are not worth the reliability problems or time required. When I started, three years ago, I paid $750 for an HP flatbed with feeder and the feed wasn't reliable enough. I quickly gained access to another HP that was about $1500 at the time and it did a good job. I'm now sharing access to a Konika Minolta C350 scanner/copier that is much faster, more reliable, and does double-sided in a single pass. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 00:24:50 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:24:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:05:29 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Actually, I *hate* to burst your bubble :-; but ID could well belong in > courses on science related to whether or not we were (a) setup as an > evolutionary experiment... Now of course, a *GOOD* discussion of ID > doesn't focus on how "complex" our *perceived* universe happensto be.... I think you are referring here to a different and much less controversial aspect of ID "theory": that the universe as a whole is too complex not to have been the product of intelligent design. They blur the issue by including that idea in their agenda. Many perfectly respectable scientists are deists or theists who have no objection to the concept of an Intelligent Designer who created a universe in which the natural laws of physics gave rise to the laws of chemistry and biology and evolution and humans. The public controversy is mainly about evolution theory *vs* ID theory, where an Intelligent Designer intervenes in nature to temporarily over-rule the same natural laws that she presumably created. I think ID is an affront to science because it weakens whatever we mean by "theory," but also an affront to religion. If God exists then surely she was smart enough to get it right the first time. :) And surely she is also compassionate enough not to make a separate, deliberate attempt to create bacteria deadly to humans. "Oops, I was too stupid to create bacterial flagellum on the 6th day to kill humans when I should have... so I'd better step in now and create them, lest those pesky humans think well of me..." -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 9 01:45:26 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:45:26 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site References: <22360fa10512071257t1ab46fe8j32fc5b2dd5fe52be@mail.gmail.com><22360fa10512081315m6d297804q3b24f75bb4a5419e@mail.gmail.com><112a01c5fc4d$27f77fa0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10512081624l46491dc6t11545b359c26f27d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <115401c5fc62$3aa98570$8998e03c@homepc> Jef Allbright wrote: > On 12/8/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Jef Allbright wrote: >> >> > I've digitized over 500 books in my library, starting about three >> > years ago. >> >> Just with A4 scanners or did you pay for an A3 ? > > Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your question. My fault for that I didn't explain. After getting over my initial reaction which was "ah he's destroying books" I saw quite a bit of merit in what you were doing, but thought quite a few of the books I have would be text books that would not be easily captured with an A4 scanner. I don't think I actually want to chop them up, but if I did I'd want to make sure I could scan them one whole page at a time. An A3 would allow you to scan pages twice the size of A4. Larger than that, A2 or A1, and one might be able to scan newspapers (this would have appealed to me at different times) but the scanning technology to do that efficiently is probably not available for home use as the demand to do it wouldn't be all that high. A couple of years ago I paid about $600 to have a scrap book of newspaper articles (to do with stem cell politics) digitised. I wanted to make my scrap book accessible over the internet. > I've used a > variety of scanners, mostly limited to A4 or US Letter size. > The main difference being the quality and performance of the > sheet feeders, and the cheapest ones are not worth the reliability > problems or time required. When I started, three years ago, I paid $750 > for an HP > flatbed with feeder and the feed wasn't reliable enough. I quickly > gained access to another HP that was about $1500 at the time and it > did a good job. I'm now sharing access to a Konika Minolta C350 > scanner/copier that is much faster, more reliable, and does > double-sided in a single pass. Thanks, you've answered my question. I didn't mean to be rude in the way that I put it. Brett Paatsch From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 02:16:10 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:16:10 -0600 Subject: Books are Pictures of Information, not Information (was Re: [extropy-chat] Science & Consciousness Review web site) Message-ID: <5366105b0512081816n7b0dff05m44328b9086b73c1f@mail.gmail.com> Thursday, 8 December 2005 > > variety of scanners, mostly limited to A4 or US Letter size. > > The main difference being the quality and performance of the > > sheet feeders, and the cheapest ones are not worth the reliability > > problems or time required. When I started, three years ago, I paid $750 Amen to that! I have the same project for the same reason. Books weigh too much. A good sheet feeding scanner costs. Consumer-grade sheet feeders rarely feed two consecutive sheets the same crooked way twice. This makes image post-processing, OCR and scanning hard. > > for an HP > > flatbed with feeder and the feed wasn't reliable enough. I quickly > > gained access to another HP that was about $1500 at the time and it > > did a good job. I'm now sharing access to a Konika Minolta C350 > > scanner/copier that is much faster, more reliable, and does > > double-sided in a single pass. You lucky devil! That's a nice machine. For those of us sans access to such high-end machines, can you recommend a decent sheet-feeding machine in the US$1500-range? -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From DerekZahn at msn.com Fri Dec 9 03:30:01 2005 From: DerekZahn at msn.com (Derek Zahn) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:30:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings Message-ID: Hello all. Back in the mists of time (early-mid 90s) I was a subscriber to this list; i vaguely recall some very intersting discussion. I was a moderately frequent contributor to the email conversations, briefly hosted the ExI-Essay FTP archive, wrote a book review (I believe) for an issue of Extropy, produced the artwork for the cover of an issue of Extropy, was sort of a copy editor/formatter for the Extro 1 conference proceedings, and wrote a couple essays for that old essay list. Then a Bad Thing happened to me and I drifted out of sight, out of memory. My primary interest has always been AI (I was a PhD student in AI back then), and I recently was woken up from a temporary slumber when I read about the specs of the upcoming PS3 gaming machine -- in terms of raw flops, the standard projections for processing power (if not storage or bandwidth) got a kick in the butt by the gaming industry the last few years, and it might almost be time to start paying attention again to AI again. Anyway, I have resubscribed to the list. I'm glad to see some old faces still around (Max, Hal, Amara, Robin, etc), sad to see a few who are not (Nick Szabo, Tom Morrow, and I understand that Sasha Chislenko passed away, what a pity), and a few names I don't see that I don't miss much :-) I have a few materials from the time that the Bad Thing happened to me -- alas all I was able to find is a program from the Extro 2 conference, a hardcopy of a paper titled "Human Life Extension 1995 - The State Of The Art" by Chris Heward, and a floppy with a paper titled "A History of Extropic Thought: Parallel Conceptual Development of Technicism and Humanism" by Reilly Jones. If any of this material is valuable to the Extropy Institute I'll be happy to send it to you. I see that much material from those early years seems to be lost. derek whose qualia, lights in a mirror reflected and re-reflected, shine bright -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 9 04:15:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:15:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Saying there are enough calories produced does not say there is adequate food if the calories are not of the proper kind or available when, where and as needed. The report to its credit does talk a bit about this. I have seen counter-claims that there is not enough food produced and/or that the margins are dangerously thin. I am uncertain as to how to arrive at the truth of the matter. Statements such as "in every food-short region, others still enjoy adequate access to food" do not lead me to give a lot of credence to the url. It is possible to import some food to even the worse drought area. Importing enough to feed everyone can be a bit more of a challenge. Setting up sustainable local food production or other economy adequate to import sufficient food is more difficult yet. Without that it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "enough food is produced". Ah, I see. We supposedly have enough food if everyone is vegetarian but not otherwise. So it looks like we only have enough food produced today if you change what a significant portion of the world looks at as food. Hmm. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen. - samantha On Dec 7, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 12/7/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/6/05, Robert Bradbury < robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote: >> I've changed the subject because this isn't really related to >> human stem cell engineering. >> >> It relates to arguably one of the most significant extropic >> problems we currently face and its solutions. >> >> First, hunger and starvation are significant causes of entropy -- >> every year killing from 10 to 36 million people [6]. This is >> highly unextropic because all of the energy, matter and time that >> went into creating, growing and teaching those human beings is >> completely lost! >> >> >> Which has nothing to do with GM foods. >> The problem of malnourishment is a *political* problem - not a >> technological one. >> There is plenty of food for everyone on the planet. > > Proof please. > > http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we09.htm > > Dirk > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 9 04:20:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:20:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <3D661BBD-A623-42F6-AEEE-63706DDB358E@mac.com> Calling a respect for actually examining the facts of reality a "religion" will be taken seriously enough to be a threat to science education? I would expect it to meet only contempt and derisive laughter. But my expectations have been disappointed too many times. Perhaps it is past time to work on building true AI. I am utterly burned out on stupid monkey brains (my own included). - samantha On Dec 7, 2005, at 7:32 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID >> >> These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism >> a form >> of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote >> the >> so-called "religion" of evolution. >> >> Pro-evolution site sued over public funding >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/ > > ... >> >> -gts > > Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually > discover this line of reasoning. This may actually > be a bigger threat to US science education than is > the whole ID business. > > spike > > {8-[ > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 04:20:01 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:20:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208155553.01d27ad0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208155553.01d27ad0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I have not yet read the article about Lakatos, but it seems that if ID ever gets to the Supreme Court that Popper's falsification principle will rule the day: "Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested. "Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry." Green, at 645. See also C. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science 49 (1966) ("[T]he statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test"); K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 37 (5th ed. 1989) ("[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability")." Daubert v. Merrell Dow 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (Found this in a discussion at http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/11/poppers_hegemon.html) I have seen general criticisms of Popper by Lakatos and similar to which Popperians would respond that Popper's views are a prescription to science, not a description of it. I'm drawn to Popper because he rejects positivism as the central tenet of science, allowing science to escape the ID charge of being a form of religion, at least as positivists themselves might define the word, and because in general I like his idea of evolutionary epistemology. From what I hear, memetics is dead or on hold because of questions about how the science should proceed, but I think Popper's basic theory of knowledge should survive and multiply. (Now that I think of it, perhaps his theory answers the ontology problem in memetics: it suggests that memes are better understood as objective virus-like behaviors than as subjective virus-like ideas.) One could say evolution is about finding solutions to the problem of survival through trial and error. This is also Popper's view of how science progresses. It will be sweet to watch anti-evolution defeated by evolution. Problem solved. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 04:24:42 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:24:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell and nuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/9/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Saying there are enough calories produced does not say there is adequate > food if the calories are not of the proper kind or available when, where and > as needed. The report to its credit does talk a bit about this. I have > seen counter-claims that there is not enough food produced and/or that the > margins are dangerously thin. I am uncertain as to how to arrive at the > truth of the matter. > Statements such as "in every food-short region, others still enjoy > adequate access to food" do not lead me to give a lot of credence to the > url. It is possible to import some food to even the worse drought area. > Importing enough to feed everyone can be a bit more of a challenge. Setting > up sustainable local food production or other economy adequate to import > sufficient food is more difficult yet. Without that it doesn't seem > reasonable to me to say "enough food is produced". > > Ah, I see. We supposedly have enough food if everyone is vegetarian but > not otherwise. So it looks like we only have enough food produced today > if you change what a significant portion of the world looks at as food. > Hmm. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen. > > Politics. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 9 04:35:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:35:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell andnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512090433.jB94Xte31266@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... Ah, I see. We supposedly have enough food if everyone is vegetarian but not otherwise... - samantha That notion is having ever greater appeal to me. I was a vegetarian for several years as a teenager and early 20s. Im seriously considering going back to it. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 9 04:34:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:34:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 12/7/05, gts wrote: > This Kansas professor criticised ID and its proponents and plans to > offer > a course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, > Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" putting ID where it > rightly > belongs: in courses about religion. > > > Actually, I *hate* to burst your bubble :-; but ID could well > belong in courses on science related to whether or not we were (a) > setup as an evolutionary experiment (as I pointed out in various > MBrain discussiosn -- 'natural' evolution may be able to explore > certain computational development paths better than 'designed' > computation can); (b) whether the universe itself is based upon > cellular automata -- recently discussed by Kurzweil based on work > by Fredkin & Wolfram in TSIN; and/or (c) whether or not "we" are > completely running in a simulation (ala the Matrix et al) [after > all an MBrain can most likely support > 10^24 human brains]. > I am not seeing your point. The above might make for interesting speculation but it is certainly not validated scientific theory as is evolution. I don't see why the above should be taught in a biology class. It might better fit in a philosophy of science setting. Pure speculation is not science. > > It is worth pointing out that the above ID scenarios are *not* > going to make people falling into the "creationist" frame of mind > particularly happy. Added to the discussion they do however turn > ID vs. Evolution into something which merits serious consideration. > That is not equivalent to saying that such speculations should be taught in high school biology classes or presented as being on equal footing with well-established theory. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 04:38:25 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:38:25 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet Message-ID: <7a5e56060512082038t18b8371cga4479079003950fb@mail.gmail.com> >I talked about a network of causation of brain states, but did not require spatial extensions, forces, motions, or objects. The way I interpret what you meant by 'causation of brain states' is that you meant the physical actions of the components making up the brain. These are neurons, neurotransmitters, electrochemical signals etc right? And these things ultimately decompose to objects with spatial extensions, forces and motions i.e. when precisely describing brain actions using the laws of physics you ultimately end up with things located in space and the motions and forces associated with these things no? >Numbers, and most math objects, are patterns, i.e., abstractions. Things that sit in our networks of causation have many things in common, and we can describe those common features with patterns. The patterns themselves, as opposed to their instances, do not as far as we know separately sit in our network of causation, though brain states that describe and think about those patterns do. As you admit: 'The patterns *themselves*, as opposed to their instances, do not as far as we know separately sit in our network of causation'. So the question arises, where do these *patterns* exist? If you agree that the *patterns* are real and that they do not in fact directly sit in the network causation, then you've conceded that there can exist real entities which are not directly sitting in the network of physical causation. Qualia could be just such entities. -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day" Please visit my website: http://www.riemannai.org/ Science, Sci-Fi, Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 9 04:40:56 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:40:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:35 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: > >>> But what is your objection to examining astrology as an >>> explanation for >>> human personality? >> >> None, technically. My use of language here is evolving. Astrology >> should >> be rejected as science because it doesn't explain or predict >> anything. > > Astrology *doesn't predict anything*??? It doesn't *successfully* predict anything beyond what can be predicted without it. - s From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 05:21:51 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:21:51 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet Message-ID: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> gts wrote>>> >Yes, and as you've argued, if qualia are objectively real then they must be real in a platonic sense, like numbers. Exactly so! >I found this definition of dual-aspect monism: "Neutral Monism. Also known as dual aspect monism. Espoused by Lewes in the 19th century. The argument runs that there is only one kind of stuff. Mind and body differ only in the arrangement of the stuff or in the perspective from which it is apprehended." You should read up on Neutral monism, because it's an incredibly subtle and interesting philosophical theory. It traces back to Baruch Spinoza and in the 20th century it was espoused by heavy weight Bertrand Russell. A modern 'heavy weight' supporter is philosopher David Chalmers. Here's the entry on it from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy: "Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysic. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ The idea that there's only one sustance underlying everything, but it is neither physical or mental in nature. Instead this substance can manifest itself in multiple forms i.e. properties. See what David Chalmers has to say about this option in the context of a possible solution the mind-body problem. Check out his 'Type-F Monism' in this paper: http://consc.net/papers/nature.html >This is exactly what I meant when I wrote (to Dirk I think) that the difference between materialism and pan-psychism seems only to be a matter of perspective. Kind of. But not quite. If it really were the case that a description of reality purely in terms of direct experience were logically equivalent to a description of reality in terms of material objects, then it wouldn't really make sense to say that there two seperate perspectives at all. The theory would reduce to what is known as 'Identity Theory' (or Reductive physicalism). Better to say that there's one more than one valid perspective of reality and the two perspectives over-lap to a large degree but are not totally equivalent. The nature of the realtionship between the different perspectives is an open question. >I don't (yet) understand what you mean by "seven-fold-aspect monism" but it looks like we've arrived at more or less the same conclusion. See the definition of Neutral monism above: There's one substance which can take on the appearance of multiple properties. 'Seven-fold-aspect monism' simply means I that think this substance appears as 7-different fundamental properties (i.e there are 7-different fundamental perpsectives of reality which one can take). >This leads me also to think of objectivist epistemology. Have you compared your ideas to David Kelly's? Objectivism is a totally crack-pot philosophy. I passed through an Objectivist phase (lasting a year or so) but then realized that Rand was just spewing ideological rants. Everything she said has been argued far better by other philosophers and most of her ideas are just plain flat wrong anyway. It's not worth wasting time on Kelly's ideas. >Marc has not answered my question but I after thinking about his ideas and combining them with my own I think I can offer an answer. >In platonic terms, we understand each other when we speak about mathematics because we are accessing the same objective information. You see the same 5 that I see because there is only one 5 "out there". Five is not merely an abstract pattern common to groups things of which there are five (as Aristotle might say). Five exists in its own right, separate from and and prior to any instances of five-ness in the world (as Plato would say). I subscribe to a weaker form of Platonism than that. I agree that mathematical entities are objectively real. For instance I agree that '5' exists in its own right. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's 'seperate from and prior to any instances of five-ness in the world'. I would say that the existence of the entity '5' requires instances of fiveness in the world but is not *reducible* to these instances. That is to say, I think the existence of the entity '5' is *built out of* concetre instances of fiveness but also has a reality above and beyond these concrete instances. i.e I think the entity '5' has a material aspect *and* a non-material aspect. This is a subtle kind of platonism. >If qualia exist in a platonic sense then there may be only one true "green." The green quale may exist objectively, like the number 5, and be a real primary quality of green objects rather than a Lockean secondary quality. If so then we all see green the same way, at least in principle, because we are accessing the same information. >Are we in agreement here, Marc? I half agree ;) I wouldn't say that a 'green quale' is real primary quality of green objects. Instead I'd say that it's a real property of a *possible relationship* or *possible interaction* between green objects and conscious observers. The existence of the quale requires both (a) Physical Objects and (b) Conscious observers. But yes, I agree that quale has objective existence and could in principle be fully communicated to others. Of course there will be many different kinds of 'Green Quale', expressing many different possible relationships between green objects and conscious observers. -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day" Please visit my website: http://www.riemannai.org/ Science, Sci-Fi, Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 07:38:55 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:38:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/8/05, Derek Zahn wrote: > > My primary interest has always been AI (I was a PhD student in AI back > then), and I recently was woken up from a temporary slumber when I read > about the specs of the upcoming PS3 gaming machine -- in terms of raw flops, > the standard projections for processing power (if not storage or bandwidth) > got a kick in the butt by the gaming industry the last few years, and it > might almost be time to start paying attention again to AI again. Hello Derek! I'm actually a PhD student right now doing AI-ish things. Would you mind elaborating on what you worked on, and your thoughts on future directions? -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 9 11:14:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:14:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051209111449.GV2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:38:55PM -0800, Neil H. wrote: > On 12/8/05, Derek Zahn wrote: > > > > My primary interest has always been AI (I was a PhD student in AI back > > then), and I recently was woken up from a temporary slumber when I read > > about the specs of the upcoming PS3 gaming machine -- in terms of raw flops, The flops are not that hot, but the SPEs can do very well with in-register SIMD on integers. Think of a register as a modest-sized small-integer array. And SPEs have oodles of registers. > > the standard projections for processing power (if not storage or bandwidth) > > got a kick in the butt by the gaming industry the last few years, and it > > might almost be time to start paying attention again to AI again. I'm glad other folks have noticed The Cell. I would like to point out that a Cell simulator is available from IBM, if you run a modestly beefy Fedora Core 4 (x86 or x86_64 are both supported). Performance is awful, of course, but you can start coding and debugging now. A primitive spiking neuron model (e.g. Amygdala) is likely to do a couple of 10^6 realtime neurons peak on a single Cell. The memory streams at 25 GByte/s max, so considerable cleverness in structure compactness, layout, and access patterns (this is not a cache, but you will have to fill up 8x256 MByte, so there will be strides) will be required. PS3 has been promised a Linux kit, and might come with 1-3 GBit Ethernet ports each, so vanilla MPI can give you a modest supercomputer on a single shelf (but make sure there's enough airflow). So what are you going to do with it? > > Hello Derek! > > I'm actually a PhD student right now doing AI-ish things. Would you mind > elaborating on what you worked on, and your thoughts on future directions? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 11:59:47 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/8/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > That is not equivalent to saying that such speculations should be taught > in high school biology classes or presented as being on equal footing with > well-established theory. > Hmmm... Evolution is in my mind pretty well tested. I can easily setup experiments to vary the rate of evolution (changing background radiation levels, chemical exposure, etc.) and demonstrate the change of characteristics in microorganisms. I can then track it back to what changed in the genome and tie it to specific genes and then research the structure of the proteins those genes produce and determine the chemistry and physics involved in the alteration of the properties of those proteins. The recent completetion of the dog genome and the many "strains" of dogs gives us clear evidence of how "directed evolution" can change the characteristics of macroscale organisms and allows us to tie those changes back to specific changes in the genetic program which constructs those organisms. So I would tend to put evolution in the "demonstrable" class but I'm not sure how I would go about "falsifying" it. Astrophysics is even worse -- how does one go about "falsifying" theories such as nucleosynthesis (e.g. the s-process and the r-process) in "evolving" the elements? And I'd like to see someone "test" the big bang (i.e. the 'first 3 minutes'). The center argument of ID is that what we see around us is "too complex" to have evolved and therefore must have developed through other processes. Now, IMO the complexity of organisms *is* something that reasonably belongs in a biology class (all the way from the minimal complexity for self-replicating organisms [which is required for evolution ] to the maximal complexity [esp. since it looks like many plants may have larger and potentially more complex genomes (more genes) than many animals]). However serious analysis of complexity tends to fall into either math or computer science classes. It ends up relating to everything from unsolved math problems to whether problems are NP-complete to what are the limits to intelligence. Now, *if*, the ID people are sticking to the 'science' (which is what I believe the Discovery Institute is trying to do) then it is certainly reasonable to make note of the fact that we live in a complex world and ask the question of "How much 'intelligence' is required to design (and build) one?" If the people on the list are immediately lumping together 'creationists' with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs" (from the Discovery Institute home page) then I think motivations for spreading FUD need to be examined. I would also note as an aside that the stated activities of the Discovery Institute would seem to be something the Extropy Instutute could support and it sounds like it involves many of the discussions which take place on the Extropy Chat List. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 12:34:54 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:34:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051119002333.01d4f528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > If the people on the list are immediately lumping together 'creationists' > with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank > conducting research on technology, science and culture, economicsand > foreign affairs" (from the Discovery Institute home page) then Ithink > motivations for spreading FUD need to be examined. I would alsonote as > an aside that the stated activities of the Discovery Institutewould > seem to be something the Extropy Instutute could support andit sounds > like it involves many of the discussions which take placeon the Extropy > Chat List. The Discovery Institute is and always has been an adversary of those who want to keep religion out of the science classroom. It was the Discovery Institute that came up with the "wedge strategy". According to this doctrine (and you can be sure they are fond of their doctrines) they should seek to "wedge" Intelligent Design into the science classroom by arguing that science educators have some kind of ethical obligation to "teach the controversy". Problem is, among most biologists there is no real controversy. Most biologists and other scientists consider ID to be pseudo-science or religion. So the Discovery Institute and other supporters of ID keeping stirring the pot as much as possible, in the media and with their conservative church affiliates and political representatives, apparently to create the *illusion* of real scientific controversy. A valid scientific theory worthy of being taught to impressionable young minds goes through many years if not several decades of rigorous testing and peer-review before it makes into science textbooks. These people are trying to bypass that process. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 12:43:59 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:43:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512082038t18b8371cga4479079003950fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082038t18b8371cga4479079003950fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/9/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > >I talked about a network of causation of brain states, but did not > require spatial extensions, forces, motions, or objects. > > The way I interpret what you meant by 'causation of brain states' is that > you meant the physical actions of the components making up the brain. These > are neurons, neurotransmitters, electrochemical signals etc right? And > these things ultimately decompose to objects with spatial extensions, forces > and motions i.e. when precisely describing brain actions using the laws of > physics you ultimately end up with things located in space and the motions > and forces associated with these things no? > > > > >Numbers, and most math objects, are patterns, i.e., abstractions. Things > that > sit in our networks of causation have many things in common, and we > can describe those common features with patterns. The patterns > themselves, as opposed to their instances, do not as far as we know > separately sit in our network of causation, though brain states that > describe and think about those patterns do. > > As you admit: 'The patterns *themselves*, as opposed to their instances, > do not as far as we know separately sit in our network of causation'. So > the question arises, where do these *patterns* exist? If you agree that the > *patterns* are real and that they do not in fact directly sit in the network > causation, then you've conceded that there can exist real entities which are > not directly sitting in the network of physical causation. Qualia could be > just such entities. > Maybe we will have to wait until physics is recast into an information theory. