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. {8-] I was responding to what appeared to be a suggestion that we have a political free-for-all. I proposed we do that, but limit it to about a week, and be civil about it. Those who have no interest can wait until the furor dies down, then we return to our regularly scheduled program. Sound fair? spike 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: <43A0E803.1070206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512150601.jBF61Ve31785@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 7:50 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth > > 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 Post away. But do explain the term "Iraq war." I can think of at least four of those. One in the early 90s, a U.S. led coalition against the Iraqi government, the second in 2003 which was a US-led coalition against the Iraqi government which lasted only a few weeks, the third is a shrinking US-led coalition allied with the Iraqi government against a collection of those who oppose Iraq. The fourth is yet to come, Iraq against a collection of those who oppose Iraq. For the sake of discussion, let us call them I1, I2, I3 and I4. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 06:00:13 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:00:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time![Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512142117m31024396if41b9106b2ce1d1b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> <200512141813.jBEIDJ1P020298@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <7a5e56060512142117m31024396if41b9106b2ce1d1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:17:19 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > On 12/15/05, Brent Allsop wrote: > Atoms can't have 'phenomenal' properties of the type your're describing. I can't be sure if my meaning of "phenomenal properties" is identical to Brent's but I would say that atoms might have phenomenal properties in so much as they emit detectable particles. Experiments have shown that the human eye/brain can perceive even a single photon. The question, "What does a photon X look like?" is to me identical to the question, "What is the optical phenomenal property of photon X?" i.e., what are its Lockean secondary qualities? In Locke's view, the secondary qualities of an object are derived from its real primary qualities, qualities such as 'number' and 'shape,' which in the context of this discussion seem suspiciously platonic in nature. One could say the secondary quality or phenomenal property of a photon ("what it is like" to see it) is derived from its primary wavelength quality. Wavelength is a primary quality of photons even though Locke did not list "wavelength" as a possible primary quality of objects. (In Locke's day light was not yet understood.) The secondary qualities of objects (their associated qualia) are defined and determined by their real and objective primary qualities. In this sense they are real and objective. Any intelligent being equipped with the right sensory apparatus could experience them. For example green objects would be actually green in objective reality -- green objects would be green even in a universe devoid of sentient beings, like platonic ideas -- but like platonic idea of roundness, only beings capable of seeing greenness could appreciate this quality of green objects. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 06:26:48 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:26:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:28:26 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: >> 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. But isn't '5' a primary quality of groups of things of which there are five? And are you not trying to give color the same ontological status as number? Why not call them both primary, and ignore the supposed philosophical truth that secondary qualities exist only in observation and thus cannot be primary? After all if there were no observers in the universe then we would not be here discussing this problem. I'm trying to see the bridge between numbers and colors. One way to do that is to objectify colors in the same way we do platonic ideas like "five-ness". I would say that your aliens who see green where we see red must have dysfunctional color perception. If I say otherwise, and if I equate numbers with colors, then I must admit they would not be wrong to see '3' where I see '5'. -gts From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 15 06:29:28 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:29:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <057e01c60132$6d884ec0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215062928.23745.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > 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. They are, in fact, just under half of the class in this case. And if you tar them for something they did not do, they will perceive you as being unwilling to engage in honest debate or reconciliation. Which leaves them...what options? Those who are indeed responsible, may perhaps repent their behavior. Those you attack for something they did not do, are left with no options save ignoring your attack (which, if you can actually do something to this large a class, might not be an option) or retaliating in as destructive a manner as possible. The end result is a lot more destruction (of mental energy, goodwill, or possibly physical property) than would otherwise be necessary, which benefits no one. The class of people who are responsible for the actions of the government of America is not now, and never has been, the entire population of said country. The same holds for Australia and any other country of at least several thousand people (if the threshold is not in fact smaller). Justice is meted out to people, not nations, and there is always a limit to liability for the actions of other people. If you would punish someone for not impeaching Bush, punish the members of Congress, not the people who voted for them. (Punishment for "voting the wrong way" has long been recognized to have profoundly negative effects on who gets elected, even in this case. That's why we have secret ballots.) In fact, that may still be possible: organize movements opposing all Congressional incumbents, running in the 2006 elections, who refuse to sign a pledge to impeach Bush. (Of course, circulate that pledge to them first, and make sure it's simple and to the point rather than laden down with hyperbole that might make even pro-impeachers blink. The voters you hope to persuade will see through that hyperbole. If it's a simple pledge to impeach Bush, you might get more support from them than you think you'd get.) You might even be able to get organizations such as MoveOn to help out with that. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 07:19:45 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:19:45 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215062928.23745.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <062601c60147$eca945a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: >> > 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. > > They are, in fact, just under half of the class in this case. > And if you tar them for something they did not do, they will > perceive you as being unwilling to engage in honest debate or > reconciliation. I'm not tarring anyone, this is just a mailing list. No tar. > Which leaves them...what options? Those who are > indeed responsible, may perhaps repent their behavior. You think Bush will repent? Cheney? The neo-cons? These folk are almost irrelevant now. It would do the world good to see them impeached and prosecuted for high crimes and misdemeanors and imprisoned after due process but that isn't going to happen unless the citizens of the US care enough to make it happen. The class of people that are doing the damage are the voters, and the damage they are doing is in not being sufficiently vigilant when they are not personally affected. Individually citizens can hardly repent, if individually they did not engage with the issues of the international rule of law in the first place. The average voter justs asks dumb questions like "why do "they" (foreigners, terrorists) hate us so much?" We'll it isn't personal, its collective. They "hate" you so much because of what you Americans permit your government to do. They hate Americans because of American foreign policy and the manifest injustice of American foreign policy. And, obviously, I don't hate you by the way, I don't hate any posters to this list, (in fact I don't hate anyone at all). I'm putting things in dumb-speak. > Those you > attack for something they did not do, are left with no options > save ignoring your attack (which, if you can actually do > something to this large a class, might not be an option) or > retaliating in as destructive a manner as possible. Its not an attack. 9/11 was an attack. The invasion of Iraq was an attack. *This* is attempted communication. > The class of people who are responsible for the actions of the > government of America is not now, and never has been, the entire > population of said country. The same holds for Australia and any > other country of at least several thousand people (if the > threshold is not in fact smaller). Justice is meted out to > people, not nations, and there is always a limit to liability > for the actions of other people. > > If you would punish someone for not impeaching Bush, punish the > members of Congress, not the people who voted for them. I'm not punishing. The members of Congress are the representatives of the people who put them there. The "terrorists" know that, that is why the terrorists attack the people who put them there. They are engaged in something logical. They are trying to change American foreign policy. I don't agree with their means but I think American has joined them in using those means. To the extent that terrorists or anyone is trying to get the American people to wake up to the consequences of breaking international law then I agree with their aims. It could be that the terrorists are the only force that can communicate with the American public on a level that the American public can understand, because the American public does not respect the rule of law enough to uphold it. > (Punishment for "voting the wrong way" has long been recognized > to have profoundly negative effects on who gets elected, even in > this case. That's why we have secret ballots.) There is no right way to vote in a system that is inherently wrong. Look at it from an non-US citizens point of view. They don't get to vote in US elections at all but they do wear the consequences. > In fact, that > may still be possible: organize movements opposing all > Congressional incumbents, running in the 2006 elections, who > refuse to sign a pledge to impeach Bush. Well, what do you think, would *you* do that? You are making me justify what I am saying but what are you prepared to do if you agree with me? And if you personally don't agree with me than where is it that you don't agree? > (Of course, circulate > that pledge to them first, and make sure it's simple and to the > point rather than laden down with hyperbole that might make even > pro-impeachers blink. The voters you hope to persuade will see > through that hyperbole. If it's a simple pledge to impeach Bush, > you might get more support from them than you think you'd get.) > You might even be able to get organizations such as MoveOn to > help out with that. You are offering me procedural advice. I don't need procedural advice. I just want to know what you personally think. Brett Paatsch. From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 07:26:41 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:26:41 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512142326r73b21f8ehd49ed287bd46ea37@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/05, gts wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:28:26 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > > >> 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. > > But isn't '5' a primary quality of groups of things of which there are > five? And are you not trying to give color the same ontological status as > number? Why not call them both primary, and ignore the supposed > philosophical truth that secondary qualities exist only in observation and > thus cannot be primary? After all if there were no observers in the > universe then we would not be here discussing this problem. > > I'm trying to see the bridge between numbers and colors. One way to do > that is to objectify colors in the same way we do platonic ideas like > "five-ness". I only agree that 'Green Quale' have objective existence. Not they have exactly the same metaphysical status as numbers. I would say that your aliens who see green where we see red must have > dysfunctional color perception. If I say otherwise, and if I equate > numbers with colors, then I must admit they would not be wrong to see '3' > where I see '5'. > > -gts > > > _______________________________________________ See above. I really hope I can shake you loose of this block. I'm telling you, 'Green' can't possibly be a primary property of physical objects. Any number of different observers would have slightly different perceptions of the coloring of an object depending on their past memories and how their brains were wired. Which observers perception should we pick as 'the objectively correct coloring of the object' ? It just doesn't make sense. The 'Green Quale' in itself is objective. The 'Red Qaule' itself is objective. But these properties don't reside in physical objects. A physical object doesn't have an objective coloring. 'Green' is not a localized property. -- "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 m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 15 07:35:13 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:35:13 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) Message-ID: <20051215073513.22088.qmail@web50504.mail.yahoo.com> Summary of the Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) By Marc Geddes, Auckland, New Zealand Version 1.0 Seed-ideas for the MCRT completed on: 15th December, 2005 What follows is a series of ideas intended to sketch a general framework or philosophical approach which *may* lead towards a 'Theory Of Everything'. It is *not* intended as a scientific theory as of yet. The ideas do not yet meet the requirements for a scientific theory. The ideas are only intended as entertaining speculations. --- Theory Of Everything (TOE) - A Definition A TOE is a logical scaffolding or framework which is universal in scope and capable of integrating all general classes of knowledge under a single explanatory umbrella. Specifically, one would like a framework which integrates (explains the relationship) between Mathematical, Mental and Physical concepts. It is not required that such a theory literally 'explain everything', nor it is assumed that all aspects of the universe are comprehensible. Assumptions (AS) AS 1 - Mathematical Platonism Mathematical Platonism is the idea that mathematical concepts have objective reality. The basic position is that human mathematicians are engaged in *discovery* of mathematical facts that exist *out there* in reality. Mathematical facts are not created by humans, but are things which exist external to human society and are discovered. Mathematical entities are patterns, or abstractions derived from concrete facts. Mathematical Platonism is the idea that these abstractions have a real existence external to the human mind. See 'Platonism': http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/ The main argument for Mathematical Platonism is the 'Argument from Indispensability?: the fact that mathematics appears to be indispensable to science: "Certain mathematical theories, such as arithmetic or real analysis, are indispensable for modern physics...But these mathematical theories are ontologically committed to abstract entities...And since we have no adequate grounds for rejecting these physical theories - they are part of our overall best theory of the world - we should acquiesce to the existence of abstracta" (The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics) AS 2 - Functionalism "Functionalism is a theory in the philosophy of mind that thinks of mental states rather as we think of patterns. A pattern - say a six-pointed star - can be made out of anything...The thing that makes the pattern a star and not a circle or a crescent is the mutual relation of its constituent parts, not the material out of which those parts are made." (Consciousness: Guide to the Debates) See 'Functionalism': http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ The assumption is that mental states are constituted in *computations* and that there is no esoteric non-computational physics involved. There's good evidence for this, based on the fact that all known laws of physics are computational in nature. Key TOE principle 1: 3 time dimensions The first principle of the TOE is derived from assumptions (1) and (2). The combination of Mathematical Platonism and Functionalism can be used to make an argument that time is 3-dimensional. The first part of the argument is given below. Definition: 'Time' is here being used to mean 'Causality' - or ordered cause and effect relations between things. 'Time dimension' is defined to mean a particular linear ordering of causal events. Multiple time dimensions mean that there's more than one valid way to define cause and effect. Argument: Mathematical entities are processes in multi-dimensional time Brain processes are *mathematical* in nature (they are 'algorithms' ? See ?Functionalism?. Mathematical entities are abstracted patterns. But abstracted 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 brains could enact the *same* computation (algorithm). So the physical processes in the brain can't be *identical* to the mathematical entity (the algorithm) itself. If we are prepared to grant objective reality to ?Abstracted patterns? (See ?Mathematical Platonism? the only way to make sense of this is to generalize the notion of causality to include *abstract* kinds of causality. 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. AS 3 - Non-reductive Physicalism. "Non-reductive physicalism is the idea that there exists in association with the physical realm a mental realm that is *dependent* on it, but not reducible to it." (Consciousness: A Guide To The Debates) The idea here is that mental concepts are constituted in (or dependent on) physical processes, but descriptions of mental concepts cannot be completely converted into descriptions of material processes. (i.e. Mental concepts have a reality *above and above* the material processes in which they are constituted). The assumption has been adopted because of the argument for multiple time dimensions (see above). If mathematical entities are processes in multi-dimensional time, then such entities don't exist completely inside physical reality. And from assumptions (2) - Functionalism, if mental states are based on mathematical entities (computations), then mental states can't exist entirely within physical reality either. The philosophical position known as 'Eliminative Materialism' - the idea that everything (including what we think of as mental states) is really just material is based on weak premises and non sequiturs 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. ?Eliminative materialism?(the idea that ?qualia? don?t exist but are simply misrepresentations of what are really entirely material processes 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 and 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. One can agree that ?Qualia? are ?theoretical abstractions? and also 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?s examine the first argument of the Qualia skeptics: (a) 'Qualia' are abstractions! 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. There are 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. As Kripke showed (1972) such entities don?t require causal contact. They can be referenced through meaningful descriptions. Nor is causal contact required to obtain evidence of such entities. Evidence for the existence of something is based on the explanatory power of the postulated entities for our theories of the world. It appears that humans can only have ?subjective? awareness of Qualia. But this could be merely a limitation of the human brain. 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 suggested earlier, if it proves that accurate models of sentient behavior 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 the arguments of Eliminative materialists are simply without philosophical merit. --- AS 4: Many-aspect Monism (Fundamental Property Dualism) Many-Aspect monism is a variant of Non-reductive physicalism. The idea is that reality has only one underlying substance (monism) but this substance takes on the appearance of multiple forms or properties. All of these different properties are really reflecting (approximately) the same reality however. They only *appear* to be different things. The idea is that mental and physical concepts are really just different manifestations of a single underlying reality. Many-aspect monism is also known as 'Fundamental Property Dualism', because although only one underlying reality is postulated, fundamental reality is granted to multiple properties. The idea has similarities to an earlier theory known as 'Identity Theory'. That theory originated with Ullin Place (1956 paper, "Is Consciousness A Brain Process?). It was defended by philosopher Jack Smart (1959 paper, "Sensations and Brain Processes'. The defense makes use of a distinction from philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) between the sense (Sinn) of an expression and what the expression refers to (Bedeutang). For instance the terms "morning star" and "evening star" have different senses - one refers to a bright star seen early in the day, another to a bright star seen later in the day - but in fact they both refer to the *same* entity - the planet Venus. Similarly, material brain processes and consciousness may *seem* to be different things (we use mental and physical concepts in different senses), but they are not. The difference between Identity Theory and Many-Aspect Monism is that in Many-Aspect Monism the different properties cannot be totally reduced to (or identified with) each other. The theory of Monism dates back to Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), and a variant known as Dual-aspect Monism was championed by Bertrand Russll (1872-1970). Russell pointed out that reality consists of two general types of properties - Intrinsic - or what objects are constituted out of - and Relational - or the relations between different objects. Russell proposed to equate Intrinsic properties with Mental things and Relational properties with Physical things. So the idea was everything had these two properties associated with it - mental and physical. (Hence the expression 'Dual-aspect Monism'). See the section 'Type-F Monism' in this David Chalmer's paper: http://consc.net/papers/nature.html Key TOE Principle 2: 7-fold aspect monism I'm here postulating a variant of Many-aspect monism which has an underlying substance with 7 different properties. The idea is that everything in reality has 7-fundamental properties associated with it. There are, if you like, 7 different valid perspectives through which one could view the whole of reality (see summaries of 'Many Aspect Monism' above). Why 7? It follows the argument for 3-time dimensions (See Key TOE Principle 1 and associated arguments). The idea is that everything in reality can be defined as part of an 'event' (a cause and effect relations in time). If there are really 3 different kinds of causality, 'events' along each of the 3 time-lines will have their own fundamental sub-properties associated with them. What are the fundamental properties associated with 'events' then? I here draw on ideas associated with philosopher Jaegwon Kim (1966, 1969, 1976). "The view, which takes the Aristotelian conception of change as its starting point, sees an event as the exemplification by an object or several objects of an attribute (property or relation) at a time or over a period. Schematically, if we consider P to be the attribute, s the object, and t the time, we can specify the event of s's having P at t as the triple [s, P, t]." (The Oxford Handbook Of Metaphysics). Since there 3 different time dimensions, there are 3 different kinds of events and each 'event' requires a 'triple' co-ordinate to specify it, the initial total is for 9 fundamental properties. It shall be explained shortly how this is reduced to 7. The underlying 'substance' of reality is here postulated to be something *Mathematico-Cognition*. The idea is that the fabric of reality ultimately is a sort of combination (or hybrid) of mathematics (see Mathematical Platonism for a justification) and Cognition (Information processing). hence the term Mathematico-Cognition. The concept will be clarified below. Key TOE Principle 3: Reality as Mathematico-Cognition. The Basic Reality Schematic The schematic below is intended to represent: (a) Both the structure of Reality itself (in terms of the fundamental properties making up reality AND (b) A model of Reality. Since the fabric of reality was postulated to be Mathematico-Cognition (a hybrid of mathematics and Information), there is no clear division between a *model* of reality (which would require a mathematical description) and *reality itself* (which IS mathematics). The key ideas behind this schematic are: (a) the 3 time dimensions (see Key TOE Principle 1), and (b) 7-fold aspect Monism (see Key TOE Principle 2) where reality was proposed to consist of an underlying substance called Mathematico-Cognition - a hybrid of mathematics and information processing and everything in reality could be defined as an 'event' on the 3 time-lines and the sub-properties associated with these events. The big idea is to connect the 3 time dimensions to each other, so they are no longer totally independent of each other. There are 3 general kinds of property represented below, each with 3 sub-properties. The three general properties ('Temporal' properties) represent the three time dimensions. The big idea is to connect them together by making 2 of the Temporal-properties (Physical and Volitional) sub-properties of the other one (Mathematical). Then the total number of fundamental properties in reality is reduced from 9 to 7 and all aspects of reality are linked together in the most 'natural', aesthetically pleasing way. For justification of this move see the original argument for multiple time dimensions (Key TOE principle 1) and 'Mathematical Platonism?: mathematical properties appear to be 'processes' taking place in all three time dimensions, whereas Mental and Physical properties do not. Therefore the Mathematical time-line must be fundamental and must encompass the other two time-lines. It was proposed that the basic underlying substance of reality was something called Mathematico-Cognition ? a hybrid of mathematics and information processing. So let us consider reality as 'Pure information' and ?Pure Mathmatics?. The idea dates back to John Wheeler and his ?It? from ?Bit? theory. The idea is to pretend that reality is a 'program' or a kind of mind', and when we do this we find that 3 kinds of fundamental'data types' appear - Mathematical propositions, Memes and Physical states. We are justified in treating each kind of Information separately because that is what we need to do in order to fully *explain* reality in *informational* terms. Recall that we proposed to define all properties in reality as sub-properties of ?Events?. Each of the three general types of property (events on one of the three time-lines) has 3-sub properties. *Intrinsic: The form of the basic building blocks (or individual 'entities?) taking part in an ?Event?. *Action: The internal states of the entities taking part in an ?Event?. *Temporal: An ?Event?. Cause and effect relations between two states of an entity (or two different entities). The '*Temporal* aspect of an event is an ordered relationship (or in mathematical jargon a 'mapping') between two states of an entity. Temporal Event = Mapping (State 1 >>>>>>>>> State 2) State = Combination (Intrinsic property, Action property) The schematic below shows the data types for modeling each of the three different kinds of general ?events? in reality. Physical Model *Temporal Property - Function (Physics/Computation) *Action Property - Translation (Motion) *Intrinsic Property - Object (Spatial extension) *Physics* here refers to a functional process - a system passing through a succession of on/off states. *Translation* Here refers to the movements of a body *Object* here refers to something with an extension in physical space The schematic above is a strategy for modeling physical events. 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 property : A gun firing (this is a function - an 'event'). Action property: The particular movements of the gun needed (i.e. cocking trigger, bullet exiting etc) Intrinsic Property: The gun itself Volitional Model *Temporal - Meme (Morality) *Action - Situation (Activities) *Intrinsic - Agent (Intentions) *Morality* here refers to a system of memes - referring to behaviors resulting in gains and losses for volitional agents. *Situation* here refers to the activities of a volitional agent *Agent here refers to volitional agent ? an agent with intensions ? goals which can be signaled or communicated to other agents. The schematic above is a strategy for modeling events involving volitional agents. It says that Memes are a series of mental events consisting of a combination of agents and activities. Mathematical/Platonic Model *Temporal Property - Sets (Qualia) *Action Property -Memes (Morality) *Intrinsic Property - Function (Physics). Sets* here refer to the standard mathematical definition of the term - groupings of entities related in some way. *Memes* is here is referring to beliefs modeling the behavior of volitional agents *Function* is here referring to models of functional systems (Physics/Computation) This scheme represents the 'Platonic' or abstract world (See 'Mathematical Platonism'). The basic ?event? on the mathematical time-line is here postulated to be the 'Set'. According to David Lewis (1991) set theory comes from three things: (a) A Primitive singleton function (a logical 'lasso'), (b) Plural quantification and (c) Mereology (collections of objects). A 'Set' is a collection of objects with a logical 'lasso' thrown over them, or even a *single* object with such a lasso. The nature of such 'Singleton' sets has been puzzling. What is the difference between an object and a set containing only that object? The schematic here proposes an answer. A set is here defined as a combination of a physical model (a function) AND an intentional model (a meme). Therefore a set is proposed to be a mathematical expression of the relationship between a mind (or mental concepts) and physical reality. A 'Primitive Singleton function' is proposed to be equivalent to a Meme. Note that the proposed fundamental unit of mathematics is the Function. Sets supervene on (are dependent on) Functions and Memes. The really radical idea here is to equate Qualia (conscious experience) with mathematical sets. Since the set is a general unit of mathematics and many properties of reality could defined as a Set, the scheme is a form of panpsychism, ascribing some degree of conscious experience to everything in reality. Note how the Platonic world subsumes the other aspects of reality. Memes (mental concepts) have a dual-aspect. They have an abstract component which is defined as the 'Action' properties of the Platonic world. But they also have a concrete component which manifests itself as the behavior of volitional agents - Memes are also defined as the 'Temporal' properties of the Volitional world (see above). Functions (physical concepts) also have this dual-aspect. Their abstract component is defined as the 'Intrinsic' properties of the Platonic world. But they also have a concrete component - the 'Temporal' properties of the Physical world - which appears as physics - or computation (See above). This is based on the idea of 3-dimensional time (See 'Key TOE Principle 1). Mathematical (Platonic) entities have extensions in multiple time dimensions. They project into the concrete world but also extend beyond it. Key TOE Principle 4: Universal Value System The Reality schematic above, if it's accurate, establishes the basis for a Universal Value System. Definition: A Universal Value System (UV) is a set of values that *all* intelligent minds would converge upon, if they were smart enough and thought about it for long enough. This does *not* imply Objective Morality (the idea that there exist objectively 'good' values independently of minds), only the weaker claim of Universal Morality. Universal Morality (UV): Actualization The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Schematic (see above) said that Qualia (conscious experiences) were 'events' on the Mathematical time-line. Qualia (conscious experience) is built-up out of (dependent on) all of the other unconscious processes which make up an integrated mind. Therefore the purpose of Qualia is equivalent to the purpose of Mind in general. 'Events' on the mathematical time-line (or Qualia) were defined to consist of a combination of Functions (models of physical systems) and Memes (models of sentient behavior). Since the mathematical time-line connects the other two time-lines together, the mathematical time-line is what connects models of physical systems with models of sentient behavior. Call this 'time knitting'. The purpose of mind (or if one wishes to be dramatic, the meaning of life itself) is precisely this 'time knitting': the integration of models of physical systems (functions) with models of sentient behavior (memes). This could be called 'Actualization', since it maintains existence itself (by ordering time itself). Recall that there is no clear distinction between a *model* of reality and *reality itself*. The schematic implies some variation of panpsychism (the idea that everything in reality has some degree of consciousness associated with it). This follows from the fact that the schematic is representing a 7-fold aspect monism (see earlier definition of many-aspect monism) and Qualia are represented in the schematic as one of the 7 aspects. The ultimate imperative (if the scheme is correct), appears to be 'maintain the existence of the universe', which is apparently achieved through the integration and growth of knowledge (ultimately the integration of memes with functions). This process is also equivalent to 'achieving better awareness of the theory of everything', where 'theory of everything' was defined as 'the integration of mental, physical and mathematical concepts into a single explanatory framework' (See below -Key TOE Principle 5 - for further explanation). Key TOE Principle 5- A transhuman intelligence has awareness of the TOE (Theory Of Everything) Recall that the Mathematico-Cognition Reality Schematic suggests that there is no clear division between a *model* of reality and *reality itself*. Because Qualia were defined as the most fundamental 'aspect' of reality, the schematic represents not only 'objective reality' but also any individual mind. If the theory is correct then, the schematic tells us, in very general terms, how to build an 'optimally functioning mind'. An individual mind which is 'functioning optimally' would model the reality schematic shown. Such a mind would optimally integrate models of sentient behavior (memes) and models of physical systems (functions). But this was exactly the suggested original aim of a TOE (Theory Of Reality). A TOE was defined to be a logical system which integrated physical and mental concepts. Furthermore, note that Qualia were equated with mathematical sets. A mind capable of fully modeling the reality schematic then, would be a mind capable of direct perception of mathematical entities (something the human mind is not capable of). Such a mind would presumably be able to objectively view Qualia themselves (where as humans can subjectively experience Qualia). To summarize again, these Qualia represent the integration of physical and mental concepts and qualia are equivalent to mathematics itself. *In other words such a mind would have direct awareness of the theory of everything*. This appears to *define* what a transhuman intelligence is - a mind capable of modeling the Mathematico-Cognition Reality schematic - or a mind with direct awareness of the theory of everything. "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 15 07:44:20 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:44:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] semiconductor quantum computer chips In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051214175204.01d6fde8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051214175204.01d6fde8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051215074420.GY2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:52:36PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > University of Michigan develops scalable and mass-producible quantum > computer chip: > > http://www.physorg.com/news9063.html Or maybe they just shrunk a single ion trap by an order of magnitude, or two. -- 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 15 07:55:58 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <062601c60147$eca945a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215075558.51774.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Well, what do you think, would *you* do that? You are making > me justify what I am saying but what are you prepared to do if > you agree with me? I have, in fact, been exploring the idea myself. I have but limited time, with several commitments of greater personal priority...but I have, in fact, repeatedly asked my Representative, Anna Eshoo, when (not if) she will attempt to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Her answers so far have been that she prefers change to happen via the ballot box - ignoring the issue that, barring Constitutional amendment, Bush and Cheney won't be up for election to their current respective offices ever again. > You are offering me procedural advice. I don't need procedural > advice. > > I just want to know what you personally think. I think, as I have long thought, that if one is so irritated by an issue as to spend the time to write up and post long, emotion-filled screeds about it, then one can usually tap that same emotion to motivate one to actually do something about it, and leave us all the better for having the issue taken care of. Which is why I offered advice as to how to do it. From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 15 08:00:32 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:00:32 +0100 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: <20051215080032.GD2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:45:46PM -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > 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. unsuckscab political-drivel-list > Thus do I seek the moderators' blessing before I engage. -- 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 08:03:38 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:03:38 +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><6.2.3.4.2.20051214215914.06a07000@unreasonable.com> <43A0E803.1070206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <066b01c6014e$0e3a81b0$cd81e03c@homepc> Joseph Bloch wrote: > 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. George W Bush has an IQ that would fit in fine on this list. Being limited doesn't make him an idiot. The Iraq War may produce some good consequences, how could anything as complex as a war that changes so much for so many not do, but the end didn't justify the means. Finding a dime might be a good thing, you are up one dime, but its not a net good if you lost a dollar looking for it. I don't know where you personally stand on the substantive issues Joseph, I know that you intelligent but I don't know how you weight up the pros and cons and why. Perhaps you think that the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was a good thing, or perhaps you think it was a necessary evil and the ends justified the means. I know you will have heard many fools express views contrary to your own, but have you been willing to listen to someone that is not a fool express a view contrary to your own? Are you even potentially willing to change your mind? Are you willing to be reasonable? It is not at all clear to me that you will have to change your mind on much but you might take other things into account that you had not, and perhaps by hearing your view I might do the same. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 09:24:17 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:24:17 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215075558.51774.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Well, what do you think, would *you* do that? You are making >> me justify what I am saying but what are you prepared to do if >> you agree with me? > > I have, in fact, been exploring the idea myself. I have but > limited time, with several commitments of greater personal > priority...but I have, in fact, repeatedly asked my > Representative, Anna Eshoo, when (not if) she will attempt to > begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Her > answers so far have been that she prefers change to happen via > the ballot box - ignoring the issue that, barring Constitutional > amendment, Bush and Cheney won't be up for election to their > current respective offices ever again. You say so far, have you any reason to think that she will ever want Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have done? That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 15 09:56:50 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:56:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051215075558.51774.