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 13:21:18 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:21:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:21:51 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > You should read up on Neutral monism, because it's an incredibly subtle > and interesting philosophical theory. It traces back to Baruch > Spinoza... > and in the 20th century it was espoused by heavy weight Bertrand > Russell. A modern 'heavy weight' supporter is philosopher David > Chalmers. Thanks, I will, and thanks also for the links. Actually I'm already familiar with Spinoza and just recently read Chalmer's _The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory_. I suppose my ideas here and our near agreement didn't come completely out of a vacuum, though I didn't know Russell attacked the problem. I can't personally think of a more difficult problem, which is exactly why it appeals to me. We haven't discussed Penrose here, but for whatever it's worth I have rejected his theory without a full reading of his book. The bit about microtubules and so forth strikes me as way too convoluted. I would expect the truth of something so basic to be more elegant. "Quantum gravity, or something similar, via microtubules, must play a key role in consciousness and cognition." Bleh. -gts From amara at amara.com Fri Dec 9 13:29:03 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:29:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > If the people on the list are immediately lumping together 'creationists' > with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank > conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and > foreign affairs" (from the Discovery Institute home page) then Ithink > motivations for spreading FUD need to be examined. Yipes! No. The Discovery Institute is a poor example of 'non partisan' public policy (I would say the opposite). http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/16/the-kansas-school-board-is-right/ http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/ http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/22/a-brief-history-of-disbelief/ http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/10/28/kansas-feels-the-heat/ Amara From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 9 15:23:17 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:23:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Colloquium On The Law of Transhuman Persons Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051209092153.02f75dd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Robert A. Daye, Jr, 321-676-3690, robert at terasemweb.org INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MARKED BY COLLOQUIUM ON THE LAW OF TRANSHUMAN PERSONS Public Access Welcome Via Conference Call Line 8:30AM to 5:30PM EDT, Saturday December 10th, 2005December 8, 2005, Space Coast, Florida -- The Terasem Movement announced today that it will sponsor a toll-free conference call dial-in line for public participation in the 1st Colloquium on the Law of Transhuman Persons, to be held December 10, 2005. The pioneering meeting of legal and artificial intelligence experts is being held in Space Coast, Florida in honor of International Human Rights Day. "We encourage interested people to call in to listen or ask questions," said Bina Aspen, Project Director. "All of the expert presentations will be audiocast over the conference call line, and after each one, we will open the phone lines for questions." To participate in the Colloquium, phone 1-800-500-0311 (U.S. callers) or 1-719-457-2698 (international callers). To view the program for the Colloquium, visit http://www.transhumanlaw.org/program.htm. The Terasem Movement defines "transhumans" as conscious entities who have or who aspire to have human rights, regardless of being of flesh, electronics or a bioelectronic combination. The legal status of transhumans is believed to be an impending fundamental issue for society. About the Terasem Movement The Terasem Movement, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charity endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness. The Terasem Movement accomplishes its objectives by convening publicly accessible symposia, publishing explanatory analyses, conducting demonstration projects, issuing grants and encouraging public belief in a positive technologically-based future. For more information, please visit http://terasemfoundation.org. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DerekZahn at msn.com Fri Dec 9 16:17:23 2005 From: DerekZahn at msn.com (Derek Zahn) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:17:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Neil! The field has very likely moved beyond my research topic by this point (I haven't been following it for 10 years or so). The concept was to experiment with evolvable languages for expressing structure (for example, the structure of neural networks or other parallel processing networks with semi-uniform architectures), in particular where the structures unfold from a "developmental" process. The hope was that atomic operations on representations of developmental processes would have the ability to cause both coarse and fine alterations in structure and thus function and with an appropriate representation would thus be fruitful for either automatic "genetic algorithm" style exporation of the space of possible structures, or for direct "intelligent design" by a person. I spent a lot of time working on formal concepts of evolvability that didn't produce any breakthroughs; I spent a lot of time working on potential "substrates" (the network components being assembled by developmental processes), that didn't lead to anything particularly revolutionary; I spent a lot of time playing with simple ideas about these languages; that led to some toy-level results that would have probably been enough for me to continue with the research, but I was discouraged because to me the research was basically a failure, so I gave up and went to work in non-AI industry. I don't have any particular thoughts on future directions, but I think the time is getting riper and riper for some actual progress to be made; along with increased processing power I expect to see interesting work come to light, which is why I'm starting to get interested in following the field and maybe dabbling a bit as an outsider hobbyist. I think that within 5 years or so it should be possible for any AI researcher to have access to mouse-level processing power (roughly a milli-human), which might be enough to produce some interesting results. I think it's really hard to do much useful work on AI with sticks and rocks and Cray XMPs and other inadequate tools. Good luck with your research! What are you working on? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DerekZahn at msn.com Fri Dec 9 16:39:23 2005 From: DerekZahn at msn.com (Derek Zahn) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:39:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: <20051209111449.GV2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen Leitl wrote: > The flops are not that hot, but the SPEs can do very well with in-register SIMD on integers. ? I am under the impression that the SPEs have very nice floating point units; the cell processor has a theoretical rating of over 200 single precision GFLOPS. Of course, that's absolute best case, but it's amazing to me nonetheless. Additionally, the PS3 GPU should be able to do another couple hundred GFLOPS in the pixel shaders (also best case, etc etc). > PS3 has been promised a Linux kit, and might come with 1-3 GBit Ethernet ports each, > so vanilla MPI can give you a modest supercomputer on a single shelf Yup, that's my hope. I am a bit skeptical that Sony is going to be eager to sell linux boxes at a loss so I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I don't really want to spend time playing with a simulator. If that doesn't work out, the gaming industry has produced similar astonishing computation densities in the GPUs of PC-based graphics cards. The Cell looks really cool though and I'd rather use that. Other non-PS3 Cell systems (like blade servers) might be barely within the budget of a serious hobbyist. I'm content to wait a while and see what happens. > So what are you going to do with it? Play. Dabble. Muse. Those outrageous GFLOP numbers would never translate to LINPACK results primarily because of bandwidth constraints but I'm curious about whether AI "substrates" could be designed specifically to make best use of these architectures, perhaps modeled roughly on the cortex. I think it will be fun to look at. In the meantime I'll probably spend the next year or so building a legged robot with video cameras and touch sensors and so on; I have built a number of "robots" before, with up to 25 degrees of freedom, so it won't be too difficult and this will give some focus for specific things to do with the CPUs. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 9 17:36:14 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:36:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051209113250.03448ed8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:21 AM 12/9/2005 -0500, gts wrote: >The bit about >microtubules and so forth strikes me as way too convoluted. I would expect >the truth of something so basic to be more elegant. > >"Quantum gravity, or something similar, via microtubules, must play a key >role in consciousness and cognition." > >Bleh. Basic? Insufficiently elegant? How do you feel about vision? Digestion? Far too basic to be complicated by all those rods and cones and preprocessors and enzymes and gut-roiling and all? Bleh? Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 9 17:49:41 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:49:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: <20051209111449.GV2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051209174941.GO2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0700, Derek Zahn wrote: > ? I am under the impression that the SPEs have very nice floating point > units; the cell processor has a theoretical rating of over 200 single > precision GFLOPS. Of course, that's absolute best case, but it's The float performance is very good indeed -- but floats are overkill for AI requirements. Both the number of bits (state) and the dynamic range especially. Biology works with few bits resolution quite successfully. Short integers are both more compact (less memory bandwidth) and can profit from SIMD-in-register parallelism. > amazing to me nonetheless. Additionally, the PS3 GPU should be able to > do another couple hundred GFLOPS in the pixel shaders (also best case, > etc etc). Yes, and GPUs have very good memory bandwidths in the bargain (XBox360 has 250 GBytes/s bandwidth, albeit only a small amount of it). GDDR4 trends towards similiar bandwidths, however. Despite vortex shader languages they're not nearly as comfortably to program as with all-purpose CPUs. > Yup, that's my hope. I am a bit skeptical that Sony is going to be > eager to sell linux boxes at a loss so I'll believe it when I see it. The first two years will be lossy, and the last time they shipped a PS2 Linux kit with a hard drive and NIC which pushed it well into profit range. Number crunch is a tiny niche, so it might not cut into sales that much even if they ship the kit soonish. > Until then I don't really want to spend time playing with a simulator. > If that doesn't work out, the gaming industry has produced similar > astonishing computation densities in the GPUs of PC-based graphics > cards. The Cell looks really cool though and I'd rather use that. Yes, it is rather interesting. > Other non-PS3 Cell systems (like blade servers) might be barely within > the budget of a serious hobbyist. I'm content to wait a while and see > what happens. Ditto here. I'm sticking with AMD64 for time being. > > So what are you going to do with it? > > Play. Dabble. Muse. Those outrageous GFLOP numbers would never > translate to LINPACK results primarily because of bandwidth constraints > but I'm curious about whether AI "substrates" could be designed > specifically to make best use of these architectures, perhaps modeled > roughly on the cortex. I think it will be fun to look at. It is possible to build a 3d array of mostly-local-connectivity neurons which would be well-behaved in terms of the memory access pattern. Cubes of those could exchange adjacent layers via MPI, and map well to GBit Ethernet connectivity. Relatively addressed spikes (offset in the array and a time stamp when issued) can be stacked tightly in a packet. What's missing is a good morphogenetic code and a selection process to mutate a few 100 neuron classes with interesting properties. > In the meantime I'll probably spend the next year or so building a > legged robot with video cameras and touch sensors and so on; I have > built a number of "robots" before, with up to 25 degrees of freedom, so > it won't be too difficult and this will give some focus for specific > things to do with the CPUs. Good luck, sounds like an exciting project. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Dec 9 18:23:19 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512082038t18b8371cga4479079003950fb@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7a5e56060512082038t18b8371cga4479079003950fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051209131125.023b8c50@gmu.edu> At 11:38 PM 12/8/2005, Marc Geddes wrote: >>>Of course it's trivially true that all metaphysical entities have >>>to be related to causal processes *in some sense* (in order to >>>produce observable effects). But this by itself establishes >>>little. It doesn't follow that all metaphysical entities are >>>fully reducible to descriptions in terms of *physical* causality >>>at all - where I am here defining physical causality as: 'cause >>>and effect relations between objects with spatial extensions and >>>the forces and motions associated with these objects'. >> >>I talked about a network of causation of brain states, but did not >>require spatial extensions, forces, motions, or objects. > >The way I interpret what you meant by 'causation of brain states' is >that you meant the physical actions of the components making up the >brain. These are neurons, neurotransmitters, electrochemical >signals etc right? And these things ultimately decompose to objects >with spatial extensions, forces and motions i.e. when precisely >describing brain actions using the laws of physics you ultimately >end up with things located in space and the motions and forces >associated with these things no? How much more direct can I be? No, did not mean to talk only about "physical" or "spatial" things. No, no, no. >As you admit: 'The patterns *themselves*, as opposed to their >instances, do not as far as we know separately sit in our network of >causation'. So the question arises, where do these *patterns* >exist? If you agree that the *patterns* are real and that they do >not in fact directly sit in the network causation, then you've >conceded that there can exist real entities which are not directly >sitting in the network of physical causation. Qualia could be just >such entities. I'm not sure what exactly it means for something to "exist" that does not sit in our network of causation. My claims were not intended to be much about "existence." Instead, my main claim is that we can never get any evidence about such things, whether they exist or not. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From scerir at libero.it Fri Dec 9 18:57:31 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:57:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901c5fcf2$699b2e70$71bf1b97@administxl09yj> gts: > The bit about microtubules and so forth > strikes me as way too convoluted. > I would expect the truth of something so basic > to be more elegant. Damien: > Basic? Insufficiently elegant? > How do you feel about vision? This reminds me of a couple of papers by Giancarlo Ghirardi. He (and Zeilinger, and De Martini) developed experiments to test how quantum superpositions are resolved, or 'collapsed', in the vision process. There is just one paper on line: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810028 Btw, Ghirardi also wrote 'Sneaking a look at God's cards" (Princeton U.P., 2004). s. 'The Misanthropic Principle. Our universe is precision-tuned for an irritating humanity.' (-gk) From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 19:14:41 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:14:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051209113250.03448ed8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051209113250.03448ed8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:36:14 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Basic? Insufficiently elegant? How do you feel about vision? Digestion? I think understanding consciousness is to understanding cognition like understanding osmosis is to understanding digestion. or I think understanding consciousness is to understanding cognition like understanding e=mc^2 is to understanding the blueprint of nuclear weapon. Although human cognition and psychology are complex subjects, I think something relatively simple happened along the path of human evolution that enabled with us with consciousness (or what I prefer to describe as awareness of our awareness, or self-consciousness). It was a "discovery" of evolution, a pivotal event something like and probably concurrent with the discovery of tools or symbols. Probably the first symbols were "self" and "not-self". This is not to say I think it happened without some transitional period, during which humans were only dimly aware of themselves at some pre-verbal level. I don't imagine Fred Flinstone's car with a "My Mother Was A Mindless Zombie" bumper-sticker. > Far too basic to be complicated by all those rods and cones and > preprocessors and enzymes and gut-roiling and all? Bleh? Those are just the details. :) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 19:37:12 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:37:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <000901c5fcf2$699b2e70$71bf1b97@administxl09yj> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <000901c5fcf2$699b2e70$71bf1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:57:31 -0500, scerir wrote: > This reminds me of a couple of papers > by Giancarlo Ghirardi. > He (and Zeilinger, and De Martini) > developed experiments to test how > quantum superpositions are resolved, > or 'collapsed', in the vision process. I could entertain the idea that awareness, (but not what I mean by consciousness), happens whenever quantum superpositions are resolved, and that this happens constantly throughout nature. Shroedinger's cat experiences the qualia associated with dying (or with staying alive as the case may be) before we open the box. This awareness requires no advanced feline nervous system. Shroedinger's gnat would work the same way. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 21:53:55 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:53:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:21:51 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > If qualia exist in a platonic sense then there may be only one true > "green." The green quale may exist objectively, like the number 5, and be > a real primary quality of green objects rather than a Lockean secondary > quality. If so then we all see green the same way, at least in principle, > because we are accessing the same information. > >> Are we in agreement here, Marc? > > I half agree ;) I wouldn't say that a 'green quale' is real primary > quality of green objects. Instead I'd say that it's a real property of > a *possible relationship* or *possible interaction* between green > objects and conscious observers. This seems equivalent to Locke's definition of secondary qualities as the powers of objects to act on our senses, the only difference being in the fact that Locke uses the somewhat nebulous word "power" and assigns the power to the object rather than to the interaction. He does so rightly, I think, because neither the observer nor the interaction has power for example to make a blue object appear red. Only a change in the object (or some artificial interference in our sense apparatus) can change our perception of its qualities. You like me want to grant these secondary qualities some objective platonic reality. I really do think we've got the same idea here. Locke defines primary qualities of objects: "First, the size, shape, number, position, and motion or rest of their solid parts; those are in them, whether or not we perceive them" Types of "Shape" and "Number" are classic platonic ideas, and Locke writes that these properties are in objects, whether or not we perceive them. If qualia truly have objective reality as you and I want to say then I think we have to admit they too are qualities of the object whether or not we perceive them. What else could we mean by objective? We might say the qualities have their origin in the platonic realm of ideas, and can be seen only when we perceive the object, but they are nevertheless objective properties of the object. > But yes, I agree that quale has objective existence and could in > principle be fully communicated to others. Perhaps no more complicated than pointing at a color chart and saying "Here, this is the color I have in mind." My television looks to me like an effing machine. Not perfect, but it's next best thing to being there. :) -gts From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 9 21:57:54 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:57:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] When is a cell phone more than just a communication device/camera/mp3 player/pda? Message-ID: <03a201c5fd0b$9bf01fc0$0100a8c0@kevin> When it is also a breast cancer and heart disease detection device..... http://www.physorg.com/news8915.html Cool stuff! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 10 07:06:54 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:06:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo buys del.icio.us Message-ID: <470a3c520512092306y3bc40de0if1ff4680799fbbb0@mail.gmail.com> As a del.icio.us user (id pgptag ) I have found very interesting today's news of the acquisition of del.icio.us by Yahoo. I am happy to see that a good idea and a lot of hard work to make it happen has been rewarded, and I am sure Yahoo has enough resources to keep del.icio.us alive, improve it, and scale it to support many more users. At the same time, I am worried to see an independent and innovative provider swallowed by one of the Big Three. Wired News: "In its latest acquisition of a social networking service, internet powerhouse Yahoo on Friday chomped down on del.icio.us, a startup that enables people to more easily compile and share their favorite content on the web". See also the del.icio.us blog entrywith many comments from users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tc at mindloss.com Sat Dec 10 11:05:54 2005 From: tc at mindloss.com (TC) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:05:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil and aging Message-ID: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> I've been working my way through The Singularity is Near, and ran into what struck me as a pretty bizarre claim. An excerpt from p. 211: "When I was forty, my biological age was around thirty-eight. Although I am now fifty-six, a comprehensive test of my biological aging (measuring various sensory sensitivities, lung capacity, reaction times, memory, and related tests) conducted at Grossman's longevity clinic measured my biological age at forty. Although there is not yet a consensus on how to measure biological age, my scores on these tests matched population norms for this age. So, according to this set of tests, I have not aged very much in the last sixteen years, which is confirmed by the many blood tests I take, as well as the way I feel." What? Taking that at face value would imply he'd live to a good 350 or so, and I have a hard time believing that's what he's saying here. And if not, what relevance at all does that "biological age" hold? Anyone have a clarification? -tc From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 10 11:31:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:31:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil and aging In-Reply-To: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> References: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051210113122.GH2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:05:54AM -0500, TC wrote: > "When I was forty, my biological age was around thirty-eight. Although I am > now fifty-six, a comprehensive test of my biological aging (measuring > various sensory sensitivities, lung capacity, reaction times, memory, and > related tests) conducted at Grossman's longevity clinic measured my > biological age at forty. Although there is not yet a consensus on how to > measure biological age, my scores on these tests matched population norms > for this age. So, according to this set of tests, I have not aged very much > in the last sixteen years, which is confirmed by the many blood tests I > take, as well as the way I feel." > > What? Taking that at face value would imply he'd live to a good 350 or so, He doesn't claim that. He claims that he hasn't aged, according to a set of metrics, in the last sixteen years. There's no value statement about how much these metrics are worth, nor what's going to happen when he's approaching centenarian country. > and I have a hard time believing that's what he's saying here. And if not, > what relevance at all does that "biological age" hold? Anyone have a > clarification? To clear your confusion, head straight to http://www.grg.org/ -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Dec 10 13:13:30 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:13:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil and aging In-Reply-To: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> References: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: It is also true that the more fundamental test(s) are not being done. They aren't measuring overall rates of DNA mutation in the nuclei or mitochondria of long-lived somatic cells (brain, heart and many other tissues and organs). Nor are they measuring overall mitochondrial efficiency (which has recently been demonstrated to decline significantly with age). The markers Ray is discussing are at best secondary indicators of biological age. I haven't gotten to that part of TSIN yet -- but I suspect that Ray may totally avoid whether or not aging has the same characteristics of the exponential growth curves he discusses in so many other areas. Ray may still be in the relatively "flat" part of the aging acceleration curve while the people he is comparing himself with (the general population) may be in the more exponential part of the curve. One should remember that I believe Ray is treating diabetes (or tendencies towards diabetes) in a very aggressive fashion if he is following the lifestyle suggested in the books he has published. If he is keeping his blood glucose levels relatively low then he is keeping his insulin levels relatively constant which is going to minimize the energy resources (and as a secondary effect the free radical production) in most of the tissues in the body. Many pieces of experimental evidence are now pointing at this approach as being a form of pseudo- caloric restriction. If that is accurate one would expect him to be aging more slowly than the average population. But it doesn't extend into 350 year lifespan projections *unless* you have the means to either (a) replace all of the damage which is accumulating in the DNA in the cells of somatic organs; (b) replace the organs entirely; or (c) "patch" the organs with stem cell supplements. And (c) is an "iffy" proposition as there is cell loss in the brain and replacement stem cells are not going to be able to recover the stored knowledge/thought patterns which are lost when cells die very easily. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Sat Dec 10 15:19:42 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:19:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell andnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: <200512090433.jB94Xte31266@tick.javien.com> References: <200512090433.jB94Xte31266@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Humans haven't been biologically adapted to vegetarianism for two million years, since homo habilis and homo erectus. Our body is unable to produce several vitamins in adequate usable quantities, most importantly B-12 and D, which must come from animal foods or from supplementation. I found http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml#top to be an informative read. I will grant that most Americans do eat more meat than is necessary to maintain their health, and the fat profile of factory-farmed meat is quite unhealthy, with far too much saturated fat. I personally try to eat free-range meat and shellfish in preference to factory-farmed meat. I'm not sure how the energy balance comes out between more factory-farmed meat and less free-range meat. Acy On 12/8/05, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ... > > Ah, I see. We supposedly have enough food if everyone is vegetarian but not > otherwise... > > - samantha > > > > That notion is having ever greater appeal to me. I was > a vegetarian for several years as a teenager and early > 20s. Im seriously considering going back to it. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Dec 10 15:58:08 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:58:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cell andnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (12/10/05 9:19) Acy Stapp wrote: >Humans haven't been biologically adapted to vegetarianism for two >million years, since homo habilis and homo erectus. Our body is unable >to produce several vitamins in adequate usable quantities, most >importantly B-12 and D, which must come from animal foods or from >supplementation. Interestingly, most vegetarians of my acquaintance no longer make the biological argument for vegetarianism anymore. I remember that argument was the 'big thing' when I was in college. >I will grant that most Americans do eat more meat than is necessary to >maintain their health, and the fat profile of factory-farmed meat is >quite unhealthy, with far too much saturated fat. I personally try to >eat free-range meat and shellfish in preference to factory-farmed >meat. I'm not sure how the energy balance comes out between more >factory-farmed meat and less free-range meat. > I don't know about the energy balance either, but more than just the fat profile, I find free range and organically raised meat (and especially eggs) to be far tastier as well. With the eggs, I've discovered that the difference is simply visible - when I crack a factory farm raised egg and a free range egg into a bowl, the white of the free range egg is thick enough to support the weight of the yolk. In the factory farm egg, the yolk not only sinks to the bottom, but also lacks the rich yellow color of the free range egg. Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that factory farming produces more calories per hectare of land use than free range farming (correct me if I'm wrong). The opportunity for companies that I see is to find out ways to engineer supplements and genetic therapies that allow the quality of meat and eggs raised in factory farms to be improved. This way, we might be able to have our cake (meat cake?) and eat it too. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From megao at sasktel.net Sat Dec 10 16:36:00 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:36:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Kurzweil and aging In-Reply-To: References: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <439B03F0.7090508@sasktel.net> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It is also true that the more fundamental test(s) are not being done. > They aren't measuring overall rates of DNA mutation in the nuclei or > mitochondria of long-lived somatic cells (brain, heart and many other > tissues and organs). Nor are they measuring overall mitochondrial > efficiency (which has recently been demonstrated to decline > significantly with age). > > The markers Ray is discussing are at best secondary indicators of > biological age. I haven't gotten to that part of TSIN yet -- but I > suspect that Ray may totally avoid whether or not aging has the same > characteristics of the exponential growth curves he discusses in so > many other areas. Ray may still be in the relatively "flat" part of > the aging acceleration curve while the people he is comparing himself > with (the general population) may be in the more exponential part of > the curve. > > One should remember that I believe Ray is treating diabetes (or > tendencies towards diabetes) in a very aggressive fashion if he is > following the lifestyle suggested in the books he has published. If > he is keeping his blood glucose levels relatively low then he is > keeping his insulin levels relatively constant which is going to > minimize the energy resources (and as a secondary effect the free > radical production) in most of the tissues in the body. Many pieces > of experimental evidence are now pointing at this approach as being a > form of pseudo- caloric restriction. If that is accurate one would > expect him to be aging more slowly than the average population. But > it doesn't extend into 350 year lifespan projections *unless* you have > the means to either (a) replace all of the damage which is > accumulating in the DNA in the cells of somatic organs; (b) replace > the organs entirely; or (c) "patch" the organs with stem cell > supplements. And (c) is an "iffy" proposition as there is cell loss > in the brain and replacement stem cells are not going to be able to > recover the stored knowledge/thought patterns which are lost when > cells die very easily. > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?TERM1=20050226942&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=0&f=S&l=50 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050226942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050226942&RS=DN/20050226942 United States Patent Application 20050226942 October 13, 2005 Compositions for alleviating inflammation and oxidative stress in a mammal "[0164] Aging [0165] Aging is a remarkably complex process that has managed to remain relatively opaque to scientific understanding. There is now evidence that aging is a series of processes, i.e., a series of controlled mechanisms, and not just the passive accumulation of wear and tear over the years. If aging is a series of processes, some of these processes are potentially controllable, or at least modifiable. One of the most important of these processes is comprised of an accumulation of the molecular injuries that are mediated by free radicals and other ROS. Recent studies indicate that the therapeutic manipulation of ROS metabolism can actually extend the total life span of mice to a significant degree. The maintenance/increase of antioxidant potential by administering the compositions of the present invention to a subject can, therefore, prevent or treat age-mediate injury." "[0107] In one aspect, the invention provides a method of increasing the antioxidant activity level of a mammalian subject in need thereof, by increasing the level of enzyme activity of at least one enzyme, e.g., superoxide dismutase; catalase; and glutathione peroxidase, by administering to the subject an effective amount of an antioxidant-promoting composition of the invention, wherein the increased enzyme activity decreases the tissue damage caused by pathological free radicals. In one embodiment, the tissue damage caused by pathological free radicals occurs in a mammalian subject with a disease or condition selected from the group which includes, e.g., inflammation; infection; atherosclerosis; hypertension; cancer; radiation injury; neurological disease; neurodegenerative disease; ischemia/reperfusion injury; aging; wound healing; glutathione deficiency; acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; sickle cell anemia; and diabetes mellitus. In one embodiment of the method, the antioxidant-promoting composition is administered as an oral dietary supplement. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 10 17:01:47 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:01:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512101659.jBAGxge04600@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy Stapp > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:20 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES > cellandnuclear transfer policies] > > Humans haven't been biologically adapted to vegetarianism for two > million years, since homo habilis and homo erectus. Ja, but we can live perfectly healthfully on no meat. We can synthesize vitamins. We will eventually use some of our farmland to grow energy crops as one of several solutions to our energy needs, with traditional oil, nuclear, wind, solar and coal also being in the mix. If a fraction of the humans decide vegetarianism works for them, that frees up land to be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel. We can compensate for energy crops by eating less meat. spike >...Our body is unable > to produce several vitamins in adequate usable quantities, most > importantly B-12 and D, which must come from animal foods or from > supplementation. > > http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml#top ... > Acy > From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 10 17:30:14 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:30:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: <200512101659.jBAGxge04600@tick.javien.com> References: <200512101659.jBAGxge04600@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051210173013.GM2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 09:01:47AM -0800, spike wrote: > Ja, but we can live perfectly healthfully on no meat. We > can synthesize vitamins. It is more difficult to achieve a balanced diet for hardcore vegans. Especially for toddlers -- it takes considerable attention to detail on part of the parents to avoid mental retardation, however minor. It works. It's just not natural for us, and takes more attention to detail. It is easier to screw up you (and especially your kids) on a vegan diet. It is more difficult with ovolactovegetarians, and if you add (but top-predator and aquaculture) fish you're reasonably healthier than your average carnivorous bear. > We will eventually use some of our farmland to grow > energy crops as one of several solutions to our energy Growing energy crops is a *terrible* nonsolution to our energy needs, as we have often discussed on this list, in quite recent past, actually. As to growing our calories in solar ponds -- a good idea, in theory. In practice, it is difficult to keep the bad cyanobacteria strains out, which produce toxins potent enough to kill a large cow (and frequently do). If you can keep the bad guys out, it might work. > needs, with traditional oil, nuclear, wind, solar and > coal also being in the mix. If a fraction of the humans Short-term, there's no doubt there's no way around an energy mix. But long-term, we're in a glut of energy, and our (local) limit is how much you can radiate through the atmosphere without elevating temperatures overmuch (extraterrestrial solar). Already mid-term (less than 50 linear years) we can expect solar to dominate the energetic landscape. > decide vegetarianism works for them, that frees up land > to be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel. We can Hopefully, in a few decades nobody with bother with ethanol and biodiesel. (Okay, maybe not ethanol, I'm rather attached to my Laphroaig). > compensate for energy crops by eating less meat. It's never going to work. It either has to become terribly expensive, or terribly unsafe. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 10 18:32:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:32:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnucleartransfer policies] In-Reply-To: <20051210173013.GM2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200512101830.jBAIUpe12345@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > Growing energy crops is a *terrible* nonsolution to our energy > needs, as we have often discussed on this list, in quite > recent past, actually... It's a terrible nonsolution only if we assume current methods of producing ethanol, I agree. I have in mind a number of energy saving solutions that take advantage of microchips and software in small devices that would eliminate or greatly reduce the need to run a tractor around a field. Imagine a number of completely autonomous toaster sized devices that wander the fields 24/7, looking around at stems, deciding if it is a weed or otherwise. If weed, snip off at the base, if otherwise decide if the stalk has an ear ready for harvest, cut it off and place it in the middle of the row for a larger harvest- gathering machine to come along later. The device could carry a small reservoir of fertilizer to place right at the root of the desirable plants and nowhere else. The notion is to downsize farm equipment, since we enormous apes need not be part of the process. Of course something like that would be expensive, but imagine a market of a billion units. Anyone here who has ever been involved in production engineering salivates at the notion. We have world markets for sophisticated devices that can go into the billions, such as televisions, but there are so many different tastes. If we invented a device like I am describing, there is no need to have twenty or fifty different models. We could build a super-automated factory so advanced one need only dump beer cans in one end and get finished devices out the other. This calls on technology we don't currently have of course, but if we compare to those two Mars rovers, which are *still* wandering about on the red planet all these months, over four times the specified mission life, built by Lockeeed Martin, http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/06marsrovers/ then it looks like we could make autonomous farming devices in the near term future and set up a highly automated fab that could make them in staggering quantities. > ... But long-term, we're in a glut of energy, and our (local) > limit is how much you can radiate through the atmosphere without > elevating temperatures overmuch (extraterrestrial solar)... As we improve water handling, the planet becomes greener, which decreases albedo resulting in planetary warming. I can imagine a number of ways to compensate however, such as creating what amounts to a solar radiator blanketing areas that will be difficult to convert to agriculture, such as the Gobi and Sahara deserts. If we do this right, we can simultaneously extract solar energy and radiate heat into space. > Already mid-term (less than 50 linear years) we can expect solar to > dominate the energetic landscape... Actually I agree with that, however I can imagine that internal combustion will continue to be popular with a segment of the population for the foreseeable. Electric cars for the masses, super high performance IC engines much like today's cars for those who can afford to run them. > ... I'm rather attached to my Laphroaig... Laphroaig: world's favorite Islay malt liquor, term derived from Gaelic, meaning "the beautiful hollow by the broad bay." Islay: an island of western Scotland at the southern end of the Inner Hebrides. What did we do before Google? How did our species manage without it? Did we just go around with blank stares and question marks floating about our heads? spike > > > compensate for energy crops by eating less meat. > > It's never going to work. It either has to become terribly expensive, > or terribly unsafe. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 19:51:47 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:51:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512072332m6ea01b8bi7ce0571ecb2484f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <470a3c520512072332m6ea01b8bi7ce0571ecb2484f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:32:02 -0500, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Now suppose ID/SD is formulated like: "I believe there is sufficient > experimental evidence against Darwin?s hypothesis that random mutation > and selection processes are sufficient to explain today's biology, > therefore I think we should consider also other possible processes, > including purposeful design by intelligent entities", it becomes a > scientific statement. I accept, along Popperian lines, that science is not only about evolution but also an example of it. A theory has value not because it is true, but because it solves problems of survival. If this is so then one might ask in what way ID/SD can solve any problems of survival. ID amounts to the proposition "There are some things in biology that seem inexplicable. We don't understand how these things happen, therefore some intelligent alien or god must be responsible." How does that idea do anything to further science? Seems more like a return of the "God of the gaps": if we don't understand something, we can always cut science class and blame our ignorance on God, just as we did before The Enlightenment. The proponents of ID attempt to skirt the issue of separation of church and state by leaving open the possibility that some intelligent alien, not God, is the intelligent designer. They keep silent about the nature of the Intelligent Designer. But who are they really fooling? -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 10 20:58:36 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:58:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo buys del.icio.us In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512092306y3bc40de0if1ff4680799fbbb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512092306y3bc40de0if1ff4680799fbbb0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512101258j4b5654b4kf548101c9d1d3792@mail.gmail.com> On 12/9/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > As a del.icio.us user (id pgptag) I have found very interesting today's news > of the acquisition of del.icio.us by Yahoo. I am happy to see that a good > idea and a lot of hard work to make it happen has been rewarded, and I am > sure Yahoo has enough resources to keep del.icio.us alive, improve it, and > scale it to support many more users. At the same time, I am worried to see > an independent and innovative provider swallowed by one of the Big Three. > Wired News: "In its latest acquisition of a social networking service, > internet powerhouse Yahoo on Friday chomped down on del.icio.us, a startup > that enables people to more easily compile and share their favorite content > on the web". See also the del.icio.us blog entry with many comments from > users. As a currently satisfied user of del.icio.us, I am apprehensive about the prospects for it being corrupted with "voluntary" add-ons requiring the intrusive Yahoo toolbar or advertising. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 21:50:04 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:50:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051208155553.01d27ad0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208113709.01c8f760@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208140429.01e26ae0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208150324.01c8a378@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051208155553.01d27ad0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:13 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:40 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote: > >> One interesting question is what to do about an observed anomaly to a >> successful theory. Is the theory then automatically falsified? > > That's why I prefer Imre Lakatos to Popper: his model of "hard core" > postulates and their "protective belts" fits better with the way science > actually accommodates anomalies. Perhaps you can explain to me how Lakatos' answer is superior to Popper's. As I understand Popper, assuming accurate meaurements every observed anomaly falsifies *some* theory. The question is always "Which theory does this anomaly falsify?" In the case of a planet such as Uranus orbiting contrary to how science predicted, the relevant theories were Newton's theory of gravity and the theory that the solar system consisted of seven planets with no other unseen matter. Science proceeded correctly by falsifying the latter but not the former, because Newton's theory of gravity was a more universal and thus more valuable theory than the 7-planet theory. Neptune was theorized and later discovered. Einstein later falsified Newton for similar reasons. Forced to make a choice, we should always reject the least universal theory. -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 10 23:28:33 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:28:33 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnuclear transfer policies] References: Message-ID: <14ca01c5fde1$6fd2ebd0$8998e03c@homepc> Brent Neal wrote: > Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that factory farming > produces more calories per hectare of land use than free > range farming (correct me if I'm wrong). Your right, its almost axiomatic. I'm no expert but as it happens I've just finished a semester of biochemistry. Calories are energy released from the breaking of chemical bonds. Human metabolic enzymes break particular types of bonds found in proteins, fats, and carbohydrates from plants and animals. Of course we are going to be able to get more calories (i.e. energy, not nutrients) in forms suitable for digestion by contemporary humans if we specifically aim at concentrating them in one area (like a farm) than if we don't. (The financial expense of increasingly concentrating those consumable-to-humans calories is a separate issue - very, very intense farming - Robert's bio-gruel idea - is not necessarily going to be cheaper and so more cost effective than just intense farming). Per unit weight, fat contains more energy (calories) than protein or carbohydrates. That's almost fat's evolutionary metabolic purpose, to be a light weight energy store, that packs energy extremely densely into volume - volumes like camel's humps etc. This says nothing about taste or nutrition though. Humans can't live on fat alone. Apparently, the best diet for humans was the one we had running around as cro-magnon hunter gatherers. Contempory humans, with our modern understanding of nutrition and abundant supplies of cheap food (in the Western world anyway) have only recently returned to the height (tallness) of our cro-magnon ancestors. Diets related to agricultural based living conditions (that were suboptimal in terms of nutrition and calories or both) made us shorter in the interrum. Better nutrition and abundant food is the cause of children being taller than their parents in recent generations. > The opportunity for companies that I see is to find out ways to > engineer supplements and genetic therapies that allow the quality > of meat and eggs raised in factory farms to be improved. This > way, we might be able to have our cake (meat cake?) and eat > it too. Any given GM solution has to get over two classes of hurdles (at least) - it has to be politically doable, and it has to be cost effective against the alternatives (including non GM solutions and other GM solutions) after taking into account what value the GM solution is supposed to add. Of course politically doability relates to cost as well. Its politically easier to sell GM food in some countries, sectors, markets, so that affects the cost of the solution. Politically doability and cost effectiveness vis a vis alternatives are very big broad classes of problem. Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 10 23:43:47 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food In-Reply-To: <14ca01c5fde1$6fd2ebd0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <14ca01c5fde1$6fd2ebd0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051210173846.03a55040@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:28 AM 12/11/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >That's almost fat's evolutionary metabolic purpose, to be a light weight >energy store, that packs energy extremely densely into volume - volumes >like camel's humps etc. Or like Americans, alas. >This says nothing about taste or nutrition though. You can say that again. :( >Humans can't live on fat alone. I don't know about that -- as I gaze about me incredulously on the streets, I suspect this conjecture is daily refuted. Damien Broderick [ I know, I know -- "Why doncha go home to Russia, ya bastard!" ] From megao at sasktel.net Sun Dec 11 00:07:30 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:07:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: GM Food In-Reply-To: <200512101830.jBAIUpe12345@tick.javien.com> References: <200512101830.jBAIUpe12345@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <439B6DC2.1000703@sasktel.net> spike wrote: > >It's a terrible nonsolution only if we assume current methods >of producing ethanol, I agree. I have in mind a number of >energy saving solutions that take advantage of microchips >and software in small devices that would eliminate or greatly >reduce the need to run a tractor around a field. > >Imagine a number of completely autonomous toaster sized >devices that wander the fields 24/7, looking around at >stems, deciding if it is a weed or otherwise. If >weed, snip off at the base, if otherwise decide >if the stalk has an ear ready for harvest, cut it off and >place it in the middle of the row for a larger harvest- >gathering machine to come along later. The device could >carry a small reservoir of fertilizer to place right at >the root of the desirable plants and nowhere else. The >notion is to downsize farm equipment, since we enormous >apes need not be part of the process. > >Of course something like that would be expensive, but >imagine a market of a billion units. Anyone here who >has ever been involved in production engineering salivates >at the notion. We have world markets for sophisticated devices >that can go into the billions, such as televisions, but >there are so many different tastes. If we invented a >device like I am describing, there is no need to have >twenty or fifty different models. We could build a >super-automated factory so advanced one need only dump >beer cans in one end and get finished devices out the >other. > >This calls on technology we don't currently have of >course, but if we compare to those two Mars rovers, which >are *still* wandering about on the red planet all these >months, over four times the specified mission life, built >by Lockeeed Martin, > >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/06marsrovers/ > >then it looks like we could make autonomous farming >devices in the near term future and set up a highly >automated fab that could make them in staggering >quantities. > > > We are now in a farm system with harvesters that cut 40 foot strips at 4-8 miles per hour. Herbicides go on at about the 100 ft strip. Seeding is at 45-70 ft strips. Most guys like fields of 160-1000 acres. My neighbour has a 1000 acre field just next door to me. However I agree we'll see small autonomous equipment driven remotely by people in net connected mini call centers distributed around the globe , GPS tracking and guidance, with the new wrinkle that energy is beamed from the same wind generator towers that route excess power back out to the grid and drive motors are to be not diesel but mostly electric. There may be some onboard engine for hydraulics but with very few people near for the maintenace of pumps and lines, that might be just too prone to failure to be sustainable. Equipment reliability will be a prime concern. It will take expert systems though to handle the various mechanical/crop interactions. A good operator is hard to replace. For large scale monoculture I see automation as quite easy. For my form of multicrop agriculture it is still going to take some human touch. For managment of perennial crops automation is the way to go. The system travels 24/7 monitoring and applying the right growth factors and optimizes nutrients as well as zapping insects, testing for bacteria and fungus parasites. For long term planning this is going to be challenge. I am trying to develop and implement an expanded agroforestry plan and have to plan with 15-40 year managment plans. I will have to guess at what agriculture will be like and need to produce 10, 25 and 40 years from now to be successful. I've just come back from our first scale-up from manufacturing our hemp horse meds by the lab-scale batch to one that processes several tonne truck size batches. Every time you scaleup or down it is a big learning experience, regardless of what you think you know at the start. With our hemp I am getting to really get into this. The creation of several fold market value and re-investment of that into production and manufacturing needs to be justified by more than simple food for nutrition. Food for medicine and life-long health custom produced takes the whole farming system full circle from a micromanagement standpoint. It however is the only stream of revenue that can sustain and revitalize agriculture, in my view. So agriculture will diversify , truly if we go from fungal/algae life cycle micro-scale to mega scaleup. Animals fitted with chips to override their nerve impulses and come home to be "milked" of rumen bioreactor products. High intensity annuals like we mostly grow now combined with perennial herbaceous and woody agroforestry. We are recreating a wilderness ecosystem populated by machines and a few people. Of course the true organic, eco-santuaries of wildlife habitat will have to co-exist with all this. If activity really intensifies there might also be more people around but many times on a seasonal basis. >>... But long-term, we're in a glut of energy, and our (local) >>limit is how much you can radiate through the atmosphere without >>elevating temperatures overmuch (extraterrestrial solar)... >> >> > >As we improve water handling, the planet becomes greener, >which decreases albedo resulting in planetary warming. I >can imagine a number of ways to compensate however, such >as creating what amounts to a solar radiator blanketing >areas that will be difficult to convert to agriculture, >such as the Gobi and Sahara deserts. If we do this right, >we can simultaneously extract solar energy and radiate >heat into space. > > > >>Already mid-term (less than 50 linear years) we can expect solar to >>dominate the energetic landscape... >> >> > >Actually I agree with that, however I can imagine that >internal combustion will continue to be popular with >a segment of the population for the foreseeable. Electric >cars for the masses, super high performance IC engines >much like today's cars for those who can afford to run >them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Sun Dec 11 06:01:00 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:01:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: <14ca01c5fde1$6fd2ebd0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch wrote: >Brent Neal wrote: >very intense farming - Robert's bio-gruel idea - is not necessarily >going to be cheaper and so more cost effective than just intense >farming). Asimov wrote about a time where most human-coonsumed calories would come from vat-grown yeast. I believe this was in the early 80s... (The Caves of Steel) > >Per unit weight, fat contains more energy (calories) than protein >or carbohydrates. That's almost fat's evolutionary metabolic >purpose, to be a light weight energy store, that packs energy >extremely densely into volume - volumes like camel's humps etc. As I recall, fat is 9 kcal/g and proteins average at 4 kcal/g. > >This says nothing about taste or nutrition though. Humans can't >live on fat alone. (12/10/05 17:43) Damien Broderick wrote: >I don't know about that -- as I gaze about me incredulously on the streets, >I suspect this conjecture is daily refuted. > I'll have to agree with Damian on this one. :) (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch wrote: >Any given GM solution has to get over two classes of hurdles >(at least) - it has to be politically doable, and it has to be cost >effective against the alternatives (including non GM solutions and >other GM solutions) after taking into account what value the GM >solution is supposed to add. The politically-savvy solution may revolve around making land that is not otherwise arable productive. Growing muscle tissue on artificial scaffolds in tanks, for instance. You avoid any danger of genetic pollution this way. Further, meat is valued enough in areas where the daily caloric intake is low that the demand will outstrip squeamishness objections. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 11 06:29:06 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:29:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnuclear transfer policies] In-Reply-To: References: <14ca01c5fde1$6fd2ebd0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211002741.03b059f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:01 AM 12/11/2005 -0500, Brent Neal wrote: >Asimov wrote about a time where most human-coonsumed calories would come >from vat-grown yeast. I believe this was in the early 80s... (The Caves of >Steel) Early FIFTIES. Lots of Galaxy-era sf used this trope. Damien Broderick From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 11 06:54:05 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:54:05 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnucleartransfer policies] References: Message-ID: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> Brent Neal wrote: > (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch wrote: > >>Brent Neal wrote: > >>very intense farming - Robert's bio-gruel idea - is not necessarily >>going to be cheaper and so more cost effective than just intense >>farming). > > Asimov wrote about a time where most human-coonsumed calories would come > from vat-grown yeast. I believe this was in the early 80s... (The Caves of > Steel) Still earlier, H. G. Welles wrote about a future when most calories would come in the form of Eloi. No vats required ! (The Time Machine). >>Per unit weight, fat contains more energy (calories) than protein >>or carbohydrates. That's almost fat's evolutionary metabolic >>purpose, to be a light weight energy store, that packs energy >>extremely densely into volume - volumes like camel's humps etc. > > As I recall, fat is 9 kcal/g and proteins average at 4 kcal/g. > >> >>This says nothing about taste or nutrition though. Humans can't >>live on fat alone. > > (12/10/05 17:43) Damien Broderick wrote: >>I don't know about that -- as I gaze about me incredulously on the >>streets, >>I suspect this conjecture is daily refuted. >> > I'll have to agree with Damian on this one. :) Alas, Australian's are tending the same way. > (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch wrote: >>Any given GM solution has to get over two classes of hurdles >>(at least) - it has to be politically doable, and it has to be cost >>effective against the alternatives (including non GM solutions and >>other GM solutions) after taking into account what value the GM >>solution is supposed to add. > > The politically-savvy solution may revolve around making land that is not > otherwise arable productive. Growing muscle tissue on artificial scaffolds > in tanks, for instance. You avoid any danger of genetic pollution this > way. Further, meat is valued enough in areas where the daily caloric > intake is low that the demand will outstrip squeamishness objections. Hmm, unless perhaps we are being too skittish about politics, and in so doing are failing to think outside the box, and thereby overlooking the most elegant solution of all. The most economically efficient, environmentally friendly, and ethically utilitarian solution would probably be for human beings to just eat the Americans :-) Its hard for me to imagine a better combination of nutrients for a human being in one free-ranging package than an American. Heck one could say that Americans almost contain everything necessary for a human being, nutritionally speaking. I wonder why Robert didn't think of this one? :-) Brett Paatsch From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 11:54:33 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:54:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? Message-ID: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? I will try to go to the Future Salon meeting below, anyone going? Perhaps we should build a classy transhumanist meeting place there. I have been interested in virtual world after reading Neal Stephenson 's Snow Crash(1992) and have occasionally experimented with virtual worlds on the net since. In the mid 90s I used to visit one of the first virtual worlds on the net, Worlds Away (now VZones ). But I have never been an addicted, probably because I never liked computer games too much. Now since I bought a new sufficiently powerful PC I am spending some time in the Second Life virtual world, which is the most similar to Stephenson's metaverse that I have seen (from the Wikipedia entry on Second Life : "Many *Second Life* residents have noted the similarities between *Second Life* and the Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash * *. This is actually a stated goal of Linden Lab - to create a user-defined world of general use in which people can interact, play, do business and otherwise communicate"). Of the public open VR worlds that I have seen (I have seen some very high tech and very closed ones, but this is another thing), this is the first realistic enough to create a "real VR" experience (perhaps Linden Labhave been the first to spend real money). My interest in SL has been boosted by reading this Business2.0 articlewhich explains how SL has already evolved into a real VR world with a lot of interacting users and a real economy that permits making real money in VR. See also this Fortune article. Some "evident" business models are already being exploited, other more sophisticated will be developed, and someday someone will make a lot of money. So I have upgraded my free account to a premium one so I can purchase land and property, building a house etc. The name I have chosen for my avatar is Giulio Perhaps. For some reason you can freely choose your first name but have to pick your family name from a list, and "perhaps" is a beautiful word. Many interesting sentences start with this word, for example "perhaps in a few decades I will upload my consciousness to my SL avatar and live permanently in SL". One of the things to do today in Second Life is visiting a virtual Future Salon. The Future Salons Network runs one in Second Life besides those in the Bay Area, LA, Seattle etc. More details in the article " Second Life Future Salon: Why Meet in Second Life?" on the Second Life Future Salon blog . I look forward to attending the SL Future Salon next week. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deano17uk at hotmail.com Sun Dec 11 12:26:07 2005 From: deano17uk at hotmail.com (dean omara) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:26:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] super human?????? Message-ID: hi, im curently working on a dissertation looking into how the singularity and the journey will effect us. i believe that we will trancende to something else, i believe we will be super human! does anyone have an oppinoin on this at all? cheers dean From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 12:48:42 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:48:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] super human?????? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/11/05, dean omara wrote: > hi, im curently working on a dissertation looking into how the singularity > and the journey will effect us. i believe that we will trancende to > something else, i believe we will be super human! > > does anyone have an oppinoin on this at all? > Read: Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future by James Hughes The Singularity Is Near : When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil Hopefully you will use a spellchecker on your dissertation, even if you don't use one on your messages. BillK From xixidu at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 13:10:33 2005 From: xixidu at gmail.com (Alexander Kruel) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:10:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> Yes, I do also have a premium SL account. Didn't use it every much yet tho. Did you ever read Permutation City and Diaspora by Greg Egan? Two of my favorite books. A must read for everyone interested in "?virtual?"-worlds and uploading. I've also installed Project Entropialately, but didn't check it out yet. Another free metaverse. I'll see about the Future Salon later today. I've already heard about it before, great idea! XiXiDu P.S. My SL name is XiXiDu Aleixandre 2005/12/11, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 : > > Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? I will > try to go to the Future Salon meeting below, anyone going? Perhaps we should > build a classy transhumanist meeting place there. > I have been interested in virtual world after reading Neal Stephenson > 's Snow Crash(1992) and have occasionally experimented with virtual worlds on the net > since. In the mid 90s I used to visit one of the first virtual worlds on the > net, Worlds Away (now VZones ). But I have never > been an addicted, probably because I never liked computer games too much. > Now since I bought a new sufficiently powerful PC I am spending some time > in the Second Life virtual world, which is the > most similar to Stephenson's metaverse that I have seen (from the Wikipedia > entry on Second Life : "Many *Second > Life* residents have noted the similarities between *Second Life* and the > Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash * *. > This is actually a stated goal of Linden Lab - to create a user-defined > world of general use in which people can interact, play, do business and > otherwise communicate"). > Of the public open VR worlds that I have seen (I have seen some very high > tech and very closed ones, but this is another thing), this is the first > realistic enough to create a "real VR" experience (perhaps Linden Labhave been the first to spend real money). My interest in SL has been boosted > by reading this Business2.0 articlewhich explains how SL has already evolved into a real VR world with a lot of > interacting users and a real economy that permits making real money in VR. > See also this Fortune article. > Some "evident" business models are already being exploited, other more > sophisticated will be developed, and someday someone will make a lot of > money. > So I have upgraded my free account to a premium one so I can purchase land > and property, building a house etc. The name I have chosen for my avatar is > Giulio Perhaps. For some reason you can freely choose your first name but > have to pick your family name from a list, and "perhaps" is a beautiful > word. Many interesting sentences start with this word, for example "perhaps > in a few decades I will upload my consciousness to my SL avatar and live > permanently in SL". > One of the things to do today in Second Life is visiting a virtual Future > Salon. The Future Salons Network > runs one in Second Life > besides those in the Bay Area, LA, Seattle etc. More details in the article > " Second Life Future Salon: Why Meet in Second Life?" > on the Second Life Future Salon blog . I > look forward to attending the SL Future Salon next week. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 13:26:45 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:26:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512110526v796faa17gfb36ac1f3259f96b@mail.gmail.com> > > Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? Jef Allbright (Jef Ambassador) and I (William Hauptmann) both have accounts. I think he has a premium account. I do not. If you check the archives, you'll find a brief thread from October about Thomas Barnett's appearance in SL. He has an interesting speculation about MMOGs at the end of his latest book. Not having yet scanned that, and working in Wichita, I can'k give the reference. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 11 14:02:18 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:02:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] super human?????? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051211140218.GO2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:26:07PM +0000, dean omara wrote: > hi, im curently working on a dissertation looking into how the singularity > and the journey will effect us. i believe that we will trancende to > something else, i believe we will be super human! > > does anyone have an oppinoin on this at all? Yes. Use a spell checker for your dissertation. We also have archives: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/ which are indexed by Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.extropy.org+singularity&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From transcend at extropica.com Sun Dec 11 17:45:35 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:45:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512110526v796faa17gfb36ac1f3259f96b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512111745.jBBHjhe20674@tick.javien.com> Feel free to pop off any MMO related questions or speculations you might have. I've worked in the game industry for about 10 years, with around half of that on MMOs. I worked at SOE for about 3 years and have since been working with various Austin area MMO startups. I highly recommend the Daedalus Project for people interested in MMO phenomena. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jay Dugger Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:27 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? > > Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? Jef Allbright (Jef Ambassador) and I (William Hauptmann) both have accounts. I think he has a premium account. I do not. If you check the archives, you'll find a brief thread from October about Thomas Barnett's appearance in SL. He has an interesting speculation about MMOGs at the end of his latest book. Not having yet scanned that, and working in Wichita, I can'k give the reference. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 11 18:18:38 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:18:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512110526v796faa17gfb36ac1f3259f96b@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0512110526v796faa17gfb36ac1f3259f96b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512111018s7cf6c15cr1eda326e880ea05b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? > > Jef Allbright (Jef Ambassador) and I (William Hauptmann) both have > accounts. I think he has a premium account. I do not. Virtual spaces for social interaction and collaboration will, in my opinion, provide a second home, if not a second life, for many of us in the near future. It appears that Linden Labs' Second Life is the current leader in terms of an actual virtual world, rather than the several very popular MMORPGs that are more about playing a game. I am currently quite disappointed, however, with the implementation and some of the policies of Second Life. I joined around April 2005 and was at first very excited with the apparent potential. I invested in a significant amount of virtual land in a nice location (seaside view, near a telehub) and created an attractive and functional building for a futurist museum that would mirror the themes of my website, but in more interactive and immersive ways. For this project to be effective, it depended on the promised "HTML on a prim" and effective linking of in-world content with my web content as well as reliable performance of the simulator (which was down when I tried to log on this morning.) Unfortunately, my sunk costs and ongoing "tier" payments are going to waste due to lack of delivery and lack of an effective plan for these and other promised features. Worse, Linden Labs released an "upgrade" several weeks ago that dropped promised improvements and weakened reliability and performance which still hasn't recovered. It remains quite clear that Linden Labs do not have the staff nor the project management skills to deliver what they have been promising. Meanwhile, the efforts and ingenuity of the residents continue to drive growth of goods and entertainment. There are a few individuals who actually make a real-world living from their Second Life businesses. Also, events such as the Thinkers meetings, Future Salons bringing people together to interact with Cory Doctorow, Thomas Barnett, (Doug Englebart was scheduled for this month but canceled due to illness), can be very worthwhile. Lizbeth, my SO in RL as well as in SL, has hosted many weekend Show & Tell events which typically draw about a dozen presenters with their latest technological and artistic creations for an audience of twenty or thirty. I've experienced the benefits of the virtual environment and found it to be a qualitative step above text-based interaction, even realtime such as IRC. I imagine and look forward to the time when it will be most natural to call a meeting with participants from around the world, and I'll be able to pop up an image, graph, or a selection from a book or web-site over my head to illustrate the point I'm trying to make verbally--and see the audience's reactions, responses, and feedback in realtime. I'd like to be able to share a white board, edit concept maps or argument maps together, and be able to run a 3D simulation together as naturally as holding a conversation. I don't think we're going to get there with Second Life in its current form. One of the biggest limitations, it appears to me, is that in order to protect intellectual property, *everything* runs on the single simulator for each region. For this reason, the architecture doesn't support distributed processing, plugins, or user-modifications to the client, and I think this will turn out to be SLs fatal weakness, unless they open it up. Long-promised HTML on a prim, the Mono VM for executing scripts, an updated physics engine (currently using Havok 1, while Havok 2 is already obsolete) are all example of this eventually fatal development bottleneck. Related links: Croquet Project http://www.www.opencroquet.org Multiverse http://www.multiverse.net Terra Nova http://terranova.blogs.com - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 11 21:12:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:12:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Finally, an idea worth talking about in reality (as it's been talked about for many decades in sf), and of course some NYT morons declare that it "may turn your stomach". (They mean "might turn", but hey.) Yep, so much more vomitous than killing animals, pulling off their skin, scooping out their guts, then cutting up their dead muscle to eat. From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 11 22:12:15 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:12:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051211170300.0804cba8@unreasonable.com> Damien Broderick wrote: >Finally, an idea worth talking about in reality (as it's been talked >about for many decades in sf), and of course some NYT morons declare >that it "may turn your stomach". (They mean "might turn", but hey.) >Yep, so much more vomitous than killing animals, pulling off their >skin, scooping out their guts, then cutting up their dead muscle to eat. Can you trace the idea back to anything earlier than Pohl & Kornbluth in The Space Merchants, which featured "Chicken Little" growing in a vat? (Serialized in Galaxy as "Gravy Planet", starting June 1952) -- David. From megao at sasktel.net Sun Dec 11 22:24:54 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:24:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists just print what they are told.... In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <439CA736.3000604@sasktel.net> The give away phrase is "stem cells". No one would go so far as to uses stem cell separation just to simply grow burgers. The antagonistic atmosphere to this research has made researchers cover-up their research. The regulators will not take much notice other than to laugh at this lab-meat until it is actually put up for sale to consumers. The serious content is predesigned tissue generation on a commercial scale is the goal. Once perfected, this can be applied to tissue and organ repair for humans. Just like AI and frozen embryos which were perfected in cattle breeding , then easily transferred to human reproductive needs. In the med-food world I am doing the same thing by introducing cannabis to the USA through specially formulated horse feeds. The brand name and product exposure are the basis for softening up future human markets. > > In Vitro Meat > > By RAIZEL ROBIN > > In July, scientists at the University of Maryland announced the > development of bioengineering techniques that could be used to > mass-produce a new food for public consumption: meat that is grown in > incubators. > > The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal > (or a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a > three-dimensional growth medium - a sort of scaffolding made of > proteins. Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and > minerals, the stem cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, > which eventually form muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested > for a minced-meat product. > > Scientists at NASA and at several Dutch universities have been > developing the technology since 2001, and in a few years' time there > may be a lab-grown meat ready to market as sausages or patties. In 20 > years, the scientists predict, they may be able to grow a whole beef > or pork loin. A tissue engineer at the Medical University of South > Carolina has even proposed a countertop device similar to a bread > maker that would produce meat overnight in your kitchen.> From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Dec 11 22:33:34 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:33:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ea01c5fea3$64a95330$0300a8c0@Nano> When I have spare time I'm there, I'm sure you can guess my nick. Gina Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: Alexander Kruel To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? Yes, I do also have a premium SL account. Didn't use it every much yet tho. Did you ever read Permutation City and Diaspora by Greg Egan? Two of my favorite books. A must read for everyone interested in "? virtual?"-worlds and uploading. I've also installed Project Entropia lately, but didn't check it out yet. Another free metaverse. I'll see about the Future Salon later today. I've already heard about it before, great idea! XiXiDu P.S. My SL name is XiXiDu Aleixandre 2005/12/11, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 < pgptag at gmail.com>: Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? I will try to go to the Future Salon meeting below, anyone going? Perhaps we should build a classy transhumanist meeting place there. I have been interested in virtual world after reading Neal Stephenson 's Snow Crash (1992) and have occasionally experimented with virtual worlds on the net since. In the mid 90s I used to visit one of the first virtual worlds on the net, Worlds Away (now VZones). But I have never been an addicted, probably because I never liked computer games too much. Now since I bought a new sufficiently powerful PC I am spending some time in the Second Life virtual world, which is the most similar to Stephenson's metaverse that I have seen (from the Wikipedia entry on Second Life : "Many Second Life residents have noted the similarities between Second Life and the Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash . This is actually a stated goal of Linden Lab - to create a user-defined world of general use in which people can interact, play, do business and otherwise communicate"). Of the public open VR worlds that I have seen (I have seen some very high tech and very closed ones, but this is another thing), this is the first realistic enough to create a "real VR" experience (perhaps Linden Lab have been the first to spend real money). My interest in SL has been boosted by reading this Business2.0 article which explains how SL has already evolved into a real VR world with a lot of interacting users and a real economy that permits making real money in VR. See also this Fortune article. Some "evident" business models are already being exploited, other more sophisticated will be developed, and someday someone will make a lot of money. So I have upgraded my free account to a premium one so I can purchase land and property, building a house etc. The name I have chosen for my avatar is Giulio Perhaps. For some reason you can freely choose your first name but have to pick your family name from a list, and "perhaps" is a beautiful word. Many interesting sentences start with this word, for example "perhaps in a few decades I will upload my consciousness to my SL avatar and live permanently in SL". One of the things to do today in Second Life is visiting a virtual Future Salon. The Future Salons Network runs one in Second Life besides those in the Bay Area, LA, Seattle etc. More details in the article " Second Life Future Salon: Why Meet in Second Life?" on the Second Life Future Salon blog . I look forward to attending the SL Future Salon next week. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 11 22:47:47 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:47:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051211170300.0804cba8@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051211170300.0804cba8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211164647.01e1b1c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:12 PM 12/11/2005 -0500, DL wrote: >Can you trace the idea back to anything earlier than Pohl & Kornbluth in >The Space Merchants, which featured "Chicken Little" growing in a vat? >(Serialized in Galaxy as "Gravy Planet", starting June 1952) Jim Blish had edible algae in the spindizzy tales ("Bindlestiff", Astounding, Dec 1950, has the Chlorella flourishing in their tanks). Not quite the same as meat in a vat, true. Damien Broderick From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 12 08:39:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:39:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <178101c5fef7$95a7da70$8998e03c@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: > Finally, an idea worth talking about in reality (as it's been talked about > for many decades in sf), and of course some NYT morons declare that it > "may turn your stomach". (They mean "might turn", but hey.) Yep, so much > more vomitous than killing animals, pulling off their skin, scooping out > their guts, then cutting up their dead muscle to eat. You've not provided a link Damien. I could find the December 11 New York Times article but on the basis of what you've posted I can't say I'm surprised either at the claim or the content so I don't know if there is another in the article to bother chasing it. Journos that don't have scientific training are as gullible are non-journos that don't have scientific training AND they have a bias towards having a story to report over not having one. Scientists for their part have a need for funding for themselves, their colleagues, their pet projects, their labs and their institutions and they aren't averse to spruiking and hyping their own work on occassion. There really isn't any getting away from understanding the subject matter or cross checking references in order to find out whether a claimed scientific breakthrough is real or hyped. Scientists are people too. Sometimes the relationship between scientists and the media is almost as strong as the relationship between politicians and the media. Free publicity is free pubilicity. > > > In Vitro Meat > > By RAIZEL ROBIN > > In July, scientists at the University of Maryland announced the > development of bioengineering techniques that could be used to > mass-produce a new food for public consumption: meat that is grown in > incubators. > > The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal (or > a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a > three-dimensional growth medium - a sort of scaffolding made of proteins. > Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem > cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form > muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested for a minced-meat product. > > Scientists at NASA and at several Dutch universities have been developing > the technology since 2001, and in a few years' time there may be a > lab-grown meat ready to market as sausages or patties. In 20 years, the > scientists predict, they may be able to grow a whole beef or pork loin. A > tissue engineer at the Medical University of South Carolina has even > proposed a countertop device similar to a bread maker that would produce > meat overnight in your kitchen.> BTW: I probably should apologise for my comments about eating Americans - very poor taste that :-) Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 12 08:46:59 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:46:59 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <178101c5fef7$95a7da70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <179901c5fef8$9d6f2aa0$8998e03c@homepc> Oops, spell checker seems to have changed my miss-spelling of "enough" into another. Brett Paatsch From artillo at comcast.net Mon Dec 12 13:30:11 2005 From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:30:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? Message-ID: <121220051330.29350.439D7B62000D69F4000072A62200734748010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> This is great! I was wondering when my Second Life would intersect with the Extropy group mail, and today's that day! LOL I am Artillo Fredericks in SL. I've been there since June 04. Send ne an IM! :) -------------- Original message -------------- From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? I will try to go to the Future Salon meeting below, anyone going? Perhaps we should build a classy transhumanist meeting place there. I have been interested in virtual world after reading Neal Stephenson 's Snow Crash (1992) and have occasionally experimented with virtual worlds on the net since. In the mid 90s I used to visit one of the first virtual worlds on the net, Worlds Away (now VZones). But I have never been an addicted, probably because I never liked computer games too much. Now since I bought a new sufficiently powerful PC I am spending some time in the Second Life virtual world, which is the most similar to Stephenson's metaverse that I have seen (from the Wikipedia entry on Second Life : "Many Second Life residents have noted the similarities between Second Life and the Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash . This is actually a stated goal of Linden Lab - to create a user-defined world of general use in which people can interact, play, do business and otherwise communicate"). Of the public open VR worlds that I have seen (I have seen some very high tech and very closed ones, but this is another thing), this is the first realistic enough to create a "real VR" experience (perhaps Linden Lab have been the first to spend real money). My interest in SL has been boosted by reading this Business2.0 article which explains how SL has already evolved into a real VR world with a lot of interacting users and a real economy that permits making real money in VR. See also this Fortune article. Some "evident" business models are already being exploited, other more sophisticated will be developed, and someday someone will make a lot of money. So I have upgraded my free account to a premium one so I can purchase land and property, building a house etc. The name I have chosen for my avatar is Giulio Perhaps. For some reason you can freely choose your first name but have to pick your family name from a list, and "perhaps" is a beautiful word. Many interesting sentences start with this word, for example "perhaps in a few decades I will upload my consciousness to my SL avatar and live permanently in SL". One of the things to do today in Second Life is visiting a virtual Future Salon. The Future Salons Network runs one in Second Life besides those in the Bay Area, LA, Seattle etc. More details in the article " Second Life Future Salon: Why Meet in Second Life?" on the Second Life Future Salon blog . I look forward to attending the SL Future Salon next week. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:56:14 +0000 Size: 797 URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 14:46:34 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:46:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Time for Plan B' by Paul Danish In-Reply-To: <20051212143713.999.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051212144634.90236.qmail@web35708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The nomination of Samuel Alito, taken together with the abortive selection of Harriet Miers, should make it clear to all but the terminally inattentive that the days of Roe v. Wade as we know it are numbered. [Cont...] http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2005/12/10/opinion/your_take/yourtake3.txt --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 12 15:31:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:31:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <178101c5fef7$95a7da70$8998e03c@homepc> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <178101c5fef7$95a7da70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212092414.01e37fb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:39 PM 12/12/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >>Finally, an idea worth talking about in reality (as it's been talked >>about for many decades in sf), and of course some NYT morons declare that >>it "may turn your stomach". (They mean "might turn", but hey.) Yep, so >>much more vomitous than killing animals, pulling off their skin, scooping >>out their guts, then cutting up their dead muscle to eat. > >You've not provided a link Damien. I could find the December 11 New York >Times article but on the basis of what you've posted I can't say I'm surprised >either at the claim or the content > >Journos that don't have scientific training are as gullible are >non-journos that >don't have scientific training AND they have a bias towards having a story to >report over not having one. NOT my point. Which is: why should such a welcome development (if true) be spun as something that will "turn your stomach"?--that's what I'm bleating. Well, I suppose the point might simply be that for a majority of people lab-grown protein *will* turn their stomachs, and that people like us (who I presume will applaud the replacement of killed animals by insentient vat-meat) just have to get that, and work around it. Damien Broderick From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 12 16:38:03 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:38:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil and aging References: <200512101105.jBAB5le08276@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <00b401c5ff3a$6ca66f40$0100a8c0@kevin> It seems to me personally that "biological aging" occurs in spurts. A person may go 10 years and only seem to age two, then will age what appears to be another ten years in the next three. I have witnessed this with many family members and friends as well as in myself. ----- Original Message ----- From: "TC" To: Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 5:05 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil and aging > I've been working my way through The Singularity is Near, and ran into what > struck me as a pretty bizarre claim. An excerpt from p. 211: > > "When I was forty, my biological age was around thirty-eight. Although I am > now fifty-six, a comprehensive test of my biological aging (measuring > various sensory sensitivities, lung capacity, reaction times, memory, and > related tests) conducted at Grossman's longevity clinic measured my > biological age at forty. Although there is not yet a consensus on how to > measure biological age, my scores on these tests matched population norms > for this age. So, according to this set of tests, I have not aged very much > in the last sixteen years, which is confirmed by the many blood tests I > take, as well as the way I feel." > > What? Taking that at face value would imply he'd live to a good 350 or so, > and I have a hard time believing that's what he's saying here. And if not, > what relevance at all does that "biological age" hold? Anyone have a > clarification? > > -tc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 17:13:42 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:13:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Toronto FORESIGHT 2020 SEMINAR on Smart Technology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051212171342.98170.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> FYI Walter Derzko wrote: st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } FYI If any of your WFS local chapter members are interested in smart technologies, I?d love to collaborate with them Walter Derzko 1-416-533-9667 Toronto Canada Walter.derzko at utoronto.ca http://smarteconomy.typepad.com ===================================================================================================================== Toronto FORESIGHT 2020 SEMINAR Date: Tuesday December 13th Time: 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Place: Toronto Metro Hall ( s/e corner of King and John Streets ) Room 303 Speaker: Walter Derzko, CERES Associate, MUNK Center for International Studies, University of Toronto Topic: Smart Technologies , How innovations with built-in intelligence will radically transform business & society The Smart Economy has been steadily evolving since the emergence of several key technology breakthroughs in the late 1990?s. Smart or intelligent technologies are more than just cars with dozens of microchips- they are a whole new family of existing and emerging artifacts, objects, innovations and inventions that exhibit some form of intelligence along a divergent spectrum. This could range from the simple ability to sense and respond to a set of predetermined external environmental conditions, right up to exhibiting complex awareness, cognition, self-reproduction and self-healing, if injured. Mr. Derzko will showcase some key disruptive smart technologies from medicine, agriculture, construction, business and other fields and finally present his newest research on how creative clusters of smart technologies can effectively address the UN?s Millennium Development Goals. Walter Derzko is a consultant, lecturer and author, who has been exploring smart technologies since 1998. Formerly Lateral Thinker in Residence at the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, University of Toronto and the former Director of the Idea Lab at the Design Exchange in Toronto, Walter now focuses his attention on new business development, strategic thinking and scenario planning, and emerging smart technologies. He is currently an associate of CERES, at the MUNK Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, working on a scenario lab project. Walter's daily blog -The Smart Economy-keeps smart technology enthusiasts up to date on breakthroughs and milestones in the discipline. http://smarteconomy.typepad.com Hope to see you at this leading edge session! Please RSVP to: David Woolfson Coordinator woolfson at bellnet.ca La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 17:20:50 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:20:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another yank on the barbi (wasGM Food) In-Reply-To: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Still earlier, H. G. Welles wrote about a future > when most calories would > come in the form of Eloi. No vats required ! (The > Time Machine). Yes, I am not sure if Welles meant to make any subtle political commentary with his writing but for some reason I got the feeling that the Eloi were descended from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives. Did anyone else catch this or am I just bonkers? > The most economically efficient, environmentally > friendly, and ethically > utilitarian solution would probably be for human > beings to just eat the > Americans :-) > Its hard for me to imagine a better combination of > nutrients for a human > being in one free-ranging package than an American. Alas the average American can hardly be considered free range. We are reared in cubicles or on sofas and fed a diet consisting mostly of high fructose corn syrup and trans-fats chocked with preservatives. We also tend to fortified with substances of dubious nutritional value ranging from caffeine to prozac. All in all, I would say that radioactive lard would be more nutritious than the typical American. Besides there is the problem of importing Americans in sufficent quantities to be an economically viable staple. We are notoriously difficult to round up and herd although cheap vacation packages might serve to lure us to specific locales. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 17:51:20 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:51:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Putting another yank on the barbi (wasGM Food) In-Reply-To: <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512120951w377f39f0ob73f3fc6a1510770@mail.gmail.com> O > Besides there is the problem of importing Americans in > sufficent quantities to be an economically viable > staple. We are notoriously difficult to round up and > herd although cheap vacation packages might serve to > lure us to specific locales. > > Simply opening a citizen hunting season here in the USA might serve better. One might as well make a virtue of our unsuitablity as a staple and make us a premium food like any other wild game. Good luck with the invasion. ;-) -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 12 18:14:56 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:14:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:20 AM 12/12/2005 -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: >I got the feeling that the Eloi were descended >from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives. >Did anyone else catch this or am I just bonkers? You're just bonkers, sorry. The Eloi descended from effete aristocrats, the Morlocks from the degenerated and brutalised working class. > Besides there is the problem of importing Americans in >sufficent quantities to be an economically viable >staple. We are notoriously difficult to round up and >herd Not at all. All you need to do is tell them that Al Quaeda has weapons of mass destruction over there near the barbie, and they'll ship off thousands of prime Americans in a heartbeat. (They'll find a contingent of equally gullible Australians and Brits anxious to join them.) Damien Broderick From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 18:32:00 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:32:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/12/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 09:20 AM 12/12/2005 -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > >I got the feeling that the Eloi were descended > >from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives. > >Did anyone else catch this or am I just bonkers? > > You're just bonkers, sorry. The Eloi descended from effete aristocrats, > the > Morlocks from the degenerated and brutalised working class. > > Hence: "Eat the rich!" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 12 18:54:57 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:54:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> What is especially interesting is that the Catholic Church officially agrees that ID does not belong in the classroom. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "gts" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:32:56 -0500, spike wrote: > > >> These anti-evolutionists are calling evolution-science/naturalism a form > >> of "religion," and suing teachers for using tax dollars to promote the > >> so-called "religion" of evolution. > > > Ja, I anticipated that the fundies would eventually > > discover this line of reasoning. This may actually > > be a bigger threat to US science education than is > > the whole ID business. > > Absolutely, the idea that empiricism amounts to a type of religion is a > huge threat to public science education wherever there is a separation of > church and state. This debate is not only about evolution. It is about > science itself. > > I'm a little embarrassed to admit that some 15 years ago I defended > metaphysical idealism against empiricism by criticising the empiricist > idea of logical positivism. Positivism, the doctrine that propositions > are valid only if they can in principle be verified empirically, is easily > refuted by pointing out that the positivist proposition cannot itself be > verified empirically. > > It is impossible to prove empirically that propositions are valid only if > they can be proved empirically. Positivism thus fails its own test for > meaning, and so must by the positivist's own standards be a meaningless > proposition or a statement of religious belief. > > At the time I did not question the validity of science or evolution, but > arguments similar to my own are now surfacing in the public debate about > evolution vs Intelligent Design. In Kansas, proponents of Intelligent > Design have succeeded in redefining science itself. > > Whereas science in Kansas once meant: > > "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us" > > It now means: > > "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, > measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead > to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." > > The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, perhaps > even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement that > science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation for > natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example > astrology as an explanation for human personality. > > Fortunately for clear thinkers, the 'religion' of positivism is not really > essential to science. I misled my interlocutors when I implied otherwise > in my defense of idealism. Popper's philosophy is I think a superior > philosophy of science, better than positivism, and one that does not rely > on anything resembling religion. > > Not coincidently, Popper's evolutionary epistemology is an extension of > biological evolution into the world of science and ideas. Science is not > about finding true beliefs about the world. It is about finding workable > conjectures that solve problems. > > -gtso > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Dec 12 19:00:09 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:00:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another yank on the barbi (wasGM Food) References: <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02d101c5ff4e$46787ac0$0100a8c0@kevin> > > Yes, I am not sure if Welles meant to make any subtle > political commentary with his writing but for some > reason I got the feeling that the Eloi were descended > from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives. > Did anyone else catch this or am I just bonkers? > I fail to see how conservatives would embrace anything that involved the tinkering of the human genome. Liberals would have never allowed people to colonize and conquer the sacred and pristine wilderness of the moon. The Morlocks were most certainly transhumanists and the Eloi were luddites. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 19:03:04 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:03:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051212190304.82248.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > You're just bonkers, sorry. The Eloi descended from > effete aristocrats, the > Morlocks from the degenerated and brutalised working > class. I don't know. I got the distinct feeling that the Morlocks OWNED those underground factories. And the Elois were obviously educated in public schools and thus had no skills of any real worth. > Not at all. All you need to do is tell them that Al > Quaeda has weapons of > mass destruction over there near the barbie, and > they'll ship off thousands > of prime Americans in a heartbeat. (They'll find a > contingent of equally > gullible Australians and Brits anxious to join > them.) This would only work if Halliburton got the contract to refurbish the barbie from an old fashioned charcoal burner to one that ran on fossil fuels. They would also demand concession rights to run the grill and then do so democratically by holding constant public elections as to state of doneness, side dishes, and condiments desired by the picnic goers until a near unanimous consensus was reached. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 19:54:37 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:54:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: <20051212190304.82248.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051212190304.82248.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/12/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > You're just bonkers, sorry. The Eloi descended from > > effete aristocrats, the > > Morlocks from the degenerated and brutalised working > > class. > > I don't know. I got the distinct feeling that the > Morlocks OWNED those underground factories. And the > Elois were obviously educated in public schools and > thus had no skills of any real worth. If something like that were the case, it would be Eloi who owned the factories. Or, failing that, would have been senior management. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 20:14:18 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:14:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:54:57 -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > What is especially interesting is that the Catholic Church officially > agrees that ID does not belong in the classroom. :-) According to this site the Catholic Church never formally condemned evolution, and then embraced it positively in 1996: "On 1996-OCT-23, the Pope sent a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Science which stated that 'fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.' He did not identify this new knowledge. Italian newspapers reported this development as front-page news. Il Messaggero published the headline 'The Pope Rehabilitates Darwin'. Il Giornale printed 'The Pope Says We May Descend from Monkeys.'" http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 12 20:35:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:35:12 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] King Kong Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212143456.01e3cc98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Has anyone read Australian writer Russell Blackford's new King Kong novel? http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/42/ Damien Broderick From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 20:40:40 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051212204040.57227.qmail@web35709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Adults are Morlocks; students are Eloi. It would be best if public education were to be abolished outright, a drastic move to be sure yet it is the only way to go-- otherwise the situation will go on for generations. Milton Friedman thinks it utterly deplorable that a strong nation ought to have a weak educational system costing so many hundreds of billions. He is correct, however it is the one system Americans wont consider changing at this time because they like the leveling effect publik skools have. Ironic isn't it?: the one system that should and could be changed immediately is the very system too many Americans do not want to change thanks to fear of-- just for example-- dysfunctional black families privateschooling or homeschooling their children. It is embarrassing to think about let alone discuss. So the supposed tradeoff is, "we'll give so many millions of kids a mediocre public school system and attempt feebly to reform it" rather than try any serious change that might erode the leveling system holding most down but keeping the minority (no pun intended) up to nonexistent standards. Being a liberal I can tell you it is all wrapped up in liberal guilt, "if we cannot enforce equality of outcome then we can at least dumb the majority down". >I don't know. I got the distinct feeling that the >Morlocks OWNED those underground factories. And the >Elois were obviously educated in public schools and >thus had no skills of any real worth. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 12 20:56:20 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:56:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <178101c5fef7$95a7da70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > BTW: I probably should apologise for my comments about eating > Americans > - very poor taste that :-) Poor health consequences aren't the only reason cannibalism isn't practiced widely. For some, human meat and many other unhealthy foods just (literally) taste yucky. ;) From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 21:23:17 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:23:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] against ID In-Reply-To: <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: The Discovery Institute at work... === Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life. Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cbook09dec09,0,1498377.story?page=2&track=mostemailedlink&coll=sfla-news-sfla === -gts From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Dec 12 21:28:08 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:28:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Supernatural Ideas Do Not Fit With Science Message-ID: <439DEB68.30805@mindspring.com> Source: The Clarion-Ledger - Reno, Nevada, USA http://tinyurl.com/dntok December 11, 2005 Con: Supernatural Ideas Do Not Fit With Science By John Davis Special to The Clarion-Ledger The intelligent design movement aims to bring supernatural explanations into science. But supernatural forces would be beyond the ability of scientists to control, repeat and predict. ID seeks nothing less than to undo the 400 years since Galileo developed science's methods. Consider the consequences: Do we want "supernatural science" in NASA or the Centers for Disease Control? High school classrooms are the battleground now and it could happen. As part of embracing ID, the Kansas school board has specifically mandated that natural explanations may not be necessary in science classes! Similar language was drafted by Phillip Johnson, adviser to the ID think-tank the Discovery Institute, for the 2001 "No Child Left Behind" bill. It was removed, but ID is marching on. The vehicle for advancing intelligent design is the crusade to get creationism into the schools. According to the movement's "wedge" manifesto, the real goal is breathtakingly greater ? to overthrow "materialistic science" altogether! ID creation scientists are different from those seeking proofs of a literal Genesis. It is a tenet of the ID movement that the designer could be in a UFO. The ID designer could be any deity or a committee. Hence, the Raelian "flying saucer" sect and Myung Moon's Unification Church support ID, along with some conservative Christians. We cannot know if the ID designer only worked in the past or is still at it. Nor can we know what the designer does. Therefore, ID can't be tested by the methods of science. ID is not a research program. "Supernatural science" doesn't work. "The designer did it" tells us nothing about, say, bacterial resistance to antibiotics or the record of life on earth. Invoking the designer will even prevent asking answerable questions. First enunciated by a clergyman in 1803, ID is really just two assertions: The complexity of life is improbable and at some level, the components of living things had to be made all at once in order to work. But after-the-fact probabilities are like telling the lottery winner it didn't happen because the odds of winning were too small. Proteins are specific and complex, but viruses and bacteria, under selection pressure, have fabricated new proteins acting against drugs found nowhere in nature. The development of integrated biochemical systems like that involved in blood clotting is explicable through gene duplication from simpler systems. Promoters of ID have shifted the question of why it should be taught to an argument about fairness. Controversies within science abound, but ID isn't science. Fringe ideas face hurdles in gaining acceptance and entry into textbooks. Unconventional ideas like continental drift can become mainstream, but only after thorough testing by the methods of science. Intelligent design seeks to short circuit this process with PR and political friends. A science teacher would have a hard time explaining to confused students how to make the scientific method work with supernatural forces, but ID could be taught in a course on "new age" religions. An unknowable designer who does unknowable things is not useful to either faith or science. John Davis of Jackson is a research entomologist and retired science educator. E-mail: zygo at jam.rr.com. [Thanks to Stuart Miller of http://www.uforeview.net for the lead] -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From femmechakra at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 23:14:35 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:14:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out Message-ID: >>Tue Nov 15 17:55:51 MST 2005 Adrian Tymes wrote: >>that publication was so ill-formed that some other members of this list >>were, in private emails, saying I should not respond to a "kook" as in, >>someone passing off ideas that can never in fact be reduced to >>practice,and whose noise does not help anyone make actual progress. After reviewing the document, although it may not be written in a formal matter, I can only see two major problems with the document. (Besides grammar and spelling) >>and most of the time when untrained humans think they >>have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of any >>significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen to >>and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained >>individual. Tesla, Newton and Einstein where therefore, untrained. >>Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking >>things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible. This is >>almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this >>alternate path, but *you* did not. However, you know it now - and you >>might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's like >>to use it a lot. There are enough people who really do use it a lot, >>who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what it's >>like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet). You are absolutely right. >>I believe that you are on the path >>to a much clearer document. Perhaps it would work if you collected >>your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or >>two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it) >>then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more clearly. >>(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term >>memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you >>identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still >>understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.) That's exactly what I did, thank you. >>Quite a lot of people on this list would take the >>existence and use of such things as obvious and granted: Maybe some take it as the obvious, I guess I apprehended it a completely different way Anna A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of computational leverage Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties of the universe (such as space, time, and number of dimensions) derived from modern physics consistency arguments. The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would require a sparse, high dimensional spacetime (unrestricted locality) and a formalized observer mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a superset of inertial frame properties). This solution simultaneously addresses the semantical issue of unrestricted locality by maintaining a space/time metric but by going beyond the non-locality constraints of 4D physical implementation layers. A nonphysical mind really does exist: It should be amenable to study in the same fashion as other physical theories that deal with indirectly observable phenomena. Since humans are intelligent as well as conscious, they can predict computational theory to the key, requirement for a solution to the mind-brain puzzle. Such a theory must address the representational issue of information versus knowledge (or knowing). The problems.... vision and language, dynamic motion control, and cryptography, far exceed any conventional computing machine ability. Future scalability lrestrict's how to powerfullly design or build. The reasons: ordinary human intelligence may be a prerequisite to understanding consciousness. These strategies for providing extraordinary computing resources might also provide insight concerning computational processes with properties suitable for consciousness. It is possible that systems that exhibit the self organization required for human "real intelligence" (nothing artificial about it), may exhibit consciousness. Physics must ultimately develop a solution for human "real intelligence", because it represents an evolutionary, complexity increasing informational process. This process must not violate what physicists know about the evolution of the complexity of the universe. The question: Consistency frameworks form the physical foundation for multiple observational viewpoints or different "Points of View". Formally defining the interaction between the observer and the "action or thing being observed" is part of understanding the observation process. Historically, scientists have prided themselves in their belief that true science occurs when the observer does not participate or disturb an act of measurement. Unfortunately, quantum physics measurements depend on how a question is asked or what question is asked. If an experiment asks particle questions then the results are particle answers. If an experiment asks wave questions then the results are wave answers. Likewise in relativity, asking how much "energy" is in a system is dependent on the observer's velocity and acceleration. The main idea stated in Einstein's relativity: principle was that "all inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments."[18] In other words, no matter where you are in space or what speed you are traveling, the laws of physics must be the same. The laws define the possibility that all actions as well as the process of observing those actions are from any vantage point. One major outcome from relativity was experimental proof that the speed of light is constant no matter how you measure it, and no matter what speed you are traveling. In fact, mass, energy, distance, and time have changing values depending on one's speed. Facts: 1) Consistency is more primitive than conservation laws of energy/mass, or space and time 2) Consistency requires light to follow locally "straight line" geodesics (curved spacetime) 3) Consistency mechanisms behave as superluminal synchronization primitives 4) Consistency mechanisms interact outside normal excluding illegal time loops 5) Increased dimensionality increases degrees of freedom 6) These ideas appeal to researchers studying the mind and consciousness because certain biological[20], psychological[21], parapsychological[22], and meditative research[23] strongly suggest that these properties are exhibited by the mind. An interesting point to note concerning computational leverage mechanisms is that they deal with cosmological issues such as the framework of spacetime and the structure of the universe, and are thus, "outside the box" of what is normal day-to-day physics. This is not surprising given that the evolution of the mind (both collectively and individually) deals with many of the same issues (information, complexity, and energy) as the evolution of the universe. Conclusion: Modern physics theories that are based on observer consistency arguments have already defined many possible avenues for computational leverage based on indirect measurement and extraordinary views of space and time. These models of sparse hyperspacetime form a consistency backdrop for all possible events and all possible observer interactions. Consciousness may be a direct consequence of a dualist model of the mind-brain based on these consistency and computational leverage mechanisms. If the dualist model of the mind exists outside normal spacetime, then the mind is akin to a "Godel machine" that is capable of stepping outside of our normal spacetime limits. _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 23:51:42 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] who is failing science? In-Reply-To: <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200512080330.jB83Ute22037@tick.javien.com> <02c001c5ff4d$8c8ef170$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Today the Thomas B. Fordham Institute published "The State of State Science Standards 2005" http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352 The report grades each state A to F for K-12 science programs. 15 states received an F. I compared the map of science standards grades to the 2004 political map at http://www.electoral-vote.com/ --- States Failing Science - Bush/Kerry in the last election OR Barely Kerry WI Barely Kerry NH Barely Kerry HI Weak Kerry ID Strong Bush WY Strong Bush MT Strong Bush NE Strong Bush KS Strong Bush OK Strong Bush TX Strong Bush MS Strong Bush AL Strong Bush FL Strong Bush AK Strong Bush --- Seems that if you live in the US and your kids are attending a failing science program then you probably live in a Strong Bush state. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 13 01:26:14 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:26:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512121726u3ddf30cckb2eedb19f19ad381@mail.gmail.com> Isn't this poster under moderation? I felt sympathetic for her at first, since it seemed that she was sincere but extremely confused. However, this post, with the long portion at the end consisting of rearranged pieces of http://www.matzkefamily.net/doug/papers/mitfinal.html but apparently without any explanation or attribution appears to violate the norms of acceptable behavior of the ExI list. - Jef On 12/12/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > >>Tue Nov 15 17:55:51 MST 2005 Adrian Tymes wrote: > > >>that publication was so ill-formed that some other members of this list > >>were, in private emails, saying I should not respond to a "kook" as in, > >>someone passing off ideas that can never in fact be reduced to > >>practice,and whose noise does not help anyone make actual progress. > > After reviewing the document, although it may not be > written in a formal matter, I can only see two major > problems with the document. (Besides grammar and > spelling) > > > >>and most of the time when untrained humans think they > >>have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of any > >>significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen to > >>and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained > >>individual. > > Tesla, Newton and Einstein where therefore, untrained. > > >>Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking > >>things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible. This is > >>almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this > >>alternate path, but *you* did not. However, you know it now - and you > >>might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's like > >>to use it a lot. There are enough people who really do use it a lot, > >>who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what it's > >>like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet). > > You are absolutely right. > > >>I believe that you are on the path > >>to a much clearer document. Perhaps it would work if you collected > >>your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or > >>two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it) > >>then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more clearly. > >>(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term > >>memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you > >>identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still > >>understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.) > > That's exactly what I did, thank you. > > >>Quite a lot of people on this list would take the > >>existence and use of such things as obvious and granted: > > Maybe some take it as the obvious, I guess I apprehended it a completely > different way > > Anna > > > > A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of > computational leverage > > Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties > of the universe (such as space, time, and number of > dimensions) derived from modern physics consistency > arguments. > > The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would > require a sparse, high dimensional spacetime > (unrestricted locality) and a formalized observer > mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a > superset of inertial frame properties). > This solution simultaneously addresses the > semantical issue of unrestricted locality by > maintaining a space/time metric but by going > beyond the non-locality constraints of 4D physical > implementation layers. > > A nonphysical mind really does exist: > It should be amenable to study in the > same fashion as other physical theories that > deal with indirectly observable phenomena. > > Since humans are intelligent as well as conscious, > they can predict computational theory to the key, > requirement for a solution to the mind-brain puzzle. > Such a theory must address the representational > issue of information versus knowledge (or knowing). > > The problems.... vision and language, > dynamic motion control, and cryptography, far exceed any conventional > computing machine ability. > Future scalability lrestrict's how to powerfullly design or build. > > The reasons: > ordinary human intelligence may be a prerequisite > to understanding consciousness. > These strategies for providing extraordinary computing > resources might also provide insight concerning > computational processes with properties suitable > for consciousness. It is possible that systems that > exhibit the self organization required for human > "real intelligence" (nothing artificial about it), > may exhibit consciousness. > > Physics must ultimately develop a solution for human > "real intelligence", because it represents an > evolutionary, complexity increasing informational > process. This process must not violate what > physicists know about the evolution of the > complexity of the universe. > > The question: Consistency frameworks form the > physical foundation for multiple observational > viewpoints or different "Points of View". > Formally defining the interaction between > the observer and the "action or thing being observed" > is part of understanding the observation process. > Historically, scientists have prided themselves > in their belief that true science occurs when the > observer does not participate or disturb an act of > measurement. Unfortunately, quantum physics > measurements depend on how a question is asked or > what question is asked. If an experiment asks > particle questions then the results are particle > answers. If an experiment asks wave questions > then the results are wave answers. Likewise in > relativity, asking how much "energy" is in a system > is dependent on the observer's velocity and > acceleration. > > The main idea stated in Einstein's relativity: > principle was that "all inertial frames are > totally equivalent for the performance of all > physical experiments."[18] In other words, > no matter where you are in space or what > speed you are traveling, the laws of physics > must be the same. > The laws define the possibility that all > actions as well as the process of observing > those actions are from any vantage point. > One major outcome from relativity was experimental > proof that the speed of light is constant no matter > how you measure it, and no matter what speed you > are traveling. In fact, mass, energy, distance, > and time have changing values depending on > one's speed. > > Facts: > 1) Consistency is more primitive than > conservation laws of energy/mass, or space and time > 2) Consistency requires light to follow locally > "straight line" geodesics (curved spacetime) > 3) Consistency mechanisms behave as superluminal > synchronization primitives > 4) Consistency mechanisms interact outside normal > excluding illegal time loops > 5) Increased dimensionality increases degrees of > freedom > 6) These ideas appeal to researchers studying the mind > and consciousness because certain biological[20], > psychological[21], parapsychological[22], > and meditative research[23] strongly suggest > that these properties are exhibited by the mind. > > An interesting point to note concerning computational > leverage mechanisms is that they deal with cosmological > issues such as the framework of spacetime and the > structure of the universe, and are thus, "outside > the box" of what is normal day-to-day physics. > This is not surprising given that the evolution > of the mind (both collectively and individually) > deals with many of the same issues (information, > complexity, and energy) as the evolution of the > universe. > > Conclusion: > Modern physics theories that are based on observer > consistency arguments have already defined many > possible avenues for computational leverage based > on indirect measurement and extraordinary views of > space and time. These models of sparse > hyperspacetime form a consistency backdrop for > all possible events and all possible observer > interactions. Consciousness may be a direct > consequence of a dualist model of the mind-brain > based on these consistency and computational > leverage mechanisms. If the dualist model of the > mind exists outside normal spacetime, then the mind > is akin to a "Godel machine" that is capable of > stepping outside of our normal spacetime limits. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft(r) > SmartScreen Technology. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN(r) Premium right now and get the > first two months FREE*. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From femmechakra at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 01:38:42 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:38:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512121726u3ddf30cckb2eedb19f19ad381@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry I really didn't mean to violate the norms. I didn't know I needed an acceptable behavior to state my opinion. Anna >From: Jef Allbright >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list , spike > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out >Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:26:14 -0800 > >Isn't this poster under moderation? > >I felt sympathetic for her at first, since it seemed that she was >sincere but extremely confused. > >However, this post, with the long portion at the end consisting of >rearranged pieces of >http://www.matzkefamily.net/doug/papers/mitfinal.html >but apparently without any explanation or attribution appears to >violate the norms of acceptable behavior of the ExI list. > >- Jef > >On 12/12/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > > >>Tue Nov 15 17:55:51 MST 2005 Adrian Tymes >wrote: > > > > >>that publication was so ill-formed that some other members of this >list > > >>were, in private emails, saying I should not respond to a "kook" as >in, > > >>someone passing off ideas that can never in fact be reduced to > > >>practice,and whose noise does not help anyone make actual progress. > > > > After reviewing the document, although it may not be > > written in a formal matter, I can only see two major > > problems with the document. (Besides grammar and > > spelling) > > > > > > >>and most of the time when untrained humans think they > > >>have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of any > > >>significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen to > > >>and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained > > >>individual. > > > > Tesla, Newton and Einstein where therefore, untrained. > > > > >>Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking > > >>things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible. This is > > >>almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this > > >>alternate path, but *you* did not. However, you know it now - and you > > >>might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's like > > >>to use it a lot. There are enough people who really do use it a lot, > > >>who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what it's > > >>like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet). > > > > You are absolutely right. > > > > >>I believe that you are on the path > > >>to a much clearer document. Perhaps it would work if you collected > > >>your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or > > >>two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it) > > >>then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more clearly. > > >>(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term > > >>memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you > > >>identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still > > >>understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.) > > > > That's exactly what I did, thank you. > > > > >>Quite a lot of people on this list would take the > > >>existence and use of such things as obvious and granted: > > > > Maybe some take it as the obvious, I guess I apprehended it a completely > > different way > > > > Anna > > > > > > > > A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of > > computational leverage > > > > Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties > > of the universe (such as space, time, and number of > > dimensions) derived from modern physics consistency > > arguments. > > > > The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would > > require a sparse, high dimensional spacetime > > (unrestricted locality) and a formalized observer > > mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a > > superset of inertial frame properties). > > This solution simultaneously addresses the > > semantical issue of unrestricted locality by > > maintaining a space/time metric but by going > > beyond the non-locality constraints of 4D physical > > implementation layers. > > > > A nonphysical mind really does exist: > > It should be amenable to study in the > > same fashion as other physical theories that > > deal with indirectly observable phenomena. > > > > Since humans are intelligent as well as conscious, > > they can predict computational theory to the key, > > requirement for a solution to the mind-brain puzzle. > > Such a theory must address the representational > > issue of information versus knowledge (or knowing). > > > > The problems.... vision and language, > > dynamic motion control, and cryptography, far exceed any conventional > > computing machine ability. > > Future scalability lrestrict's how to powerfullly design or build. > > > > The reasons: > > ordinary human intelligence may be a prerequisite > > to understanding consciousness. > > These strategies for providing extraordinary computing > > resources might also provide insight concerning > > computational processes with properties suitable > > for consciousness. It is possible that systems that > > exhibit the self organization required for human > > "real intelligence" (nothing artificial about it), > > may exhibit consciousness. > > > > Physics must ultimately develop a solution for human > > "real intelligence", because it represents an > > evolutionary, complexity increasing informational > > process. This process must not violate what > > physicists know about the evolution of the > > complexity of the universe. > > > > The question: Consistency frameworks form the > > physical foundation for multiple observational > > viewpoints or different "Points of View". > > Formally defining the interaction between > > the observer and the "action or thing being observed" > > is part of understanding the observation process. > > Historically, scientists have prided themselves > > in their belief that true science occurs when the > > observer does not participate or disturb an act of > > measurement. Unfortunately, quantum physics > > measurements depend on how a question is asked or > > what question is asked. If an experiment asks > > particle questions then the results are particle > > answers. If an experiment asks wave questions > > then the results are wave answers. Likewise in > > relativity, asking how much "energy" is in a system > > is dependent on the observer's velocity and > > acceleration. > > > > The main idea stated in Einstein's relativity: > > principle was that "all inertial frames are > > totally equivalent for the performance of all > > physical experiments."[18] In other words, > > no matter where you are in space or what > > speed you are traveling, the laws of physics > > must be the same. > > The laws define the possibility that all > > actions as well as the process of observing > > those actions are from any vantage point. > > One major outcome from relativity was experimental > > proof that the speed of light is constant no matter > > how you measure it, and no matter what speed you > > are traveling. In fact, mass, energy, distance, > > and time have changing values depending on > > one's speed. > > > > Facts: > > 1) Consistency is more primitive than > > conservation laws of energy/mass, or space and time > > 2) Consistency requires light to follow locally > > "straight line" geodesics (curved spacetime) > > 3) Consistency mechanisms behave as superluminal > > synchronization primitives > > 4) Consistency mechanisms interact outside normal > > excluding illegal time loops > > 5) Increased dimensionality increases degrees of > > freedom > > 6) These ideas appeal to researchers studying the mind > > and consciousness because certain biological[20], > > psychological[21], parapsychological[22], > > and meditative research[23] strongly suggest > > that these properties are exhibited by the mind. > > > > An interesting point to note concerning computational > > leverage mechanisms is that they deal with cosmological > > issues such as the framework of spacetime and the > > structure of the universe, and are thus, "outside > > the box" of what is normal day-to-day physics. > > This is not surprising given that the evolution > > of the mind (both collectively and individually) > > deals with many of the same issues (information, > > complexity, and energy) as the evolution of the > > universe. > > > > Conclusion: > > Modern physics theories that are based on observer > > consistency arguments have already defined many > > possible avenues for computational leverage based > > on indirect measurement and extraordinary views of > > space and time. These models of sparse > > hyperspacetime form a consistency backdrop for > > all possible events and all possible observer > > interactions. Consciousness may be a direct > > consequence of a dualist model of the mind-brain > > based on these consistency and computational > > leverage mechanisms. If the dualist model of the > > mind exists outside normal spacetime, then the mind > > is akin to a "Godel machine" that is capable of > > stepping outside of our normal spacetime limits. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented >Microsoft(r) > > SmartScreen Technology. > > >http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN(r) Premium right now and get >the > > first two months FREE*. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 13 02:24:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:24:12 +1100 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again References: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <18ce01c5ff8c$4e706420$8998e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> BTW: I probably should apologise for my comments about eating >> Americans >> - very poor taste that :-) > > Poor health consequences aren't the only reason cannibalism isn't > practiced widely. For some, human meat and many other unhealthy > foods just (literally) taste yucky. ;) Yes, as the pickled herring says "eat the wagon wheel, eat the wagon wheel !" (an obscure incidental reference to an advertisement that appeared on Australian television). I'm curious and slightly sceptical about that "tasting yucky". I think we have touched on this before here. I wonder if there is in fact any good data or science behind it. I understand that tribes that ate the brains of their recently dearly departed family tended to get nasty prion type diseases perhaps like 'mad cows' or 'cruishanks jakobs' but I'm inclined to think they probably just didn't cook 'the meal' very well and that is generally a dangerous practice regardless of what form of animal one eats. (One of the biggest arguments made for the safety of GM by GM supporters is that dna gets broken down in the stomach, indeed there is a famous experiment that was done to substantiate that notion of dna not getting past the stomach at one time -not sure how that can gel with the dangers of ingesting prions and viruses which are going to be made of nucleotide sequences). I suspect that the real health prohibitions against eating people are more to do cultural, conventional, taboo and nowadays politics than with the purely nutritional aspects. I'm sure that there would be a physiological biochemical basis to taste so it would be possible to explore the idea that people taste bad without actually tasting them I suspect. Brett Paatsch From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 13 03:27:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:27:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo buys del.icio.us In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512092306y3bc40de0if1ff4680799fbbb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512092306y3bc40de0if1ff4680799fbbb0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Not to worry, Yahoo owns Flickr too but has learned to keep such acquisitions relatively autonomous. As a user you are unlikely to notice any difference. There seems to be a new trend for companies such as Yahoo and Google to buy startups, preferably before VC are involved. - samantha On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > As a del.icio.us user (id pgptag) I have found very interesting > today's news of the acquisition of del.icio.us by Yahoo. I am happy > to see that a good idea and a lot of hard work to make it happen > has been rewarded, and I am sure Yahoo has enough resources to keep > del.icio.us alive, improve it, and scale it to support many more > users. At the same time, I am worried to see an independent and > innovative provider swallowed by one of the Big Three. > Wired News: "In its latest acquisition of a social networking > service, internet powerhouse Yahoo on Friday chomped down on > del.icio.us, a startup that enables people to more easily compile > and share their favorite content on the web". See also the > del.icio.us blog entry with many comments from users. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Tue Dec 13 04:40:49 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:40:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <439E50D1.4030603@sasktel.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > >>BTW: I probably should apologise for my comments about eating >>Americans >>- very poor taste that :-) >> >> > >Poor health consequences aren't the only reason cannibalism isn't >practiced widely. For some, human meat and many other unhealthy >foods just (literally) taste yucky. ;) > Hey... lets hear more.... ;) Seriously, I still have not got over that scene from Hannibal (Lecter) where he snips a "not important" piece of brain from the guy and fries it up and feeds to the donor and asks him how it tasted... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 06:22:42 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:22:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213062242.37605.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anna Tylor wrote: > Sorry I really didn't mean to violate the norms. I > didn't know I needed an > acceptable behavior > to state my opinion. > > Anna I for one don't care so much about norms as I do about honesty. I would rather you write your real opinion about something you know about (yoga perhaps?) instead of someone elses words cut and pasted without giving credit where it is due. Don't worry about trying to impress us, you're not going to. Even the geniuses on this list don't really impress anyone on it. I guess we are just an incredibly jaded bunch. But I want to know what YOU think not some college student trying to B.S. his way to a B.S. So what is your opinion on chakras, prahma, and kundalini? Are you of the hatha, karma, or tantra school? I for one would be interested in discussing such things with you. Prahma is entirely consistent with my own neovitalist philosophy. Sure the materialists on the list will beg to differ but so what? They haven't found a molecular basis for the difference between the minds of Stephen Hawking and George W. Bush yet so what do they know? I for one would prefer earnest curiousity and naive questions to posing and plagiarism. I am not judging you, I am just challenging you to be YOU. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 07:39:20 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:39:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512111018s7cf6c15cr1eda326e880ea05b@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> <1233bbe40512110510g3ddf76c3t@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0512110526v796faa17gfb36ac1f3259f96b@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512111018s7cf6c15cr1eda326e880ea05b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512122339i6341e67dwca71be9800ba8654@mail.gmail.com> I see your points. I am sure SL is not the last word in metaverse engineering but just one of the first steps, and at some point the best ideas and practices of today's baby metaverses will merge into robust and extensible implementations based on open standards. However, SL is probably the first really successful example of metaverse and is playing the important role of getting more and more people familiar with the concept and willing to spend time in a metaverse. This (and the media attention it spans) is a necessary prerequisite for significant investments and R&D efforts. I am now settled in SL as a resident. I will not have the time to become an expert, so I purchased a prefab avatar instead of trying to learn how to build one. I bought a first land parcel in Boreal and will buy a prefab warehouse to put there. G. On 12/11/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 12/11/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > > Second Life becomes more and more interesting. Any other user here? > > > > Jef Allbright (Jef Ambassador) and I (William Hauptmann) both have > > accounts. I think he has a premium account. I do not. > > Virtual spaces for social interaction and collaboration will, in my > opinion, provide a second home, if not a second life, for many of us > in the near future. > > It appears that Linden Labs' Second Life is the current leader in > terms of an actual virtual world, rather than the several very popular > MMORPGs that are more about playing a game. > > I am currently quite disappointed, however, with the implementation > and some of the policies of Second Life. I joined around April 2005 > and was at first very excited with the apparent potential. I invested > in a significant amount of virtual land in a nice location (seaside > view, near a telehub) and created an attractive and functional > building for a futurist museum that would mirror the themes of my > website, but in more interactive and immersive ways. For this project > to be effective, it depended on the promised "HTML on a prim" and > effective linking of in-world content with my web content as well as > reliable performance of the simulator (which was down when I tried to > log on this morning.) > > Unfortunately, my sunk costs and ongoing "tier" payments are going to > waste due to lack of delivery and lack of an effective plan for these > and other promised features. Worse, Linden Labs released an "upgrade" > several weeks ago that dropped promised improvements and weakened > reliability and performance which still hasn't recovered. It remains > quite clear that Linden Labs do not have the staff nor the project > management skills to deliver what they have been promising. > > Meanwhile, the efforts and ingenuity of the residents continue to > drive growth of goods and entertainment. There are a few individuals > who actually make a real-world living from their Second Life > businesses. Also, events such as the Thinkers meetings, Future Salons > bringing people together to interact with Cory Doctorow, Thomas > Barnett, (Doug Englebart was scheduled for this month but canceled due > to illness), can be very worthwhile. Lizbeth, my SO in RL as well as > in SL, has hosted many weekend Show & Tell events which typically draw > about a dozen presenters with their latest technological and artistic > creations for an audience of twenty or thirty. > > I've experienced the benefits of the virtual environment and found it > to be a qualitative step above text-based interaction, even realtime > such as IRC. I imagine and look forward to the time when it will be > most natural to call a meeting with participants from around the > world, and I'll be able to pop up an image, graph, or a selection from > a book or web-site over my head to illustrate the point I'm trying to > make verbally--and see the audience's reactions, responses, and > feedback in realtime. I'd like to be able to share a white board, > edit concept maps or argument maps together, and be able to run a 3D > simulation together as naturally as holding a conversation. > > I don't think we're going to get there with Second Life in its current > form. One of the biggest limitations, it appears to me, is that in > order to protect intellectual property, *everything* runs on the > single simulator for each region. For this reason, the architecture > doesn't support distributed processing, plugins, or user-modifications > to the client, and I think this will turn out to be SLs fatal > weakness, unless they open it up. Long-promised HTML on a prim, the > Mono VM for executing scripts, an updated physics engine (currently > using Havok 1, while Havok 2 is already obsolete) are all example of > this eventually fatal development bottleneck. > > Related links: > > Croquet Project http://www.www.opencroquet.org > Multiverse http://www.multiverse.net > Terra Nova http://terranova.blogs.com > > - Jef > http://www.jefallbright.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 08:27:40 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:27:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 12/3/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > Slashdot has this story: > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/03/065211&from=rss > About a company claiming development of the first true AI. > > Mmm... As a quick FYI, it looks like this was a stock-pumping scam by GTX Global: http://www.stocklemon.com/11_14_05.html -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Tue Dec 13 09:45:13 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:45:13 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI References: <200512021900.jB2J0Ae13930@tick.javien.com> <003b01c5f7f6$e9631f10$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <001b01c5ffc9$edb6d9a0$a7830d0a@JPAcer> From: Neil H. To: Jack Parkinson ; ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI On 12/3/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: Slashdot has this story: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/03/065211&from=rss About a company claiming development of the first true AI. Mmm... As a quick FYI, it looks like this was a stock-pumping scam by GTX Global: http://www.stocklemon.com/11_14_05.html -- Neil Yes. Interesting site you linked to. It appears that GTX is even less reputable than their headlines suggests. Guess we will have to wait a little longer for that AI... Ah well... not entirely unexpected. Jack Parkinson From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 10:32:24 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:32:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Baquiast on Kurzweil Message-ID: <470a3c520512130232l703bb739s5b5473f24b9af25@mail.gmail.com> Jean Paul Baquiast , editor of the French web magazine Automates Intelligents, has written a reviewof the recent book of Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near - When Humans Transcend Biology . Definitely worth reading for those who read French. Baquiast's review, measured and balanced as usual, begins with a description of the Singularity concept and states that human life and computer networks will interpenetrate in such a way to push the habitat of intelligent life beyond foreseeable bounds. Hence a Singularity after which the impossible becomes possible. In other articles Baquiast seems persuaded that the evolution of technology and the evolution of our species will follow a smoother path, without an abrupt S. But he criticizes European and in particular French public authorities for not taking the concept seriously enough. If instead of dismissing Kurzweil's ideas as science fiction they took the time to understand the dynamics of exponential growth of technology and accelerating returns, Baquiast says, they could plan for the future by selecting emerging high-potential NBIC technologies for public funding. Also, they could offer citizens a more positive image of the future based on the understanding that future technologies will be able to provide good solution for the problems of today's world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 12:27:26 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:27:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another yank on the barbi (wasGM Food) In-Reply-To: <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <15cd01c5fe1f$ad7c8f70$8998e03c@homepc> <20051212172050.32308.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/12/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Alas the average American can hardly be considered > free range. We are reared in cubicles or on sofas and > fed a diet consisting mostly of high fructose corn > syrup and trans-fats chocked with preservatives. We > also tend to fortified with substances of dubious > nutritional value ranging from caffeine to prozac. All > in all, I would say that radioactive lard would be > more nutritious than the typical American. Stuart, you do realize of course that most of those preservatives are anti-oxidants... In fact I believe that there were some longevity studies done in mice using BHT and/or BHA as dietary supplements. And recent NMR studies as well as memory and reasoning tests I believe have shown that caffeine is quite useful for bumping the brain up a several degrees in its capabilities. I've also seen literature with the argument that fructose is better than glucose because you are limited by enzyme availability in the fructose to glucose conversion path which would tend to keep blood glucose levels lower and have anti-diabetic and presumably lifespan extending consequences. Prozac presumably makes us less depressed and more likely to resist becoming a food supply for others. Haven't you watched *any* of the Matrix movies? Many of us (Americans) aren't particularly keen on being used by anybody for anything (food source, energy source, slave labor, etc. etc.). :-; Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 13:27:38 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:27:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Ah, would that we had more "real" scientists on the list and fewer philosophers and people who have read entire libraries of SciFi... (semi- :-;). The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal (or a > piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a > three-dimensional growth medium Note that they do not say "satellite cells", "myoblasts" or "muscle stem cells" which would be more appropriate if what one wants to do is produce muscle tissue for consumption. So there is some lack of accuracy but perhaps not completely out of line since the general reading public knows what "stem cells" are but probably don't know what "satellite cells" or "myoblasts" are. (This problem will not be solved until everyone has a hardwired (implanted) brain-to-web link with the first two options on the "lookup menu" for unfamiliar words being Wikipedia and Google. I'd have PubMed probably as #3 but your choices may vary.) - a sort of scaffolding made of proteins. And exactly *what* is this "scaffolding" produced from? (One doesn't exactly have "tons" of collagen and elastin (which are themselves proteins) sitting around in bottles (at least in outer space)). [See [1] for a discussion of the extracellular matrix.] Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem > cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form > muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested for a minced-meat product. And precisely *where* do the glucose and amino acids come from? Why don't the people consume a "nutrition shake" made from the glucose and amino acids mix in the first place? Growing the "muscle" (converting a few cells into many cells) is an energy consuming process so one is going to have a net loss of resources using this approach. How about a little *more* focus on the actual biochemistry and physics of producing closed nutrient supply system and a little less focus on what the results of producing an inherently inefficient food source (it takes energy to break complex muscle proteins & DNA back down into small peptides and DNA bases that humans can actually utilise) actually tastes like. Zheesh... I really really hope that NASA has some people working on this that understand that (a) you are going to have to turn astronaut waste back into basic food resources; and (b) that you are going to have to find an efficient way to provide the net energy inputs from most likely solar, but potentially nuclear sources. R. 1. http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/6412/ConnTiss.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 14:18:58 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:18:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out In-Reply-To: <20051213062242.37605.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051213062242.37605.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/13/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I for one don't care so much about norms as I do about > honesty. I would rather you write your real opinion > about something you know about (yoga perhaps?) instead > of someone elses words cut and pasted without giving > credit where it is due. Don't worry about trying to > impress us, you're not going to. Even the geniuses on > this list don't really impress anyone on it. I guess > we are just an incredibly jaded bunch. But I want to > know what YOU think not some college student trying to > B.S. his way to a B.S. In her original post last month she said that it wasn't her writing. She said that she had found an article that she didn't understand and wanted help with. Because it involved subjects that this list seemed to discuss, she cut and pasted some sections, sent them to the list and asked for explanations. I agree that she should have given the address of the original report, because her cutting and pasting might have changed the meaning and context of the original document. As an aside, why on earth does *anyone's* personal opinions matter in the slightest? (Except to themselves, of course). There are millions upon millions of books, articles, websites, blogs, etc. out there. Anything I want to say has almost certainly been said many times before, in many better ways, than the quick scribblings I might send to a mail list. The main benefit I see to mail lists is in drawing my attention to ideas or points of view that I might not have thought about before. And in my replies to posts I try to point out ideas that might be new to previous posters. The self-aggrandising posing and 'win arguments by any means possible' attitudes that are so common in all mail lists are just a distraction. Though they can be amusing at times. ;) BillK From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 14:52:24 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:52:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213145224.75611.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You are absolutely right, Robert, but to some of us being contrary supersedes all else; some here are the contrarian's contrarians. I guarantee you that ten years from today, December 13th, 2015, whoever is on this list will be arguing and yapping about nothing all day long. >Robert Bradbury wrote: >Ah, would that we had more "real" scientists on the list and fewer philosophers and >people who have read entire libraries of SciFi... (semi- :-;). --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 14:58:23 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:58:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert In-Reply-To: <20051213145224.75611.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051213145224.75611.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/13/05, Alan Brooks wrote: > > You are absolutely right, Robert, but to some of us being contrary > supersedes all else; some here are the contrarian's contrarians. I guarantee > you that ten years from today, December 13th, 2015, whoever is on this list > will be arguing and yapping about nothing all day long. > > *>Robert Bradbury wrote: > * > >Ah, would that we had more "real" scientists on the list and fewer > philosophers and >people who have read entire libraries of SciFi... (semi- > :-;). > > ------------------------------ > Never mind the scientists, it's us engineers who actually get things done. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 13 15:26:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:26:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Company Claims Development of True AI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512131524.jBDFORe10866@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Neil H. As a quick FYI, it looks like this was a stock-pumping scam by GTX Global: http://www.stocklemon.com/11_14_05.html -- Neil Good catch Neil! To provide material for a nightmare, imagine going without the internet to find out stuff like this. {8^] spike From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 16:22:54 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:22:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213162254.15580.qmail@web35707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No one ignores engineers. BTW, you look at engineers who became politicians, such as Herbert Hoover, Jimmuh Carter, and you see they had high ethical standards. Anyway, 20 years from now, 2025, we'll still be fighting here about everything, all the time. Intellectuals were created to argue until heat death. >Never mind the scientists, it's us engineers who actually get things done. >Dirk --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From allsop at extropy.org Tue Dec 13 18:48:42 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:48:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512131848.jBDImex5031605@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Dirk and Robert, Yea, and as an engineer, myself, we know there are phenomenal properties! I just wish those stupid scientists would finally admit such, and finally look in the right place and discover them - so we engineers could finally start doing real, phenomenal, engineering and get some real effing work done! After all - what else is as more important and more real? ;) I bet Rene Descartes would have made a great engineer! Brent [I think (experience red) and therefore I exist (know it is phenomenal)] Allsop "And if you ever effed it you would even say it glows!" _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:58 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert On 12/13/05, Alan Brooks wrote: You are absolutely right, Robert, but to some of us being contrary supersedes all else; some here are the contrarian's contrarians. I guarantee you that ten years from today, December 13th, 2015, whoever is on this list will be arguing and yapping about nothing all day long. >Robert Bradbury wrote: >Ah, would that we had more "real" scientists on the list and fewer philosophers and >people who have read entire libraries of SciFi... (semi- :-;). _____ Never mind the scientists, it's us engineers who actually get things done. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 19:57:31 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:57:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] right you are, Robert In-Reply-To: <200512131848.jBDImex5031605@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <20051213195731.73687.qmail@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The news says mice have been cloned from brain cells; see that is why the public gets edgy, they hear about it and automatically think, like, "Donovan's Brain"-- that novel from the '50s-- they think it all sounds vaguely sinister. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Dec 13 20:34:48 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:34:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) More Research Urged on Nanoparticle Risk Message-ID: <439F3068.7090905@mindspring.com> More Research Urged on Nanoparticle Risk - By MICHELLE R. SMITH, Associated Press Writer Monday, December 12, 2005 (12-12) 09:33 PST Providence, R.I. (AP) -- Those stain-resistant khakis you just picked up at the mall, the tennis ball that holds its bounce longer and sunscreen that's clear instead of white have something in common ? nanotechnology. Scientists manipulating matter at the molecular level have improved on hundreds of everyday products in recent years and are promising dramatic breakthroughs in medicine and other industries as billions of dollars a year are pumped into the nascent sector. But relatively little is known about the potential health and environmental effects of the tiny particles ? just atoms wide and small enough to easily penetrate cells in lungs, brains and other organs. While governments and businesses have begun pumping millions of dollars into researching such effects, scientists and others say nowhere near enough is being spent to determine whether nanomaterials pose a danger to human health. Michael Crichton's bestselling book "Prey" paints a doomsday scenario in which a swarm of tiny nanomachines escapes the lab and threatens to overwhelm humanity. Scientists believe the potential threat from nanomaterials is more everyday than a sci-fi thriller, but no less serious. Studies have shown that some of the most promising carbon nanoparticles ? including long, hollow nanotubes and sphere-shaped buckyballs ? can be toxic to animal cells. There are fears that exposure can cause breathing problems, as occurs with some other ultrafine particles, that nanoparticles could be inhaled through the nose, wreaking unknown havoc on brain cells, or that nanotubes placed on the skin could damage DNA. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is developing guidelines for working with nanomaterials, saying the tiny particles may raise health concerns and the risk to those who work with them is unknown. Also unknown is the risk to consumers and the environment. "No one knows, and that's the problem," said Pat Roy Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies the impact of technology on people and the environment. "People are rubbing them on our skin as sunscreens and as cosmetics." Mooney's group is calling for products, such as sunscreen, that are directly absorbed into the body to be taken off the shelf until there is more study. "Frankly, I don't think that skin creams or stain resistant pants or food additives are a good reason to sacrifice someone's health," he said. The federal government currently spends about $1 billion a year on nanotechnology research under its National Nanotechnology Initiative. A newly released inventory by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies found about $6 million being spent annually by the federal government on research that is highly focused on health and environmental effects of nanotechnology. Though the inventory is not a complete accounting of all research, it indicates that a small percentage of research dollars are going to health and safety, said Dave Rejeski, director of the non-partisan policy group. "More energy and more funding needs to go into it," said Kevin Ausman, executive director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Texas. "There is not going to be a simple answer to the question 'Is nanotechnology dangerous?'" he said. But Ausman and others said the nanotechnology sector is ahead of the curve when it comes to understanding potential dangers, and is doing far more early research than has been done in other industries, even one as relatively new as biotechnology. "These issues are being discussed openly," said Agnes Kane, a pathologist at Brown University, who is moving into nanotechnology after extensive work researching asbestos. She is one of several Brown professors sharing a $1.8 million, four-year grant to study the effects of nanoparticles on human and animal cells. The asbestos industry, which doled out staggering sums of money for liability lawsuits after material used for insulation was shown to cause cancer and other ailments, paid the price for a failure to fully understand the product's dangers before putting it on the market, Kane said. "This is one of the few areas that I've been in that there has been a discussion at the beginning," she said. Rejeski said researchers are struggling with how much to spend and how to decide what research to fund. The group's inventory of research is a kind of "nanotech dating service" that can help match up researchers with similar interests who are looking for partners, he said. It can also identify holes and point to areas that need more funding. For example, a search of the inventory shows much of the research now happening is focused on the lungs. Very little is focused on the gastrointestinal tract ? even though there are new toothpastes being developed that use nanotechnology, Rejeski said. There's also very little so-called lifecycle research ? how nanomaterials break down in the environment, Rejeski said. Scientists are also working on creating a standard terminology for nanotechnology so that researchers from different backgrounds can work together and better understand the research that's been done in other fields. The NanoBusiness Alliance, a group of large and small businesses, is looking at working with other groups to conduct an economic analysis of the level of funding that is needed for environmental health and safety research in the coming year. The alliance consists primarily of nanotech startups but also includes major corporations such as Lockheed Martin and Motorola and research institutions including Northwestern and Purdue universities. Sean Murdock, executive director of the group, said he believes it's premature to regulate the young industry but that businesses recognize that more health and safety research is needed. "If we keep our eye on the ball," he said, "we can avoid big downstream problems." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/11/national/a094455S38.DTL -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 13 20:47:29 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:47:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) More Research Urged on Nanoparticle Risk Message-ID: >A newly released inventory by the Project on >Emerging Nanotechnologies found about $6 million >being spent annually by the federal government on >research that is highly focused on health and >environmental effects of nanotechnology. Some similar efforts are happening on this side of the pond. Last Spring, a friend of mine showed me some interesting graphs from a special instrument: a mass spectrometer and scanning electron microscope combined, of the chemical composition of nano-to- micrometer-sized particles embedded in living and dead tissue (humans, animals, plants). Apparently this instrument can make these kind of measurements easily, so tiny particles in tissue are often seen for the first time. In most cases, the scientists did not know exactly how the tiny particles entered the body, so the data seems to open a new field of investigative biology/environmental science (nanopathology). The graphs were output from a group of scientists who are funded in part by the European Commission [project titled: 'The role of nano-particles in biomaterial-induced pathologies', project number QLK4-CT-2001-00147]. I have a brochure of the project that reads (in part): Goals: 1. Application of a novel ultrastructural technology to detect and visualize nanoparticles. Physico-chemical characterization of micro-and nanopparticles. 2. In viro studies/to determine the effects of nano-particles on cell-structure and/function. 3. In vivo studies to simulate exposure to nanoparticles. 4. Clinical studies to determine/the source and/distribution of nanoparticles. ------------ One result found from this project that my friend told me was that some people are dying mysteriously in war zones, not by obvious means, but from tiny particles (I do not know which) embedded in the environment that enter the body, and disable quickly some of the body's organs. There is a link to cancer apparently too. In searching on the net to find more information about this project, I did not find details of their results, however, I found information on the area of EU funding for this work. ------------ http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis On The Basis Of A Workshop Organized In Brussels On 1-2 March 2004 By The Health And Consumer Protection Directorate General Of The European Commission on page 18, footnote 6: of the document we read: 6 Note that there are several ongoing R&D activities in the field of health, safety and environmental aspects of nanotechnology at both EU and national level. Within the scope of the EU's 5th Framework Programmes, examples of ongoing projects include Nanopathology "The role of nano-particles in biomaterial-induced pathologies" (QLK4-CT-2001-00147); Nanoderm "Quality of skin as a barrier to ultra-fine particles" (QLK4-CT-2002-02678); Nanosafe "Risk assessment in production and use of nano-particles with development of preventive measures and practice codes" (G1MA-CT-2002-00020). Specific initiatives are also being launched as part of the 6th Framework Programmes together with the inclusion of such studies within Integrated Projects, where relevant. Additional information on these and other initiatives can be found under the Cordis web pages (www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology). ------ -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow From acy.stapp at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 21:56:27 2005 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:56:27 -0600 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <18ce01c5ff8c$4e706420$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <18ce01c5ff8c$4e706420$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: Spongiform encephalies like mad cow or Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease are not affected by cooking. Acy On 12/12/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I'm curious and slightly sceptical about that "tasting yucky". I think we > have touched on this before here. I wonder if there is in fact any good > data or science behind it. I understand that tribes that ate the brains of > their recently dearly departed family tended to get nasty prion type > diseases perhaps like 'mad cows' or 'cruishanks jakobs' but I'm inclined > to think they probably just didn't cook 'the meal' very well and that is > generally a dangerous practice regardless of what form of animal one > eats. > -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 21:57:06 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:57:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <18ce01c5ff8c$4e706420$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051213215706.64847.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > I'm curious and slightly sceptical about that > "tasting yucky". I think we > have touched on this before here. I wonder if there > is in fact any good > data or science behind it. Google and thou shalt recieve. Apparently the question has been considered by the Cullinary Institute of America. http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/culture/allen.html Necessary disclaimer: I do not advocate nor condone cannibalism or other forms of ghoulish behavior directed toward Americans or other higher primates except in those extremely rare circumstances where jungle law trumps civilized behavior. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Dec 14 02:43:02 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:43:02 -0500 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <20051213215706.64847.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051213215706.64847.