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215095650.GN2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:24:17PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > You say so far, have you any reason to think that she will ever > want Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have > done? > > That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. Political opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. This doesn't mean we should shit where we eat. Please keep this list free of politics. If I want powerless politics, I can listen in at the workplace chitchat, or go to the next bar. If I want transhumanism, there are precious few watering holes. Let's not fill them with excrement. -- 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 10:04:40 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:04:40 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215075558.51774.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com><069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> <20051215095650.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <06bd01c6015e$f6d20370$cd81e03c@homepc> Eugen wrote: > > You say so far, have you any reason to think that she will ever > > want Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have > > done? > > > > That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. > > Political opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. > This doesn't mean we should shit where we eat. > > Please keep this list free of politics. If I want powerless politics, > I can listen in at the workplace chitchat, or go to the next bar. > > If I want transhumanism, there are precious few watering holes. > Let's not fill them with excrement. Aren't you the one that is doing that? Why pick this part of this post to reply to in this way? Whats wrong with, I disagree because.... I agree because... or if you have no opinion posting on some other subject and ignoring this one ? Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 15 10:18:38 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:18:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <06bd01c6015e$f6d20370$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051215095650.GN2249@leitl.org> <06bd01c6015e$f6d20370$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215101838.GO2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:04:40PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >If I want transhumanism, there are precious few watering holes. > >Let's not fill them with excrement. > > Aren't you the one that is doing that? Why pick this part of this > post to reply to in this way? Because if I keep quiet half a dozen folks will chime in, and I'd have to unsubscribe for a month until the political diarrhea runs it course, and the air is fit to breathe again. Let's not get there. The walls are still spotted brown from the last one. > Whats wrong with, I disagree because.... I agree because... > or if you have no opinion posting on some other subject and > ignoring this one ? I have plenty of opinions on politics. I manage to keep the lid on them, on transhumanist lists, most of the time. Why can't you? -- 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 15 11:49:46 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:49:46 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215095650.GN2249@leitl.org><06bd01c6015e$f6d20370$cd81e03c@homepc> <20051215101838.GO2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <071901c6016d$a5b8e9e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Eugen wrote: > I have plenty of opinions on politics. I manage to keep the lid > on them, on transhumanist lists, most of the time. Why can't you? I can. But I disagree with your aversion to discussing political things. I don't know what transhumanism is if it is not a fringe political phenomenon. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 15 12:24:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:24:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <071901c6016d$a5b8e9e0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051215101838.GO2249@leitl.org> <071901c6016d$a5b8e9e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215122424.GS2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:49:46PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I can. But I disagree with your aversion to discussing political things. I love discussing political things -- in their proper channels. > I don't know what transhumanism is if it is not a fringe political > phenomenon. Of course trahshumanism is a political philosophy at its heart. But tagespolitik is not transhumanist politics. Stem cell policy is very apropos. Iraq war is not. The scope is too narrow. There are gray areas, of course. EU just approved a pretty draconian data retention law. Pro-state transhumanists will be pro, pro-individual transhumanists will be contra. But the debate itself is salient, because it is a backdrop of long-term developments which will either empower the individual, or take away its rights vs. superpersonal entities. -- 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 14:25:50 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:25:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] semiconductor quantum computer chips In-Reply-To: <20051215074420.GY2249@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051214175204.01d6fde8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051215074420.GY2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 12/15/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:52:36PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > > University of Michigan develops scalable and mass-producible quantum > > computer chip: > > > > http://www.physorg.com/news9063.html > > Or maybe they just shrunk a single ion trap by an order > of magnitude, or two. Which still counts as a major step forward. Remember when ion traps were housed in big vacuum chambers? This is potentially as impressive as the move from tubes to transistors. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 15:44:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:44:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <062601c60147$eca945a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512151546.jBFFkBe27570@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch ... > > You think Bush will repent? Cheney? The neo-cons? These > folk are almost irrelevant now. It would do the world good > to see them impeached and prosecuted for high crimes and > misdemeanors and imprisoned after due process ... Brett Paatsch. Does the Iraqi constitution have provisions for impeaching the new president? Does that government have instructions for dissolving itself? One would think if Bush is impeached, then we need to overthrow the current Iraqi regime too, for cooperating with the US. Would that require yet another war? I am against war. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 15:53:34 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:53:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051215101838.GO2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200512151555.jBFFtee28417@tick.javien.com> . > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > > > Aren't you the one that is doing that? Why pick this part of this > > post to reply to in this way? > > Because if I keep quiet half a dozen folks will chime in, and > I'd have to unsubscribe for a month until the political diarrhea > runs it course, and the air is fit to breathe again...Eugen* Leitl That's why I suggested we keep it to a week. Many of us are busy this time of year, so a week of less-than- usual interesting posts won't hurt us, and it does seem to fill a certain need. Opinion noted, Gene, and highly regarded. Any others? The week starts today, so do let us finish it by next Thursday, 22 December. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 16:04:16 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:04:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch ... > ... Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have > done? > > That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. > > Brett Paatsch Brett, are you volunteering to tell the Iraqis they won't be voting anymore? Likely you will have a war on your hands. I am against war. I favor elections. "Iraqis turned out in droves to pick a 275-member parliament today, with the once-reluctant Sunni Arabs streaming to the polls. Turnout was apparently so heavy across the country that election officials kept the polls open for an extra hour to accommodate Iraqis exercising their democratic rights." http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/iraq.elections/index.html spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Dec 15 16:25:38 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:25:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> References: <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <45039.72.236.103.114.1134663938.squirrel@main.nc.us> At present I can delete any posts with "presidential growth" in the subject, and all that Qualia confusion that left me behind some weeks ago. If these remain the keywords it will be helpful. ;) Regards, MB From neptune at superlink.net Thu Dec 15 16:31:13 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:31:13 -0500 Subject: Class analysis/was Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215062928.23745.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019a01c60194$f79eb9c0$84893cd1@pavilion> Those interested in class analysis might want to read Roderick Long's "Can We Escape the Ruling Class?" at: http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l2.html I was particularly fascinated by his splitting the American ruling class into Bureaucrats and Plutocrats. He states: "A ruling class need not be monolithic, however. In fact, most ruling classes are divided into two broad factions, which we may call the political class and the corporate class. The political class comprises those who are in direct control of running the state - politicians, civil servants, and the like; the corporate class, on the other hand, comprises the wealthy quasi-private beneficiaries of state power - the collectors of subsidies, government contracts, and grants of monopoly privilege. These two groups might be called the Bureaucrats and the Plutocrats. "These two wings of the ruling class have similar interests, and they work together. But their interests are not identical, and each side strives to become the dominant partner in the relationship. When the political class gains the upper hand, the polity tends toward socialism; when the corporate class gets the upper hand, it tends toward fascism. In the United States today, each of the two major political parties works (mostly unintentionally, through the invisible hand process discussed above) to advance the interests of both wings of the ruling class - but the Democrats tend to lean more toward the Bureaucrats, while the Republicans lean more to the Plutocrats. "This model serves as a remarkably good predictor of Republican and Democratic policies. High taxes on the poor are in the interest of both ruling parties, and so both parties in practice enact these, whatever their rhetoric. But high taxes on the rich benefit the political class at the expense of the corporate class, so Republicans support and Democrats oppose a capital gains tax cut. On the health care issue, Democrats favor socialized medicine - giving the political class control over health care - while Republicans favor the status quo - keeping health care largely in the hands of quasi-private beneficiaries of state privilege, like insurance companies and the AMA. (A genuine free market in health care is the last thing either faction wants to see.) Both sides have an interest in gun control, in order to keep the subject population disarmed and docile, but for the corporate class this interest is partly offset by the interest that weapons manufacturers have in keeping guns available; thus Democrats are strongly for, and Republicans are weakly against, gun control. And so on. Thus most of the major political debates in this country are merely squabbles within the ruling class." I'm sure similar analyses can be applied to other nations. Later! Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From neptune at superlink.net Thu Dec 15 16:48:41 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:48:41 -0500 Subject: Socio-cultural change/was Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512150601.jBF61Te31779@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <01b001c60197$68655a40$84893cd1@pavilion> On Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:59 AM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >>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. {8-] Thought so. > I was responding to what appeared to be a suggestion that > we have a political free-for-all. I proposed we do that, but > limit it to about a week, and be civil about it. Those who > have no interest can wait until the furor dies down, then we > return to our regularly scheduled program. Sound fair? Sounds fair. I just wanted to get away from serious oversimplifications, such as looking at Europe as pacific and as hundreds of years ahead of the US is socio-cultural evolution. It might be accurate to say the US is merely the Western-most part of Europe -- that European culture extends from Warsaw to San Francisco, as Ralph Raico would opine. Also, even if one wants to consider modern Europe as separate from the US -- for whatever reason -- then judging both societies along their maturity and inclination to warfare... Well, while the US is very warlike, I think this has little to do with the US being a younger society. In fact, if we turned back the clock just a few decades, Europe was busy slugging it out in total war -- in fact, two total wars during the first half of the 20th century. Doesn't sound all that un-warlike to me. Europe's more pacific recent years are, IMHO, less the result of European culture than of Cold War and post-Cold War realities. Specifically, the fact that Europe was an arena of superpower conflict during the former and then of American domination during the latter has made for this relatively conflict free period. Getting back to socio-cultural evolution, I think Alan simplifies this to an extreme. Not only do his statements make it seem he thinks it's linear and constant everywhere, but also that it's always a progress. I think it's far to say the future is an open issue and that any gains made today can be lost tomorrow. (On a political note: the failure to see this is probably why some people are willing to trade hard won freedoms, such as the right to property or freedom of expression, for things they judge as progressive, such as the Prussian welfare state of wealth redistribution and nationalized healthcare that sadly has captured the imagination of elites on both sides of the Atlantic since 1900.) Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 15 17:30:21 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:30:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Debacle Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051215112827.035ce6c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4532128.stm "A South Korean cloning pioneer has admitted fabricating results in key stem cell research, a colleague claims. At least nine of 11 stem cell colonies used in a landmark research paper by Dr Hwang Woo-suk were faked, said Roh Sung-il, who collaborated on the paper. Dr Hwang has agreed to ask the US journal Science to withdraw his paper on stem cell cloning, Mr Roh said." What a damned shame. Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Dec 15 17:45:24 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:45:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <069701c60159$5275d950$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215174525.44930.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > You say so far, have you any reason to think that she will ever > want Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have > done? Yes: the rest of the words she used to describe their actions. She may have been hinting via the "ballot box" suggestion that she would like to proceed with impeachment, if more pro-impeachment Congresspeople were voted in in 2006, without going on the record as explicitly saying she's pro-impeachment before such an action would in her professional judgment be possible (which might cause her to be singled out by the current power structure as an example, and make her unable to implement even minor changes). > That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. Equating Bush and Cheney to all of America in this matter is incorrect. It is also increasingly off-topic for this list. From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 17:46:07 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:46:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <062601c60147$eca945a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215174607.1752.qmail@web35706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Why do you want to be so hard on ignorant victims of bad educators? Try to have a little more compassion. And with all due respect, you are going to have to learn patience whether you like it or not. Hope you printed out the guarantee-- save it as a souvenir :-) >The class of people that are doing the damage are the voters, >and the damage they are doing is in not being sufficiently >vigilant when they are not personally affected. >Individually citizens can hardly repent, if individually they did >not engage with the issues of the international rule of law in >the first place. >The average voter justs asks dumb questions like "why do >"they" (foreigners, terrorists) hate us so much?" 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 18:05:41 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:05:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <01b001c60197$68655a40$84893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20051215180541.8313.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Perhaps you are right here, however don't you see the crucial link between war and manhood? I suspect as long as men will be men, then war will be war. I can clearly remember being told in kindergarten about forty five years ago of how "a real man will lay down his life and serve his Country"-- right or wrong; the situation hasn't changed all that much since then. We're inching forward like snails and it's time to admit it. >> Also, Alan's view seems to smack of an everywhere similar, >> constant socio-cultural evolution. In fact, the opposite seems >> true: different patterns and rates of change all over the >> place. Regards, Dan nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Dec 15 18:45:37 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:45:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensionaltime. References: <200512141813.jBEIDJ1P020298@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <027d01c601a7$ca2275a0$36074e0c@MyComputer> Brent Allsop Wrote: > Interesting idea about physical existence without having > any causal property. No not really. > 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. Then how do you know you have two physical objects and not one? > if one atom had a different "phenomenal" property than the > other atom (say one was red and the other green) But I can tell red from green so the atoms must have CAUSED a difference in my brain. I thought you said they were "causally completely indistinguishable from the other". John K Clark From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 15 19:54:56 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:54:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensionaltime![Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512142117m31024396if41b9106b2ce1d1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512151955.jBFJt1bm001868@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Marc >> Atoms can't have 'phenomenal' properties of the type your're describing. This is completely false. First off - I was talking hypothetically which means any possible universe. Surely God could create a universe (or maybe a software engineer could design a simulated universe) in which causally identical Atoms could have different phenomenal properties like this when they are in some kind of appropriate physical lattice or something. And since such is logically possible for some possible universes - unless you have evidence otherwise to prove this theory incorrect - it could be possible in our universe. My argument is that there is still a chance that evidence proving just such could theoretically turn out to be what phenomenal properties are. Although I would bet it would be something else besides a causally indistinguishable atom or that it is something that is in fact causally different - like different atoms - or different molecules - or perhaps even some higher level different neural correlate. >> 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'). << And abstract computers can implement the same algorithm. But this doesn't mean that their respective representations of this same "algorithm" would be fundamentally "like" each other (even though they are abstractly like each other or the same algorithm). This shows that the program (the mathematical algorithm) is an 'event' extending beyond our single physical time-dimension. << How does anything like this follow? Computation, even that represented by phenomenal properties, can simply exist in our regular 3D space and 1D time dimension. Why must you insist we move into something outside of this here? And again, even if we had to - what does that have to do with the difference between red and green? We obviously do not understand each other here. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 20:44:55 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:44:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051215030947.39135.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051215204455.6382.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes asked: > 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? I have long wondered why "innocent" civilians and "innocent" soldiers must pay the price for the crimes of sovereignty, and why this evasion of accountability -- of personal and specific responsibility -- is a fact, and why a fact so deserving of the most intense scrutiny and discussion, is so little scrutinized and discussed. If one proposes holding those who exercise the executive power of sovereignty personally responsible for their executive actions, and the "subject" citizens responsible as well, and to do so in any thorough and equitable fashion, then I suggest that every case be considered individually. In such a regime those citizens who opposed a criminal -- gross or petty -- executive, would, I think reasonably, be adjudicated innocent of culpability. Bear in mind the extent of innovation in this proposal. "Sovereigns" have historically operated in a "lawless" milieu. That's the problem. Without an overarching enforcement power, sovereigns can do anything they "can get away with" -- till other sovereigns -- themselves lawless free agents -- intervene. This is the critical difference between subjects (ie citizens) and sovereigns; the former are at all times subject to the enforcement power of the sovereign's authority -- the law -- while the latter are subject only to the realities of bandit power available as a natural fact to the bandit elite. "Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through." (Swift, 1709.) http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Law.htm#fn2 "To state it in its extremes: Law is a cobweb, entangling the weak, the sport of the strong; [simultaneously] however, ...law is the very substance of civilization." The challenge I think is to make the strong and the weak equally subject to the law, and in all cases to make the punishment fit the crime. Crimes of "sovereign" scale must have punishment to match. (Which to me means forfeiture of every last nickel -- the criminal's family cannot benefit from the crime -- and disappearance into a dungeon of severe austerity and comprehensive isolation from society. No news, no contact; gruel and water under the door until the final solitary breath. This is the just punishment for mass murderers: Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Hadley, Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, Clinton, Noreiga, Saddam, Kissinger, Pinochet,...to name just a few. Justice should be tempered by mercy. But first you must have justice. Best, Jeff Davis "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Thu Dec 15 20:54:25 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:54:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] spam gmail invite request? Message-ID: <43A1D801.8030207@sasktel.net> This is an unsolicited email. Seems like gmail isn't that exclusive you need to bulk mail to get an account.... unless someone wants to collect thousands of them for some other purpose? A nefarious microsoft plot to lock up google serverspace???? What do you think Harvey? MFJ From: Justin Mireau Mailed-By: hotmail.com To: mfj.eav at gmail.com Date: Dec 15, 2005 12:57 PM Subject: please invite me to join gmail Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled? please invite me to join gmail. the site told me you need to be invited by a member to become a member. also they said that a person needs to be american. I can give an american address if needed thanks for your time Justin Mireau -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 20:51:50 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:51:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512132038t2f347329ia7a6bd042b99d337@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512142128q42801ff1u3c717bcb53c4b107@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:28:26 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > Right. Proto-Qualia exist in objects. Qualia does exist objectively, > but *not* as a primary property of physical objects. I want to call these proto-qualia 'objective qualia' and say that it takes a suitably equipped being to detect them. I want to say fried green tomatoes are objectively green (at least before they are fried) and that any being with eyes to see should be able to see their green-ness. I want to reject the notion of a Cartesian Theater in which we represent the external world to ourselves via something analogous to a subjective movie screen, and say instead that the mind experiences the world directly. As I mentioned in another message, the Cartesian Theater leads to an infinite regress. If I am the 'little person' or 'homunculus' inside my head who watches these subjective movies about my external world, then shouldn't I have yet another subjective movie and another homunculus inside my homunculus? And so on and so on? :) This is not to say we have no mental models of ourselves in the world. I think we do have these models but that they are tools of intelligence rather than of awareness. I think we experience the world and then form mental models about our experience. The mental models help us solve problems. They help us (or our future AI robots) to answer the question, "What should I do about my experience?" but they are not prerequisites to experience. So are these proto-qualia platonic? Seems reasonable to me. This makes them objective, even if we may dispute whether they are really 'in' the objects of our experience. I would say they are in the object in the same way that the idealized platonic sphere is 'in' a baseball. > I can eliminate a subjective component from my definition. Let me define > Qualia as composed of a combination of a Meme and an object. Do you ever question your theory for reason of it being so complicated? Seven-aspect neutral monism?? What are these seven different aspects of the one neutral stuff? I confess I have not yet studied your paper in detail, but perhaps you can give me a hint. -gts From allsop at extropy.org Thu Dec 15 21:33:45 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:33:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: <027d01c601a7$ca2275a0$36074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> John, > > 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. > > Then how do you know you have two physical objects and not one? The idea was that two different atoms of the same element, causally indistinguishable from each other, are each placed in some physical lattice of some kind at different locations - perhaps some kind of lattice of neurons that becomes our subjective conscious awareness, and this lattice is able to be aware of the phenomenal difference. I think there is a difference between causing the awareness (or some other physical event) and simply being the awareness. Since this lattice is "aware" of the difference (or it would be better to say that the distinguishable difference is the awareness) it is able to - itself cause the appropriate response indicating the two were different or whatever. So I don't think you could say the indication action was directly caused by the phenomenal difference the system was merely aware of? I don't know - I'm just trying to think out loud with all this. Thanks for the input and helping me think about it better. If that is indeed possible. Brent From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 21:39:55 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:39:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] spam gmail invite request? In-Reply-To: <43A1D801.8030207@sasktel.net> References: <43A1D801.8030207@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512151339s527a230g4c1b6e3c8d65eda1@mail.gmail.com> An obvious possibility that comes to mind is a spammer trying to collect a bunch of disposable accounts to send spam from. Though I'd have thought a professional spammer would at least know how to use the Shift key. Maybe it's just some script kiddie who's really stupid enough to not realize he's doing anything wrong? On 12/15/05, Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: > > This is an unsolicited email. > > Seems like gmail isn't that exclusive you need to bulk mail to get an > account.... unless someone wants to collect thousands of them for some other > purpose? > > A nefarious microsoft plot to lock up google serverspace???? > > What do you think Harvey? > > MFJ > > > > > From: *Justin Mireau * Mailed-By: > *hotmail.com* To: *mfj.eav at gmail.com* > Date: *Dec 15, 2005 12:57 PM* > Subject: *please invite me to join gmail* > Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete > this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled? > > > please invite me to join gmail. the site told me you need to be invited > by a member to become a member. also they said that a person needs to be > american. I can give an american address if needed > > thanks for your time > > > Justin Mireau > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:46:08 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:46:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <057e01c60132$6d884ec0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215214608.36324.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > The people who enjoy US citizenship are a specific > class of people in the set of people on earth. As a person one quite naturally tends to homogenize large groups of folks by the use a broad noun/label -- ie American, Australian, Mongolian, etc. As an Australian it's easy to lump any non-Australian group -- ie all Americans -- into a class. Think about doing the same for all those folks who are your fellow Australians. Homogeneous clone mob or fabulously diverse community of groups, sub-groups, sub-sub-groups, etc? > > What that class of the people on earth does more > than any other class determines the progress or regress of > humanity. Gotta disagree with you here, Brett. The wealthy and political elite are the class that determines the non-progress or regress of humanity. To be sure, there are a bunch of Americans in that group. But there are plenty more of other nationalities and in other places. The technological elite mediate progress. > > 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 date the beginning of the end of American greatness with the election of Ronald Reagan. That was the moment when the "Hollywood-ization" reached critical mass, and the "non-reality-based" segment of American society became a solid majority and embarked on a Hollywood-based plan for the American future. Otherwise known as the "We're really fucked now!" plan. > > 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. Americans totally befuddled by the Hollywood mythology of a SupremeAmerica incapable of ethical or factual error. > 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, Not surprisingly I'm four square behind the impeachment of Bush/Cheney, followed by the criminal prosecution of the whole cabal. Despite ample evidence to support impeachment, there is almost no non-fringe overt and forceful public invocations for this course of action. Certainly no established political figure that I know of has advocated impeachment. (Note the phrase "that I know of". I would genuinely like to hear from others about efforts toward impeachment.) > 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 destruction 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 diminished mechanisms for holding him or her > to account. The essence of the "We're really fucked now!" plan. Best, Jeff Davis "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Winston Churchill __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 22:34:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:34:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <057e01c60132$6d884ec0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051215223451.79894.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > 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? If history is any indicator, all it takes is a popular President to recieve a blow job in the oval office. Apparently a sexual indiscretion is far more grievous than murdering thousands on false pretenses. > 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. It is not really about the citizenry anymore, it is about what the financial elite want. They wield the power to manipulate the citizenry through their strangle-hold on the mass media. > 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. Yes. The elite are quickly zeroing in on how to mislead and manipulate the voters into getting any result they want. The founders of democracy never forsaw the awesome power of the mass media thus not only is America sliding down the slippery slope of mass marketed facism but so is the rest of the barely-still-free world. The last to succumb to these tactics of mass mind control will be the non-vetted intellectuals whose observations of the subtle machinations of the elite will be dismissed as "conspiracy theories" despite the fact that they are not theories but simple observations. And it is not a conspiracy, just decades of mass marketing research being applied to politics by anybody wealthy enough to afford the technology and expertise to do so. "Buy MacDonalds- never mind the cholesterol. Vote Republican- ignore the lies and murder." It only works on the less intelligent, but they comprise the majority in any democracy. And that is all that is needed to secure power by the elite. There was a clear positive correlation between the average IQs of states that voted Democrat in the 2004 presidential elections and conversely an inverse correlation between IQ and Republican votes. I first saw this data here: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.html But a some other sites claim it is a hoax. So being the empiricist, I checked it out myself. I have attached the results of my quick and dirty study as an Excel file. The only IQ data for the states I had access to were from the report that tickle.com gives you for taking their "classic IQ test" which I took a few weeks ago as part of the list IQ survey: http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/paidresult.jsp?where=paidresult&test=uiqogt It is listed at the end of the report they let you link to after you take their test and wade through a pile of offers for spam. Although they may only give it free for high scorers but I am not certain. The election data I got from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html The analysis was a simple plug and chug on Excel. If you don't believe my analysis, feel free to crunch the data yourself. If you are good at statistics, then feel free to reanalyze the data and let me know what you get. I did notice that the tickle IQs were higher across the board than the earlier reported IQ scores for the states. I attribute this to selection bias, since only a reasonably smart person would be on the Internet and take an online IQ test. Yet still the correlations hold so I, at least, am convinced. 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 23:12:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:12:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > I'm trying to see the bridge between numbers and > colors. One way to do > that is to objectify colors in the same way we do > platonic ideas like > "five-ness". Well one could say that color was simply a certain number of vibrations in the electromagnetic field in a given unit of time. By this definition red would still be the same to a human and to an alien no matter what it looked like to the alien and five would still be five no matter what the alien called it as long as they were looking at the same color and counting vibrations. 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 Thu Dec 15 23:23:41 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensionaltime! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512152323.jBFNNkMg018412@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Stuart, > Well one could say that color was simply a certain > number of vibrations in the electromagnetic field in a > given unit of time. By this definition red would still > be the same to a human and to an alien no matter what > it looked like to the alien and five would still be > five no matter what the alien called it as long as > they were looking at the same color and counting > vibrations. No, this has nothing to do with color since you could rip a person's eye out, put him in a dark room with no light. Then if you stimulate his optic nerve properly - he will experience lots of color. Right? Color is the final result of the perception process in our brain. It is our knowledge of what we are perceiving - not its referent. Brent Allsop From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 23:33:39 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:33:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:12:57 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- gts wrote: > >> I'm trying to see the bridge between numbers and >> colors. One way to do that is to objectify colors in the same way we do >> platonic ideas like "five-ness". > > Well one could say that color was simply a certain > number of vibrations in the electromagnetic field in a > given unit of time. By this definition red would still > be the same to a human and to an alien no matter what > it looked like to the alien and five would still be > five no matter what the alien called it as long as > they were looking at the same color and counting > vibrations. Yes, but science has already accomplished that much. There is then the possible next step of objectifying the qualia of colors - what it is like to see them. -gts From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 00:03:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:03:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051215223451.79894.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <057e01c60132$6d884ec0$cd81e03c@homepc> <20051215223451.79894.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/15/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > There was a clear positive correlation between the > average IQs of states that voted Democrat in the 2004 > presidential elections and conversely an inverse > correlation between IQ and Republican votes. > > I first saw this data here: > http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.html > > But a some other sites claim it is a hoax. Not just some other sites. The IQ data by state is completely ficticious. Claim: Chart shows relationship between 2004 electoral vote result and voter IQ. Status: False. They give the history of this and previous similar hoaxes. Origins: Some pranks are so good they keep working over and over again. Back in November 2002, someone (using the name Robert Calvert) created and posted to a USENET newsgroup a phony chart which purportedly showed the average IQ per state in the U.S., along with the average income and a column indicating how that state voted in the 2000 presidential election. The gag was that all the states that voted for Vice-President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election were clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while all the states that voted for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush were clustered at the bottom. This same made-up chart was later re-worked and applied to the 2004 election. IQ and Voter Preference in 2004 Presidential Election Netlore Archive: In which the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election are correlated with purported average IQ of voters in each state Description: Net hoax Circulating since: Nov. 2004 (this version) Status: False The obvious retort on at least one site I read is: "I wonder what the average IQ of the people who fall for this hoax is?" BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 00:16:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:16:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Not just some other sites. > The IQ data by state is completely ficticious. > Maybe, but my data is not. It is from the http://www.tickle.com website. All I did was cut and paste into Excel. I sent the Excel file as an attachment to the list but it needs moderator approval because its size (47kb) is just over the 40kb limit. In any case, all I did was cut and paste data from 2 different sites neither of whom knew I using their data for analysis. Once the moderators approve it for distribution, feel free to analyze it yourself. 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 Fri Dec 16 00:46:18 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:46:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A20E5A.1000205@goldenfuture.net> I will absolutely argue that your data is, if not fictitious, at least not up to scientific standards. The IQ tests delivered over the tickle.com website aren't valid instruments, and the people who take them are a self-selected audience and are thus not necessarily representative of the population at large or the voting population. This is a completely nonsensical analysis. What it needs to have, is a scientifically rigorous IQ test (think WAIS-R) crosstabbed by registered voter. People who voted in previous elections would be ideal. But someone who took a 5-minute web-based IQ test crossed with statewide voting data? C'mon... Joseph The Avantguardian wrote: >--- BillK wrote: > > >>Not just some other sites. >>The IQ data by state is completely ficticious. >> >> >> > >Maybe, but my data is not. It is from the >http://www.tickle.com website. All I did was cut and >paste into Excel. I sent the Excel file as an >attachment to the list but it needs moderator approval >because its size (47kb) is just over the 40kb limit. >In any case, all I did was cut and paste data from 2 >different sites neither of whom knew I using their >data for analysis. Once the moderators approve it for >distribution, feel free to analyze it yourself. > > > >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 >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From neptune at superlink.net Fri Dec 16 01:01:55 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:01:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong References: <20051215180541.8313.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <013001c601dc$4f621a20$21893cd1@pavilion> I'm not sure if there is a connection and just what you mean by "manhood" in this context. What you were told in kindergarten seems a cultural thing. I was not told the same. I did not have the same experience as you. Also, the kind of nationalism you're pointing to has only been around for a few hundred years and really only started to catch on around the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. Humans warred long before that -- and given the events of chimp wars, it's likely proto-humans warred too -- so this link between nationalism, manhood, and war seems tenuous to me. Or, to be charitable, I don't see much coming from it. (I see you making a link between them, but I'm not convinced yet.:) I don't think you'll be able to make much social change by pointing out that manhood itself is somehow the cause of social evils. People have been doing that for a long time and I'm not sure it's made things better. Then again, maybe one could link the intensity of warfare to rise of nationalism and of the increase in ideological wars. By the latter is meant wars that are not self-limiting and purely territorial. Medieval wars, e.g., for the most part were territorial disputes and thereby self-limiting. Once the victor got the land he was after, the war pretty much ended and the goal was rarely total destruction of the enemy. Ideological wars, on the other hand, tend to become total wars and really only end with the annihilation of one party. E.g., you don't defeat fascism, communism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, etc. until all their believers are converted or wiped out (or, at least, a significant number of them are wiped out to neutralize them as a movement). Would manhood fit into this? Perhaps. It could be harnessed -- as can any facet of culture -- to bolster the war-making effort. Heck, during WW1 and WW2, motherhood was used to whip people into a war frenzy. Is motherhood to blame for war? And a better way to lessen wars would be to slash government military budgets (down to zero if possible), lower the size of the government military (again, down to zero), abandon many foreign commitments, and foster, as much as possible, free trade through unilaterally opening markets. Privatizing military forces would probably be best too. If each person had to pay the direct cost of all the military she or he wanted, I think most people would opt for purely defensive forces and there would be a marked drop in foreign adventures -- save for those few who felt some kind crusading spirit. Those few would be very few indeed and their leaving on such adventures would likely be no great loss and even a welcome respite from their bleeding heart asinine harangues. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:05 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong Perhaps you are right here, however don't you see the crucial link between war and manhood? I suspect as long as men will be men, then war will be war. I can clearly remember being told in kindergarten about forty five years ago of how "a real man will lay down his life and serve his Country"-- right or wrong; the situation hasn't changed all that much since then. We're inching forward like snails and it's time to admit it. >> 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 nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 01:11:19 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:11:19 +1100 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > ... >> ... Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have >> done? >> >> That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. >> >> Brett Paatsch > > Brett, are you volunteering to tell the Iraqis they > won't be voting anymore? No Spike I'm not. That's for the Iraqis to decide. >Likely you will have a war > on your hands. I am against war. I favor elections. Its easy to say you are against war and favour elections. When US President Bush authorised the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 were you against that then? Do you think it was illegal? Is illegality immaterial to you? Or do you think it was a case of the ends justifying the means? > "Iraqis turned out in droves to pick a 275-member parliament today, with > the > once-reluctant Sunni Arabs streaming to the polls. Turnout was apparently > so > heavy across the country that election officials kept the polls open for > an > extra hour to accommodate Iraqis exercising their democratic rights." > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/iraq.elections/index.html I've seen similar articles in The Australian today. About 10% of eligible Iraqis didn't vote. I doubt they abstained from voting because at present the makeup of the government of their country is of no consequence to them. At least some of these might fall into the category of having enduring political and perhaps yes even conscientious objection. On page 9 of todays edition of The Australian there is an article entitled "Intelligence wrong but war right : Bush" which I will forward in a separate post because the issues in it are sufficiently important. But accompanying the article there is also some polling results from a poll "conducted for Time, ABC NEWS, the BBC,NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford research International" in which "Interviews were conducted in person from October 8 to November 13 among a random national sample of 1711 Iraqis aged 15 and over. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 per cent. Sources: Time/ABC New; agencies" Here are some results (for the entire country): Life is better since the war 51% US was right to invade Iraq 46% Feel very safe in neighbourhood 63% Approve of new constitution 70% Oppose coalition forces 64% Even if we apply the margin of error to the "US was right to invade Iraq" issue and boost it to 48.5 then it seems pretty clear on this data that Iraqis don't think the US was right to invade Iraq. Brett Paatsch From Mike15007 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 01:29:21 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:29:21 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong Message-ID: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:11:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, neptune at superlink.net writes: And a better way to lessen wars would be to slash government military budgets (down to zero if possible), lower the size of the government military (again, down to zero), abandon many foreign commitments, and foster, as much as possible, free trade through unilaterally opening markets. Privatizing military forces would probably be best too. If each person had to pay the direct cost of all the military she or he wanted, I think most people would opt for purely defensive forces and there would be a marked drop in foreign adventures -- save for those few who felt some kind crusading spirit. Those few would be very few indeed and their leaving on such adventures would likely be no great loss and even a welcome respite from their bleeding heart asinine harangues. As neat as this sounds, a state that did this would likely lose to any neighbors that maintained a large, well-funded, tightly centrally controlled military. This option (slashing military budgets and the size of the government military down to zero, or as low as possible) is only a viable strategy - or a safe one at least - if everyone else one knows about is doing the same. And then, like in many similar games where the perceived benefits of "defection" are huge, all it takes is one "defector" to upset the whole order, and it's only a matter of time before one comes along. Doing away with, or minimizing, the military and military budgets, is still a little too close to doing the same with one's immune system. Ditto for intelligence agencies (which let you know when someone else is spying on you and planning to do something to you that you wouldn't like). As long as there are "germs," there'll be need of "immune systems." And "germs" are a good deal tougher to eliminate completely than sophants of any kind. Regards, Dan My first post, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 01:35:34 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:35:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <43A20E5A.1000205@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216013534.85044.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > I will absolutely argue that your data is, if not > fictitious, at least > not up to scientific standards. Well that's fine. I will agree with you that it may not be up to snuff scientifically especially because I spent all of 10 minutes analyzing it. My point is simply that I did not make it up. I will put a little more work into it to determine degree of significance and such. 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 mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Dec 16 01:42:00 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:42:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512150601.jBF61Ve31785@tick.javien.com> References: <200512150601.jBF61Ve31785@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2005, at 12:59 AM, spike wrote: >> 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 > > Post away. Spike, are you deliberately trying to destroy this list? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 01:48:20 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:48:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science made stupid Message-ID: <20051216014820.59803.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, This is really hilarious:-) http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html Transhumanistically yours, 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 mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Dec 16 01:51:05 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:51:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512151555.jBFFtee28417@tick.javien.com> References: <200512151555.jBFFtee28417@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5f0495fee9643c3d23f25a3b29e75f70@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:53 AM, spike wrote: > That's why I suggested we keep it to a week. Many of > us are busy this time of year, so a week of less-than- > usual interesting posts won't hurt us, and it does seem > to fill a certain need. > > Opinion noted, Gene, and highly regarded. > > Any others? The week starts today, so do let us finish > it by next Thursday, 22 December. > > spike I will be unsubscribing immediately, and at least for a week. I subscribe to this list for extropy, not politics. When it returns to extropy, I will be back. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 01:51:10 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:51:10 -0500 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> <089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Spike wrote: > >>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch >> >> ... >> >>> ... Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have >>> done? >>> >>> That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. >>> >>> Brett Paatsch >> >> >> Brett, are you volunteering to tell the Iraqis they >> won't be voting anymore? > > > No Spike I'm not. That's for the Iraqis to decide. The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, if we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the jackboot of Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would still be in operation. People would still be thrown living into plastic shredders... head-first if the death was to be merciful. They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had not acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no longer in power and able to terrorize his subjects. Was it perfect in execution and aftermath? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. Neither was World War II. But it is better than the alternative. Joseph From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 16 02:07:11 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:07:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth Message-ID: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:53 AM, spike wrote: > That's why I suggested we keep it to a week. Many of > us are busy this time of year, so a week of less-than- > usual interesting posts won't hurt us, and it does seem > to fill a certain need. > > Opinion noted, Gene, and highly regarded. > > Any others? The week starts today, so do let us finish > it by next Thursday, 22 December. > > spike "I will be unsubscribing immediately, and at least for a week. I subscribe to this list for extropy, not politics. When it returns to extropy, I will be back." I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 02:13:30 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:13:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <43A20E5A.1000205@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216021330.19399.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > The IQ tests delivered over the tickle.com website > aren't valid > instruments, and the people who take them are a > self-selected audience > and are thus not necessarily representative of the > population at large > or the voting population. Yes, they are self-selected but so are voters. I already mentioned there is a selection bias in the I.Q. scores but it should affect both Bush voters and Kerry voters equally. The Tickle site claims that it is the result of 30 million data points and I don't think there have ever been that many WAIS-R tests administered since the test started. So at least I have a large sample size to work with. > > This is a completely nonsensical analysis. What it > needs to have, is a > scientifically rigorous IQ test (think WAIS-R) > crosstabbed by registered > voter. People who voted in previous elections would > be ideal. You are missing my point. The individual voter's IQs should not matter, only their aggregate IQs. > > But someone who took a 5-minute web-based IQ test > crossed with statewide > voting data? C'mon... It is not just someone, but some 30 million sorted by state. They should by all rights be completely independent of the election results but I am seeing a correlation. I don't know what more to say except that the data is sitting out there for ANYONE to analyze. It's not my fault there is a correlation where there should not be one. 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 02:14:57 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:14:57 +1100 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat]letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> Joseph Bloch wrote: > They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had not > acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no longer > in power and able to terrorize his subjects. Was it perfect in execution > and aftermath? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. > Neither was World War II. But it is better than the alternative. It would help me understand how you prioritise if you could talk me through whether you think the invasion on 20 March 2003 was illegal or not, and whether that matters to you or not. Bush, Blair and Howard, don't dare say that international law does not matter to them publicly, they continue to maintain the fiction that the war was legal, and they can only do that because the public doesn't care. Once the public stops holding its elected leaders to their oaths of office and to the rule of law then democracy is finished. And that is what is happening now, in my opinion. What is your opinion on whether the invasion of 20 March 2003 was legal? Do you think that it is of no consequence if it was not? Is it your view that the end justifies the means? Brett Paatsch From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 16 02:17:32 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science: Brainpower Helps Cheat Again Message-ID: <380-220051251621732981@M2W045.mail2web.com> Interesting article in New Scientist about brainpower and how cognitive abilities may not tell the truth. For example, what appears to be an active mind may be hiding elements of dementia and a brain "riddled with plaques and tangles, the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease." "New Scientist" - 17 December 2005 Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 02:19:13 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:19:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. > >Natasha Vita-More > As would I; that's why I asked rather than just posting away. However, are incendiary and factually incorrect posts about politics to be simply ignored in the interests of maintaining such a policy? I will be more than happy not to post about politics first, but once the deed is done, I think it's only decent to allow a response... Joseph From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 02:24:35 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:24:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216022435.17846.qmail@web35709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Also there are those who claim to be anti-war but who are more anti-American than they are antiwar. For example it may appear a small point yet hardline Communists involved in the antiwar movement want global class war with themselves taking power (after all, if counterrevolutionaries are going to be executed & imprisoned, who better to do the deeds than yourself?). The main thing is, the war isn't superficial, and people in the region have long memories. Family is extremely important to them, for instance Arabs and Israelis have been killing their opponent's kin for so long that revenge has become institutionalised, they've been killing combatants relatives for going on six decades so combatants harbor little regret in taking their revenge later on... far too many in the Mideast want revenge for there to be peace, in my lifetime at least. Can't speak for anyone else, though; if any of you want to actively work for peace you of course may do so-- just count some of us out. Joseph Bloch wrote: >The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, if we had not >overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the jackboot of >Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would still be in operation. >People would still be thrown living into plastic shredders... head-first >if the death was to be merciful. >They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had not >acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no longer >in power and able to terrorize his subjects. Was it perfect in execution >and aftermath? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. >Neither was World War II. But it is better than the alternative. >Joseph 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 jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 16 02:25:50 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:25:50 -0800 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat]letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> <089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> <08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10512151825n6d76eec0ud04530db5ac261dd@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Is it your view that the end justifies the means? The end is the only thing that can properly justify the means. The problem, as usual ;-) is one of context. We can never fully anticipate the consequences of our actions, nor fully assess them after the fact. Therefore, the best we can do is evaluate within the broadest possible context and act within the smallest effective context. - Jef From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 16 02:27:43 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:27:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Cuba goes Mapplethorpe! Message-ID: <380-220051251622743135@M2W051.mail2web.com> This is fascinating, coming from the art world - In a county where there is very little freedom of expression (Cuba) a Mapplethorpe photography exhibition has found its way into the country! Exhibition is taking place now. For anyone not familiar with Mapplethorpe: Robert Mapplethorpe is one of the most revered American photographers of the late 20th century. His sexual black and white images have been exhibited at leading museums. I saw his works in the 80s at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. Very large images printed in silverpoint. Beautiful renditions of human figures and relationships. Some images were quite severe, but most were emotionally stunning.http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/mapplethorpe/ A bit of history: "In 1990, the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati and its director were charged with obscenity for exhibiting Mapplethorpe. Both were acquitted. The case sparked a national debate on government funding for the arts, with conservative lawmakers and religious fundamentalists attacking the National Endowment for the Arts for subsidizing Mapplethorpe shows." Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 02:37:09 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:37:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] will cease posting for awhile In-Reply-To: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051216023709.12325.qmail@web35711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'll cease posting for awhile, being the principle instigator of political threads at this time. However PLEASE do understand there wont be much of a future if the pot in the Mideast boils over, a big cloud of fallout may drift over here someday. Call me alarmist, call me a defector, but I'm not much interested in extropianism while the war is ongoing. Predictions are dicey, predictions for the Mideast even more so, and I no longer honestly believe in predicting the future. No-one has any idea whatsoever what is going to happen. Bye for now. >>"I will be unsubscribing immediately, and at least for a week. I >>subscribe to this list for extropy, not politics. When it returns to >>extropy, I will be back." >I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. Natasha Vita-More nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 02:40:02 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:40:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216024002.86650.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > >I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. > > As would I; that's why I asked rather than just posting away. > > However, are incendiary and factually incorrect posts about politics > to > be simply ignored in the interests of maintaining such a policy? Ah, and there's one of the major problems. When facts disagree, people feel the need to correct them - and then the corrected ones feel the need to correct the corrections, and so forth. While these corrections are exchanged, the volume of messages other people see as irrelevant keeps piling up. Perhaps some could say, "We don't care who's right. We don't care about the topic. Stop the debate. You have expressed your basic points of view. None of you can 'win' any further than that. Any further effort whatsoever to attempt to achieve that end here at this time will only turn people against you, regardless of how mislead or misinformed you believe them to be." From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 02:53:41 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:53:41 -0500 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat]letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> <08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net> Not being an expert in international law, I am not qualified to render a judgement on the question. Being a student of current events, however, I can say that opinion among such experts is divided on the subject, and thus it is entirely possible that the invasion of Iraq was entirely within the bounds of international law and the United Nations resolutions on the subject. As for your last question, I would say that in this particular case, the ends have justified the means retroactively. It is better that Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime are out of power, and a democratic system of government seems to be taking root. I would never want to make a blanket assertion. Although I might ask you, Brett; do you believe that the ends never justify the means? Joseph Brett Paatsch wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had >> not acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no >> longer in power and able to terrorize his subjects. Was it perfect in >> execution and aftermath? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting >> otherwise. Neither was World War II. But it is better than the >> alternative. > > > It would help me understand how you prioritise if you could talk me > through whether you think the invasion on 20 March 2003 was illegal > or not, and whether that matters to you or not. > Bush, Blair and Howard, don't dare say that international law does > not matter to them publicly, they continue to maintain the fiction that > the war was legal, and they can only do that because the public > doesn't care. > Once the public stops holding its elected leaders to their oaths of > office and to the rule of law then democracy is finished. And that > is what is happening now, in my opinion. > What is your opinion on whether the invasion of 20 March 2003 > was legal? Do you think that it is of no consequence if it was not? > Is it your view that the end justifies the means? > > Brett Paatsch > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 02:54:49 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:54:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <20051216023709.12325.qmail@web35711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > I'll cease posting for awhile, being the principle instigator of > political threads at this time. However PLEASE do understand there > wont be much of a future if the pot in the Mideast boils over, a big > cloud of fallout may drift over here someday. Some people think that turning the whole place into a glowing glass desert would help more than hurt - mainly so the people there stop exporting violence, stop creating crises that humanitarians are drawn to respond to, and stop exporting cheap oil so that we'd finally have sufficient incentive for fast development of alternatives (with the temporary economic disruption viewed as acceptable: common exaggerated jokes aside, most people actually would still be able to go to work and take trips, especially once the chaos subsided). Said people are a distinct minority, and are likely to remain so for some time. But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid rains). From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 03:02:41 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:02:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A22E51.6070707@goldenfuture.net> I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The different between nuclear winter and greenhouse effect is a fine line, and has to do with albedo and suchlike. You'd probably do much better cooling Venus with a scheme to get rid of the cloud cover, so more heat was radiated into space, rather than being reflected back to the surface. Such is my layman's understanding... Joseph Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Alan Brooks wrote: > > >>I'll cease posting for awhile, being the principle instigator of >>political threads at this time. However PLEASE do understand there >>wont be much of a future if the pot in the Mideast boils over, a big >>cloud of fallout may drift over here someday. >> >> > >Some people think that turning the whole place into a glowing >glass desert would help more than hurt - mainly so the people >there stop exporting violence, stop creating crises that >humanitarians are drawn to respond to, and stop exporting cheap >oil so that we'd finally have sufficient incentive for fast >development of alternatives (with the temporary economic >disruption viewed as acceptable: common exaggerated jokes aside, >most people actually would still be able to go to work and take >trips, especially once the chaos subsided). Said people are a >distinct minority, and are likely to remain so for some time. > >But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I >wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, >initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the >planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the >atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more >permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy >right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, >and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive >fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere >were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen >overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can >live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid >rains). >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From alito at organicrobot.com Fri Dec 16 03:18:44 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:18:44 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] spam gmail invite request? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512151339s527a230g4c1b6e3c8d65eda1@mail.gmail.com> References: <43A1D801.8030207@sasktel.net> <8d71341e0512151339s527a230g4c1b6e3c8d65eda1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1134703124.12972.107.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 21:39 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > An obvious possibility that comes to mind is a spammer trying to > collect a bunch of disposable accounts to send spam from. > Spammers don't (usually) need accounts to send spam from. My guess is that this is just fishing for active target accounts, with the possible added benefit that gmail won't filter mail from accounts you've personally invited. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 03:06:48 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:06:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051215174607.1752.qmail@web35706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com> >The average voter just asks dumb questions like "why do >"they" (foreigners, terrorists) hate us so much?" That's an easy one: foreigners don't hate us, that was an invention of the yankee news media. Terrorists hate us, but we are not special; terrorists hate everybody, including themselves. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 22:43:24 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:43:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051215223451.79894.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051215224324.17092.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > I have > attached the results of my quick and dirty study as > an > Excel file. Doh! Here is the attachment. :) 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tickleiqbystate.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 35328 bytes Desc: 4083147242-tickleiqbystate.xls URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 03:28:28 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:28:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <43A22E51.6070707@goldenfuture.net> References: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43A22E51.6070707@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <5366105b0512151928v62147937mddf9ac77b825bb12@mail.gmail.com> 20051215 I don't have my copy of Fogg's Terraforming (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560916095/qid=1134703453/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/104-8875538-3560751?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) handy nor have I scanned it, but that text does discuss terraforming Venus. IIRC, the author doesn't discuss using nuclear explosives for it, and he was pretty skeptical about the bacterial seeding of Sagan and others. If you like, email me off-list this weekend, and I'll check the book for you. If you can't wait, Amazon sells it from US$900. Of course, your local library might have it too. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like, even if it's the Red Cross. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 03:31:55 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:31:55 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > .. terrorists hate everybody, including themselves. I doubt that you could find any expert anywhere that would agree with the crazy-boogie man assessment. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 03:36:36 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:36:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512160338.jBG3cce25416@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > --- BillK wrote: > > Not just some other sites. > > The IQ data by state is completely ficticious. > > > > Maybe, but my data is not. It is from the > http://www.tickle.com website. All I did was cut and > paste into Excel. I sent the Excel file as an > attachment to the list but it needs moderator approval > because its size (47kb) is just over the 40kb limit. > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge Moderator approves! {8-] A possibly more valid and interesting study would be to use SAT scores by state. Those are more controlled than IQ scores; everyone in the state doesn't take IQ tests, but nearly all high school seniors take the SAT. Furthermore it is less likely to be falsely reported. This particular IQ test is highly suspect. Twenty questions? Probably most here have taken the SAT; does anyone wish to argue that the SAT is not a thinly disguised IQ test? I have a vague suspicion that the results would be the opposite of Avant's study. I may take enough interest in this question to look up SAT scores by state. Or Avant could redeem his honor by doing the legwork. {8^D Thanks Stuart. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 03:48:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:48:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom > >> > >> Thus do I defer to the moderators. > >> > >> Joseph > > > > Post away. > > Spike, are you deliberately trying to destroy this list? > > -- > Harvey Newstrom No. A week of political posts will not destroy the list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a hundred times over. If people have something to say that is not particularly extropian, say it this week then let it go. We don't want this to be a primarily political list (too boring, not productive) but I see little harm (and some benefit) from suggesting a short well-defined time for a political free-for-all. The war is weighing heavily on all of us. True we could go elsewhere to discuss this important matter, but Harvey man, we have grown up together have we not? You, me, a lot of us who have been hanging out on extropians for years, we are among friends here, we are among people who understand us, people who do not flee in panic when we start talking about having our heads frozen. This is where we want to have our discussions. So let us have this one. For a week, keep it civil, then let it go. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 03:58:32 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:58:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: <092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com> <092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:31:55 -0500, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Spike wrote: > >> .. terrorists hate everybody, including themselves. > > I doubt that you could find any expert anywhere that > would agree with the crazy-boogie man assessment. I'm wondering about the same question. Why do terrorists hate themselves, assuming they do? Self-hatred seems on the surface a reasonable explanation for suicide-bombers, but one might ask whether suicide bombers differ in any important way from volunteer kamikaze pilots in WWII. Suicide bombers strike civilians rather than military, but what other differences exist? I suspect middle-eastern suicide bombers would prefer to strike military targets but that western military targets usually seem too well protected. I don't think most people would say kamikaze pilots in WWII acted out of self-hatred. I think the question relates more to western vs eastern concepts of self. -gts From neptune at superlink.net Fri Dec 16 03:58:16 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:58:16 -0500 Subject: Extropian politics/was Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <022201c601f4$f2175060$21893cd1@pavilion> On Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:48 PM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: > No. A week of political posts will not destroy the > list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a > hundred times over. If people have something to say > that is not particularly extropian, say it this week > then let it go. We don't want this to be a primarily > political list (too boring, not productive) but I see > little harm (and some benefit) from suggesting a > short well-defined time for a political free-for-all. > > The war is weighing heavily on all of us. True we > could go elsewhere to discuss this important matter, > but Harvey man, we have grown up together have we > not? You, me, a lot of us who have been hanging out > on extropians for years, we are among friends here, > we are among people who understand us, people who > do not flee in panic when we start talking about having > our heads frozen. This is where we want to have our > discussions. So let us have this one. For a week, > keep it civil, then let it go. I agree. That said, though, what political system do you -- any of you -- think is most conducive to increasing extropy? What can be done inside existing political systems to increase extropy? Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ "A ruling class need not be monolithic, however. In fact, most ruling classes are divided into two broad factions, which we may call the political class and the corporate class. The political class comprises those who are in direct control of running the state - politicians, civil servants, and the like; the corporate class, on the other hand, comprises the wealthy quasi-private beneficiaries of state power - the collectors of subsidies, government contracts, and grants of monopoly privilege. These two groups might be called the Bureaucrats and the Plutocrats." -- Roderick Long, "Can We Escape the Ruling Class?" http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l2.html From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 03:57:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:57:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512160359.jBG3xie27219@tick.javien.com> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth > > nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > >I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. > > > >Natasha Vita-More > > > As list owner, Natasha has the final word. I choose to honor the request. spike From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Dec 16 04:02:35 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:02:35 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512151900.jBFJ0Ae25054@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002101c601f5$8d632c60$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Dan wrote: > Getting back to socio-cultural evolution, I think Alan simplifies this > to an extreme. Not only do his statements make it seem he thinks it's > linear and constant everywhere, but also that it's always a progress. I > think it's far to say the future is an open issue and that any gains > made today can be lost tomorrow. (On a political note: the failure to > see this is probably why some people are willing to trade hard won > freedoms, such as the right to property or freedom of expression, for > things they judge as progressive, such as the Prussian welfare state of > wealth redistribution and nationalized healthcare that sadly has > captured the imagination of elites on both sides of the Atlantic since > 1900.) > Dan There may not be a linear/progressive evolution apparent in superpower social systems but they do have some historical similarities. One important point I think is that they are/were all underpinned by some non-economic rationale - something moral, aesthetic, altruistic, noble, philosophical etc etc. By way of quick and non-comprehensive example: 1) The US: Freedom, equality, justice, family values and humanitarian treatment for all etc.... 2) The British Empire: Notions of fair play, unimpeachable honesty, the work ethic, ideas of nobility of service, free speech. 