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <439F86B6.8080102@goldenfuture.net> So the whole, "we should consume the poor and elderly for the nutrients they carry in their bodies, especially if they go with a nice bottle of bordeaux" is sort of not an option? Joseph The Avantguardian wrote: > Necessary disclaimer: I do not advocate nor condone >cannibalism or other forms of ghoulish behavior >directed toward Americans or other higher primates >except in those extremely rare circumstances where >jungle law trumps civilized behavior. > From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:05:48 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:05:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <439F86B6.8080102@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051214030548.81350.qmail@web35707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> When the you read a philosophical clause such as this, even if written in jest, one can realize why the public might have a healthy measure of mistrust towards intellectuals. The Avantguardian Wrote: >except in those extremely rare circumstances where >jungle law trumps civilized behavior. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 04:17:09 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:17:09 +1100 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strikeagain References: <20051213215706.64847.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <023801c60065$4053abc0$cd81e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> I'm curious and slightly sceptical about that >> "tasting yucky". I think we >> have touched on this before here. I wonder if there >> is in fact any good >> data or science behind it. > > Google and thou shalt recieve. Apparently the question > has been considered by the Cullinary Institute of > America. > > http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/culture/allen.html The following excerpts sound passably, plausibly, true: "The difficulty in describing taste experience is compounded by the nature of our tasting apparatus. Our tongue actually tastes only sweetness, sourness and bitterness. It, together with the lips, can also feel both kinds of hotness, as well as coldness, a large range of textures and the odd numbing sensation provided by ... some spices. ....The Japanese add "umami" ... sometimes approximated by the term "savory" .... so there is good reason for thinking of taste as one or more of but five sensations. " "What we commonly think of as "taste" is actually a fusion of one or more of the four (or five) "tastes" listed above with one of more smells, with one or more mouth-feels, or touch sensations. " The author, of the paper linked above, Gary Allen, goes on to describe the adventures and experience of William Bueller Seabrook one time "reporter and City Editor of the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle" who after describing his disappointment at being fed only monkey meat by his cannibal dining associates was assisted by his friend who "obtained for (him) from a hospital interne at the Sorbonne a chunk of human meat from the body of the first healthy human carcass killed by accident, that they could dispose of as they chose. (Seabrook) cooked it in Neuilly, at the villa of the Baron Gabriel des Hons, who was (his) translator. (He) ate a lot of it in the presence of witnesses". "It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. .. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that (Seabrook thought) no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal". -- So Americans wouldn't taste "yucky". And such an anti-American suggestion would be quite unscientific. It seems that Americans would taste like veal. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 04:33:00 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:33:00 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051211150756.02e54820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <025a01c60067$7750e6e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Robert wrote: Ah, would that we had more "real" scientists on the list and fewer philosophers and people who have read entire libraries of SciFi... (semi- :-;). The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal (or a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a three-dimensional growth medium Note that they do not say "satellite cells", "myoblasts" or "muscle stem cells" which would be more appropriate if what one wants to do is produce muscle tissue for consumption. So there is some lack of accuracy but perhaps not completely out of line since the general reading public knows what "stem cells" are but probably don't know what "satellite cells" or "myoblasts" are. (This problem will not be solved until everyone has a hardwired (implanted) brain-to-web link with the first two options on the "lookup menu" for unfamiliar words being Wikipedia and Google. I'd have PubMed probably as #3 but your choices may vary.) - a sort of scaffolding made of proteins. And exactly *what* is this "scaffolding" produced from? (One doesn't exactly have "tons" of collagen and elastin (which are themselves proteins) sitting around in bottles (at least in outer space)). [See [1] for a discussion of the extracellular matrix.] The OCR text in your link is scrambled. It has, for instance, as units of length ( "run", and ~Lm) . "al" I suspect, probably means the first amino acid. I gave up reading because it wasn't clear that it was from a reliable source i.e. I didn't recognize the author and because some of the strambled OCR was making it difficult to read. The original article Damien posted said, above the bit that you excerpted, that they were doing it with a view to mass production/consumption, the NASA space stuff came in later. Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested for a minced-meat product. And precisely *where* do the glucose and amino acids come from? Why don't the people consume a "nutrition shake" made from the glucose and amino acids mix in the first place? Good question. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 04:38:32 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:38:32 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] Message-ID: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> >I'm not sure what exactly it means for something to "exist" that does not sit in our network of causation. My claims were not intended to be much about "existence." Instead, my main claim is that we can never get any evidence about such things, whether they exist or not. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 I would certainly dispute your claim Robin. Many Mathematical Platonists ascribe objective reality to mathematical entities (like the number '2' ) and at the same time think that such entities are not inside the network of physical causation. Kripe 1972) showed that physical causality is not needed in order to obtain evidence of something. He pointed out a non-causal entity can be 'referenced' by means of a meaningful description. No causal contact is required. Furthermore, evidence for the existence of such entities need not come from direct physical contact, but from their explanatory power (see the 'Indispensability argument' of Quine (1951) and Putnam (1971). There could be more than one different 'type' of 'causality'. This is my favored idea. In the most general sense of the word 'causality' , it just means 'cause and effect'. But the notion of cause and effect does not logically have to be restricted to physical processes. The question is whether or not all 'causal' processes are in principle reducible to physical processes. -- There could be highly abstract notions of causality which don't directly match up to the causal processes taking place in the brain. Take the notion of a mathematical proof for instance. The first line of the proof could be defined as an 'abstract cause'; the second line of the proof could be defined as an 'abstract effect' and so on. So it seems to me that a mathematical proof could be defined as an ABSTRACT kind of causality, analogous to the physical kind. Let's go back to the question of 'numbers' and 'qualia' again. I asked where numbers existed and you (Robin) answered that they were abstract patterns not rooted in physical causal networks - only *particular* instances of patterns were physically instantiated. Above I've suggested that the way to make sense of this is through the notion of more than one kind of causality. I suggest that abstract patterns like numbers are 'processes' of a non-physical kind (i.e. abstract causality). One could imagine that entities like numbers or qualia that are *in part* inside physical reality, and *in part* outside physical reality. One could obtain evidence of such entities if the parts of the entity that are *outside* physical reality imply observable consequences *within* physical reality. This was just my idea of 'extra time dimensions' - that there's more than one valid kind of 'cause and effect'. When I first suggested this as the solution to the consciousness puzzle here on Extropy, wta-talk and the SL4 list people thought I'd finally flipped my lid. But if you think about it for a while it actually seems quite likely that there are extra time dimensions and qualia are simply multi-dimensional forms of causality (i.e. processes taking place in multiple time dimensions). 'Qualia' are generated by brain processes. But brain processes are *mathematical* in nature (they are 'algorithms'). Mathematical entities are abstract patterns. As you Robin agreed, abstract patterns (like 'algorithms') don't exist directly inside physical causal networks, only particular instances of them do. This is clear by pointing to the fact that many different kinds of physical brain processes could enact the *same* computation (algorithm). So the physical processes in the brain can't be *identical* to the mathematical entity (the algorithm) itself. The only way to make sense of this is to generalize the notion of causality to include ABSTRACT kinds of causality as I suggested earlier. Then an algorithm can be defined as a process taking place in multi-dimensional time. This *includes* physical time (physical causality) but extends beyond it. So long as a postulated entity (like a 'Quale') is defined as being at least *partially* inside the network of physical causality, there'll be observable consequences and scientific evidence for the existence of the Quale can be gathered. But this does *not* mean that the Quale fits completely inside physical causal networks. . Take the analogy of a three-dimensional object (say a cube) passing through a 2-dimensional plane which we'll call Flatland. The inhabitants of Flatland can only see in 2-dimensions and they might argue that 'we can only ever gather evidence of something if it exists in our 2-d space. Therefore only 2-d objects exist'. Did you spot the gross error in the reasoning? Just like a cube passing through a 2-d plane has part of itself intersecting the plane, a Quale could be *part* of physical causality without fitting entirely into physical reality. The argument summarized again: (1) Qualia are generated by brain processes (2) Brain processes are enacting algorithms (mathematical patterns) (3) The algorithm itself (the mathematical pattern) can't exist totally inside physical reality, because mathematical patterns are abstractions and many different types of brain processes can enact the same algorithm. So the brain processes themselves can't be identical to the mathematical algorithm (4) An algorithm is a process. But as demonstrated above, it can't be a process which is confined to physical reality - since it's an ABSTRACT process. Therefore it must be a process taking place at least partially outside physical reality. (5) Processes are events along time dimensions. As demonstrated above, there are processes at least partially taking place outside physical reality, in the form of mathematical patterns. Therefore these processes must be taking place in multiple time dimensions Ergo, extra time dimensions exist. And consciousness is a process taking place in multi-dimensional time. Gts wrote: >Types of "Shape" and "Number" are classic platonic ideas, and Locke writes that these properties are in objects, whether or not we perceive them. If qualia truly have objective reality as you and I want to say then I think we have to admit they too are qualities of the object whether or not we perceive them. What else could we mean by objective? We might say the qualities have their origin in the platonic realm of ideas, and can be seen only when we perceive the object, but they are nevertheless objective properties of the object. We do seem to be in partial agreement but I hope I can persuade you that Qualia are *not* primary properties of physical objects! 'Green' can't possibly be a primary property of green objects! To see why, just imagine an alien with a brain wired differently from ours, so that what we see as 'Green', the alien sees as 'Red'. He would see our so-called 'Green' objects as Red. Remember, we agreed that Qualia are objectively real and that they're 'real' in the same sense that 'numbers' are real. So it's a mistake to say that they're primary properties of physical objects. Instead, they exist in Plato's world of abstract forms. A Quale, as I said, is a *relationship* between a physical object and an observer. Qualia, for the reasons I just gave, cannot be primary properties of physical objects, but instead exist in Plato's world of abstract forms. To see how this works, imagine that Plato's world of forms is 2-dimensional. To locate the 'Green Quale' in Plato's world you would need two co-ordinates. Then the properties possessed by physical things (like green objects) are *psuedo-Quale* (or proto-Quale) which give *one* co-ordinate for a location in Plato's world. But a second thing (an observer) is needed to give the *second* co-ordinate and fix the location of the Quale in Plato's world. The Green Quale itself is not a property of the Green object, nor is it equivalent to the material processes in the brain of the observer, but exists instead in Plato's world of forms. -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day"Please visit my website:http://www.riemannai.org/Science, Sci-Fi, Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 14 04:54:57 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:54:57 -0800 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strikeagain In-Reply-To: <20051213215706.64847.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512140456.jBE4ule29094@tick.javien.com> > http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/culture/allen.html > > Necessary disclaimer: I do not advocate nor condone > cannibalism or other forms of ghoulish behavior > directed toward Americans or other higher primates > except in those extremely rare circumstances where > jungle law trumps civilized behavior. The Avantguardian What about cases where the victim *wants* to be devoured? The meal would presumably donate her dead-of-natural-causes mortal remains to those who wish to devour human flesh. I can imagine such a thing. Suppose for instance one views life from the point of view of a carbon atom, an anthropomorphic view. What was life like? Well, there was this big bang, then lots of nothing for a looong time, then stars, then eventually supernovae, in which the carbon atom was born and hurled into space. A looootta nothing, then eventually it fell into a star system, orbited around and around for a long time, then combined with a couple of oxygen atoms, stayed that way for a long time, so boring this existence. Then one day, it becomes part of a plant! OK this is sorta cool, but the plant perished, into the ground, carbon dioxide again for a long time, then plant, CO2, plant, coal, CO2, for eons, occasionally becoming part of an animal, which is way better than being part of a plant, running around, perhaps being devoured by another animal, which is perfectly OK for a carbon atom, doesn't hurt a bit. But most of the time over these eons, the carbon atom stays as CO2, until the fortunate (for a carbon atom) event happens where it is incorporated into a human! These cool animals do a lot of interesting stuff, so those few years are a lot of carbon fun! But it lasts for only a short time, after which it is just more monotonous ages as carbon dioxide, or even worse coal, or worse still, diamond. Diamond carbon atoms never get to do much of anything. If on the other hand, the human carbon atoms are devoured by another human, some of the carbon atoms get incorporated into the tissues of the devourer, so they get another fun ride. Well lets see, 12 grams of carbon is 6e23, so a typical prole is about three to five octillion carbon atoms, and they served you well, did they not? They did so much for you: forming chains, supporting metabolism, making possible all the excellent adventures you enjoyed all these years. So do not these carbons deserve a shot at another 70 or 80 exciting trips around the sun? YES! What does it cost you? Nada! Have your head frozen, then convince several (admittedly weird) fellow proles to consume the remaining three to five octillion little 6-proton friends, who richly deserve to be devoured. Do it for the team. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 14 05:03:11 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:03:11 -0800 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strikeagain In-Reply-To: <439F86B6.8080102@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512140505.jBE557e29940@tick.javien.com> ... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch ... > > ... consume the poor and elderly for the nutrients > they carry in their bodies... > > Joseph If we view life from the perspective of the elemental constituents, there are no elderly. The young and the elderly are about the same age on average, which is measured in the billions of years. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Dec 14 05:13:14 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strikeagain In-Reply-To: <023801c60065$4053abc0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051214051314.78718.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > So Americans wouldn't taste "yucky". And such an anti-American > suggestion would be quite unscientific. It seems that Americans > would taste like veal. Tastes vary from person to person. Some people just don't like veal. Granted, this perception can sometimes be psychosemantic: a strong dislike for a food can make it seem of poor taste - and is it not perception, via the senses, that we are talking about in the end? From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 06:39:25 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:39:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/9/05, Derek Zahn wrote: > > Hi Neil! > > The field has very likely moved beyond my research topic by this point (I > haven't been following it for 10 years or so). The concept was to > experiment with evolvable languages for expressing structure (for example, > the structure of neural networks or other parallel processing networks with > semi-uniform architectures), in particular where the structures unfold from > a "developmental" process. The hope was that atomic operations on > representations of developmental processes would have the ability to cause > both coarse and fine alterations in structure and thus function and with an > appropriate representation would thus be fruitful for either automatic > "genetic algorithm" style exporation of the space of possible structures, or > for direct "intelligent design" by a person. > Ah, interesting. I used to be obsessed with genetic/evolutionary algorithms myself, but ultimately shifted to other areas. Good luck with your research! What are you working on? > Thanks! I'm just starting the 2nd year of my PhD program and so I'm still searching for a good thesis topic, but in general my department deals with interdisciplinary aspects of neuroscience and computer science. I'm in a computer vision lab in the department and not doing too much with the neuro end of things, but I'm hoping to somehow integrate some neuro or psychophysical work later on. I'm currently working on various aspects of visual object recognition and the visual correspondence problem. I'm also working on applications of spectral graph theory to object recognition. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Wed Dec 14 07:31:53 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:31:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: guaranteeing friendliness Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: TC [mailto:tc at mindloss.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:12 PM > To: herbm at learnquick.com > Subject: RE: guaranteeing friendliness > > Hi, > > I saw this post and gotta say that's an interesting approach > to creativity. > Got any links about it, or names of methods I can google, or > anything like > that? This was a live seminar by Richard Bandler so I don't know if is documented online. You might try Googling (but I have no real idea if it will hit): [ dhe | nlp ~creativity ~modeling ] You could include "Bandler" or "Richard Bandler" but my guess is this will not help the search. Let me know if you have, or don't have, any success. (I will help in the latter case, and I am interested in what you do find in the former case.) -- Herb Martin From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 14 12:50:13 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:50:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Mars Journal Publishes Its First Papers Message-ID: <006401c600ac$f8f63de0$c0893cd1@pavilion> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-general-05k.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 14:11:55 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:11:55 +1100 Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strikeagain References: <20051212205620.9404.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><18ce01c5ff8c$4e706420$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <03c801c600b8$56813a90$cd81e03c@homepc> Acy Stapp wrote: > On 12/12/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> I'm curious and slightly sceptical about that "tasting yucky". I think we >> have touched on this before here. I wonder if there is in fact any good >> data or science behind it. I understand that tribes that ate the brains >> of >> their recently dearly departed family tended to get nasty prion type >> diseases perhaps like 'mad cows' or 'cruishanks jakobs' but I'm inclined >> to think they probably just didn't cook 'the meal' very well and that is >> generally a dangerous practice regardless of what form of animal one >> eats. > Spongiform encephalies like mad cow or Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease are > not affected by cooking. I'm still reading about this, interesting stuff these prions, but it looks like you are right. Also looks like I was making a bigger claim that I thought when I said they'd contain nucleotides. Freaky thing is that they may not involve nucleic acids - they may just be infectious *proteins*. Almost scary how much biology we still don't know. Brett Paatsch From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 17:31:52 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:31:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Bon apetite' was Re: [extropy-chat] wretched journalists strike again In-Reply-To: <20051214030548.81350.qmail@web35707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051214173152.44495.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > When the you read a philosophical clause such as > this, even if written in jest, one can realize why > the public might have a healthy measure of mistrust > towards intellectuals. > > > The Avantguardian Wrote: > >except in those extremely rare circumstances > where > >jungle law trumps civilized behavior. Well I don't hear any public condemnation of the Donner Party for resorting to cannibalism to try to survive their ill-fated winter trek through the Sierras. And as far a I know, they were not intellectuals. I for one am willing to forgive those that break laws and taboos in order to survive. I think the public would be better served by directing its mistrust toward those that have both the motive and the opportunity to mislead, manipulate, and exploit them. The media, the government, the church, and large corporate interests should top their list. Individual intellectuals are harmless by comparison. After all, I am not the one getting rich by urging the American public to fear its own shadow while throwing their sons and daughters into the Iraqi meat grinder. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From allsop at extropy.org Wed Dec 14 18:13:14 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:13:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time![Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512141813.jBEIDJ1P020298@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Marc, Interesting idea about physical existence without having any causal property. Isn't it possible that you could have two physical objects - both a particular atom or something that can be causally completely indistinguishable from the other. But if one atom had a different "phenomenal" property than the other atom (say one was red and the other green) this could still not be "causally" detectable in any way. Yet isn't it theoretically possible to put these causally identical, phenomenally different objects in some kind of physical lattice in some kind of brain that makes the entire system "aware" of the red and green difference? Since the system was aware of the difference, it could effect the selection of the red one (instead of the green one) - even though the difference between the two items was in no way causally detectable right? As far as your logic below goes it seems just plain dumb. Just because it is abstractly possible to hypothesize that more than 3 special dimensions and more than one time dimension exist - The lack of physical evidence proves such a theory false or not like reality - or at best uselessly overly complex than what occam's razor idea will allow. Processes are sequential events - but not necessarily extending into a time dimension right? As in the entire sequence could theoretically occur instantaneously. And even if all this was some how true - what does this have to do with the phenomenal difference between red and green? Brent (1) Qualia are generated by brain processes (2) Brain processes are enacting algorithms (mathematical patterns) (3) The algorithm itself (the mathematical pattern) can't exist totally inside physical reality, because mathematical patterns are abstractions and many different types of brain processes can enact the same algorithm. So the brain processes themselves can't be identical to the mathematical algorithm (4) An algorithm is a process. But as demonstrated above, it can't be a process which is confined to physical reality - since it's an ABSTRACT process. Therefore it must be a process taking place at least partially outside physical reality. (5) Processes are events along time dimensions. As demonstrated above, there are processes at least partially taking place outside physical reality, in the form of mathematical patterns. Therefore these processes must be taking place in multiple time dimensions Ergo, extra time dimensions exist. And consciousness is a process taking place in multi-dimensional time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 18:45:41 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:45:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth Message-ID: <20051214184541.29676.qmail@web35715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> [if no one complains of my recycled Letters To The Editor, such will be taken as acquiesence. Some may not like the letters; some might not read them-- however a few may read & appreciate them] Noted with dismay Mike Arvey's conspiracy theory piece in the Sounding Off column. Conspiracy theories metastasize all over the web, and now we get them on the editorial page of this paper? Well, at least the title, 'From The Grassy Knoll', is correct. Conspiracy theories take grains of validity and attempt to enlarge them into rocks, you don't even require a computer or books & periodicals to know about them, you can overhear conversations in a city such as this if you keep your ears open. The New World Order; Cheney; Halliburton. The first time I heard about Halliburton it was exciting but now after hearing about Halliburton on perhaps over a thousand occasions since 1999 it is enough to give one the heaves. Arvey gives the game away in his 4th paragraph: "When Bush says that 'rebuilding a nation devastated by a dictator is a large undertaking,' he demonstrates, once again, his projective skills". Oh, so now Bush has skills, he is no longer a cretinous frat boy sitting on Cheney's lap? Bush has demonstrated 'career agility' and is now adept at 'personal growth'? Bush is now 'with it'? nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 21:52:17 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:52:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:38:32 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: >> Types of "Shape" and "Number" are classic platonic ideas, and Locke >> writes that these properties are in objects, whether or not we perceive >> them. >> if qualia truly have objective reality as you and I want to say then I >> think we have to admit they too are qualities of the object whether or >> not we perceive >> them. What else could we mean by objective? We might say the qualities >> have their origin in the platonic realm of ideas, and can be seen only >> when we perceive the object, but they are nevertheless objective >> properties of the object. > > > 'Green' can't possibly be a primary property of green objects! To see > why, just imagine an alien with a brain wired differently from ours, so > that what we see as 'Green', the alien sees as 'Red'. He would see our > so-called > 'Green' objects as Red. > > Remember, we agreed that Qualia are objectively real and that they're > 'real' in the same sense that 'numbers' are real. For your argument about aliens to work here, I think you would be forced to say that these aliens with brains wired differently from ours might not only see 'green' as 'red' but also see '5' as '3'. In that case I would say you are not referring to platonic ideas. If 5 exists objectively in a platonic sense then it is perceivable by all intelligent beings in the universe. In fact the SETI project works more or less on this assumption. If green exists platonically like a number then, like the number '5', green should also be perceivable by all intelligent beings, or at least by all intelligent beings with suitable sense organs. The existence of a being incapable of seeing green would not disprove the objective greenness of green objects, any more than would the existence of a color-blind person disprove the objective redness of tomatoes. > So it's a mistake to say that they're primary properties of physical > objects.Instead, they exist in Plato's world of abstract forms. And Plato's world of abstract forms is in principle real and objective for all beings. Intelligent beings *discover* the Forms. > A Quale, as I said, is a *relationship* between a physical object and an > observer. Qualia, for the reasons I just gave, cannot be primary > properties of physical objects, but instead exist in Plato's world of > abstract forms. And Plato's forms are primary, analogous I think to Locke's primary qualities. One interesting (and some might say philosophically fatal) consequence of my relating Locke's primary qualities to Plato's primary forms is that objects will have in theory an indefinite or perhaps even infinite number of real objective qualia properties. A baseball looks white to you and me, and really is white in an objective sense, but will look much different to a blind bat perceiving it through sonar. That sonar quale must nevertheless be understood as an objective quality of baseballs. Presumably that sonar quale of baseballs exists platonically alongside the 'white' and 'sphere' ideas that humans access. > To see how this works, imagine that Plato's world of forms is > 2-dimensional. To locate the 'Green Quale' in Plato's world you would > need two > co-ordinates. Then the properties possessed by physical things (like > green objects) are > *psuedo-Quale* (or proto-Quale) which give *one* co-ordinate for a > location in Plato's world. It seems then that you want to say 'proto-qualia' exist objectively in objects, but not qualia. > The Green Quale itself is not a property of the Green object, nor is it > equivalent to the material processes in the brain of the observer, but > exists instead in Plato's world of forms. But, again, Plato's forms are thought to exist objectively. If objects exist objectively along with their Lockean primary qualities and objective platonic qualities, and if qualia are objective, then I see no need for a subjective component in the definition of 'qualia'. I wonder if you really mean that qualia are something like Aristotle's universals. This might be consistent with what you wrote earlier about your subscribing to a 'weaker form of platonism' in which forms do not exist separate from their instances. I think you mentioned set theory -- that qualia are like sets -- also consistent with Aristotle. Sets are formed in a mind, whereas platonic forms exist before they are comprehended. -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 23:31:44 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:31:44 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051214184541.29676.qmail@web35715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <046001c60106$8b33b0d0$cd81e03c@homepc> Alan, I understand dismay, but I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to "Mike Arvey's consiracy theory piece in the Sounding Off column". I don't know who Mike Arvey is, or why I should care that he is "sounding off" in a column called Sounding Off. If you are "sound off" expressing your dismay then I'm *slightly* predisposed towards caring because you have self selected a list I post to to do it on and that reinforces that you might have something in common with me on some level. I am dismayed too. I think that America has been the greatest country on earth, but I fear that it might have become irredeemable since the Bush administration went that final step in corrupting the UN, and invading Iraq illegally. I think that when Bush set aside that law, he also broke his own oath to the US people, but then the US people reelected him and the only way that I can think of would undo the harm done would be for you to impeach your President and try him for any crimes and then and only when America has cleaned its own house, should the UN be reformed. As things stand, now almost everything about America and Americans as a collective sample of priviledged selfish stupid humanity dismays me. Do I think Australians or any other nationality are any better? No. My dismay with America and Americans is because your country was the best and your people as a collective were more empowered than any others to make the future better. The world has taken a turn for the worse in our lives and on our watch. Freedoms in so called democratic countries are being lost. And we are all in part responsible for it but those who could do have done more and chose to do less are more responsible. Americans have a Bill of Rights to protect them and a Constitution that is their contract with each other and with the President and yet they do nothing. If I cannot hold America as a whole responsible for what America does in the world then who can I hold responsible? Americans re-elected Bush. And I think in so doing, as a collective, they became a net liability to human progress. Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:45 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth [if no one complains of my recycled Letters To The Editor, such will be taken as acquiesence. Some may not like the letters; some might not read them-- however a few may read & appreciate them] Noted with dismay Mike Arvey's conspiracy theory piece in the Sounding Off column. Conspiracy theories metastasize all over the web, and now we get them on the editorial page of this paper? Well, at least the title, 'From The Grassy Knoll', is correct. Conspiracy theories take grains of validity and attempt to enlarge them into rocks, you don't even require a computer or books & periodicals to know about them, you can overhear conversations in a city such as this if you keep your ears open. The New World Order; Cheney; Halliburton. The first time I heard about Halliburton it was exciting but now after hearing about Halliburton on perhaps over a thousand occasions since 1999 it is enough to give one the heaves. Arvey gives the game away in his 4th paragraph: "When Bush says that 'rebuilding a nation devastated by a dictator is a large undertaking,' he demonstrates, once again, his projective skills". Oh, so now Bush has skills, he is no longer a cretinous frat boy sitting on Cheney's lap? Bush has demonstrated 'career agility' and is now adept at 'personal growth'? Bush is now 'with it'? nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 14 23:52:36 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] semiconductor quantum computer chips Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051214175204.01d6fde8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> University of Michigan develops scalable and mass-producible quantum computer chip: http://www.physorg.com/news9063.html From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 00:16:57 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:16:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Brett, a separate peace In-Reply-To: <046001c60106$8b33b0d0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215001657.6323.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> [No problem with your caveat, Brett, but I did write in preface of how it is a verbatim recycled letter and the content, not someone's name or a title, was what I want someone who might be so interested here to read]. Your doubts of Bush's morality are just & proper, unfortunately nationalism and morality are oil and vinegar at this time, get used to it-- I guarantee* you will have to when you reach a certain age, to retain peace of mind. I honestly think we might have to wait until the 22nd century for peace, and naturally my optimism is a construct, we're bucking for an extropian future we're not actually predicting anything. If we win, the future is extropian; if someone else wins, the future is theirs. *if you want a guarantee in writing just post where you want the fax sent to. Alan, I understand dismay, but I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to "Mike Arvey's consiracy theory piece in the Sounding Off column". I don't know who Mike Arvey is, or why I should care that he is "sounding off" in a column called Sounding Off. If you are "sound off" expressing your dismay then I'm *slightly* predisposed towards caring because you have self selected a list I post to to do it on and that reinforces that you might have something in common with me on some level. I am dismayed too. I think that America has been the greatest country on earth, but I fear that it might have become irredeemable since the Bush administration went that final step in corrupting the UN, and invading Iraq illegally. I think that when Bush set aside that law, he also broke his own oath to the US people, but then the US people reelected him and the only way that I can think of would undo the harm done would be for you to impeach your President and try him for any crimes and then and only when America has cleaned its own house, should the UN be reformed. As things stand, now almost everything about America and Americans as a collective sample of priviledged selfish stupid humanity dismays me. Do I think Australians or any other nationality are any better? No. My dismay with America and Americans is because your country was the best and your people as a collective were more empowered than any others to make the future better. The world has taken a turn for the worse in our lives and on our watch. Freedoms in so called democratic countries are being lost. And we are all in part responsible for it but those who could do have done more and chose to do less are more responsible. Americans have a Bill of Rights to protect them and a Constitution that is their contract with each other and with the President and yet they do nothing. If I cannot hold America as a whole responsible for what America does in the world then who can I hold responsible? Americans re-elected Bush. And I think in so doing, as a collective, they became a net liability to human progress. Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:45 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth [if no one complains of my recycled Letters To The Editor, such will be taken as acquiesence. Some may not like the letters; some might not read them-- however a few may read & appreciate them] Noted with dismay Mike Arvey's conspiracy theory piece in the Sounding Off column. Conspiracy theories metastasize all over the web, and now we get them on the editorial page of this paper? Well, at least the title, 'From The Grassy Knoll', is correct. Conspiracy theories take grains of validity and attempt to enlarge them into rocks, you don't even require a computer or books & periodicals to know about them, you can overhear conversations in a city such as this if you keep your ears open. The New World Order; Cheney; Halliburton. The first time I heard about Halliburton it was exciting but now after hearing about Halliburton on perhaps over a thousand occasions since 1999 it is enough to give one the heaves. Arvey gives the game away in his 4th paragraph: "When Bush says that 'rebuilding a nation devastated by a dictator is a large undertaking,' he demonstrates, once again, his projective skills". Oh, so now Bush has skills, he is no longer a cretinous frat boy sitting on Cheney's lap? Bush has demonstrated 'career agility' and is now adept at 'personal growth'? Bush is now 'with it'? nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping --------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 00:36:29 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:36:29 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brett, a separate peace References: <20051215001657.6323.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <04aa01c6010f$97003bf0$cd81e03c@homepc> Alan Brookes wrote: [No problem with your caveat, Brett, but I did write in preface of how it is a verbatim recycled letter and the content, not someone's name or a title, was what I want someone who might be so interested here to read]. Your doubts of Bush's morality are just & proper, unfortunately nationalism and morality are oil and vinegar at this time, get used to it-- I guarantee* you will have to when you reach a certain age, to retain peace of mind. I honestly think we might have to wait until the 22nd century for peace, and naturally my optimism is a construct, we're bucking for an extropian future we're not actually predicting anything. If we win, the future is extropian; if someone else wins, the future is theirs. *if you want a guarantee in writing just post where you want the fax sent to. Just send the guarantee to the list, that will do fine. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 15 01:07:09 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:07:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <046001c60106$8b33b0d0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > If I cannot hold America as a whole responsible for what America does > in the world then who can I hold responsible? Those Americans who actually implement that which you would assign responsibility for. America is not one giant whole, and if you treat it as such for the purposes of declaring enemies, you make a lot of enemies out of those who might otherwise be your best allies. Even if it seems simpler, it doesn't actually work in the end. From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 01:45:56 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:45:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Yank on the barbie In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051215014557.59996.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: At 09:20 AM 12/12/2005 -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: >I got the feeling that the Eloi were descended >from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives. >Did anyone else catch this or am I just bonkers? You're just bonkers, sorry. The Eloi descended from effete aristocrats, the Morlocks from the degenerated and brutalised working class. Damien, Is this actually derived from Wells' text, or is it a "counter-assertion" to The Avantguardian's "... the Eloi were descended from liberals and the Morlocks from the conservatives"? Just trying to keep things 'straight'. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 01:58:38 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:58:38 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> If I cannot hold America as a whole responsible for what America does >> in the world then who can I hold responsible? > > Those Americans who actually implement that which you would > assign responsibility for. America is not one giant whole, and > if you treat it as such for the purposes of declaring enemies, > you make a lot of enemies out of those who might otherwise be > your best allies. Even if it seems simpler, it doesn't actually > work in the end. President Bush gave the order to invade Iraq illegally. I do hold him personally responsible for that. And he for his part would accept responsibility. In Australia, the Howard government supported him when he should have opposed him or counselled against him, so I do hold the Howard government and John Howard personally responsible for that. In the UK, I hold Blair personally responsible. These men had jobs to do and public trusts to uphold and so it is proper that they be held personally responsible for the good they do and the harm. But Bush could only do what he did, and Howard and Blair what they did, because they were acting as agents within a larger framework. And the citizens of their countries are the human manifestations of those larger frameworks. If we who post to the extropian list want to understand why progress is inhibited and so do our bit to increase it we have to be honest. Bush, Blair and Howard are all sufficiently skilled politicians and readers of the public mood that they would love to have opposition to them characterisable as anti-americanism or anti-western or un-australia, because they can then turn the mob on those that oppose what them. But that does not mean that there are not rational humanistic grounds for being anti-American, and anti-Western, and anti-Australian when the collective citizenry of America, or the UK or Australia are morally culpable for not caring enough to hold their governments to account for breaches of promise and further contributions to the erosion of human rights and the rule of law. Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 15 02:37:33 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:37:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting another Eloi on the barbie In-Reply-To: <20051215014557.59996.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051212120819.01dbd750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051215014557.59996.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051214203456.01c8ee40@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:45 PM 12/14/2005 -0800, the Jeffster wrote: >effete aristocrats, the Morlocks from the degenerated >and brutalised working class.> > >Is this actually derived from Wells' text Soitenly. See e.g. www.thenation.com/doc/20020401/klawans "As is well-known to anyone with a decent respect for Fabianism, H.G. Wells used The Time Machine to project into the future his ideas about nineteenth-century class struggle. His Eloi were the feeble descendants of aristocrats, lovely to look at but frivolous and idle. The Morlocks were the offspring of workers, condemned to dwell and labor brutishly underground. The twist in Wells's story was that the workers, by virtue of their know-how, had come to dominate the aristocrats. The twist in Wells's psychology was that this socialist, born into the very-lower middle class and self-educated out of penury, gave his sympathy to the Eloi and wrote of the Morlocks as subhuman." [etc] Damien Broderick From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Dec 15 02:45:46 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:45:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> I'm gonna toss this one out to the moderators. Do you really want a no-holds-barred discussion on George W Bush and the Iraq War? I will indulge in such, but be aware, it has the potential to get ugly and suck up lots and lots of bandwidth. But I do not think allowing such statements to go unchallenged is in anyone's interests. Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. Joseph Brett Paatsch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >>> If I cannot hold America as a whole responsible for what America does >>> in the world then who can I hold responsible? >> >> >> Those Americans who actually implement that which you would >> assign responsibility for. America is not one giant whole, and >> if you treat it as such for the purposes of declaring enemies, >> you make a lot of enemies out of those who might otherwise be >> your best allies. Even if it seems simpler, it doesn't actually >> work in the end. > > > President Bush gave the order to invade Iraq illegally. I do hold him > personally responsible for that. And he for his part would accept > responsibility. In Australia, the Howard government supported him > when he should have opposed him or counselled against him, so I do > hold the Howard government and John Howard personally responsible > for that. In the UK, I hold Blair personally responsible. > These men had jobs to do and public trusts to uphold and so it is proper > that they be held personally responsible for the good they do and the > harm. > But Bush could only do what he did, and Howard and Blair what they > did, because they were acting as agents within a larger framework. > And the citizens of their countries are the human manifestations of those > larger frameworks. > > If we who post to the extropian list want to understand why progress > is inhibited and so do our bit to increase it we have to be honest. > > Bush, Blair and Howard are all sufficiently skilled politicians and > readers > of the public mood that they would love to have opposition to them > characterisable as anti-americanism or anti-western or un-australia, > because they can then turn the mob on those that oppose what them. > But that does not mean that there are not rational humanistic grounds > for being anti-American, and anti-Western, and anti-Australian when > the collective citizenry of America, or the UK or Australia are morally > culpable for not caring enough to hold their governments to account for > breaches of promise and further contributions to the erosion of human > rights and the rule of law. > > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 03:00:52 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:00:52 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com><04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <053001c60123$c29b7950$cd81e03c@homepc> So challenge away. I'll listen to your point of view, that's kind of the point of a adult discussion. Be aware though that it might not get ugly and it might not take up lots of bandwidth (I might get bored), even if the moderators think its appropriate to give you their "blessing" which I doubt. Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Bloch" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth > I'm gonna toss this one out to the moderators. > > Do you really want a no-holds-barred discussion on George W Bush and the > Iraq War? I will indulge in such, but be aware, it has the potential to > get ugly and suck up lots and lots of bandwidth. But I do not think > allowing such statements to go unchallenged is in anyone's interests. > > Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. > > Joseph From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 15 03:02:51 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:02:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> References: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051214215914.06a07000@unreasonable.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: >I'm gonna toss this one out to the moderators. > >Do you really want a no-holds-barred discussion on George W Bush and >the Iraq War? I will indulge in such, but be aware, it has the >potential to get ugly and suck up lots and lots of bandwidth. But I >do not think allowing such statements to go unchallenged is in >anyone's interests. > >Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. If you're going to respond to every posting on politics that ought not go unchallenged, you'd better warm up by sweeping all the sand off a windy beach. -- David. From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 15 03:09:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:09:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215030947.39135.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > But that does not mean that there are not rational humanistic grounds > for being anti-American, and anti-Western, and anti-Australian when > the collective citizenry of America, or the UK or Australia are > morally > culpable for not caring enough to hold their governments to account > for > breaches of promise and further contributions to the erosion of human > rights and the rule of law. What of those citizens who attempted to do so, and were thwarted by the other citizens? Would you tar them with the same brush, for failing to lay down their lives (which it might have taken, in the face of that much opposition) for what you claim is just? From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 03:08:20 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:08:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512150310.jBF3APe16498@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:46 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth > > I'm gonna toss this one out to the moderators. > > Do you really want a no-holds-barred discussion on George W Bush and the > Iraq War? I will indulge in such, but be aware, it has the potential to > get ugly and suck up lots and lots of bandwidth. But I do not think > allowing such statements to go unchallenged is in anyone's interests. > > Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. > > Joseph... What do you guys think? I would propose open season on all things political for a finite period, say a week or so. Post everything you want to get outta your system, refrain from personal attack but attack the other guy's country or government if you feel you must. Then after that let us settle down and post extropian stuff again? Sound reasonable? Seems we need to do this every once in a while. spike From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 03:34:18 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:34:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] a separate peace In-Reply-To: <04aa01c6010f$97003bf0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215033418.44103.qmail@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sworn this day of December 15th, 2005. The bearer is hereby promised after printing this guarantee he or she will at some later stage in life attain increased inner peace by acceptance of the now apparent fact that nationalism and gross oppression will persist in concert for the duration of most of this century. It is also collaterally understood that manhood and warfare are directly linked. Alan Brooks 0330 hours, Greenwich Time -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alan >Just send the guarantee to the list, that will do fine. >Brett Paatsch nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 03:44:08 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:44:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512150310.jBF3APe16498@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051215034408.13604.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No, just admit to yourselves if there were no war in Iraq, America would be fighting a roughly equivalent war somewhere else. America hasn't reached the stage Europe has. Europe goes back 1,000 years, America about 230. It could be you Down Under guys will become more warlike soon. You boys had riots in Australia a couple of days ago, right? :-) > I would propose open season on >all things political for a finite period, say a week or >so. Post everything you want to get outta your system, >refrain from personal attack but attack the other guy's >country or government if you feel you must. Then after >that let us settle down and post extropian stuff again? >Sound reasonable? Seems we need to do this every once >in a while. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Dec 15 03:50:27 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:50:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051214215914.06a07000@unreasonable.com> References: <20051215010709.20745.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <04f101c6011b$10c3ccd0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A0D8DA.1040602@goldenfuture.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051214215914.06a07000@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <43A0E803.1070206@goldenfuture.net> Nope... this one just seems to be especially flame-war-kindling. I am not above being controversial... but I guaran-fucking-tee you, saying that George W Bush isn't an idiot and the Iraq War was a good thing, is going to be more controversial than usual. Thus do I defer to the moderators. Joseph David Lubkin wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> I'm gonna toss this one out to the moderators. >> >> Do you really want a no-holds-barred discussion on George W Bush and >> the Iraq War? I will indulge in such, but be aware, it has the >> potential to get ugly and suck up lots and lots of bandwidth. But I >> do not think allowing such statements to go unchallenged is in >> anyone's interests. >> >> Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. > > > If you're going to respond to every posting on politics that ought not > go unchallenged, you'd better warm up by sweeping all the sand off a > windy beach. > > > -- David. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From neptune at superlink.net Thu Dec 15 04:44:53 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:44:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215034408.13604.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d501c60132$4b2a6520$ab893cd1@pavilion> Spike is down under? Also, Alan's view seems to smack of an everywhere similar, constant socio-cultural evolution. In fact, the opposite seems true: different patterns and rates of change all over the place. Regards, Dan From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:44 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth No, just admit to yourselves if there were no war in Iraq, America would be fighting a roughly equivalent war somewhere else. America hasn't reached the stage Europe has. Europe goes back 1,000 years, America about 230. It could be you Down Under guys will become more warlike soon. You boys had riots in Australia a couple of days ago, right? :-) > I would propose open season on >all things political for a finite period, say a week or >so. Post everything you want to get outta your system, >refrain from personal attack but attack the other guy's >country or government if you feel you must. Then after >that let us settle down and post extropian stuff again? >Sound reasonable? Seems we need to do this every once >in a while. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 04:45:52 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:45:52 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215030947.39135.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <057e01c60132$6d884ec0$cd81e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> But that does not mean that there are not rational humanistic grounds >> for being anti-American, and anti-Western, and anti-Australian when >> the collective citizenry of America, or the UK or Australia are >> morally culpable for not caring enough to hold their governments to >> account for breaches of promise and further contributions to the >> erosion of human rights and the rule of law. > > What of those citizens who attempted to do so, and were thwarted > by the other citizens? Would you tar them with the same brush, > for failing to lay down their lives (which it might have taken, > in the face of that much opposition) for what you claim is just? What about them? They are minority instances of a class. They are not the class. Democratic nation states like the US and Australia and the UK are nations. They are real things. The nation state is the political entity that dominates at present. It is possible and sometimes downright necessary to talk in general terms. The people who enjoy US citizenship are a specific class of people in the set of people on earth. What that class of the people on earth does more than any other class determines the progress or regress of humanity. Americans have a special responsibility to international law because they are Americans. When America breaks international law its worse than when Libya does, or Australia does, because it sets the moral tenor of the planet. It tells the people of the world what sort of world the world is and what sort of humans succeed in the world I think America is on the slide. I think that with the end of the USSR, and indeed slightly before it successive US Presidents from Reagan, encouraged by characters that might call themselves neo-cons, have increasingly dispensed with the inconvenience of international law because they thought that *they* would not be held accountable by Americans. They have gambled that Americans domestically would not care enough about what they do internationally, and they have figured pragmatically that foreign nationals don't vote and so don't count. They have thought that they could weaken the UN and still make use of it. And so far, they have been right. If Bush is not impeached, the next US President will come to power *knowing* that Bush was not impeached after invading a sovereign country and member of the UN to find weapons of mass destuction that didn't exits. What possible grounds could there be for impeachment in the future that would top what Bush has done? The next US President will think with good reason having watched and learned the lessons of history that he or she is untouchable and unaccountable because the system is such and the citizenry is such that they will not care and they will have diminshed mechanisms for holding him or her to account. And around the world politicans in 'democratic' countries will look at the US as the template and they will see what works, how the public is divided and manipulated and they will learn and imitate. Brett Paatsch From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 05:17:19 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:17:19 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time![Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <200512141813.jBEIDJ1P020298@ra.pacificwebworks.com> References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> <200512141813.jBEIDJ1P020298@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512142117m31024396if41b9106b2ce1d1b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > Isn't it possible that you could have two physical objects ? both a > particular atom or something that can be causally completely > indistinguishable from the other. But if one atom had a different > "phenomenal" property than the other atom (say one was red and the other > green) this could still not be "causally" detectable in any way. Yet isn't > it theoretically possible to put these causally identical, phenomenally > different objects in some kind of physical lattice in some kind of brain > that makes the entire system "aware" of the red and green difference? Since > the system was aware of the difference, it could effect the selection of the > red one (instead of the green one) ? even though the difference between the > two items was in no way causally detectable right? > Atoms can't have 'phenomenal' properties of the type your're describing. > > As far as your logic below goes it seems just plain dumb. Just because it > is abstractly possible to hypothesize that more than 3 special dimensions > and more than one time dimension exist ? The lack of physical evidence > proves such a theory false or not like reality ? or at best uselessly overly > complex than what occam's razor idea will allow. > > > > Processes are sequential events ? but not necessarily extending into a > time dimension right? As in the entire sequence could theoretically occur > instantaneously. > You've mis-understood the basic meaning of the term 'time dimension'. It just means a co-ordinate system for locating ordered 'events'. Since everything in reality is arguably an 'event', *everything* is in at least one time dimension. This basic relativity theory here! My logic not 'plain dumb', I think it's pretty clear-cut actually. I pointed out that many different brains can implement the *same* mathematical algorithm (i.e the same 'program'). This shows that the program (the mathematical algorithm) is an 'event' extending beyond our single physical time-dimension. > > > > -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day"Please visit my website:http://www.riemannai.org/Science, Sci-Fi, Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 05:21:15 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:21:15 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] a separate peace References: <20051215033418.44103.qmail@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <05bb01c60137$5ef52130$cd81e03c@homepc> Alan, I'm not a she. When you said a certain stage in life I thought you meant my life (so my name would be on the guarantee) not just anyone's life and also that you might put down a specific number in years. Chances are neither of us will be around by 2101. A guarantee can have legal consequences, you realise don't you? Are you sure you want to make it? If you do, its not Greenwich Time that matters its what jurisdiction you are making the promise from that matters as that would be location in which the meaning of the guarantee would be adduced. Careful though, do you really want to put yourself in my debt? I might turn up in your neck of the woods with the proof that I am me and ask you to make good on your guarantee and you might have to pay. Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:34 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] a separate peace Sworn this day of December 15th, 2005. The bearer is hereby promised after printing this guarantee he or she will at some later stage in life attain increased inner peace by acceptance of the now apparent fact that nationalism and gross oppression will persist in concert for the duration of most of this century. It is also collaterally understood that manhood and warfare are directly linked. Alan Brooks 0330 hours, Greenwich Time -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alan >Just send the guarantee to the list, that will do fine. >Brett Paatsch nattering nabob Of positivism since 1976 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 05:28:26 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:28:26 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/05, gts wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:38:32 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > > > >> Types of "Shape" and "Number" are classic platonic ideas, and Locke > >> writes that these properties are in objects, whether or not we perceive > >> them. > >> if qualia truly have objective reality as you and I want to say then I > >> think we have to admit they too are qualities of the object whether or > >> not we perceive > >> them. What else could we mean by objective? We might say the qualities > >> have their origin in the platonic realm of ideas, and can be seen only > >> when we perceive the object, but they are nevertheless objective > >> properties of the object. > > > > > > 'Green' can't possibly be a primary property of green objects! To see > > why, just imagine an alien with a brain wired differently from ours, so > > that what we see as 'Green', the alien sees as 'Red'. He would see our > > so-called > > 'Green' objects as Red. > > > > Remember, we agreed that Qualia are objectively real and that they're > > 'real' in the same sense that 'numbers' are real. > > For your argument about aliens to work here, I think you would be forced > to say that these aliens with brains wired differently from ours might not > only see 'green' as 'red' but also see '5' as '3'. In that case I would > say you are not referring to platonic ideas. If 5 exists objectively in a > platonic sense then it is perceivable by all intelligent beings in the > universe. In fact the SETI project works more or less on this assumption. Not what I said. Green is green. All I said is that the property 'Green' is not a primary property of physical objects. If green exists platonically like a number then, like the number '5', > green should also be perceivable by all intelligent beings, or at least by > all intelligent beings with suitable sense organs. The existence of a > being incapable of seeing green would not disprove the objective greenness > of green objects, any more than would the existence of a color-blind > person disprove the objective redness of tomatoes. Of course. See above. > > > To see how this works, imagine that Plato's world of forms is > > 2-dimensional. To locate the 'Green Quale' in Plato's world you would > > need two > > co-ordinates. Then the properties possessed by physical things (like > > green objects) are > > *psuedo-Quale* (or proto-Quale) which give *one* co-ordinate for a > > location in Plato's world. > > It seems then that you want to say 'proto-qualia' exist objectively in > objects, but not qualia. Right. Proto-Qualia exist in objects. Qualia does exist objectively, but *not* as a primary property of physical objects. > The Green Quale itself is not a property of the Green object, nor is it > > equivalent to the material processes in the brain of the observer, but > > exists instead in Plato's world of forms. > > But, again, Plato's forms are thought to exist objectively. If objects > exist objectively along with their Lockean primary qualities and objective > platonic qualities, and if qualia are objective, then I see no need for a > subjective component in the definition of 'qualia'. I can eliminate a subjective component from my definition. Let me define Qualia as composed of a combination of a Meme and an object. A 'Meme' is an abstract belief. Then my definition is still objective. But Qualia are not primary properties of the object alone. As I pointed out an alien with a brain wired differently from ours could see red OBJECTS where we see green OBJECTS. Note that I didn't say the alien sees green as red. I only said the property 'Green' is not in the object. The property 'Green' is extended across space, like the idea of a 'wave function' in physics. I wonder if you really mean that qualia are something like Aristotle's > universals. This might be consistent with what you wrote earlier about > your subscribing to a 'weaker form of platonism' in which forms do not > exist separate from their instances. I think you mentioned set theory -- > that qualia are like sets -- also consistent with Aristotle. Sets are > formed in a mind, whereas platonic forms exist before they are > comprehended. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day"Please visit my website:http://www.riemannai.org/Science, Sci-Fi, Fantasy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 05:59:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:59:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <00d501c60132$4b2a6520$ab893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200512150601.jBF61Te31779@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth >Spike is down under? ? >Also, Alan's view seems to smack of an everywhere similar, constant socio->cultural evolution.? In fact, the opposite seems true: different patterns >and rates of change all over the place. Regards, Dan No, still a yank, thanks.