3) The USSR - Collective sharing, comradeship, grass-roots participation in the political process, caring for the underdog etc ... 4) Ancient Rome/Greece: A fine appreciation of the value of intellectual discourse, interest in pure research, patronage of the arts etc... 5) China: Valuing education, aesthetics and culture above all else - and therefore appointing poets and artists as governors and rulers... etc... In each case above, it seems to me that the Empire's failure begins when it starts to routinely compromise it's own ideals in the interests of expediency. In this regard, US phenomena such as the current trade-offs of personal freedoms for 'security,' the suspension of individual rights 'to fight terror,' the reintroduction of torture, and internment without trial of alleged terrorists - are all more than disquieting examples of wrong action. They are symptomatic of the decline of a superpower. As the front-line commanders will always say - 'We had to destroy that village in order to save it! Sir!' Contemporary politics are to a great extent about putting the cart before the horse. But, there is no merit in abanding a set of values in order to protect them. All action taken, should be taken (and judged) in light of how it reflects the values it allegedly promotes, defends and represents. Isn't this how we judge a true statesman and world leader? This is a person whose actions are not just correct in the sense of timing, execution and format. But they are directly linked to and representative of, the values and philosophy of the vast majority of the people - this is a true 'voice of the people' - a leader with immense personal integrity and the respect of all. Unfortunately, such people are not common. The best you can say of the bunch we work with is that (usually) they try in their limited way. No wonder the Chinese thought it best to appoint poets, artists, and calligraphers as senior political figures. They were not silly - they well understood the shortcomings of the officials they appointed - and they were prepared to tolerate inefficiencies in trade and resource management in order to ensure that the underlying cultural values were maintained at all costs. And the system worked... The cat got skinned in yet another way... Jack Parkinson From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 16 04:08:10 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:08:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <200512160338.jBG3cce25416@tick.javien.com> References: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <200512160338.jBG3cce25416@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051215230026.073b3368@unreasonable.com> spike wrote: >A possibly more valid and interesting study would be to use >SAT scores by state. Those are more controlled than IQ >scores; everyone in the state doesn't take IQ tests, but nearly >all high school seniors take the SAT. Furthermore it is >less likely to be falsely reported. This particular IQ test >is highly suspect. Twenty questions? > >Probably most here have taken the SAT; does anyone wish to argue >that the SAT is not a thinly disguised IQ test? It used to be. But the SAT was dramatically dumbed down several times. Scores cannot be compared without knowing what year they were taken. Several high-IQ organizations will not accept new SAT scores, and/or set minimum SAT scores required for admission that depend on the year the test was taken. See http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/criteria.html The GRE was similarly altered. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 04:15:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:15:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512160417.jBG4HLe29031@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:59 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:31:55 -0500, Brett Paatsch > wrote: > > > Spike wrote: > > > >> .. terrorists hate everybody, including themselves. > > > > I doubt that you could find any expert anywhere that > > would agree with the crazy-boogie man assessment. > > I'm wondering about the same question. Why do terrorists hate themselves, > assuming they do? > > Self-hatred seems on the surface a reasonable explanation for > suicide-bombers, but one might ask whether suicide bombers differ in any > important way from volunteer kamikaze pilots in WWII. Suicide bombers > strike civilians rather than military, but what other differences exist? ... > -gts This is a critically important distinction. Not only do terrorists kill civilians, but in some cases they target children intentionally. I have heard of two cases where a car bomb was driven into a bunch of kids who had crowded around a US marine who was giving away toys and candy. So he managed to slay a US marine, congratulations, enjoy your 73 virgins. In the process they killed 30 or more kids, who were guilty of what? Granted, I learned of this thru the US news media, which I trust less than used car salesmen. If anyone wishes to make the case that it never happened, I would be pleased to learn that. But if it did happen and such a terrorist does not have a burning self hatred, I sure don't see why he would not. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 04:33:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:33:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051215230026.073b3368@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200512160435.jBG4Z6e31034@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > spike wrote: > > >A possibly more valid and interesting study would be to use > >SAT scores by state... > > It used to be. But the SAT was dramatically dumbed down several > times. Scores cannot be compared without knowing what year they were > taken... > > http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/criteria.html > -- David Fascinating, thanks David. I have heard it suggested that the SATs were intentionally altered in order to defeat the exact analysis that we are suggesting. GRE scores would not be a valid comparison because it only applies to collegians, and not even all of those but rather those who were graduate school bound. Regarding the invalidity of SAT data since 1995, this will not matter for this study, for the median age of voters is probably late thirties to early forties, so median age voters would have taken the SAT back in the early to mid 1980s. We should be able to get our grubby paws on that data somewhere, then compare to Avant's voter data. I would speculate that red states would do quite respectably in average SAT scores from the mid 80s. But I could be wrong. Stuart Avantguardian LaForge, do your magic! {8-] spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 16 04:43:50 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:43:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216001635.32484.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051215232404.0705ace0@unreasonable.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >Maybe, but my data is not. It is from the >http://www.tickle.com website. All I did was cut and >paste into Excel. I sent the Excel file as an >attachment to the list but it needs moderator approval >because its size (47kb) is just over the 40kb limit. >In any case, all I did was cut and paste data from 2 >different sites neither of whom knew I using their >data for analysis. Once the moderators approve it for >distribution, feel free to analyze it yourself. Even assuming the validity of your Tickle data, most states were not uniformly pro-Kerry or pro-Bush. Take a look at the various election maps that break out votes by county, some of which also display population density. With few exceptions, there are no red states or blue states. People who live in large cities overwhelmingly voted for Kerry; everyone else overwhelmingly voted for Bush. A state-based comparison is inherently flawed. To my thinking, bad science is more harmful than no science. It has the veneer of validity, and dupes the many people who don't have the background or intellect to see what's wrong with it. So when I see bad science, whatever the subject matter, and whatever side it's on, I pounce. But suppose it were all true and all valid. The average Kerry voter is smarter than the average Bush voter. ***** SO WHAT? ***** How is your posting anything more than a dressed-up playground sneer? -- David. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 04:46:25 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:46:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: <200512160417.jBG4HLe29031@tick.javien.com> References: <200512160417.jBG4HLe29031@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:15:19 -0500, spike wrote: > This is a critically important distinction. Not only do > terrorists kill civilians, but in some cases they target > children intentionally. I have heard of two cases.... Middle-eastern suicide bombers appear in our world as very evil people, no question about that. Lacking real material weapons, terrorists use a form of psychological warfare (terror) in hopes of winning a war against the west. But what kind of processes occur in their psyches? Do they really act out of self-hatred? I doubt it. > But if it did happen and such a terrorist does not have a burning self > hatred,I sure don't see why he would not. Why do you consider the suicide bomber to hate himself? Perhaps he considers his cause more valuable than his own existence, much like the Japanese kamikaze pilot. His suicidal act might seem irrational to us, but we in the west have a different concept of self. -gts From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Dec 16 04:55:00 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:55:00 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512160328.jBG3Sde24488@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003601c601fc$dfaa3ca0$a7830d0a@JPAcer> > From: "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" >> >> > "I will be unsubscribing immediately, and at least for a week. I > subscribe to this list for extropy, not politics. When it returns to > extropy, I will be back." > > I'd like to read posts on extropy and the future. > > Natasha Vita-More > It is not as if this kind of debate is irrelevant to an extropian future. Although we may be confident that the advanced technology WILL arrive. And while we may be even quite sure that we can confidently predict a broad arange of things that the technology MIGHT empower us to do - what actually happens is a function of the political process now and in the future. I think that future politics are far more worrisome and have a far greater potential for disaster than any future advances in technology. After all the technology is neutral - the users of technology are not. Jack Parkinson From neptune at superlink.net Fri Dec 16 05:11:32 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:11:32 -0500 Subject: Socio-cultural evolution and intellectual enablers of statism/was Re: [extropy-chat] RE: letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512151900.jBFJ0Ae25054@tick.javien.com> <002101c601f5$8d632c60$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <040101c601ff$2e638480$21893cd1@pavilion> On Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:02 PM Jack Parkinson isthatyoujack at icqmail.com wrote: >> Getting back to socio-cultural evolution, I think Alan >> simplifies this to an extreme. Not only do his >> statements make it seem he thinks it's linear and >> constant everywhere, but also that it's always a >> progress. I think it's far to say the future is an open >> issue and that any gains made today can be lost >> tomorrow. (On a political note: the failure to see >> this is probably why some people are willing to >> trade hard won freedoms, such as the right to >> property or freedom of expression, for things they >> judge as progressive, such as the Prussian welfare >> state of wealth redistribution and nationalized >> healthcare that sadly has captured the imagination >> of elites on both sides of the Atlantic since 1900.) > > There may not be a linear/progressive evolution > apparent in superpower social systems but they do > have some historical similarities. I never claimed they had none. Nor was I only talking about superpower social systems -- if you mean by that term what I think you mean. Alan's statements that I responded to seemed to point to a notion that socio-cultural change follows not just some similarities, but definite linear/uniform/progressive ones. IIRC, he said something like Europe has had 1000 years and the US only 230 -- meaning that in another 770 years the US will be like Europe today? I don't know, but statements like that make me think he believes that. > One important point I think is that they are/were all > underpinned by some non-economic rationale - > something moral, aesthetic, altruistic, noble, > philosophical etc etc. Well, yes. One can hope to keep conquered peoples in thrall or keep internal dissent down without some kind of ideological rationale, be it the glory of Rome, Napoleon, the Empire of Liberty, or World Communism. Plus, you'll be hard pressed to find many rulers ever make claims like, "We're evil, hate others, and rule solely through force." Such an ideology makes for a good fictional villains, but would be make for short-lived rule of any elite professing it openly. > By way of quick and non-comprehensive example: > 1) The US: Freedom, equality, justice, family values > and humanitarian treatment for all etc.... > 2) The British Empire: Notions of fair play, unimpeachable > honesty, the work ethic, ideas of nobility of service, free speech. > 3) The USSR - Collective sharing, comradeship, grass-roots participation in > the political process, caring for the underdog etc ... > 4) Ancient Rome/Greece: A fine appreciation of the value of intellectual > discourse, interest in pure research, patronage of the arts etc... > 5) China: Valuing education, aesthetics and culture above all else - and > therefore appointing poets and artists as governors and rulers... etc... > > In each case above, it seems to me that the Empire's failure begins when it > starts to routinely compromise it's own ideals in the interests of > expediency. In this regard, US phenomena such as the current trade-offs of > personal freedoms for 'security,' the suspension of individual rights 'to > fight terror,' the reintroduction of torture, and internment without trial > of alleged terrorists - are all more than disquieting examples of wrong > action. They are symptomatic of the decline of a superpower. > > As the front-line commanders will always say - 'We had to destroy that > village in order to save it! Sir!' > > Contemporary politics are to a great extent about putting the cart before > the horse. But, there is no merit in abanding a set of values in order to > protect them. All action taken, should be taken (and judged) in light of how > it reflects the values it allegedly promotes, defends and represents. > > Isn't this how we judge a true statesman and world leader? This is a person > whose actions are not just correct in the sense of timing, execution and > format. But they are directly linked to and representative of, the values > and philosophy of the vast majority of the people - this is a true 'voice of > the people' - a leader with immense personal integrity and the respect of > all. > > Unfortunately, such people are not common. The best you can say of the bunch > we work with is that (usually) they try in their limited way. No wonder the > Chinese thought it best to appoint poets, artists, and calligraphers as > senior political figures. They were not silly - they well understood the > shortcomings of the officials they appointed - and they were prepared to > tolerate inefficiencies in trade and resource management in order to ensure > that the underlying cultural values were maintained at all costs. And the > system worked... The cat got skinned in yet another way... Much of what you say rings true to me, though I would say that there are natural elites -- i.e., people who get there by earning it -- and then there are statesmen and world leaders -- people who get there because they gain control of institutions that use force. The two do not typically overlap and when they do, the outcome is not always good. You can often get a man or woman who believes in a set of ideals and is willing to mass murder to bring about those ideals. (Side note: I'd prefer corrupt communists who allow black markets and don't enforce Marxism severely to hardcore ones who stick to their values and butcher the black marketeer and collapse the whole economy. Wouldn't you? It's not just integrity that counts.) Another side note: Regarding China, I think part of this has to do with winning over an intellectual elite. We see this in most nation states today. The government supports a huge number of intellectuals directly or indirectly who really play no other role in society than justifying the state's rule. Sometimes these are open court intellectuals, such as the cadre around the American VP. Other times they serve in media or in other secondary roles. In a stateless society -- in other words, in a society where people weren't forced to pay for these intellectuals -- most of them would have to find other work. Others have dealt in more detail with this phenomenon. See, e.g., "Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision-Making and Class Structure" by Walter E. Grinder and John Hagel III at (this is a PDF file): http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_7.pdf It's a great but long essay, so if you just want to see their remarks on intellectuals, go to pages 72 and 73. Regards, Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 05:19:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:19:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051215232404.0705ace0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051216051947.78625.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > But suppose it were all true and all valid. The > average Kerry voter > is smarter than the average Bush voter. > > ***** SO WHAT? ***** > > How is your posting anything more than a dressed-up > playground sneer? Simple. It supports my assertion that the ultra-rich utilize mass media and cutting edge Madison Avenue marketing tactics to fool the gullible into letting them have their way. 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 neptune at superlink.net Fri Dec 16 05:26:39 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:26:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> Message-ID: <04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can use technologies like nuclear weapons in self-defense. Your neighbors might have a huge army, but that will be a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend to be -- while your nuclear device keeps them from invading. You might want to check out _The Myth of National Defense_, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe on privatizing security. As for the immune defense analogy, the differences are two-fold. One is that a military is a threat and a heavy cost to the citizens. For a nation state like the US, this should be readily apparent since its citizens are forced to pay for military adventures that have almost nothing to do with security and much more to do with politics in its elite. Two is that if the cost is privatized, those who feel most threatened will pay for the cost. Under the current system, since militaries are tax funded -- i.e., security is treated as a public good, when it's really a private good -- the cost and quality have no relation to reality. Does the farmer in Wisconsin really have to pay for the defense of some far-flung outpost of empire? Is it really in his interest to have troops stationed here and there? No. He pays for it because he's forced to. (You disagree, then advocate abolishing the taxes for these things. See who will pay for, say, bases in Okinawa or to have the Sixth Fleet moving around Italy. I bet most of these affairs would go away and go away quickly and the only ones who'd be the worse for it would be arms manufacturers, government contractors, and meddling politicos.) Regards, Dan From: Mike15007 at aol.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:11:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, neptune at superlink.net writes: And a better way to lessen wars would be to slash government military budgets (down to zero if possible), lower the size of the government military (again, down to zero), abandon many foreign commitments, and foster, as much as possible, free trade through unilaterally opening markets. Privatizing military forces would probably be best too. If each person had to pay the direct cost of all the military she or he wanted, I think most people would opt for purely defensive forces and there would be a marked drop in foreign adventures -- save for those few who felt some kind crusading spirit. Those few would be very few indeed and their leaving on such adventures would likely be no great loss and even a welcome respite from their bleeding heart asinine harangues. As neat as this sounds, a state that did this would likely lose to any neighbors that maintained a large, well-funded, tightly centrally controlled military. This option (slashing military budgets and the size of the government military down to zero, or as low as possible) is only a viable strategy - or a safe one at least - if everyone else one knows about is doing the same. And then, like in many similar games where the perceived benefits of "defection" are huge, all it takes is one "defector" to upset the whole order, and it's only a matter of time before one comes along. Doing away with, or minimizing, the military and military budgets, is still a little too close to doing the same with one's immune system. Ditto for intelligence agencies (which let you know when someone else is spying on you and planning to do something to you that you wouldn't like). As long as there are "germs," there'll be need of "immune systems." And "germs" are a good deal tougher to eliminate completely than sophants of any kind. Regards, Dan My first post, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 05:34:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:34:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <20051215180541.8313.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051216053441.83007.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > I can clearly remember being told in kindergarten > about forty five years ago of how "a real man will > lay down his life and serve his Country"-- right or > wrong; the situation hasn't changed all that much > since then. We're inching forward like snails and > it's time to admit it. But "my country, right or wrong" cuts right to the heart of the hypocrisy of the ruling the class. When it comes to unilateral military action using tax-payer's money, they invoke nationalism and the need to "protect our borders" with much flag waving and hoopla. But when it comes to whittling down their overhead by offshoring precious American jobs overseas, they invoke globalism. "Those Chinese people need to eat too don't ya know, it's a global economy now." So the simple truth of the matter is the financial elite want their cake and to eat it too. This is a particularly bitter pill for me to swallow since I served in the military like I was told a "real man should". I don't remember seeing any trust fund babies with me in my fox-hole in Panama during the reign of Bush the First. 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 05:35:24 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:35:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <20051215180541.8313.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051216053524.65248.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > I can clearly remember being told in kindergarten > about forty five years ago of how "a real man will > lay down his life and serve his Country"-- right or > wrong; the situation hasn't changed all that much > since then. We're inching forward like snails and > it's time to admit it. But "my country, right or wrong" cuts right to the heart of the hypocrisy of the ruling the class. When it comes to unilateral military action using tax-payer's money, they invoke nationalism and the need to "protect our borders" with much flag waving and hoopla. But when it comes to whittling down their overhead by offshoring precious American jobs overseas, they invoke globalism. "Those Chinese people need to eat too don't ya know, it's a global economy now." So the simple truth of the matter is the financial elite want their cake and to eat it too. This is a particularly bitter pill for me to swallow since I served in the military like I was told a "real man should". I don't remember seeing any trust fund babies with me in my fox-hole in Panama during the reign of Bush the First. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 16 06:10:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:10:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> Message-ID: <44169784-A019-466E-933A-4F4566B6C0A6@mac.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Mike15007 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:11:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > neptune at superlink.net writes: > And a better way to lessen wars would be to slash government > military budgets (down to zero if possible), lower the size of the > government military (again, down to zero), abandon many foreign > commitments, and foster, as much as possible, free trade through > unilaterally opening markets. Privatizing military forces would > probably be best too. If each person had to pay the direct cost of > all the military she or he wanted, I think most people would opt > for purely defensive forces and there would be a marked drop in > foreign adventures -- save for those few who felt some kind > crusading spirit. Those few would be very few indeed and their > leaving on such adventures would likely be no great loss and even a > welcome respite from their bleeding heart asinine harangues. > As neat as this sounds, a state that did this would likely lose > to any neighbors that maintained a large, well-funded, tightly > centrally controlled military. This option (slashing military > budgets and the size of the government military down to zero, or as > low as possible) is only a viable strategy - or a safe one at least > - if everyone else one knows about is doing the same. A country without a huge State burden is likely to advance over other peer states still under such a burden. Defense today is largely a matter of technology. Such a state would probably have little trouble raising a defensive force that was quite capable. It would have trouble raising an offensive force. Yes you need some R&D in defense. But you don't need to spend hundreds of billions even in peaceful times to have standing forces all over the world. Yes you need a certain amount of military readiness to guard the country against aggression. But this is a tiny fragment of today's US military spending. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 16 06:20:04 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:20:04 -0800 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com> <089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <60AE2434-EC1A-48F1-9A36-C443FA095294@mac.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, if we had > not overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the > jackboot of Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would still > be in operation. People would still be thrown living into plastic > shredders... head-first if the death was to be merciful. > As opposed to the jackboots of the US occupation forces? Democracy cannot be imposed by force. It is even more laughable to believe freedom can be opposed by removing freedom. > They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had > not acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no > longer in power and able to terrorize his subjects. As opposed to our terrorization and torture? I hardly see that we have done a good deed here. It is certainly not good that I am forced at gunpoint to support such state terrorism. > Was it perfect in execution and aftermath? No, of course not, and > nobody is suggesting otherwise. Neither was World War II. But it is > better than the alternative. No, it is not. Iraq used to be one of the most secular of Arab countries. Back before we cooked up enough agit-prop for the first Iraqi war. Then we kept the place in constant economic turmoil for over a decade. Then we blamed everything on Saddam, bombed hell out of the place and set up occupation. Now we are lecherously evil enough to claim we did it and are still doing it for the good of the Iraqi people! I couldn't be more disgusted or less proud to be an American. - samantha From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Fri Dec 16 06:32:48 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:32:48 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051216063248.76204.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:28:26 -0500, Marc Geddes > > wrote: > > > I want to call these proto-qualia 'objective qualia' > and say that it takes > a suitably equipped being to detect them. I want to > say fried green > tomatoes are objectively green (at least before they > are fried) and that > any being with eyes to see should be able to see > their green-ness. I told you in an earlier post that an infinite number of different oberservers would see an infinite number of slightly different shades of green, since qualia are based on the interaction of current experience with past memories. Which observer's view-point should be picked out as the 'objectivity correct' one? Green is not in the object I'm telling ya. > > I want to reject the notion of a Cartesian Theater > in which we represent > the external world to ourselves via something > analogous to a subjective > movie screen, and say instead that the mind > experiences the world > directly. As I mentioned in another message, the > Cartesian Theater leads > to an infinite regress. If I am the 'little person' > or 'homunculus' inside > my head who watches these subjective movies about my > external world, then > shouldn't I have yet another subjective movie and > another homunculus > inside my homunculus? And so on and so on? :) The idea that we experience the world directly is an even bigger mistake than the fallacy of the Cartesian Theater. Suppose for instance that someone is afraid of snakes. They have a 'fear qualia' whenever they see the snake. Surely you can see that the 'fear qualia' is not in the snake? Nor does it make any sense to say that there are 'green qualia' in green objects. > > This is not to say we have no mental models of > ourselves in the world. I > think we do have these models but that they are > tools of intelligence > rather than of awareness. I think we experience the > world and then form > mental models about our experience. The mental > models help us solve > problems. They help us (or our future AI robots) to > answer the question, > "What should I do about my experience?" but they are > not prerequisites to > experience. > > So are these proto-qualia platonic? Seems reasonable > to me. This makes > them objective, even if we may dispute whether they > are really 'in' the > objects of our experience. I would say they are in > the object in the same > way that the idealized platonic sphere is 'in' a > baseball. If some verson of panpsychism is correct then I would agree that there are indeed proto-qualia (at least) in all objects. But *we* (external observers) don't experience these qualia. The qualia would be 'experienced' internally by the objects, not by us. > > > I can eliminate a subjective component from my > definition. Let me define > > Qualia as composed of a combination of a Meme and > an object. > > Do you ever question your theory for reason of it > being so complicated? > Seven-aspect neutral monism?? What are these seven > different aspects of > the one neutral stuff? I confess I have not yet > studied your paper in > detail, but perhaps you can give me a hint. > > -gts > Most people call me a crack-pot for being far far too simple! My theory of metaphysics is as simple as it can possibly be whilst still remaining consistent with known scientific facts. Read the summary of my 'Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory' (MCRT) that I posted to the list yesterday. It should only take you 10 minutes and it's in plain English. It explains what I think the 7-aspects are. You need to read it in the context of my theory - much better than me simply firing off one sentence answers which won't mean a thing to you. In the MCRT thread I've posted (in general, fuzzy terms admittedly) the answer to life, the universe and everything in 30k of plain English :D It's astounding that NO ONE recognizes it! The field in the race to build the first AGI has apparently narrowed to one...me. I'm going all out to code and launch the first AGI and 'take out' the Singularity soon in a spectacular rock 'em, shock 'em KO punch which will stun the living daylights out of everyone (and especially Yudkowsky and Wilson) for all time :D "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 16 06:34:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: References: <200512160417.jBG4HLe29031@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2005, at 8:46 PM, gts wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:15:19 -0500, spike wrote: > >> This is a critically important distinction. Not only do >> terrorists kill civilians, but in some cases they target >> children intentionally. I have heard of two cases.... > So has our own military. Not all terrorist go after civilian targets. Is it ok if they only go after military and opposition government targets using the same means? > Middle-eastern suicide bombers appear in our world as very evil > people, no question about that. > No more evil than any who initiate force. Those who strike back with asymmetric force are not automatically more evil than powerful states who initiated force. > Lacking real material weapons, terrorists use a form of > psychological warfare (terror) in hopes of winning a war against > the west. This is not all terrorism is about or certainly not all the US claims is "terrorism". - samantha From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 06:35:02 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:35:02 +1100 Subject: US not right to invade say IraqisRe:[extropy-chat]letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc> Joseph Bloch write: > Not being an expert in international law, I am not qualified to render a > judgement on the question. You are in the same position as every other reader to the list in one very important respect. Whether you are an expert or not yours is the only judgement on this question or any question you will be able to render. I want to talk to adults that can think for themselves. I want intelligent adult conversation and I will have to ignore childish interjections to have it in an open forum. This question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was in violation of the UN Charter and constituted a high crime and misdemeanor on the part of the US President and is thereby grounds for impeaching him is an important one. It important to humanists and to transhumanists. If you can't follow the argument or if you are not interested in the argument then please do not interject in the argument. Please allow me to have a discussion at a level with others that can. > Being a student of current events, however, I can say that opinion among > such experts is divided on the subject, and thus it is entirely possible > that the invasion of Iraq was entirely within the bounds of > international law and the United Nations resolutions on the subject. I think you are wrong on this. I think that independent expert opinion, ie opinion, that is not tied up with the respective Bush, Blair and Howard governments, is overwhelmingly on one side: - it overwhelming supports the conclusion that it was illegal. If the political will was ever found to hold Bush to account it would be on legal grounds that he would be found guilty. I think there is a case. Apparently so do some US senators. What remains to be seen is whether the US citizen gives a damn. Frankly I am very pessimistic about that. But I am trying to give some of you I know the benefit of the doubt. > As for your last question, I would say that in this particular case, the > ends have justified the means retroactively. It is better that Saddam > Hussein and his brutal regime are out of power, and a democratic > system of government seems to be taking root. I would never want > to make a blanket assertion. > > Although I might ask you, Brett; do you believe that the ends never > justify the means? I try to be rational and not to just believe things. Please do not ask me what I believe, but rather ask me what I think. And then please do not ask unless you really want to know. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 06:46:17 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:46:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051215224324.17092.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512160648.jBG6mNe11384@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > --- The Avantguardian > wrote: > > I have attached the results of my quick and dirty study as > > an Excel file...The Avantguardian I am one over my posting limit for today, but two of my posts were in the capacity of a moderator, so please forgive. The Avantguardian has created an excellent meme, which I have used as a starting point to do some way fun calculations. Earlier he proposed correlating IQ with percent Bush voters in 2004. Of course we don't have everyone's IQ in any state, but we do have a lot of SAT scores. I found a site which gives SAT (in 1998) by state and a most useful datum, the percentage of students taking the test. I used this one only because it was in a form I could cut and paste into microsloth excel: http://www.sciway.net/statistics/satstates96-98.html 2004 election results here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html Now, of course one would expect with a smaller percentage of students participating in the SAT, the average scores would be higher. This can be seen by plotting average score vs percentage participating. Then you can do a curve fit: linear, a quadratic, a third order, whatever you want. Then you can take the percentage of participation in each state, use the curve fit to determine the expected score with that participation level. Follow so far? Then subtract expected value from each state's average score. If the result is negative, that's a dumb state. If positive, a smart state. OK, so I did that. Then I plotted the percent Bush votes against the dumbness or smartness of the state. I did this for linear curve fit, quadratic and third order. I found... Well, see enclosed spreadsheet. {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SAT scores vs bushiness.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 94208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Mike15007 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 06:55:01 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:55:01 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote Message-ID: <64.632eb8d1.30d3bec5@aol.com> Hello everyone, I'm a newcomer on the Extropy Chat list, though I've known about Extropy for some time and find I agree with most (not necessarily quite all) of its principles. Well, I consider myself a libertarian if nothing else, and every libertarian should recognize if one finds two or more people who agree with each other on *everything,* there's only one mind technically at work! I am currently a member of the Orions Arm worldbuilding list and have been for some 3 years now. I've been on other lists, but OA has been my only constant. The underlying philosophy of OA, though it is a sci-fi site, is much inspired by Extropy. I understand quite a number of Extropians are, or have been, OA members as well. Anyway, just to add to the on-topic discussions on the list (I notice discussion on this list has wandered into an area all too common on many other lists right now - No need to specify!), here's something I wrote not too long ago for OA. It isn't specifically sci-fi, and deals with real-world events, specifically opposition to transhuman technologies by certain persons with a foot or two in the halls of power. Enjoy. Comments and criticisms welcome _http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html_ (http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html) Recently I've noticed, when I Google "Wisdom of Repugnance," this essay I wrote typically appears in the top 5. I do so sincerely hope Leon Kass Googles frequently >:-) Mike, Newbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 07:00:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:00:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? References: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com><092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <09ff01c6020e$5d3749e0$cd81e03c@homepc> gts wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:31:55 -0500, Brett Paatsch > wrote: > >> Spike wrote: >> >>> .. terrorists hate everybody, including themselves. >> >> I doubt that you could find any expert anywhere that >> would agree with the crazy-boogie man assessment. > > I'm wondering about the same question. Why do terrorists > hate themselves, assuming they do? Obviously people who are pointed at and called terrorists don't think they are terrorists. Terrorist is a pejorative term used for political purposes. A person would no more claim to be or self-identify as a terrorist than they would claim to be or self-identify as an evil-doer. If there was an internationally agreed definition of terrorism they there would be an internationally agreed criteria deciding whether a person was a terrorist. I don't think there is one. But folks have Google etc, they can feel free to check. In the absence of such a definition and a such a criterion then naturally governments will want to define to terrorists in their only terms. That doesn't make the person so defined so self-identity. Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 07:07:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:07:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote In-Reply-To: <64.632eb8d1.30d3bec5@aol.com> Message-ID: <20051216070730.8568.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Mike15007 at aol.com wrote: > _http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html_ > (http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html) > > Recently I've noticed, when I Google "Wisdom of Repugnance," > this essay > I wrote typically appears in the top 5. I do so sincerely hope Leon > Kass > Googles frequently >:-) Unfortunately, those types tend not to read anything that disagrees with them. Penetrating that memetic barrier with the truth has proven exceedingly tough, unfortunately. From Mike15007 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 07:53:07 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:53:07 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming Message-ID: <25e.3b01950.30d3cc63@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/2005 9:58:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wingcat at pacbell.net writes: But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid rains). I think it would be easier, more practical, and less problematic, to use a gigantic dynamically-stabilized sunshade at the L1 position between Sol and Venus, and lower immense "radiator fins" into Venus' atmosphere from a dynamically-supported orbital ring, to suck the heat out of the lower atmosphere more quickly and cool the place without leaving lotsa nasty isotopes at all. Giving Venus an Earth-like day-night cycle will be trickier. The best way I can think of to do it - quickest without requiring a lot of energy or hitting Venus with something *big* - is a bunch of dynamically-stabilized giant reflectors at L4, L5, and maybe L2 as well, in conjunction with the aformentioned sunshade at L1. The reflectors could each "oscillate" in tune with each other, and the sunshade could perhaps be varied periodically, to simulate day and night around Venus. Hey, no one ever said terraforming a world that wasn't already mostly there would be easy. I came up with this strategy a few years ago as one that didn't involve hitting Venus with anything *really big,* or otherwise affecting its rotation, among other things. Okay, what are the holes in this strategy? I genuinely wish to be told when it looks like I'm smoking something :-) Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 16 08:03:21 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:03:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051216080321.GD2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:48:51PM -0800, spike wrote: > No. A week of political posts will not destroy the > list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a > hundred times over. If people have something to say I would argue that we did. We suffered a hundred deaths of thousand paper cuts. This list is but a husk of its former self. We've killed it. We could as well throw a funeral party. Wheee! It is difficult to argue an alternative world that never was, but I think I'm seeing it quite clearly. And, yes, I infinitely prefer that to the reality we landed in. Arguably, the email medium is slowly dying, so there's not much sense is changing the rules of stewardship. Hoping that list would recover. It probably won't, even with active intervention. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks, everybody. > that is not particularly extropian, say it this week > then let it go. We don't want this to be a primarily > political list (too boring, not productive) but I see > little harm (and some benefit) from suggesting a > short well-defined time for a political free-for-all. > > The war is weighing heavily on all of us. True we > could go elsewhere to discuss this important matter, > but Harvey man, we have grown up together have we > not? You, me, a lot of us who have been hanging out > on extropians for years, we are among friends here, > we are among people who understand us, people who > do not flee in panic when we start talking about having > our heads frozen. This is where we want to have our > discussions. So let us have this one. For a week, > keep it civil, then let it go. -- 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 Mike15007 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 08:08:15 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:08:15 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? Message-ID: <289.26c2feb.30d3cfef@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/2005 11:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, spike66 at comcast.net writes: This is a critically important distinction. Not only do terrorists kill civilians, but in some cases they target children intentionally. I have heard of two cases where a car bomb was driven into a bunch of kids who had crowded around a US marine who was giving away toys and candy. So he managed to slay a US marine, congratulations, enjoy your 73 virgins. In the process they killed 30 or more kids, who were guilty of what? In the case of killing enemy civilians, the rationale given by Osama Bin Laden in his "Letter to America" (also given by the Nazis, who were prolific civilian-killers themselves), was that though they may not pick up guns and fight, they pay the taxes which support their nation's armed forces, thus taking them out might hurt the enemy's ability to continue waging war. Or in the case of the Nazis, they maintained that killing enemy civilians, including children, was killing potential future enemy soldiers. Or people who might produce future enemy soldiers in the case of killing women and girls. In the case of killing children and other non-combatants of the country you're trying to save. Different cultures, also different governments, organizations, and individuals, have different ideas about what constitutes acceptable tactical losses. Or, revenge and causing pain may really be more important to them technically than expelling the foreigners from their country or creating justice. Defense and justice are different from revenge. But on some, the distinction is lost, or is unimportant. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike15007 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 08:36:29 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:36:29 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote Message-ID: <206.f3dad14.30d3d68d@aol.com> In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:09:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, wingcat at pacbell.net writes: http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html_ > (http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html) > > Recently I've noticed, when I Google "Wisdom of Repugnance," > this essay > I wrote typically appears in the top 5. I do so sincerely hope Leon > Kass > Googles frequently >:-) Unfortunately, those types tend not to read anything that disagrees with them. Penetrating that memetic barrier with the truth has proven exceedingly tough, unfortunately. Let that be what distinguishes us from them. Projecting an information bubble around oneself is ultimately self-defeating if one wants to have relevance in the universe at large. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 16 09:15:44 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:15:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> References: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216091543.GS2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:19:13PM -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > However, are incendiary and factually incorrect posts about politics to > be simply ignored in the interests of maintaining such a policy? I will No. I will not ignore them. I will unsubcribe. > be more than happy not to post about politics first, but once the deed > is done, I think it's only decent to allow a response... Which is *precisely* the reason that any first-poster must be immediately jumped upon, and beat senseless with baseball bats. -- 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 Fri Dec 16 11:29:37 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:29:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: <09ff01c6020e$5d3749e0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com> <092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> <09ff01c6020e$5d3749e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:00:14 -0500, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Terrorist is a pejorative term used for political purposes. > A person would no more claim to be or self-identify as > a terrorist than they would claim to be or self-identify > as an evil-doer. True, but an objective definition of 'terrorist' still seems possible. Unlike other soldiers, (and I use that word loosely), terrorist soldiers use fear as a weapon. Lacking conventional weapons, they believe they have no other recourse. > If there was an internationally agreed definition of terrorism > they there would be an internationally agreed criteria deciding > whether a person was a terrorist. I don't think there is one. I think you're right that we should have an internationally agreed definition of "terrorist," if no such definition already exists, especially with regard to *international* terrorists. Many people make no distinction between Iraqi insurgents and international terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi. -gts From hemm at openlink.com.br Fri Dec 16 11:53:13 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:53:13 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming References: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43A22E51.6070707@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <006701c60237$870fe320$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Since we're on this wondering thing, I'd suggest using the nuclear power to redirect a big rock to hit Venus. So there would be no radiation to clean. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Bloch" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:02 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming > I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. > The different between nuclear winter and greenhouse effect is a fine line, > and has to do with albedo and suchlike. You'd probably do much better > cooling Venus with a scheme to get rid of the cloud cover, so more heat > was radiated into space, rather than being reflected back to the surface. > Such is my layman's understanding... > Joseph > Adrian Tymes wrote: >>But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I >>wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, >>initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the >>planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the >>atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more >>permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy >>right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, >>and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive >>fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere >>were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen >>overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can >>live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid >>rains). From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Dec 16 12:02:12 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:02:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <200512160338.jBG3cce25416@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: (12/15/05 19:36) spike wrote: >Probably most here have taken the SAT; does anyone wish to argue >that the SAT is not a thinly disguised IQ test? Yeah, I'll argue that one, being familiar with both. The SAT does not test your cognitive ability, only the retention of certain core curricula. The closest ETS has come to actually testing cognitive ability is the GRE Analytical section, which I understand they've done away with in recent years. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Dec 16 12:42:45 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:42:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:48 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom >>>> >>>> Thus do I defer to the moderators. >>>> >>>> Joseph >>> >>> Post away. >> >> Spike, are you deliberately trying to destroy this list? >> >> -- >> Harvey Newstrom > > > No. A week of political posts will not destroy the > list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a > hundred times over. I disagree. We have had many groups splinter away from ExI because of the politics. These splinter groups don't disagree with our extropian or transhumanist viewpoints, rather they disagree with some of the political discussions that have occurred on this list. Even when Max and Natasha insist that ExI is not political, these people point to the list as the source of their political disagreements. The largest example of this would be WTA, which deliberately split off to form an alternative transhumanist group, largely with the same transhumanist agenda, just lacking the politics historically found on this list. > If people have something to say > that is not particularly extropian, say it this week > then let it go. You make my point for me. You are deliberately allowing this list to be overrun with discussion that is not particularly extropian. Why would we want that? > We don't want this to be a primarily political list (too boring, not > productive) but I see > little harm (and some benefit) from suggesting a > short well-defined time for a political free-for-all. If it's not particularly extropian, and too boring and not productive, this seems to be the opposite of what the extropians list used to be. These are the exact qualities that moderators are supposed to be fighting against. You have become the "Anti-Moderator!" :-) > The war is weighing heavily on all of us. True we > could go elsewhere to discuss this important matter, > but Harvey man, we have grown up together have we > not? Then lets also talk about our hemorrhoids in chemistry class, our favorite recipies when we visit our doctor, and interrupt the evening news with clips from Ren and Stimpy. There is nothing wrong with these discussions, but why must they be inserted into a list primarily intended for other purposes? Nobody objects to these topics being discussed, but the net is virtually infinite. There is no need to interrupt one topic to introduce another. You are simply filing politics under the label of extropian discussion on the Internet and confusing everybody. > You, me, a lot of us who have been hanging out > on extropians for years, we are among friends here, > we are among people who understand us, people who > do not flee in panic when we start talking about having > our heads frozen. This is where we want to have our > discussions. So let us have this one. For a week, > keep it civil, then let it go. All of these statements are non-sequiturs. Avoiding panic and keeping it civil are strawman arguments for why it should be allowed here. But they don't answer the real question: Why here? Why us? Why now? Why not on its own list with only those people interested in it? I have never understood the need for spammers, religious proselytizers, pseudo-science crackpots and political pundits to force their views where into unrelated forums. It is almost like they know if it were presented elsewhere that it would not draw a crowd. They want to co-opt an existing crowd that has gathered for some other purpose and claim it for their own purposes. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 13:27:47 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:27:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <003601c601fc$dfaa3ca0$a7830d0a@JPAcer> References: <200512160328.jBG3Sde24488@tick.javien.com> <003601c601fc$dfaa3ca0$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:55:00 -0500, Jack Parkinson wrote: > I think that future politics are far more worrisome and have a far > greater potential for disaster than any future advances in technology. > After all the technology is neutral - the users of technology are not. Good point. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 13:42:28 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:42:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:42:45 -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> No. A week of political posts will not destroy the >> list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a >> hundred times over. > > I disagree... You have become the "Anti-Moderator!" :) Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 years because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can bitch and moan about just about anything. :) Then again, I do notice that the participation is down from what I remember. What happened to Lee Corbin? -gts From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Dec 16 13:43:28 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:43:28 -0600 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <60AE2434-EC1A-48F1-9A36-C443FA095294@mac.com> Message-ID: > Samantha Atkins > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:20 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: > [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth > > > On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, > if we had > > not overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the > > jackboot of Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms > would still > > be in operation. People would still be thrown living into plastic > > shredders... head-first if the death was to be merciful. > > > > As opposed to the jackboots of the US occupation forces? Democracy > cannot be imposed by force. It is even more laughable to believe > freedom can be opposed by removing freedom. Of course it can -- we know this because it has been done on several (many?) occasions: Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, and so far Iraq come to mind immediately. And to the dingbat that doesn't even have a (working) definition of terrorism: The intentional targetting of non-government civilians, especially women and children for no direct military value, in an attempt to win political or military concessions. Terrorism may include more than this, but the above is generally correct when it identifies an act of terrorism or a terrorist. None of this belongs on this list -- and the people who instigated it are largely idiots. Grow up and take you petty political squabbling (and stupidity) to a list or newsgroup where it falls under the subject and is on topic. -- Herb Martin From neptune at superlink.net Fri Dec 16 13:58:43 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:58:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote References: <64.632eb8d1.30d3bec5@aol.com> Message-ID: <00af01c60248$d40f2120$2f893cd1@pavilion> Decent review and I'm in general agreement with your points. Your point number 5 is one I've been trying to use a lot recently. (Yeah, others have made the point independently... You don't cite anyone in your review, but I reckon you know your points are not original.) I think it's one of the better knockdown arguments against the anti-biotech types. To defeat it they would either have to come up with a more nuance position that becomes less convincing or adopt a nonsensical position like being against all change. I was also unaware that Kass made those predictions about in vitro fertilization. Predictions, in general, are one way to blast at anyone. (I've made a number of predictions, too, that have come out wrong, though they mostly centered on the next card in the deck.:) This reminds me, too, that I was recently listening to an audio book where recombinant DNA was mentioned in passed. Reading some of the debates from the 1970s, predictions about recombinant DNA -- the then next big thing in bioengineering -- creating super viruses or monsters were rife. Well, where are they? Anyhow, good work. Oh, and regarding Kass, you might try to contact him or his aides directly. My guess is he's not going to discuss matters with you unless you have credentials or have some power somewhere (such as you're the head of some think tank or college department). Regards, Dan From: Mike15007 at aol.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote Hello everyone, I'm a newcomer on the Extropy Chat list, though I've known about Extropy for some time and find I agree with most (not necessarily quite all) of its principles. Well, I consider myself a libertarian if nothing else, and every libertarian should recognize if one finds two or more people who agree with each other on *everything,* there's only one mind technically at work! I am currently a member of the Orions Arm worldbuilding list and have been for some 3 years now. I've been on other lists, but OA has been my only constant. The underlying philosophy of OA, though it is a sci-fi site, is much inspired by Extropy. I understand quite a number of Extropians are, or have been, OA members as well. Anyway, just to add to the on-topic discussions on the list (I notice discussion on this list has wandered into an area all too common on many other lists right now - No need to specify!), here's something I wrote not too long ago for OA. It isn't specifically sci-fi, and deals with real-world events, specifically opposition to transhuman technologies by certain persons with a foot or two in the halls of power. Enjoy. Comments and criticisms welcome http://www.orionsarm.com/books/Wisdom_of_Repugnance.html Recently I've noticed, when I Google "Wisdom of Repugnance," this essay I wrote typically appears in the top 5. I do so sincerely hope Leon Kass Googles frequently >:-) Mike, Newbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 16 14:00:30 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:00:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> On 12/16/05, gts wrote: > Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 years > because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can bitch and > moan about just about anything. :) And it is this tendency toward mental masturbation that contributes to the significant drop in signal to noise that we've seen. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 14:11:21 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:11:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet] In-Reply-To: <20051216063248.76204.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216063248.76204.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:32:48 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > Which observer's view-point > should be picked out as the 'objectivity correct' one? > Green is not in the object I'm telling ya. Well, the obvious question is, "If green is not in green objects, then why don't people see them as red or some other color?" Something objective about green objects must cause them to appear "greenish." I'm sorry to keep mentioning that old fuddy-duddy John Locke, but his old-fashioned explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me: the real, objective, primary qualities of green objects are arranged in such a way that they give rise to secondary qualities, better understood as the powers of objects to cause qualia in our experience. If these powers are derived from real objective qualities then why not call them real and objective for our purposes? As far as I can tell, the presence of an observer is the only real difference between primary and secondary qualities. If our goal is to objectify qualia then we need only separate them from the observer. I believe G.E. Moore attempted this, no? Any thoughts on his approach? > The idea that we experience the world directly is an > even bigger mistake than the fallacy of the Cartesian > Theater. > > Suppose for instance that someone is afraid of snakes. > They have a 'fear qualia' whenever they see the > snake. Surely you can see that the 'fear qualia' is > not in the snake? Nor does it make any sense to say > that there are 'green qualia' in green objects. This brings up a nagging point in my mind. I see a difference between pure sense data and emotional feelings like fear. Both are subjective experiences and are normally labeled qualia, but is there not a difference between them? The Cartesian Theater seems to me to pertain to the first kind of qualia, but not the second. -gts From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 14:13:55 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:13:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <200512160648.jBG6mNe11384@tick.javien.com> References: <200512160648.jBG6mNe11384@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43A2CBA3.3020003@goldenfuture.net> Unfortunately, this is also not valid, for the simple reason that you are trying to compare two completely different populations. That is, persons who voted in the 2004 Presidential election are not the same as college-bound 18-year-olds from 1998. Maybe this is only clear to me because I work with election polls for a living, but that's a major no-no. In order for this to be really statistically valid, you would need to do some sort of exit polling from representative samples throughout the country, get some sort of standardized IQ data for those people, and make the correlation from that. Not gonna happen. Joseph spike wrote: >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian >> >> > > > >>--- The Avantguardian >>wrote: >> >> >>>I have attached the results of my quick and dirty study as >>>an Excel file...The Avantguardian >>> >>> > >I am one over my posting limit for today, but two of my >posts were in the capacity of a moderator, so please >forgive. > >The Avantguardian has created an excellent meme, which >I have used as a starting point to do some way fun >calculations. Earlier he proposed correlating IQ >with percent Bush voters in 2004. Of course we don't >have everyone's IQ in any state, but we do have a lot >of SAT scores. > >I found a site which gives SAT (in 1998) by state and >a most useful datum, the percentage of students taking >the test. I used this one only because it was in a >form I could cut and paste into microsloth excel: > >http://www.sciway.net/statistics/satstates96-98.html > >2004 election results here: > >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html > >Now, of course one would expect with a smaller >percentage of students participating in the SAT, >the average scores would be higher. This can be >seen by plotting average score vs percentage >participating. Then you can do a curve fit: linear, >a quadratic, a third order, whatever you want. Then >you can take the percentage of participation >in each state, use the curve fit to determine the >expected score with that participation level. Follow >so far? Then subtract expected value from each >state's average score. If the result is negative, >that's a dumb state. If positive, a smart state. OK, >so I did that. Then I plotted the percent Bush votes >against the dumbness or smartness of the state. I >did this for linear curve fit, quadratic and third >order. I found... > >Well, see enclosed spreadsheet. {8^D > >spike > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 14:24:35 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:24:35 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com><8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ba401c6024c$705ab280$cd81e03c@homepc> > On 12/16/05, gts wrote: >> Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 years >> because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can bitch >> and >> moan about just about anything. :) > > And it is this tendency toward mental masturbation that contributes to > the significant drop in signal to noise that we've seen. Speaking just for myself I am starting to feel not only disappointed in what amount to petulant demands for censorship from people who I have respected and liked like Harvey and Eugen, I am almost at the point where I am feeling disgust. Eugen talks about bringing out baseball bats. Harvey quits and comes back to quit again. This is not an adhominem attack this is a statement of my personal view. Harvey, Eugen, I think I know you guys. I Brett Paatsch am currently ashamed of you, in my opinion you are acting like a couple of spoilt children. You cannot accept even one week. Spike as moderator makes a ruling and you can't accept it. Brett Paatsch From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Dec 16 16:32:25 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:32:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List Message-ID: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this be moved to that list? There is nothing innate to this list going on in 8 of the 10 current threads, regardless of IQ, demographic, geographic or otherwise. I can find this type of content anywhere. This is like the BBS days and the rise of alt.syntax.tactical. Whether there is intent or not, this place is getting trashed on the same topic over and over again. We're certainly not observing any principles or improving the world through this, are we? Bret K. On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:48:51PM -0800, spike wrote: > >> No. A week of political posts will not destroy the >> list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a >> hundred times over. If people have something to say > > I would argue that we did. We suffered a hundred deaths > of thousand paper cuts. This list is but a husk of its > former self. We've killed it. We could as well throw > a funeral party. Wheee! From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 16:58:35 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:58:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] lee' s email In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512161700.jBGH0ge12654@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts ... > > Then again, I do notice that the participation is down from what I > remember. What happened to Lee Corbin? > > -gts Lee is alive and well. I had dinner with him recently. I am sure he would be happy to hear from you gts. lcorbin at tsoft.com Do post him, see if he will hang out here a while. spike From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 16 17:10:44 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:10:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensionaltime! References: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002001c60263$b5c03bd0$940e4e0c@MyComputer> Brent Allsop Wrote: > Interesting idea about physical existence without having > any causal property. No not really. > 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. Then how do you know you have two physical objects and not one? > if one atom had a different "phenomenal" property than the > other atom (say one was red and the other green) But I can tell red from green so the atoms must have CAUSED a difference in my brain. I thought you said they were "causally completely indistinguishable from the other". John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 17:11:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:11:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <0ba401c6024c$705ab280$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512161713.jBGHDMe14060@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth > ... > > You cannot accept even one week... Harvey and Eugene have not said they cannot accept even one week, only that they intend to get scarce for that week. Fair enough. > Spike as moderator makes > a ruling and you can't accept it. > > Brett Paatsch I made no ruling, only a suggestion. Clearly there is dissenting opinion. I am conflicted on it myself, so let me counter-propose this: keep to extropian interests as much as possible when discussing political matters. Most politics have an extropian angle. We all recognize that some would like to have political debate here, in which most of us have little interest. As a practical matter, I will not be an SL4 style list-sniper, which would be required were we to have strict topic discipline. I and the other moderators have not the time to do that, we have other business to attend. Political discussion is not strictly disallowed, but extropian focus is highly encouraged. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 17:46:49 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:46:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List In-Reply-To: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <20051216174649.31217.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Nice idea - but, what happens if political posters don't move their content there, because no one goes there because it's all politics? Part of the insidiousness is that world politics can seem like the most important issue it is possible to discuss, at least to those who argue the issue. --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this > > be moved to that list? > > There is nothing innate to this list going on in 8 of the 10 current > > threads, regardless of IQ, demographic, geographic or otherwise. I > can find this type of content anywhere. This is like the BBS days and > > the rise of alt.syntax.tactical. Whether there is intent or not, this > > place is getting trashed on the same topic over and over again. We're > > certainly not observing any principles or improving the world through > > this, are we? > > > Bret K. > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:48:51PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > >> No. A week of political posts will not destroy the > >> list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a > >> hundred times over. If people have something to say > > > > I would argue that we did. We suffered a hundred deaths > > of thousand paper cuts. This list is but a husk of its > > former self. We've killed it. We could as well throw > > a funeral party. Wheee! > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 16 17:49:21 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:49:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net> <09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > This question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was > in violation of the UN Charter.... ....is of zero practical interest and has precious little of even theoretical significance to offer. The interesting question is whether or not the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was a good idea or not. We know now that it was not a good idea, and thus people like me who were 50% for the invasion were 50% wrong and people like you who were 100% against the invasion were 100% right; you were right for the wrong reason but the important thing is you were right. It sure beats the hell out of being wrong for the right reason. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 17:51:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:51:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <43A2CBA3.3020003@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051216175135.84035.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Unfortunately, this is also not valid, for the > simple reason that you > are trying to compare two completely different > populations. Actually we are not trying to compare two different populations so much as trying to determine the degree of dependency between two populations. That is to say we are looking to see if there is any overlap between two presumably separate populations. This is every bit as valid as taking a population of smokers and a population of people with cancer and trying to see if there is any correlation between the two. Obviously not everybody who smokes gets cancer and not everybody who gets cancer smokes, but if there is any overlap between the two then you should be able to find it. > That is, persons who voted in the 2004 Presidential > election are not the > same as college-bound 18-year-olds from 1998. The two population are not identical but it is highly likely that some proportion of the people voted in the 2004 Presidential election in the same state they took their SATs in 1998. > Maybe > this is only clear > to me because I work with election polls for a > living, but that's a > major no-no. Polls are different statistical beast. In a poll you take a representative sample of a population and try to extrapolate data from the sample to a population. Here what Spike and I are doing are taking two different populations that is to say ALL the people that took the SAT in a given year in a particular state and ALL the people that voted in a given year in particular state and seeing if there is any overlap between the two populations. The statistics of this are more akin to epidemiology than they are to surveys. In order for this to be really > statistically valid, you > would need to do some sort of exit polling from > representative samples > throughout the country, get some sort of > standardized IQ data for those > people, and make the correlation from that. Not > gonna happen. Why deal with the uncertainty introduced with representaive statistical samples when you can deal with entire populations? 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 17:54:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:54:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hello, and Something I Wrote In-Reply-To: <206.f3dad14.30d3d68d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20051216175438.37538.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Mike15007 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:09:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > wingcat at pacbell.net writes: > > Unfortunately, those types tend not to read anything that > > disagrees with them. Penetrating that memetic barrier with the > > truth has proven exceedingly tough, unfortunately. > > Let that be what distinguishes us from them. Projecting an > information > bubble around oneself is ultimately self-defeating if one wants to > have relevance > in the universe at large. True, and well said. Some might argue with the truth of that, given the example being used, so perhaps a slight revision: "...if one wants to have relevance in the universe at large, even after one's current circumstances have faded away over several years or decades." From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:12:20 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:12:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512161713.jBGHDMe14060@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051216181220.66997.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > I am conflicted on it myself, > so let > me counter-propose this: keep to extropian interests > as > much as possible when discussing political matters. > Most > politics have an extropian angle. Well if technology is an extropian focus then technology used for political purposes (like various media, advertising, polls, demographics, psychology, etc.) ARE extropian. They are the microscopes and forceps of social engineering. If there is to be any hope that our grand visions ever see the light of day then we MUST figure out how to use such technologies to our best advantage because those that would thwart us use such technologies as a matter of course. Elsewise we are no more than ineffectual dreamers building castles in the sky while our opponents are fortifying their strongholds on high ground. 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 bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Dec 16 18:13:52 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:13:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List In-Reply-To: <20051216174649.31217.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051216174649.31217.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Nice idea - but, what happens if political posters don't move > their content there, Moderators. We have mods. That is what mods do. Or at least part of it. > , because no one goes there because it's all > politics? Then I think they'd get the message. It would be one thing if there were a political aspect, or perhaps conviction/religious aspect to say, gene therapy to treat muscular dystrophy, and that was the basis of discussion. I'm just not up for another "Summer of Bush" this Winter. "Just ignore it" works until it consumes the whole list. I am intellectually opposed to killfiles, because they insulate you from the reality of your community. (What kind of "participant" does not seek to contribute and improve, regardless of their personal objections?) Anyway, back to the alcove with me. On Dec 16, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Nice idea - but, what happens if political posters don't move > their content there, because no one goes there because it's all > politics? Part of the insidiousness is that world politics can > seem like the most important issue it is possible to discuss, at > least to those who argue the issue. > > --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > >> >> >> Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this >> >> be moved to that list? >> >> There is nothing innate to this list going on in 8 of the 10 current >> >> threads, regardless of IQ, demographic, geographic or otherwise. I >> can find this type of content anywhere. This is like the BBS days and >> >> the rise of alt.syntax.tactical. Whether there is intent or not, this >> >> place is getting trashed on the same topic over and over again. We're >> >> certainly not observing any principles or improving the world through >> >> this, are we? >> >> >> Bret K. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:48:51PM -0800, spike wrote: >>> >>>> No. A week of political posts will not destroy the >>>> list, otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves a >>>> hundred times over. If people have something to say >>> >>> I would argue that we did. We suffered a hundred deaths >>> of thousand paper cuts. This list is but a husk of its >>> former self. We've killed it. We could as well throw >>> a funeral party. Wheee! >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:20:17 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:20:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Debacle In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051215112827.035ce6c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051216182017.65410.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At least nine of 11 stem cell colonies used in a > landmark research paper by > Dr Hwang Woo-suk were faked, said Roh Sung-il, who > collaborated on the paper. > > Dr Hwang has agreed to ask the US journal Science to > withdraw his paper on > stem cell cloning, Mr Roh said." > > What a damned shame. I agree that sucks. But I am encouraged that it honestly worked 2 out of 11 times. It shows it is possible. We just have to figure out how to make it more efficient but first we have to win the right to do the research at all. I think the whole field would benefit greatly from a technological innovation that would allow women to donate eggs with a less invasive procedure. 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 templar137 at webtv.net Fri Dec 16 16:13:30 2005 From: templar137 at webtv.net (E N) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:13:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Old chestnuts. Message-ID: <21978-43A2E7AA-3473@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net> The quote by isthatyoujack at icqmail.com has long ago been exposed as a fraud: Supposedly said by an unknown soldier(a non-existent major) in the village of Ben Tre in the 1968 during the Tet offensive: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." The reporter was Peter Arnett and the unknown soldier was Major Peter Arnett. So easy to find apt quotes when you invent them. I once wrote a scholarly-like treatment of Islam while in college and pressed for time. I made up three-quarters of the 'hadith' by various 13th and 12th Century Islamic scholars who were as authentic as Major Peter Arnett. They're still quoted today. Greetings to all from Har al deeharhar. http: From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Dec 16 18:20:52 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:20:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > John K Clark > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:49 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis > > "Brett Paatsch" > > > This question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq on 20 > March 2003 was > > in violation of the UN Charter.... > > ....is of zero practical interest and has precious little of even > theoretical > significance to offer. The interesting question is whether or not the > invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was a good idea or not. We > know now that > it was not a good idea, No, we patently do NOT "know that" -- What we KNOW is that 25,000,000 people were freed from the Rape, Torture, and Murder of Saddam's regime (which would not have happened under any conceivable alternative within the next 5-30 years) and that his (admitted) support for international terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in specific is ended. (Yes, there was documented support for Al Qaeda, only how much is debatable.) We know that Libya changed their behavior (so far) due to the example made of Saddam. We know that Lebanon has made much progress and this is partially attributable to the Iraqi example and the US presence "next door" to Syria which has thwarted Lebanese attempts at peace and democracy for decades. We know that it cost a lot of money. We know that some 2000+ US soldiers have died (and we know that while this is a tragedy for every one of them and their families individually, this is tiny compared with any other military action of any significance much less in of this large effect. (Some 20,000 paratroops were EXPECTED to be sacrificed on D-Day just to distract the Germans from the beaches of Normandy, and more troops were lost in a practice run a few weeks before the Normandy invasion.) We know that we got the US forces out of Saudi Arabia (which was one of the unmentioned goals), and that we have strategic position on both Iran and Syria (and Saudi Arabia even) from Iraq. We know that the HARDEST thing for a large conventional army to do when faced with terrorist or insurgency forces is to FIND AND FIX the enemy so that the superior numbers and weapons can be brought to effective use. We know that by attracting the terrorists to Iraq we accomplish that. We know that the Iraqis are admirably moving towards a true democracy in a part of the world (Arab Middle East) where the naysayers and pessimists claim that such people cannot understand or support democracy. We know a lot of things, but deciding it was not a good idea is not one of them. Depends on who you ask -- and if you ask those troops who lost their friends and who risk their lives you will almost universally find they believe it was a VERY GOOD THING. So do most of us who have served and would server again if asked. Of course it was right to invade -- not only did EVERY BRANCH of the US government agree but also the UN, both before and after the invasion, as well as the Iraqi people. Many people overlook the simple fact that the UN Security Resolution 1441 UNANIMOUSLY found Saddam in breach on WMD requirements and authorized force to remove Saddam. It remained the controlling resolution even though it was purposely written to give cover to Security Council member states who could point to this ambiguousness while they fully understood what they voted to support. Even Syria agreed Saddam was in violation and authorized the removal. BTW, we also know that it is a sad state of affairs that the UN has to use such reasons (WMD) rather than the humanitarian concerns for an enslaved people -- this is due to the fact that a large percentage of the member states have their own forms of dictatorship to a lesser or greater extent and so do not wish to set the precedent that saving a nation is reason to remove a violent dictator and murderer. Oh yes, we also know that Saddam is on trial and will be judged by those same Iraqi people who he tortured and abused. And that is a good thing -- a very good thing. And this is STILL A STUPID THREAD. Those who started it and the similar ones should be ashamed of their rudeness in abusing the topics of this list AND their stupidity in not understanding such issues. -- Herb Martin From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 18:22:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:22:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List In-Reply-To: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <200512161824.jBGIOfe21386@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 8:32 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List > > > > Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this > be moved to that list? Bret K. In the next six days? Anyone want to do that right away? Otherwise hit the delete key early and often, and come back to our regularly scheduled program on Thursday 22 December. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Dec 16 18:38:16 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:38:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <006701c60237$870fe320$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <20051216183816.52568.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The suggestion was made in part as a productive use of existing nuclear weapons. Although, perhaps nuclear warheads could be reprocessed into fuel for reactors (the reverse of reprocessing nuclear fuel into warheads - and easier, because you're diluting the material instead of concentrating it). As to Mike's idea of sunshade and oscillators - the problem is that constructing things that large wouldn't be as quick as simply launching a rocket with existing warheads to Venus. Although, even the combined power of every nuclear weapon currently on Earth probably wouldn't be enough to significantly alter Venus's spin anyway. (Or would it?) There's also the problem of making the radiator fins out of something that can transfer heat well but also stand up to sulfuric acid and intense weather. Glass is the usual container for sulfuric acid in labs, but glass is often not the strongest structural material. (And if you just have a glass coating, the weather could crack it, letting the acid at what's underneath.) Remember also that a lightweight substance would make the whole mission easier to perform - easier to ship to Venus. There's also the problem of radiating heat in space: vacuum makes a good insulator. A Venus-diameter sunshade at the Venus-Sun L1 point would probably be easier to build - and therefore faster to get into place. I wonder if this faster-ness would offset the slower speed of removing Venus's heat. If the Sun were completely blocked off, how long would it take Venus to radiate enough heat that the atmospheric temperature would drop to something near Earth normal? (Overlooking, for now, the problems of Venus's geology and atmospheric composition and pressure, some of which problems look like they might go away by themselves if the temperature were reduced.) --- "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: > > Since we're on this wondering thing, I'd suggest using the nuclear > power to > redirect a big rock to hit Venus. So there would be no radiation to > clean. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Bloch" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:02 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming > > > > I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. > > The different between nuclear winter and greenhouse effect is a > fine line, > > and has to do with albedo and suchlike. You'd probably do much > better > > cooling Venus with a scheme to get rid of the cloud cover, so more > heat > > was radiated into space, rather than being reflected back to the > surface. > > Such is my layman's understanding... > > Joseph > > > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >>But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I > >>wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, > >>initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the > >>planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the > >>atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more > >>permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy > >>right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, > >>and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive > >>fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere > >>were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen > >>overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can > >>live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid > >>rains). > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 16 18:41:41 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:41:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process References: Message-ID: <006501c60270$68cb1450$f00a4e0c@MyComputer> Brent Allsop Wrote: > Interesting idea about physical existence without having > any causal property. No not really. > 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. Then how do you know you have two physical objects and not one? > if one atom had a different "phenomenal" property than the > other atom (say one was red and the other green) But I can tell red from green so the atoms must have CAUSED a difference in my brain. I thought you said they were "causally completely indistinguishable from the other". John K Clark From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 18:52:32 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:52:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Take Back The List In-Reply-To: <200512161824.jBGIOfe21386@tick.javien.com> References: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> <200512161824.jBGIOfe21386@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512161052m2adcab50vbb0e288eccc5ccd0@mail.gmail.com> Friday, 16 December 2005 Did the filters on your mail program stop working? This comes up every so often on every list, and few seem willing to just filter the subject lines and authors. This has limits, and some will inevitably get through. Live with that as the cost of free discussion. On 12/16/05, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich > > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 8:32 AM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List > > > > > > > > Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this > > be moved to that list? Bret K. > > In the next six days? Anyone want to do that right away? Otherwise > hit the delete key early and often, and come back to our regularly > scheduled program on Thursday 22 December. spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From hemm at openlink.com.br Fri Dec 16 19:12:18 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:12:18 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming References: <20051216183816.52568.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006201c60274$a35f46f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Hence the idea of hitting the planet with a large meteorite to create a kind of "nuclear" winter, without the nuclear part. Could this be done with the nuclear warheads we have today (I mean alter the meteorite's orbit so it strikes Venus)? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Tymes" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming > The suggestion was made in part as a productive use of existing > nuclear weapons. Although, perhaps nuclear warheads could be > reprocessed into fuel for reactors (the reverse of reprocessing > nuclear fuel into warheads - and easier, because you're diluting > the material instead of concentrating it). > > As to Mike's idea of sunshade and oscillators - the problem is > that constructing things that large wouldn't be as quick as > simply launching a rocket with existing warheads to Venus. > Although, even the combined power of every nuclear weapon > currently on Earth probably wouldn't be enough to significantly > alter Venus's spin anyway. (Or would it?) > > There's also the problem of making the radiator fins out of > something that can transfer heat well but also stand up to > sulfuric acid and intense weather. Glass is the usual container > for sulfuric acid in labs, but glass is often not the strongest > structural material. (And if you just have a glass coating, the > weather could crack it, letting the acid at what's underneath.) > Remember also that a lightweight substance would make the whole > mission easier to perform - easier to ship to Venus. > > There's also the problem of radiating heat in space: vacuum makes > a good insulator. > > A Venus-diameter sunshade at the Venus-Sun L1 point would > probably be easier to build - and therefore faster to get into > place. I wonder if this faster-ness would offset the slower > speed of removing Venus's heat. If the Sun were completely > blocked off, how long would it take Venus to radiate enough heat > that the atmospheric temperature would drop to something near > Earth normal? (Overlooking, for now, the problems of Venus's > geology and atmospheric composition and pressure, some of which > problems look like they might go away by themselves if the > temperature were reduced.) > > --- "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: > >> >> Since we're on this wondering thing, I'd suggest using the nuclear >> power to >> redirect a big rock to hit Venus. So there would be no radiation to >> clean. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joseph Bloch" >> To: "ExI chat list" >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming >> >> >> > I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. >> > The different between nuclear winter and greenhouse effect is a >> fine line, >> > and has to do with albedo and suchlike. You'd probably do much >> better >> > cooling Venus with a scheme to get rid of the cloud cover, so more >> heat >> > was radiated into space, rather than being reflected back to the >> surface. >> > Such is my layman's understanding... >> > Joseph >> >> > Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >>But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast surfaces...I >> >>wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, say, >> >>initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly chill the >> >>planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out of the >> >>atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of more >> >>permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable to deploy >> >>right now mainly because of the immense temperature, pressure, >> >>and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the radioactive >> >>fallout could probably be localized, and even if the atmosphere >> >>were magically converted to Earth-temperature oxygen-nitrogen >> >>overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning before people can >> >>live there as it is anyway (again, due to the sulfuric acid >> >>rains). From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 16 19:31:29 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:31:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051216175135.84035.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216175135.84035.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A31611.5020906@goldenfuture.net> The Avantguardian wrote: > >The two population are not identical but it is highly >likely that some proportion of the people voted in the >2004 Presidential election in the same state they took >their SATs in 1998. > Uhhh... no. Older populations vote in much greater numbers than younger ones. Plus there are differences between college graduates and non-college graduates. Add to the mix the fact that over the course of six years (including, presumably, a stint at a college away from home for a sizeable percentage) people will have moved from one state to another... It's a cute idea, but unfortunately the practicalities are against you. Joseph From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 21:37:13 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:37:13 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Debacle References: <20051216182017.65410.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0c8601c60288$e0b6ec10$cd81e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> At least nine of 11 stem cell colonies used in a >> landmark research paper by >> Dr Hwang Woo-suk were faked, said Roh Sung-il, who >> collaborated on the paper. >> >> Dr Hwang has agreed to ask the US journal Science to >> withdraw his paper on >> stem cell cloning, Mr Roh said." >> >> What a damned shame. > > I agree that sucks. But I am encouraged that it > honestly worked 2 out of 11 times. It shows it is > possible. It may be good that now perhaps even more scientific scrutiny will come to bear on this. When an experimental result is in doubt that just adds to the scientific interest in reproducing the result independently. Brett Paatsch From hartmut.prochaska at gmx.net Fri Dec 16 22:27:11 2005 From: hartmut.prochaska at gmx.net (Hartmut Prochaska) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:27:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512151928v62147937mddf9ac77b825bb12@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43A22E51.6070707@goldenfuture.net> <5366105b0512151928v62147937mddf9ac77b825bb12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43A33F3F.30308@gmx.net> Hi, > I don't have my copy of Fogg's Terraforming > (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560916095/qid=1134703453/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/104-8875538-3560751?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) > handy nor have I scanned it, but that text does discuss terraforming > Venus. IIRC, the author doesn't discuss using nuclear explosives for > it, and he was pretty skeptical about the bacterial seeding of Sagan > and others. > > If you like, email me off-list this weekend, and I'll check the book > for you. If you can't wait, Amazon sells it from US$900. Of course, > your local library might have it too. I guess this price sounds better :D Our price in EUR: 95.51 http://www.missing-link.de/cgi/search.py?sid=1303275140&quicksearch=Terraforming%3a+Engineering+Planetary+Environments&lang=en&x=0&y=0 but the side also says "Maybe not available!". Is this book realy so rare to justify the above price? I found some other sides and all had the exorbitant high price displayed on amazon. cheers Hartmut -- "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." -Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who' From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 22:37:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:37:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <43A31611.5020906@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512162239.jBGMd7e17549@tick.javien.com> Ja, I am not suggesting this notion as a statistically significant study or really anything more than just a game. But we could have some fun with it. The whole SAT-scores-as-a-metric-for-smartness-of-a-state meme is more interesting to me than which state voted for whom. Consider last election in 2004. I listened carefully to the debates but never could tell the two leading candidates apart. So I didn't vote for them. But even the hard line libertarians among us will likely admit that our guy last time was not so impressive either, eh? So with the one guy we get four more years, with the other we risked eight, but other than that, about the same thing, in nearly identical packaging. Regarding how to correct for percent participation in the SAT exams, even that has its difficulties. Some states allow the ACT for college admissions, a test similar to the SAT. Presumably your smarter college bound seniors would take one test or the other. In the ACT states, the SAT participation might be low but still score relatively low. Iam not sure how to correct for that factor. Ideas? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:31 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletter > concerningpresidential growth) > > The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > >The two population are not identical but it is highly > >likely that some proportion of the people voted in the > >2004 Presidential election in the same state they took > >their SATs in 1998. > > > > > Uhhh... no. > > Older populations vote in much greater numbers than younger ones. Plus > there are differences between college graduates and non-college > graduates. Add to the mix the fact that over the course of six years > (including, presumably, a stint at a college away from home for a > sizeable percentage) people will have moved from one state to another... > > It's a cute idea, but unfortunately the practicalities are against you. > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From hal at finney.org Fri Dec 16 22:44:23 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End Message-ID: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> I see that Vernor Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End, is available for pre-purchase at Amazon, with a release date of May 2, 2006. It is based on the same world as his Hugo-winning short story "Fast Times at Fairmont High". An excerpt called Synthetic Serendipity is available online at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul04/0704far.html Here is the description from Amazon. (Note that this should be considered a spoiler for those who want to know nothing about the novel before they read it.) > Four time Hugo Award winner Vernor Vinge has taken readers to the depths > of space and into the far future in his bestselling novels A Fire Upon > the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky. Now, he has written a science-fiction > thriller set in a place and time as exciting and strange as any far-future > world: San Diego, California, 2025. > > Robert Gu is a recovering Alzheimer's patient. The world that he > remembers was much as we know it today. Now, as he regains his faculties > through a cure developed during the years of his near-fatal decline, > he discovers that the world has changed and so has his place in it. He > was a world-renowned poet. Now he is seventy-five years old, though > by a medical miracle he looks much younger, and he's starting over, > for the first time unsure of his poetic gifts . Living with his son's > family, he has no choice but to learn how to cope with a new information > age in which the virtual and the real are a seamless continuum, layers > of reality built on digital views seen by a single person or millions, > depending on your choice. But the consensus reality of the digital world > is available only if, like his thirteen-year-old granddaughter Miri, you > know how to wear your wireless access - through nodes designed into smart > clothes - and to see the digital context - through smart contact lenses. > > With knowledge comes risk. When Robert begins to re-train at Fairmont > High, learning with other older people what is second nature to Miri > and other teens at school, he unwittingly becomes part of a wide-ranging > conspiracy to use technology as a tool for world domination. > > In a world where every computer chip has Homeland Security built-in, > this conspiracy is something that baffles even the most sophisticated > security analysts, including Robert's son and daughter-in law, two top > people in the U.S. military. And even Miri, in her attempts to protect > her grandfather, may be entangled in the plot. > > As Robert becomes more deeply involved in conspiracy, he is shocked > to learn of a radical change planned for the UCSD Geisel Library; all > the books there, and worldwide, would cease to physically exist. He > and his fellow re-trainees feel compelled to join protests against the > change. With forces around the world converging on San Diego, both the > conspiracy and the protest climax in a spectacular moment as unique and > satisfying as it is unexpected. This is science fiction at its very best, > by a master storyteller at his peak. I have to say that this starts off sounding interesting but degenerates into a rather bizarre ending. A worldwide protest over eliminating the physical books at the library (presumably to replace them with online versions)? Perhaps as a science fiction author Vinge would see this as a terrible catastrophe, but next to the prospect of world domination that is mentioned in passing, it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Or maybe the secret plot of the nefarious world-dominators is to make books disappear? Such a plan would be worthy of Dr. Evil, but it reads more like satire than the hard sci-fi Vinge is known for. One of the interesting aspects of Vinge's localizer technology is that it offers tremendous utility but would also be extremely effective for political repression. At first when I read the part above about world domination, I thought that was what he meant, that governments would use the information from ubiquitous localizers to crack down on protest. But then he goes on in the next paragraph to suggest that Homeland Security is a good thing and is keeping the network safe, and that it is some other force that is infiltrating the net and threatening everyone's freedom. I think Vinge needs to come to grips with the potential of a localizer net for misuse by facist governments. I don't know what his politics are but this description makes it sound like this threat is somewhat being whitewashed and government presented solely as a benevolent force. The localizers in Deepness were in fact used as tools of the oppressive Emergent government, while good-guy Pham was able to subvert the network using secret backdoors and eventually defeat the Emergents (with help). I don't know whether Vinge is flipping the roles in this book or what, but it should be interesting to see. That last scene at the UCSD library still sounds strange though. Hal P.S. Here's a picture of the library, it's an interesting building that has gotten a lot of architectural attention: http://admissions.ucsd.edu/old_stuff/old_images/UCSD_lib640.jpg From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 22:49:55 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:49:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <200512162239.jBGMd7e17549@tick.javien.com> References: <43A31611.5020906@goldenfuture.net> <200512162239.jBGMd7e17549@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, spike wrote: > Ja, I am not suggesting this notion as a statistically > significant study or really anything more than just a > game. But we could have some fun with it. The whole > SAT-scores-as-a-metric-for-smartness-of-a-state meme > is more interesting to me than which state voted for > whom. > > Consider last election in 2004. I listened > carefully to the debates but never could tell the > two leading candidates apart. So I didn't vote for > them. About 58% of the population didn't vote in 2004. Perhaps most of the high IQs didn't vote? That would screw up any IQ voting preference analysis. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 23:14:50 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:14:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End In-Reply-To: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> References: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I see that Vernor Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End, is available for > pre-purchase at Amazon, with a release date of May 2, 2006. It is based > on the same world as his Hugo-winning short story "Fast Times at Fairmont > High". An excerpt called Synthetic Serendipity is available online at > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul04/0704far.html > Here is the description from Amazon. > > > > > > As Robert becomes more deeply involved in conspiracy, he is shocked > > to learn of a radical change planned for the UCSD Geisel Library; all > > the books there, and worldwide, would cease to physically exist. He > > and his fellow re-trainees feel compelled to join protests against the > > change. With forces around the world converging on San Diego, both the > > conspiracy and the protest climax in a spectacular moment as unique and > > satisfying as it is unexpected. This is science fiction at its very best, > > by a master storyteller at his peak. > Too late! This is already happening. Libraries are already getting rid of their physical books and digitizing them. College Libraries Set Aside Books in a Digital Age By RALPH BLUMENTHAL Published: May 14, 2005 Correction Appended HOUSTON, May 13 - Students attending the University of Texas at Austin will find something missing from the undergraduate library this fall. Books. By mid-July, the university says, almost all of the library's 90,000 volumes will be dispersed to other university collections to clear space for a 24-hour electronic information commons, a fast-spreading phenomenon that is transforming research and study on campuses around the country. -------------------- BillK From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 16 23:50:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:50:41 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth References: <20051215174525.44930.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0cd501c6029b$861fdf60$cd81e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> You say so far, have you any reason to think that she will ever >> want Bush or Cheney to atone for any wrongs they might have >> done? > > Yes: the rest of the words she used to describe their actions. > > She may have been hinting via the "ballot box" suggestion that > she would like to proceed with impeachment, if more > pro-impeachment Congresspeople were voted in in 2006, without > going on the record as explicitly saying she's pro-impeachment > before such an action would in her professional judgment be > possible (which might cause her to be singled out by the current > power structure as an example, and make her unable to implement > even minor changes). Perhaps but that seems to me to be drawing rather a long bow from her allusion to the "ballot box", expecially as you asked her when not if. A longer bow than you need to draw when you could ask her follow up questions to clarify, if you are really "pro-impeachment" yourself. I have absolutely no doubt that Congresspeople are watching the polls, listening to the news and trying to gauge the mood of the citizens voters, they know that there has to be the political will for impeachment to be doable even if there is the best possible legal and constitutional grounds for it. >> That's what I want, an atoning. I want America to atone. > > Equating Bush and Cheney to all of America in this matter is > incorrect. It is also increasingly off-topic for this list. No my respected American correspondent, it is not. I think your nation state of America has become the single greatest threat to extropy in the world because your countrymen have been so complacent in regard to their responsibilities to their fellow human beings that they have allowed successive US Presidential administrations to increasingly flagrantly undermine the basis of international laws established for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. This is directly on topic for the extropy list. As a non US citizen, I have a grievance that I want US citizens who post to the extropy list and some of whom claim to be transhumanists to hear with respect and to recognize. You are increasingly allowing your government to be a force for destruction in our shared human world and I want you to take to apply some extropic thinking and take some extropic action to rectify that. I want you US citizens to recognize the wrongs that you have permitted to be done in your name and to use your power as US citizens to rectify the wrongs that you have done. I do not speak to you as a US citizen or as someone for whom your nations national interest is my highest object because your nations national interest is not my highest object and it never will be. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 01:03:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:03:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc> <001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > The interesting question is whether or not the invasion of Iraq on > 20 March 2003 was a good idea or not. It wasn't just an idea, it was an action. An inherently dishonourable action because the USA was a signatory to the UN charter and had given its word not to take that sort of action against a soverign nation except when duly authorised by the security council. The editor-at-large in The Australian today mentions for the first time I have seen the phrase 'withdrawal from Iraq with honour'. He is dreaming. America cannot withdraw from Iraq with honour any more than a rapist can withdraw with honor. The dishonour occurred when President Bush gave the executive order for America to go in. At that point the dishonour was only his. The Congress did not authorise him to break the UN Charter or to set aside his obligations to uphold the US Constitution and his Presidential oath. In my opinion the Congress as a whole, based on books I've read and accounts I've heard, was genuinley mislead, as were the American people. But there comes a time when outside observers of the whole US system have to conclude that the American people are complicit in allowing themselves to be mislead. > We know now that it was not a good idea, and thus people like > me who were 50% for the invasion were 50% wrong and people > like you who were 100% against the invasion were 100% right; > you were right for the wrong reason but the important thing is you were > right. It sure beats the hell out of being wrong > for the right reason. I was not 100% right and you were not 50%. You weren't *seeing* the real gameboard and the importance of international law and upholding solumn oaths made then and you are not seeing it now. When your country breaks its word it breaks its obligations not just to you but to me. I am a stakeholder in the world too and I have seen no acknowledgement from you anywhere that in terms of human rights you as a US citizen own me as a non US citizen and stakeholder in the world anything. But you do. Your human rights are in part underwritten by my willingness to uphold them and vice versa. I have less freedoms than I did a year ago because of what you have not done to uphold human rights. Brett Paatsch Brett Paatsch From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 01:56:52 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:56:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <0cd501c6029b$861fdf60$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051217015652.42371.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> [This topic] is also increasingly off-topic for >> this list. > > No my respected American correspondent, it is not. > Though I understand Harvey's and Eugen's fierce objection to this type of discussion -- an objection I expect stems from the fact that such discussions rapidly devolve into a persistant partisan flame fest of ignorance, fact-free bias, and ad hominem attacks, ending only when the last time-wasting moron still jerking off can find no one to match his own tolerance for self-humiliation -- despite this, I agree with Brett that this is both a very important topic and one that is highly extropic. That is, it ***could*** be highly extropic ***if*** civility could be maintained and the flame fest avoided. Politics is a uniquely human phenomenon, complex and emergent, which victimizes humans everywhere, and which arises from the legacy of "primitive" human nature. My impression of extropy is that it seeks to enhance/improve humans, or, stated another way, seeks to enhance/improve human nature. Thus the study of politics/human nature seems a perfectly apt starting point for the human improvement part of the extropic plan. In fact, as I recall, Max's remarks at Extro 3 (and perhaps later Extros) were directed at the need to improve human nature. But the flame fest and incivility cannot be avoided. Because such discussions inevitably attract morons (bring out the moron in each of us). 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 17 02:08:31 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:08:31 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17557088%255E5001986,00.html Singularly fanciful Andres Vaccari December 17, 2005 The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology By Ray Kurzeil, Viking, 652pp, %59.95 OUR bodies will soon be obsolete. Genetic engineering, smart drugs and nanotechnology will reverse the ageing process and make us immortal. Machines will do the unpleasant work for us, producing all the energy we need. We will download our minds into powerful computers and become superintelligent, disembodied beings. We will be able to change bodies at will and inhabit virtual worlds of our making. And all of this will happen in our lifetime, for we are approaching the Singularity: a point at which scientific advance will happen so fast that technology will become indistinguishable from magic. This is the picture of the future presented in Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near. A renowned inventor and entrepreneur, Kurzweil is a leading voice of the extropian (or transhuman) movement, which preaches that we are on the threshold of a golden age of techno-supermen. Unsurprisingly, extropianism is largely an American phenomenon, combining two potent traditions: Christian millenarianism and the cult of technology. This enthusiastic brand of futurism may appear harmless, charming even, but it has an ugly side. Kurzweil's central belief is that technological and scientific progress is exponential. That is, science and technology do not only improve, but the rate of progress also accelerates, tending towards infinity, at which point we will experience "an expansion of human intelligence by a factor of trillions through merger with its non-biological form". A variation on the Enlightenment myth of rational progress, Kurzweil's model departs from a restricted notion of technology (basically, processing power). In the final analysis, it is based on a bad inference. Kurzweil's technological determinism is equally myopic. The political and social environment that shapes the nature and direction of technology is completely missing from his picture. Technology is neither an autonomous force nor an outgrowth or continuation of biological evolution. The recent debacle concerning AIDS drugs for Africa underscores the fact technology means nothing in the face of political unwillingness and the profit motive. Life extension can be granted now to most of the world's disadvantaged with remarkably low-tech means, such as food and cheap medicines. An entrenched political conservatism underlies the transhuman vision of the future. Social change is not necessary for Kurzweil, since it will be precipitated by the inherent acceleration of technological progress and driven by the free market model. Today's machines represent the principles of the neo-liberal economy, just as in the 16th century the mechanical clock embodied the values of the monarchic state. Robots and computer systems "self-organise", just like selfish individuals under the invisible hand of the market. And technology gets better and cheaper all the time, so that eventually it will trickle down to the poorest people, just like capital does in right-wing economics. The Singularity, Kurzweil tells us, is an economic imperative. Like human knowledge, economic growth is also exponential and the market will become the main engine of future change. We will not only be immortal but filthy rich. Incredibly, Kurzweil argues that factories and farm jobs in the US have dropped from 60per cent to 6 per cent because of automation; no mention of Third World sweatshops or corporate outsourcing and downsizing. He even argues that modern warfare claims fewer casualties thanks to more accurate weapons. We should mention that Kurzweil is an adviser to the US military and sits on the board of directors of Seegrid, a robotics company (founded by fellow extropian Hans Moravec) that subcontracts to the US Army. This may explain the absence of ethical concerns in his discussion of the military applications of new technology. Also central to Kurzweil's argument is the notion that our minds can be copied into computers built in the image of the brain. This runs up against gigantic problems and relies on several unproven assumptions. The information sciences have sparked the mystic belief that everything is made of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity can be separated from the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the brain. This is a curious technological rewriting of the notion of the individual soul, transcendent from embodiment. It may be a reassuring story but there's no evidence to support it. Kurzweil believes the simulation of intelligence (or consciousness, he can't see the difference) is a matter of fast processing power. But he is not speaking to our more rational instincts. Though dressed in the garb of science, these fantasies are addressed mainly to the anxieties of ageing baby boomers. As governments of developed nations brace for an imminent huge swell in the population of elderly and retirees, this vision of a future ruled by an army of narcissistic baby-boomer cyborgs sounds like a bad joke. Kurzweil, however, feels naturally entitled to the fruits of the latest biomedical knowledge. And he has some ideas on how to handle the accompanying strain on economic and natural resources: nanobots will produce all the energy we need, cheaply and in an environmentally sustainable manner. And the oil giants needn't worry, as the nanobots will clean the environment too. For most of its history, technology has remained inseparable from religion, illusionism and magical thinking. Things haven't changed much and modern science and technology continue to inspire beliefs as baroque as anything concocted by our forebears. The road to the uncertain future is littered with the carcasses of brave new worlds that never were. So far, the only reliable law of futurism was pronounced by J.G. Ballard: "If enough people predict something, it won't happen." From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 02:50:24 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:50:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <20051216025449.39562.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051217025024.15398.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast > surfaces...I > wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, > say, > initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly > chill the > planet,... Okay, here's another approach. A large flat disk, several atoms thick, spin stabilized, and placed at the L1 point between Venus and the sun. A sunshade if you will. Just slightly closer to the sun than the actual L1 point so as to gravitationally balance the photon pressure. And given just enough precession so that it always "faces" the sun. After the initial cool down, you could make it smaller so as to adjust the amount of sunlight to the "right" level. Now even though such a disk might be as much as 8,000 miles in diameter, because it would only be a few atoms thick it probably wouldn't be very massive. I'll leave it to someone else to calculate how massive it would be, or the material of which it should be composed, bearing in mind that you might want to get said material from either lunar regolith or some vagrant asteroid. Go for it. Best, Jeff Davis "You are what you think." Jeff Davis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 02:56:57 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:56:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <25e.3b01950.30d3cc63@aol.com> Message-ID: <20051217025657.34990.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Oh, heck. Clearly Mike beat me to the sunshade idea. I didn't read ahead. My bad. Congrats Mike. Great minds think alike. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles --- Mike15007 at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/15/2005 9:58:04 P.M. Eastern > Standard Time, > wingcat at pacbell.net writes: > > But speaking of applying nuclear weapons to vast > surfaces...I > wonder - has anyone looked into the feasability of, > say, > initiating nuclear winter on Venus so as to rapidly > chill the > planet, so that much of the sulfuric acid comes out > of the > atmosphere (which might then allow establishment of > more > permanent temperature-control mechanisms, infeasable > to deploy > right now mainly because of the immense temperature, > pressure, > and acid rains at Venus's surface)? Most of the > radioactive > fallout could probably be localized, and even if the > atmosphere > were magically converted to Earth-temperature > oxygen-nitrogen > overnight, the soil will probably need cleaning > before people can > live there as it is anyway (again, due to the > sulfuric acid > rains). > > > > I think it would be easier, more practical, and > less problematic, to use a > gigantic dynamically-stabilized sunshade at the L1 > position between Sol and > Venus, and lower immense "radiator fins" into Venus' > atmosphere from a > dynamically-supported orbital ring, to suck the heat > out of the lower atmosphere more > quickly and cool the place without leaving lotsa > nasty isotopes at all. > Giving Venus an Earth-like day-night cycle will > be trickier. The best > way I can think of to do it - quickest without > requiring a lot of energy or > hitting Venus with something *big* - is a bunch of > dynamically-stabilized giant > reflectors at L4, L5, and maybe L2 as well, in > conjunction with the > aformentioned sunshade at L1. The reflectors could > each "oscillate" in tune with each > other, and the sunshade could perhaps be varied > periodically, to simulate day > and night around Venus. > Hey, no one ever said terraforming a world that > wasn't already mostly > there would be easy. I came up with this strategy a > few years ago as one that > didn't involve hitting Venus with anything *really > big,* or otherwise > affecting its rotation, among other things. > Okay, what are the holes in this strategy? I > genuinely wish to be told > when it looks like I'm smoking something :-) > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Dec 17 03:06:36 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:06:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Physicists discuss UFOs [was Re: Former Politicians To Look Out For ET] Message-ID: <43A380BC.4040500@mindspring.com> From: Isaac Koi To: Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:25:52 -0000 Subject: Re: Former Politicians To Look Out For ET >From: Bruce Maccabee >To: >Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:38:05 -0500 >Subject: Re: Former Politicians To Look Out For ET >>From: Diane Harrison >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >>Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:02:26 +1000 >>Subject: Former Politicians To Look Out For ET >>Source: ABC - Australian Broadcasting Commission >>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1526555.htm >>Friday, 9 December 2005 >>ABC Science Online >>Ex-Pollies To Look Out For ET >>by Anna Salleh >>Philosophers and former politicians will soon join an elite >>group of scientists whose job it is to work out how to respond >>to signals from extra-terrestrial intelligence. >>Professor Paul Davies, of the Australian Centre for >>Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, >>who heads the group, says a call from ET would >>raise profound issues that require >>consideration from more than "a bunch of gung ho scientists". >>"Nothing would be the same again. I think there's no doubt >>about that," says Davies, who has just taken up the chair of >>the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology >>Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics. > >>"You can imagine that if you had a civilisation that maybe had >>10 million years of development, pretty much everything that >>they could do would seem like magic to us," says Davies. >>"Things like immortality might be very straightforward." >>Friend or foe >>Davies says some scientists are nervous about replying to a >>signal if it announces our existence to aliens with bad >>intentions. >>But he is more optimistic. >>"If they were out there, and they were aggressive and >>expansionary, then they would have already been here. We would >>have already taken over a long time ago," he says. >This is a simple restatement of the Fermi Paradox (paradoxical >only when UFO reports are ignored): >(Again I point out that this ignores the implications of UFO >sightings. One wonders whether or not the numerous UFO >sightings in the late 40's prompted this brief discussion by >Fermi and others, or if it simply came "out of the blue"... or >black.) Hi Bruce, Yes, discussion of UFO sightings prompted Fermi and others to discuss extraterrestrials during the relevant lunch in 1950. It seems that the relevant group had been discussing UFO reports, then moved on to other topics when Fermi came out with his question (rendered variously as "Where are they?", "Where is everybody" etc etc). The relevant discussion is summarised by Stephen Webb in his "Where is Everybody?: Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox" (2002) at pages 17-18 (in Chapter 2), 245 (in the Notes and Further Reading) of the Copernicus hardback edition. That summary is largely based on an article by Eric Jones entitled "'Where is Everybody?': An Account of Fermi's Question," Los Alamos National Laboratory report number LA-10311-MS, March 1985. That article (including the relevant correspondence with participants in the discussion with Fermia) is available online at the link below: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/la-10311-ms.pdf Since I've sometimes had problems with the above link, I note that there is a substantial extract at the link below (without, unfortunately, the images of the supporting documents which are included within the full pdf of the report by Jones): http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1057.htm Further interviews with participants in the discussion are summarised in an independent article about the relevant lunch, by Paul Horowitz in "SETI 2020 : A Roadmap for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (2002) (edited by Elkers, Ronald D and Cullers, Kent D and Billingham, John and Scheffer, Louis K) at pages 373-374 (in Appendix J) of the SETI Press softcover edition. The account by Horowitz is less detailed, since it is largely based on the recollection of Herb York (who joined the relevant discussion after it had started). For ease of reference, the report by Eric Jones includes the following: "... Thanks to the excellent memory of Hans Mark, who had heard a retelling at Los Alamos in the early 1950s, we now know that Fermi did make the remark during a lunchtime conversation about 1950. His companions were Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller, and Herbert York. All three have provided accounts of the incident. We begin with Konopinski: "I have only fragmentary recollections about the occasion... I do have a fairly clear memory of how the discussion of extra-terrestrials got started while Enrico, Edward, Herb York, and I were walking to lunch at Fuller Lodge. "When l joined the party, I found being discussed evidence about flying saucers. That immediately brought to my mind a cartoon I had recently seen in the New Yorker, explaining why public trash cans were disappearing from the streets of New York City. The New York papers were making a fuss about that. The cartoon showed what was evidently a flying saucer sitting in the background and, streaming toward it, 'little green men' (endowed with antennas) carrying the trash cans. More amusing was Fermi's comment, that it was a very reasonable theory since it accounted for two separate phenomena: the reports of flying saucers as well as the disappearance of the trash cans. There ensued a discussion as to whether the saucers could somehow exceed the speed of light." Teller remembers: "My recollection of the event involving Fermi... is clear, but only partial. To begin with, I was there at the incident. I believe it occurred shortly after the end of the war on a visit of Fermi to the Laboratory, which quite possibly might have been during a summer. "I remember having walked over with Fermi and others to the Fuller Lodge for lunch. While we walked over, there was a conversation which I believe to have been quite brief and superficial on a subject only vaguely connected with space travel. I have a vague recollection, which may not be accurate, that we talked about flying saucers and the obvious statement that the flying saucers are not real. ... Teller continues: "The conversation, according to my memory, was only vaguely connected with astronautics partly on account of flying saucers might be due to extraterrestrial people (here I believe the remarks were purely negative), partly because exceeding light velocity would make interstellar travel one degree more real. ... It was after we were at the luncheon table," Konopinski recalls, "that Fermi surprised us with the question 'but where is everybody?' It was his way of putting it that drew laughs from us." York, who does not recall the preliminary conversation on the walk to Fuller Lodge, does remember that "virtually apropos of nothing Fermi said, 'Don't you ever wonder where everybody is?' Somehow... we all knew he meant extra-terrestrials." Teller remembers the question in much the same way. "The discussion had nothing to do with astronomy or with extraterrestrial beings. I think it was some down-to-earth topic. Then, in the middle of this conversation, Fermi came out with the quite unexpected question 'Where is everybody?' . . . The result of his question was general laughter because of the strange fact that in spite of Fermi's question coming from the clear blue, everybody around the table seemed to understand at once that he was talking about extraterrestrial life. "I do not believe that much came of this conversation, except perhaps a statement that the distances to the next location of living beings may be very great and that, indeed, as far as our galaxy is concerned, we are living somewhere in the sticks, far removed from the metropolitan area of the galactic center." York believes that Fermi was somewhat more expansive and "followed up with a series of calculations on the probability of earthlike planets, the probability of life given an earth, the probability of humans given life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, and so on. He concluded on the basis of such calculations that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. As I recall, he went on to conclude that the reason we hadn't been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn't last long enough for it to happen." York confessed to being hazy about these last remarks. ... " >Simple solutions to the paradox are: Despite the importance of discussions of the Fermi "Paradox" to an informed consideration of the ETH, I'll avoid the temptation to include a long list of relevant references. I'll simply note that the most detailed discussion of the various solutions to the "paradox" that I've read is by Stephen Webb in his "Where is Everybody?: Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox" (2002) generally, particularly at pages 1-274 of the Copernicus hardback edition. The "fifty solutions" of the title are summarised in the chapter headings, available online at: http://tinyurl.com/8lutl Virtually all of the more intelligent discussions of the Fermi paradox in the SETI literature do at least refer to UFOs. Almost all do so in terms along the lines of the following: "There is no need to discuss suggestions that UFO reports are caused by visiting extraterrestrials since such suggestions are not taken seriously by most scientists". A slight variation on this theme is the following comment by Keay Davidson in his "Carl Sagan : A Life" at page 347 (in Chapter 14) of the Wiley softcover edition: "If interstellar travel is indeed feasible, and if aliens exist, then why haven't they visited us? (UFO sightings don't count; most good scientists rejected these as nonsense". Kind Regards, Isaac Koi -- "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 fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Dec 17 03:07:32 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:07:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Critical Thinking Message-ID: <43A380F4.70505@mindspring.com> There is the possibility of opening a course on critical thinking in my department. I know that some list members teach similar courses, and I'd like to ask for some material and pointers. Could you contact me offlist (or maybe onlist, this might be of interest to other members too...) with indications of where I can find good sources of material for such a course? Starting new courses is more for the major league professors, but it would be nice if in a few years they gave me the chair of this course, so I better start working on it now :) Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Ludi Ludwig Krippahl -- "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 diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Sat Dec 17 03:42:15 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:42:15 -0200 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200512170142.15270.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> > The > information sciences have sparked the mystic belief that everything is made > of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity can be separated from > the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the brain. This is a curious > technological rewriting of the notion of the individual soul, transcendent > from embodiment. It may be a reassuring story but there's no evidence to > support it. Absolutely true, I would even say, painfully true. The rest is not much interesting. Diego Caleiro. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 03:49:23 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:49:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List In-Reply-To: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> References: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and all of this > be moved to that list? Alternatively, what about just asking people to put a [politics] tag in the subject of such emails? Or use a client which handles threading nicely, like gmail. It's pretty easy to spot the political threads and skip over them. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 03:56:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:56:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051217015652.42371.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512170358.jBH3wQe17583@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > Though I understand Harvey's and Eugen's fierce > objection to this type of discussion -- an objection I > expect stems from the fact that such discussions > rapidly devolve into a persistant partisan flame fest... > > But the flame fest and incivility cannot be avoided. > Because such discussions inevitably attract morons > (bring out the moron in each of us). > > Best, Jeff Davis... Jeff, everyone has been remarkably civil this time around. Perhaps we are growing wiser as we grow older. I haven't seen anything so far that I would consider insulting or out of bounds behavior. Let's let it go on for the rest of the week, shall we? To those who have been calmly and rationally stating their views, thanks. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 04:36:44 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:36:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End In-Reply-To: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> References: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60512162036s5ab2cd0exaa211d2e7d136f56@mail.gmail.com> On 12/16/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I think Vinge needs to come to grips with the potential of a localizer > net for misuse by facist governments. I don't know what his politics > are but this description makes it sound like this threat is somewhat > being whitewashed and government presented solely as a benevolent force. > ### Somebody who wrote "Peacewar", "The Ungoverned" and "Marooned in Realtime", unless suffering from advanced dementia, would be unlikely to see the government as a benevolent force. The review probably conceals more than it reveals. I started becoming an anarchocapitalist only after reading these three books. Rafal From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 05:57:47 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Take Back The List In-Reply-To: References: <9375F6E2-4A1B-4F8E-BEEA-836453FAFB3F@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512162157j625909c8xd788fb9f7450e96a@mail.gmail.com> Sometimes I am also annoyed by political posts. like everybody, but I think politics should stay right here on the list because it is central to the core business. We often discuss things we would like to see happening: human enhancement, v brain computer interfaces, life extension, space settlement... well, politics is about how to make this things *happen* with, or despite, all the constraints of the real world. G. On 12/17/05, Neil H. wrote: > On 12/16/05, Bret Kulakovich > wrote: > > > > > > Can an extropy-politics at lists.extropy.org be created and > all of this > > be moved to that list? > > Alternatively, what about just asking people to put a [politics] tag in the > subject of such emails? > > Or use a client which handles threading nicely, like gmail. It's pretty easy > to spot the political threads and skip over them. > > -- Neil From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 06:24:23 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:24:23 +1100 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: Message-ID: <0d8601c602d2$85756990$cd81e03c@homepc> Herb Martin wrote: >... What we KNOW is that > 25,000,000 people were freed from the Rape, Torture, and Murder > of Saddam's regime (which would not have happened under any > conceivable alternative within the next 5-30 years) and that > his (admitted) support for international terrorism in general > and Al Qaeda in specific is ended. No we don't know that. I know 25 million were not all, raped, tortured and murdered. I don't doubt some were. Certainly individual people who are raped, tortured and murdered are the victims of wrongs in my opinion but I don't see why rape, murder and torture is worse when Saddam is responsible for it. The capital letters are not justified. > (Yes, there was documented > support for Al Qaeda, only how much is debatable.) I think you will understand if I don't accept your assertion as true without evidence. If you have a document showing Saddam supporting Al Qaeda I'd like to see it. > We know that Libya changed their behavior (so far) due to the > example made of Saddam. I don't see how you could know that for a specific fact. Anymore than you know that Iran or other countries didn't become more hostile and more likely to want to harm Americans. > We know that Lebanon has made much > progress and this is partially attributable to the Iraqi > example and the US presence "next door" to Syria which has > thwarted Lebanese attempts at peace and democracy for decades. I don't see how you could know that for a specific fact either. > We know that it cost a lot of money. We know that some 2000+ > US soldiers have died (and we know that while this is a tragedy > for every one of them and their families individually, this is > tiny compared with any other military action of any significance > much less in of this large effect. The significance of the military action depends on ones point of view. I saw it as an aggressive illegal act. So did many in the world. The USA cannot win the War on Terror. > (Some 20,000 paratroops were > EXPECTED to be sacrificed on D-Day just to distract the Germans > from the beaches of Normandy, and more troops were lost in a > practice run a few weeks before the Normandy invasion.) Perhaps true, but irrelevant. In that war the United States was not the aggressor, quite to the contrary. > We know that we got the US forces out of Saudi Arabia (which was > one of the unmentioned goals), and that we have strategic > position on both Iran and Syria (and Saudi Arabia even) from > Iraq. I don't know that. I don't think its relevant. > We know that the HARDEST thing for a large conventional army to > do when faced with terrorist or insurgency forces is to FIND > AND FIX the enemy so that the superior numbers and weapons can > be brought to effective use. We know that by attracting the > terrorists to Iraq we accomplish that. Your naivette is staggering. Your countries foreign policy is creating opponents with legitimate greivances that it did not have before. If those opponents have the freedom of movement to go to Iraq they also have the freedom of movement to chose to fight on other terrain more suited to there objectives if they so choose. If I was in their shoes I wouldn't fight you in Iraq, Iraq would just be one area of many areas of learning and training. Had I been living in Iraq and had your invasion killed my family I would not stop fighting you in Iraq. > We know that the Iraqis are admirably moving towards a true > democracy in a part of the world (Arab Middle East) where the > naysayers and pessimists claim that such people cannot understand > or support democracy. I saw the poll figures I posted at the start of this thread. A majority of Iraqis think it was not right for the US to invade. Pretty good chance some of them have very strong feelings of enmity indeed now. > We know a lot of things, but deciding it was not a good idea > is not one of them. > > Depends on who you ask -- and if you ask those troops who lost > their friends and who risk their lives you will almost universally > find they believe it was a VERY GOOD THING. > > So do most of us who have served and would server again if asked. That you have served in Iraq helps me to understand what could be part of your motivation for seeing things a certain way. I wonder what you think my motivation might be. For your information I am a white Australian of European "racial" background that has no religion. I'm a rationalist and a humanist. My views on the Iraq situation and many other things are in the archives. I am anything but the sort of person I imagine you would expect to have offended and yet I tell you that your countries policies have offended me and many like me. I am not a terrorist but it takes very little imagination for me to see how others like me could decide to take action on principle that you would think was terrorism and you would not have a hope of seeing them coming in any sense of the word seeing. Please understand I am impling no personal threat I am trying to get you to see the seriousness of the current state of human affairs. > Of course it was right to invade -- not only did EVERY BRANCH of > the US government agree but also the UN, both before and after > the invasion, as well as the Iraqi people. The UN did not agree. > Many people overlook the simple fact that the UN Security Resolution > 1441 UNANIMOUSLY found Saddam in breach on WMD > requirements and authorized force to remove Saddam. No it did not. > It remained the controlling > resolution even though it was purposely written to give cover to > Security Council member states who could point to this ambiguousness > while they fully understood what they voted to support. It did remain the controlling resolution and the UN security council remained the determinator of key terms. > Even Syria agreed Saddam was in violation and authorized the removal. > > BTW, we also know that it is a sad state of affairs that the UN > has to use such reasons (WMD) rather than the humanitarian concerns > for an enslaved people -- this is due to the fact that a large > percentage of the member states have their own forms of dictatorship > to a lesser or greater extent and so do not wish to set the > precedent that saving a nation is reason to remove a violent > dictator and murderer. We don't all know that. > Oh yes, we also know that Saddam is on trial and will be judged by > those same Iraqi people who he tortured and abused. We all know that Bush is not on trial that quite to the contrary he remains at large with the powers of a US President at his disposal including the power to pardon. > And that is a good thing -- a very good thing. In your opinion. > And this is STILL A STUPID THREAD. Those who started it and the > similar ones should be ashamed of their rudeness in abusing > the topics of this list AND their stupidity in not understanding > such issues. I am not ashamed. I am not stupid. I am aggreived. And it talking with you I am giving you an opportunity to understand an alternative point of view. On September 11, 2001, I was on the side of the aggrieved citizens and people of the United States of America and I was interested in finding solutions to their problem as though their problem was also in part my problem. That is no longer the case. Brett Paatsch From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 06:29:27 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:29:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ as a function of political philosophy (was The NeoCon Mind-Trick) In-Reply-To: <20051215223451.79894.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051217062927.16611.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > It only works on the less intelligent, This is too easy. I'm suspicious of smart-stupid distinctions. Smacks of smarminess, a sense of dubious superiority, self-absorption, and a bunch of other less-than-savory ego-originating attitudes all of which have a certain me-me-me-better-smarter-faster quality to them. I prefer the idea that people of all levels of intelligence can be "stupid" when manipulated by bad data (faulty intelligence?). >...but they > comprise the majority in any democracy. They comprise any and all exposed to the bad data, and in particular those who do not have the time, inclination, or resources to hunt down the good data and "fix the problem". I would say that's a way large majority. However, the above was not the purpose of this post. Rather, I noted your comments below, and it reminded me of a google search that I attempted but failed at, some time back. > There was a clear positive correlation between the > average IQs of states that voted Democrat in the > 2004 > presidential elections and conversely an inverse > correlation between IQ and Republican votes. > > I first saw this data here: > > http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.html Starting from the following quote: "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is nevertheless undeniable that practically all stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill I looked for for the sort of data you report above. Data that might support or refute Mills assertion. Intelligence scores as a function of political philosophy. Red State-Blue State is a start, but the data is way too fuzzy. Doesn't even reach "fuzzy" actually, since red states aren't pure red or blue states pure blue. I'm looking for something like ETS or SAT scores, but where the test takers are also identified by some red/blue, lib/con, left/right metric. I have to believe the data is out there, but I couldn't find it, reliable or otherwise. Now I see that the link you offer is dead. So that's no help. Anyone else able to help out? I know my motives come from the dark side, but hell, if the devil is the only one who will speak the truth, you just have to go there. With all the religious fundamentalists rejecting science in favor of "revealed truth", neglecting their thinking skills in favor of their uncritical believing "skills", I figure they've got to be skewing themselves down some. It's an hypothesis. Data anyone? Best, Jeff Davis "For centuries our race has built on false assumptions. If you build a fantasy based on false assumptions and continue to build on such a fantasy, your whole existence becomes a lie which you implant in others who are too lazy or too busy to question it's truth." - Michael Moorcock __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 06:36:31 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:36:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RAND Pardee: 50 Books for Thinking About the Future Human Condition Message-ID: <470a3c520512162236x2b56e34dj2f04e002a63ee84f@mail.gmail.com> The RAND Pardee Center for Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition pursues ambitious objectives: to improve our ability to think about the longer-range future--from 35 to as far as 200 years ahead--and to develop new methods of analyzing potential long-range, global effects of today's policy options in order to design sound policies that are sensitive to those effects. From the presentation on their website: there has been no dearth of attempts to think globally about the human condition or the long-range future. What has been missing, however, is a means of tying those efforts systematically and analytically to today's policy decisions. This is the gap that the RAND Pardee Center seeks to address. The website has a repository of future studues resources. The most recent entry on their website is a list of 50 Books for Thinking About the Future Human Condition , "as a reading list for someone who wants to understand at a more-than-passing level the factors that we can say seem to be most pertinent today in thinking about the longer-range human condition". There are many excellent books in the list and some good books have been left out only because the editors wanted to limit the list to 50 books. However, I can think of books that are not on the list but should definitely be on the list. My three suggestions: The Age of Spiritual Machines (the new Kurzweil's book is, I think, just a followup) - Citizen Cyborg - More than Humans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 06:36:48 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:36:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <200512170358.jBH3wQe17583@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051217063648.20519.qmail@web60015.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Jeff, everyone has been remarkably civil this time > around. Perhaps we are growing wiser as we grow > older. I haven't seen anything so far that I would > consider insulting or out of bounds behavior. Let's > let it go on for the rest of the week, shall we? To > those who have been calmly and rationally stating > their views, thanks. > > spike I'm game, spike (though I can't speak for my inner moron). ;-} Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 06:44:58 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:44:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any Second Life users? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512110354g4ebda945tb50d534b36795a20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512162244t64056de7ve5361e68e0729066@mail.gmail.com> I will continue here my report on VR walks in Second Life. There are tools to build your avatar, but I am not likely to find the time to go through a trial and error learning curve and build a good avatar. So I purchased a prefab avatar who looks like a senior citizen. This makes sense because I am probably quite older than most SL residents. I don't want to look like a superhero or anything different from a normal early 21st century human (of course your SL avatar can look like whatever you like), but I wish to have an avatar who looke like me. Then I purchased my first land in the snowy part of the main island. I bought a small cottage that will be my permanent home in SL. This Fox News article has a video which shows some Second Life features and Linden Lab's CEO Philip Rosendale. One of the most interesting things happening in Second Life is the project Democracy Island , described also in the Second Life Future Salon blog and this Information Week article . I was told of Democracy Island by one of the first residents I met there ( Lyre Calliope ). Democracy Island is a "* Virtual world environment to offer government entities and interest groups an on-line space for conducting citizen consultation. In short, this project will use the metaphor of the "county fair," a familiar civic event in the life of a community. This will be a place - like a meeting tent, a town hall or even a shopping mall - where groups can congregate online. The aim of this project is to design a space where interested parties, such as trade associations, activist groups and scientific experts, will be able to set up virtual booths for presentation of information and deliberation as well as advocacy *". The project is run by the New York Law School's Institute for Information Law and Policy and has been funded by the International Center for Automated Information Research. Unfortunately I missed the SL Future Salon meetingI wished to attend. 5:30 PM PST is really the worse possible time for Europeans. I look forward to attending one of the next SL Future Salon meetings if one is scheduled at a more suitable time. I have heard many comments that the SL system should be improved and do [this and that]. I am sure if there are common requirements for new features they will be implemented in SL or perhaps in another VR world. But I think SL is the first example of "real VR" world, in the sense that it is rich and realistic enough to attract a large user base and to permit experimenting with how people interact with each other in VR worlds, and how VR worlds interact with the real one (for example the emergence of real economies around virtual economies as it is beginning to happen in SL). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 06:53:17 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:53:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerning presidential growth) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051215232404.0705ace0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051217065317.93382.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > But suppose it were all true and all valid. The > average Kerry voter > is smarter than the average Bush voter. > > ***** SO WHAT? ***** > > How is your posting anything more than a dressed-up > playground sneer? A playground sneer won't kill ~100,000+2150 and counting, loot the treasury of 200-and-counting billion dollars, destroy the promise and reputation of a great nation, and make its political elite the next in line for the dock in the Hague. Best, Jeff Davis "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 08:24:52 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:24:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051217082452.37490.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > The irony here is, they would not be able to decide > that, if we had not > overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under > the jackboot of > Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would > still be in operation. > People would still be thrown living into plastic > shredders... head-first > if the death was to be merciful. No, the irony here is that Saddam's atrocities were of no interest to you when he was the US ruling elite's pal (against the Iranian's) in the eighties, when Rumsfeld was glad-handing him, and the US corporations were selling him the precursors for the WMD's he was using to fill up those mass graves with Iranian corpses that you never gave a damn about, and Iraqi corpses that you are now so very very shocked to learn about, and which the US power elite, as Saddam's partner, can take a substantial portion of the credit for. The irony here is that the torture and rape rooms were of no interest to you before April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. The irony here is that now you consider them so very very monstrous, even as they are being replaced by a worldwide torture gulag run by the Bush cabal in your name, including the under-new-managment Iraqi torture and death chambers run by the US-approved and democratically-elected Shia/Kurd govt. The irony is that these things are happening right in front of your face, and you are still able to blot them from your conscious awareness and write with a straight face how wonderful it is now, how different it is now, that Saddamn is gone. Plus an added irony. Remember the UN sanctions? The ones imposed on Saddam to require him to disarm? The ones the Iraqi nation (ie the Iraqi people) had to suffer under for what?,...12 years? Remember them? Well, since it turns out that the proscribed weapons had in fact been destroyed way back when -- surely you know of the non-existent nukes and the non-existent tons of non-existent anthrax and non-existent nerve gas -- that the sanctions had in fact achieved their ***stated*** goal, and done so shortly after the end of Gulf War One. But since the real intent of the sanctions -- an illegal intent -- was to force Saddam out, those sanctions continued despite the destruction of the proscribed weapons, continued by dint of US influence at the UN, under Bill Clinton. Continued despite their utter failure to dislodge Sadddam. Continued at a price to the Iraqi people of an estimated million and a half dead including half a million children. So who are the child-killing monsters in this world? And what countries are in desperate need of regime change? Speak to me of irony. Best, Jeff Davis "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Mike15007 at aol.com Sat Dec 17 08:49:33 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:49:33 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming Message-ID: <2c8.54da53.30d52b1d@aol.com> In a message dated 12/16/2005 1:40:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wingcat at pacbell.net writes: As to Mike's idea of sunshade and oscillators - the problem is that constructing things that large wouldn't be as quick as simply launching a rocket with existing warheads to Venus. Although, even the combined power of every nuclear weapon currently on Earth probably wouldn't be enough to significantly alter Venus's spin anyway. (Or would it?) It wouldn't. The combined power of every nuke ever made by Humans is a fraction of a percent the energy of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and that rock was "only" several km in diameter max. And I didn't say "oscillators." Rather, the immense solar reflectors at Sol-Venus L4, L5, and maybe L2, pivot back and forth in place, while holding their overall position relative to Venus. So the beam of reflected sunlight from each reflector alternately hits or misses Venus. It'll look odd, like a series of small suns lighting-up and going-off periodically, while remaining almost stationary in the sky (Venus does rotate, albeit slowly). But this is the best method I could think of for *simulating* an Earth-like day-night cycle on Venus satisfactorily (I hope - Haven't run every sim yet!) without hitting Venus with something *really big* to alter its spin or putting lotsa huge rockets all around its equator. And yes, launching a rocket (or a bunch of them) at Venus would be fairly quick. But how quickly would these get the job we want done (the important thing), and would this screw-up Venus worse, more than it makes it more habitable. There's also the problem of making the radiator fins out of something that can transfer heat well but also stand up to sulfuric acid and intense weather. Glass is the usual container for sulfuric acid in labs, but glass is often not the strongest structural material. (And if you just have a glass coating, the weather could crack it, letting the acid at what's underneath.) Remember also that a lightweight substance would make the whole mission easier to perform - easier to ship to Venus. Never said it would be easy. There should be something that'll work. Buckytube (with a thin, acid-resistant coating if necessary) would do for structure. Light and as strong as we're going to get with materials we have now or may have available soon. There's also the problem of radiating heat in space: vacuum makes a good insulator. Can't do anything about this. But future spacecraft, with advanced power plants (nuclear, fusion, antimatter, etc) will likely have to have huge radiator fins. And with the sunshade blocking all sunlight to Venus, it should cool off *eventually* (Never said this would take less than a current Human lifetime) anyway. A Venus-diameter sunshade at the Venus-Sun L1 point would probably be easier to build - and therefore faster to get into place. I wonder if this faster-ness would offset the slower speed of removing Venus's heat. If the Sun were completely blocked off, how long would it take Venus to radiate enough heat that the atmospheric temperature would drop to something near Earth normal? (Overlooking, for now, the problems of Venus's geology and atmospheric composition and pressure, some of which problems look like they might go away by themselves if the temperature were reduced.) Dunno. But if the sunshade is easy to produce and emplace, the reflectors (which are structures not a lot more complicated) shouldn't be much moreso. The radiator fins lowered into the atmosphere will likely be the biggest challenge, admittedly. Hey, terraforming any planet will not be a project for anyone who likes instant gratification easily! Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 10:54:32 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:54:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512162036s5ab2cd0exaa211d2e7d136f56@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> <7641ddc60512162036s5ab2cd0exaa211d2e7d136f56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 12/16/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > > I think Vinge needs to come to grips with the potential of a localizer > > net for misuse by facist governments. I don't know what his politics > > are but this description makes it sound like this threat is somewhat > > being whitewashed and government presented solely as a benevolent force. > > > ### Somebody who wrote "Peacewar", "The Ungoverned" and "Marooned in > Realtime", unless suffering from advanced dementia, would be unlikely > to see the government as a benevolent force. The review probably > conceals more than it reveals. > > I started becoming an anarchocapitalist only after reading these three > books. Hehe... you're not the only one. "The Ungoverned" was my first exposure to the term anarcho-capitalism (although I'd been exposed to the concepts a little via Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and Diamond Age), and I've been quite interested in it ever since. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Sat Dec 17 12:35:24 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:35:24 -0600 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051217082452.37490.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > From: Jeff Davis > --- Joseph Bloch > wrote: > > > The irony here is, they would not be able to decide > > that, if we had not > > overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under > > the jackboot of > > Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would > > still be in operation. > > People would still be thrown living into plastic > > shredders... head-first > > if the death was to be merciful. > > No, the irony here is that Saddam's atrocities were of > no interest to you when he was the US ruling elite's > pal (against the Iranian's) in the eighties, when > Rumsfeld was glad-handing him, and the US corporations > were selling him the precursors for the WMD's he was > using to fill up those mass graves with Iranian > corpses that you never gave a damn about, and Iraqi > corpses that you are now so very very shocked to learn > about, and which the US power elite, as Saddam's Again someone like Jeff posts the "common knowledge" that is JUST WRONG. It is so tiring when people fail to see through such propaganda and bithely repeat it. The US WANTED to support Iraq against Iran in those days when the main enemy was the still vital and threatening, but was unable to stomach Soddam and his behavior and so stood aside mostly during the war with Iran. As to precursors, these are the same chemicals that are used in agriculture as pesticides and are also equipement and stocks used in pharmaceuticals -- in those days Saddam had not (yet) shown his prediliction for GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE and developing other weapons of mass destruction BY THE TON (and long since admitted by Saddam.) The major exception, aid actually given by the US during this time, was limited access to satellite intelligence given largely when Iran threatened to overrun Iraq. Doubt this? Then merely review the weapons used by Saddam's Iraq: Russian tanks and armored vehicles French and Russian fighter aircraft French and Chinese Missiles Soviet block small arms The US was NOT a major supporter of Saddam despite the lies you have heard and may even have fallen into the habit of repeating. The attempts to change history in order to rehabilitate the murderer Saddam are just plain disgusting. Any argument against removing Saddam most devolve down eventually to: THe world would be better off if this murderer were never removed from power so the US should just leave Iraq and return Saddam to power. What a crock. -- Herb Martin From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 13:14:09 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17557088%255E5001986,00.html > > Singularly fanciful > Andres Vaccari [snip] Also central to Kurzweil's argument is the notion that our minds can be > copied into computers built in the image of the brain. This runs up > against > gigantic problems and relies on several unproven assumptions. The > information sciences have sparked the mystic belief that everything is > made > of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity can be separated from > the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the brain. This is a curious > technological rewriting of the notion of the individual soul, transcendent > from embodiment. It may be a reassuring story but there's no evidence to > support it. Kurzweil believes the simulation of intelligence (or > consciousness, he can't see the difference) is a matter of fast processing > power. "Soul" has nothing to do with it and he is misusing the term. From at least one dictionary, "soul" - "the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life". Kurzweil is *not* postulating anything immaterial. He is simply pointing out that the hardware (material) required to support the "essence" or "animation" can be changed. Sounds like Andres is attached to the "romantic" notion that "oneself" *has* to be tied to a specific hardware instantiation. And as someone who wrote a simulator for a PDP-10 that ran on a PDP-11 (mind you somewhat slowly) I would significantly question any assumption that links "essence" to "hardware". And he has some ideas on how to handle > the accompanying strain on economic and natural resources: nanobots will > produce all the energy we need, cheaply and in an environmentally > sustainable manner. And the oil giants needn't worry, as the nanobots will > clean the environment too. Hand waving with no substantive argument as to *why* this will not be the case or what the actual limits *really* are. Kurzweil at least takes a stab at what the actual limits are but I think there are ultimately problems with his approach (more on this if I someday actually finish TSIN). For most of its history, technology has remained inseparable from religion, > illusionism and magical thinking. Things haven't changed much and modern > science and technology continue to inspire beliefs as baroque as anything > concocted by our forebears. The road to the uncertain future is littered > with the carcasses of brave new worlds that never were. Fails to distinguish between hopes & dreams which violated hard laws of science (or were made before those laws were discovered) and those which are in general agreement with those laws. So far, the only reliable law of futurism was pronounced by J.G. Ballard: > "If enough people predict something, it won't happen." An interesting quote but one with no facts in evidence (unless one wants to limit it to predictions which violate physical laws). The review is an interesting summary of Ray's perspective but provides nothing substantive to indicate real flaws in the argument. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 17 13:35:30 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:35:30 -0500 Subject: Vinge's politics/was Re: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End References: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> Message-ID: <006601c6030e$c02ae560$3c893cd1@pavilion> On Friday, December 16, 2005 5:44 PM Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote: > I think Vinge needs to come to grips with the > potential of a localizer net for misuse by facist > governments. I don't know what his politics > are but this description makes it sound like > this threat is somewhat being whitewashed > and government presented solely as a > benevolent force. Vinge is generally touted as a libertarian and some knowledge of libertarian thought seems present in many of his stories, including "The Ungoverned." That story is set in an anarchocapitalist society. Of course, merely having libertarian settings or characters who hold libertarian views does not mean that the author must be a libertarian. Case in point is his introduction to the same story, where it seems while he might be a libertarian, he's definitely skeptical of anarchist variants of libertarianism. That might put him in the minarchist camp of libertarianism or might mean he's merely a libertarian sympathizer. (Michael Flynn, who I met about a decade ago, seems to be a libertarian sympathizer and not a libertarian.) I agree with your concerns about the technology. It seems akin to what Bruce Sterling calls an "enforcement technology," one which helps to increase domination. (Is there an easy way to categorize technologies? No because it depends on context.) I'm not sure if Vinge is taking the stance you attribute to him. It could be that the blurb gets something wrong. It could be also that Vinge's convictions and those projected in his stories are two different things. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 13:52:59 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:52:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <0cd501c6029b$861fdf60$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <003601c60311$313fa5e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> If the United Nations would have developed as a just and courageous vehicle for the upholding of international law and resolving differences peacefully and fairly, Americans might have given the UN dissenting opinions to the war a lot more weight. As we found out, they are just a group of corrupt representatives all with their country's and individual hands out. Had the oil for food fiasco not happened, Americans might feel a lot differently even repentant about not listening to them. Regardless of whether we went to war for the right reasons or not the UN at large was on Sadam's payroll. For most Americans now the United Nations and international now is a sad joke. We have quite enough corruption to root out in our own government. I don't think we need to complicate our decisions and foot the bill besides for an international organization more concerned with lining it's pockets than preventing genocide in the world. Most Americans have a pretty strong moral compass. For an international body to have major influence over us it must be above reproach. Recent events at the UN also make it appear very cowardly as a military or peacekeeping force. I for one think Sadam should have been removed due to the atrocities committed on his people. One would have hoped the Iraqi people would have all came together and embraced each other as a country and cherished this chance at democracy and a better way of life we have given them. And I too would like us to return to Extropian topics. Everyone has already analyzed this to death and came to their own understanding right or wrong on these issues long ago. If I or anyone else think they are going to change anyone's minds on what they already have come to decide on this topic, I think they're living in a dream world. >> I think your nation state of America has become the single greatest threat to extropy in the world because your countrymen have been so complacent in regard to their responsibilities to their fellow human beings that they have allowed successive US Presidential administrations to increasingly flagrantly undermine the basis of international laws established for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 14:11:30 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: <2c8.54da53.30d52b1d@aol.com> References: <2c8.54da53.30d52b1d@aol.com> Message-ID: Terraforming Chapter 7 has about 70 pages on the "The Terraforming of Venus". It has a few pages on the use of nuclear explosions to deflect asteroids. This is being studied more extensively in Europe right now as they are taking a long term interest in the possible need to deflect NEOs which might intersect with Earth. Thoughts in this area in the U.S. seem to involve using a "net" to snare the asteroid/meteorite and dragging it to alter its course. The problem revolves around how tightly packed individual asteroids/meteorites are. Most (large) inner solar system bodies condensed out of molten material which tends to facilitate chemical reactions that bonds small molecules together forming "solid" rock or sufficient gravitational compression that one gets similar effects (e.g. granite, marble, sandstone, etc.). It isn't clear that many/most small bodies in the solar system (asteroids & meteorites) would have the same cohesiveness (and so nuclear explosions would result in fragmentation rather than deflection). However, you are thinking so "old school". Terraforming was written in '94, only 2 years after Nanosystems was published and there is little or no application of nanotechnology to the concept of terraforming (Zubrin largely makes the same mistake in TCFM though he comes closer when he discusses using material from Mars to produce large SPS). I do not believe that sulfuric acid would create any significant impact on either diamondoid or sapphire nanorobots. If you have read any of the MBrain work you have to question the wisdom of returning *any* material back into the bottom of a gravity well. Use the uranium in the nuclear weapons to build nuclear reactors that provide the power to produce Gadolinium-148 to power nuclear nanorobots which could simply sort out the H2SO4 molecules from the atmosphere. One strategy might be to put down the minimal mass of nuclear nanorobots that can start constructing bases for buckycable based space elevators (converting atmospheric CO2 -> nanotube cables + O2). As you process the CO2 one can presumably sort out the H2SO4 molecules and convert them into H2O + S + O2. Sulfur is largely only a trace element in most nanomachinery so you probably end up with piles of the stuff. Once you have the atmosphere "clear" you can more easily beam SPS based power down to the surface to power the mining nanorobots to strip the planet of any mineral bound carbon (CaCO3 =limestone) so you can hoist it back into space. Silicon probably gets stripped as well for solar cells in the SPS solar cell arrays [1]. One is probably left with a planet consisting of mostly iron and an O2 atmosphere. If there is any amount of water left around this probably results in the conversion of the surface into hematite (rust). It is worth noting that robbing the planet of carbon probably makes it useless from the perspective of plants (at least those based on currently known biochemistry). The entire discussion (that I've seen thus far) assumes that one wants to terraform a planet in the first place. Seems questionable to me -- lets go create more habitats at the bottom of gravity wells making rather poor use of the easily available resources rather than engineer lifeforms that don't require gravity and/or make optimal use of the resources at our disposal. Robert P.S. I've got *two* copies of Terraforming... :-) Someday I'll probably put it online but it is unlikely to be anytime soon. 1. The beaming of power from SPS to the surface with microwaves can be tricky because various molecules in the atmosphere could absorb the microwaves which would make the atmosphere hotter, not cooler. You could manage this by selecting microwave frequencies that don't have this effect but I don't know what the frequencies would be given the materials one would have on hand for the building the transmitters and receivers for the power. This entire area would require some research. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Dec 17 17:25:39 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:25:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc><001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer> <0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > It wasn't just an idea, it was an action. An inherently > dishonourable action I realize that,... now. It was dishonorable not because it broke some mythical thing called "international law" but because it was based on something that was untrue, the entire Weapons of Mass Destruction crap. I don't know if they were lying or if they really believed that load of putrid shit. And I don't know which is more disturbing either. > You weren't *seeing* the real gameboard and the importance of > international law And I don't see the importance of international law to this day. People forget but at one time it looked like Bush had a good chance of getting UN approval for the war; if he wasn't such a bumbling diplomat it could very well have happened. But if that had happened would you now be saying good things about Bush? I wouldn't because Iraq would still be a horrible mess. Or suppose Bush invaded without the UN seal of approval but he found loads of weapons of mass destruction just as he said he would, and the Iraqi people really did greet American soldiers as liberators, and today Iraq was peaceful free and prosperous; would you still say bad things about Bush? I wouldn't. John K Clark From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 17:46:39 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:46:39 +0000 Subject: Extropian politics/was Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <022201c601f4$f2175060$21893cd1@pavilion> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> <022201c601f4$f2175060$21893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > . > I agree. That said, though, what political system do you -- any of > you -- think is most conducive to increasing extropy? What can be done > inside existing political systems to increase extropy? Nationalism ie the system whereby global regulatory laws cannot be enforced against the most poowerful nations. Hence, no global bans on any tech that shows signs of paying off bigtime. So, while the US Xian Right might try and force a global ban on such tech as cloning and stem cell research, they cannot enforce it worldwide. Most esp because of Europe and China. Different peoples, different ethics, different laws. And inside existing systems, push for decentralisation of power coupled with the decoupling of politics and morality. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 17 17:56:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:56:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051217114600.01e1e738@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:14 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: >The review is an interesting summary of Ray's perspective but provides >nothing substantive to indicate real flaws in the argument. I hope it was obvious I regarded this as a loony and incompetent review, as badly so as some egregious pro-"Intelligent Design" or pro-Leon Kass review. I posted it here because the Weekend Australian newspaper is a big frog in a comparatively small pond, but one that most people on the extropy list would not otherwise know of, or see. It's important to be reminded that this kind of response crops up even in far-flung Australia. Andres Vaccari, the reviewer, doesn't feel any need to *argue* why Kurzweil is wrong. I see this sort of shrugging evasion in most of the unfavorable reviews. For trivial example, I can't imagine what he thinks he's saying when he decries the claim that "modern warfare claims fewer casualties thanks to more accurate weapons." What's he comparing this with, hitting each other with sticks and rocks? As somebody commented here yesterday: "Some 20,000 paratroops were EXPECTED to be sacrificed on D-Day just to distract the Germans from the beaches of Normandy, and more troops were lost in a practice run a few weeks before the Normandy invasion." Granted, that ignores the civilians, but civilian casualties are surely lower now than in the days of carpet bombing. And so on. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 18:18:33 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:18:33 -0800 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <0d8601c602d2$85756990$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512171820.jBHIKXe16717@tick.javien.com> >RE: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis I am pleased in a way that a majority of Iraqis say that the US was not right to invade. That means they will cheer when the US devades, or exvades. (What is it called when we go away? I call it the start of the fourth Iraqi war, and good luck to the Iraqis in that one.) > ...Anymore than you know that Iran or other countries didn't > become more hostile and more likely to want to harm > Americans... Brett Paatsch If you read the yankee newspapers, it sounds like the Iranians are hostile to the Europeans more than the US. Of course our press lies, so I don't know if the Iranian president really did say Israel should be wiped off the map or that the holocaust never happened. But if he did say these things, it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets into a shooting war with the EU. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/index.html In all this reprehensible bluster, the Iranian prez does make one interesting point: the Europeans slew the Jews, so why was Israel established in Palestine instead of Germany? I don't have the answer to that one. Perhaps if Israel had been established elsewhere besides Palestine, there would not be the one thing on which pretty much all Arabs agree: a hatred for the Jews and Israel. So without them, the Arab world would be pretty much constantly at war with itself and it would scarcely make mention in the newspapers here, any more than it did in those years that Iran and Iraq were fighting each other back in the 80s. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 19:22:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:22:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ as a function of political philosophy (was TheNeoCon Mind-Trick) In-Reply-To: <20051217062927.16611.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512171924.jBHJO0e22513@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > > > There was a clear positive correlation between the > > average IQs of states that voted Democrat in the > > 2004... We can't get at the average IQ for states unfortunately. There are just too few who take IQ tests, and even those tests are suspect. Let us admit it, those who like to take IQ tests (that would be us) tend to be oddball characters. > "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid > people, it is nevertheless undeniable that practically > all stupid people are conservative." > John Stuart Mill Hmm, I wonder what John Stuart Mill's political persuasion might be? {8^D Of course if sufficiently stupid, their political leaning is irrelevant, for they are unable to find the polling place, or once there, they accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. We can suppose it depends on one's frame of reference. In my admittedly insular world, I go to work, those I see there are nearly uniformly conservative and smart. On those occasions when I am at home sick, turn on Oprah, the audience is nearly uniformly liberal and profoundly stupid. So Mill's comment works just as well if reversed, or better in my world. ... > ... I'm looking for something like ETS > or SAT scores, but where the test takers are also > identified by some red/blue, lib/con, left/right > metric...Data anyone? Best, Jeff Davis Jeff I have been looking around for this kind of stuff, but my efforts have been so consistently thwarted it appears to be intentional. I suspect a vast both-wings conspiracy. {8^D My earlier post concerning red state/blue state correlation with SAT scores is invalid, for I determined the smartness of a state by its average SAT scores corrected for percentage participating. This signal is defeated however by the fact that some states require a different test than the SAT. I went to theology school in Tennessee, where they required the ACT. I proudly showed them my sparkly 540/790 on the SAT but it didn't buy me a cup of coffee ("Look at this, I'm a freaking genius!" {8^D Sorry pal, get in line, take the ACT. {8-[ ) It might still be possible to do these kinds of studies however, if we can get all the states' SAT, ACT and any other college entrance test scores along with percent participating, convert the raw scores to percentiles, then do the same trick I did before. Of course the results are much shakier than a nice clean simple SAT by state corrected for percent participating. But it does point to another interesting result: my own simple analysis is overturned, but so is the controversial studies by Murray and Herrnstein of the Bell Curve fame. If we cannot get at this data, they could not either. Damien introduced an interesting angle on this last time around. He suggested that students themselves might be motivated to intentionally defeat classification by test scores, especially if the high school requires taking college entrance exams even for non-college-bound students. I can easily imagine the counter-culture types reading thru the test and intentionally picking out the most absurd answers. Or simply showing up, signing the test and walking out. It would only require a few such students to mess up the statistics. My conclusion at this point is that it might be theoretically possible to show that red/blue states are smarter/dumber, but it hasn't been done yet, and it isn't clear how to do it. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 19:29:42 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:29:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letter concerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051217065317.93382.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > > A playground sneer won't kill ~100,000+2150 and > counting, loot the treasury of 200-and-counting > billion dollars, destroy the promise and reputation of > a great nation, and make its political elite the next > in line for the dock in the Hague. > > Best, Jeff Davis On the Iraq war question, Kerry didn't differentiate himself from W in the 2004 election, even when repeatedly pressed to do so. That's what I recall. Did others hear differently? We had two nearly indistinguishable hawks screeching at each other last time. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 19:35:35 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:35:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ as a function of political philosophy (was The NeoCon Mind-Trick) In-Reply-To: <20051217062927.16611.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051217062927.16611.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:29:27 -0500, Jeff Davis wrote: > With all the religious fundamentalists rejecting > science in favor of "revealed truth", neglecting their > thinking skills in favor of their uncritical believing > "skills", I figure they've got to be skewing > themselves down some. > > It's an hypothesis. Data anyone? As I reported in another message, the Fordham Institute recently published report cards evaluating each state's science standards for K-12, grading them A to F. http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352 I compared the gradings to the political map of red-blue states and each state's electoral college votes. States with 'A' grades - red/blue - ev CA Strong Blue 55 MA Strong Blue 12 NY Strong Blue 31 ev = 98 NM Barely Red 5 VA Weak Red 13 SC Strong Red 8 IN Strong Red 11 ev = 37 States with 'F' grades - red/blue - ev OR Barely Blue 7 WI Barely Blue 10 NH Barely Blue 4 HI Weak Blue 4 ev = 25 ID Strong Red 4 WY Strong Red 3 MT Strong Red 3 NE Strong Red 5 KS Strong Red 6 OK Strong Red 7 TX Strong Red 34 MS Strong Red 8 AL Strong Red 9 FL Weak Red 27 AK Strong Red 3 ev =109 If your state's science standards received an 'F' grade then there is an 81% probability that your electoral vote was for Bush. If your state's science standards received an 'A' grade then there is a 76% probability that your electoral college vote was for Kerry. This does not prove religious fundmentalism as the cause of poor science standards. However it is noteworthy that most of the failing states are red and located in the bible belt, and that Fordham (rightly, imo) penalizes states that don't teach evolution. Unfortunately it is difficult to determine exactly scientifically ignorant one is likely to be after graduating high school in a failing state. There are no science achievement tests for high school graduates. The closest test is probably the ACT, aministered near the end of high school, but participation is sparce and varies widely from state to state. -gts From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Dec 17 20:02:21 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:02:21 -0800 Subject: Vinge's politics/was Re: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End In-Reply-To: <006601c6030e$c02ae560$3c893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: > On Friday, December 16, 2005 5:44 PM Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote: > > I think Vinge needs to come to grips with the > > potential of a localizer net for misuse by facist > > governments. I don't know what his politics > > are but this description makes it sound like > > this threat is somewhat being whitewashed > > and government presented solely as a > > benevolent force. If you read A Deepness in the Sky, you'll see he's quite explicit about it; in that novel, ubiquitous law enforcement - or even simple centralization of power - built atop localizer nets and related automation is understood and demonstrated to be the doom of civilizations. Reason From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 20:15:20 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] thinking back to the Gemini program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051217201520.60980.qmail@web35707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The source of my cynicism goes back to the Gemini space program, at that time there was a feeling even for children that anything was possible, we'd go on to Apollo and then not too much later mars would be colonized. "Mars base by 2010"; "cancer vaccine by 1990", and so forth. It was a decade of hype. Several years later the 'back to nature' movement-- and it was a movement and more, it was religious in fact-- kicked in, the weltanshauung changed. It had a profound affect on some of us. Today I am very chary of predictions of any sort. The Mideast? It is up for grabs. We might end up with armaggedon or perhaps with a region less violent yet even more bizarre, say, with streetvendors selling designer drugs and porn; organ harvesters kidnapping tourists; while criminals get their hands chopped off for bank robbery. Women might still be drowned & stoned to death for adultery or driving motor vehicles without permits. No war but instead a hideous gtouping of societies. The future in the Mideast is unfathomable. What enrages me concerning antiwar protesters is the hardline leftwing radicals secretly want to sacrifice others for their outdated causes, however they don't like innocent children being collateral casualties. Look, I grew up in the New Left, the many radicals that were around at that time, some still alive today, were a mixed bag; some were sincerely dedicated to peace & justice; some wanted revenge or merely to kill (often there is no real reasoning, just an uncomplicated bloodlust). Some radicals want only to argue the points to learn something or even just only for the sake of argument. gts wrote: On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:29:27 -0500, Jeff Davis wrote: > With all the religious fundamentalists rejecting > science in favor of "revealed truth", neglecting their > thinking skills in favor of their uncritical believing > "skills", I figure they've got to be skewing > themselves down some. > > It's an hypothesis. Data anyone? As I reported in another message, the Fordham Institute recently published report cards evaluating each state's science standards for K-12, grading them A to F. http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352 I compared the gradings to the political map of red-blue states and each state's electoral college votes. States with 'A' grades - red/blue - ev CA Strong Blue 55 MA Strong Blue 12 NY Strong Blue 31 ev = 98 NM Barely Red 5 VA Weak Red 13 SC Strong Red 8 IN Strong Red 11 ev = 37 States with 'F' grades - red/blue - ev OR Barely Blue 7 WI Barely Blue 10 NH Barely Blue 4 HI Weak Blue 4 ev = 25 ID Strong Red 4 WY Strong Red 3 MT Strong Red 3 NE Strong Red 5 KS Strong Red 6 OK Strong Red 7 TX Strong Red 34 MS Strong Red 8 AL Strong Red 9 FL Weak Red 27 AK Strong Red 3 ev =109 If your state's science standards received an 'F' grade then there is an 81% probability that your electoral vote was for Bush. If your state's science standards received an 'A' grade then there is a 76% probability that your electoral college vote was for Kerry. This does not prove religious fundmentalism as the cause of poor science standards. However it is noteworthy that most of the failing states are red and located in the bible belt, and that Fordham (rightly, imo) penalizes states that don't teach evolution. Unfortunately it is difficult to determine exactly scientifically ignorant one is likely to be after graduating high school in a failing state. There are no science achievement tests for high school graduates. The closest test is probably the ACT, aministered near the end of high school, but participation is sparce and varies widely from state to state. -gts _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 20:38:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512172040.jBHKeBe30095@tick.javien.com> Wooooohooooo! {8^D The primenet may have discovered a new record breaking Mersenne prime, number 43. It waits to be verified of course, which will take about 3 to 4 weeks. But each time it has reached this stage before, it has been proven correct. If true, this has been a hell of a year for mathematically-oriented humanity. {8-] Interesting note: this one is probably still not at the ten million digit mark, which is worth $100k-bucks to the discoverer, but rather more likely around 8 to 9 million digits. So if anyone wants to take a shot at the 100k, you know what to do, or if not, google on primenet, mersenne, or just go here, read and do: http://www.mersenne.org/ips/ spike From riel at surriel.com Sat Dec 17 20:54:18 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:54:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> <04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Technotranscendence wrote: > Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can use technologies > like nuclear weapons in self-defense. Private "militaries" have been nothing but trouble in countries where they are common, eg. Somalia, Colombia, southern Russia. Having too much power without checks and balances is bound to lead to several cases of abuse... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 21:42:02 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:42:02 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) References: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > ... >> >> A playground sneer won't kill ~100,000+2150 and >> counting, loot the treasury of 200-and-counting >> billion dollars, destroy the promise and reputation of >> a great nation, and make its political elite the next >> in line for the dock in the Hague. >> >> Best, Jeff Davis > > > On the Iraq war question, Kerry didn't differentiate > himself from W in the 2004 election, even when repeatedly > pressed to do so. That's what I recall. Did others hear > differently? We had two nearly indistinguishable hawks > screeching at each other last time. Yes, Kerry was as far apart from Bush as you and John are from me on the war. He was as much in advance on Bush on the war as he was on stem cells. This is not a Democrat/Republican or left right split. It might be a levels of moral reasoning split. I suspect it probably is. See Kohlbergs levels of moral reasoning via Google if you want to see what I mean. I haven't spell checked Kohlberg but its phonetically correct. Lower levels of moral reasoning see less nuance. Saddly in the current world things are sufficiently complex that folk can genuinely think they are morally in the right and are acting for extropy and the progress of humanity and actually be doing the exact opposite because they do not have the ability to see the important distinctions. Lower levels see less of the whole decision tree and are biased towards their position on it. One of the problems I face when talking about the war is that I don't know if the folk I am talking too can hold enough of the tree, the complextity in their heads. People think I am going over the same stuff over and over but they aren't seeing the nuance. To a child there is only the good guys and the bad guys. And they are always the good guys. Morally reasoning above that level is boring and repetitive to a child they just want the authority figure or parent to adjudicate in their favour and then go play with their toys. We could talk about politics and the war and why America will lose the war on terror and why it was inevitable that it would loose from the outset but folk that don't have the ability to see all aspects won't get it. International law and game theory are key aspects. History and what has been done in the past are key aspects. Being able to undress propaganda, unspin spin and recognize ones own biases are key aspects. Anyway this is a diversion but I needed to say it Spike. I like you but I think the reason you can't see the difference between Kerry and Bush is that you are probably not smart enough. Of course, someone might object and say but hey Brett how do you know that it is you that is the one that is not smart enough. And I would reply that I can fully understand the arguments all the arguments that you have made and can walk through them showing the branches on the tree but to do so takes time and many branches on the tree look like other branches of the tree and for observers all they would see is reiterations of branches with more of those boring leaves and twigs over and over. Anyway I have until the 22nd so I will persist with trying to moral reason at the risk of boring the majority until then. Brett Paatsch From HerbM at learnquick.com Sat Dec 17 22:02:57 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:02:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: > Anyway this is a diversion but I needed to say it > Spike. I like you but I think the reason you can't > see the difference between Kerry and Bush is > that you are probably not smart enough. > No, more likely the reason he can't see the different with Kerry is that he only heard (or remembered) a portion of the positions that Kerry took since Kerry managed to take every possible position, sometimes within the same utterance. Agree with Bush or not, you know where he stands; Kerry only stood for Bush. As to moral levels we must assume that anyone with the big picture you tout can see the good in freeing 25,000,000 people from the murderous regime of Saddam and the value in moving the entire middle east towards democratic governments even if they don't happen to agree politically with Bush, or care about the war on terrorism, or like the US. Freeing 25,000,000 trumps pretty much any of your petty squabbling and attempts to re-write history. The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require Saddam to comply. No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it remained the controlling resolution -- understood by all who voted as authorizing force. So unless you wish to see those 25,000,000 re-enslaved by Saddam it is time to learn to see the BIG PICTURE and realize that no matter what you petty political feelings this was a VERY GOOD THING. -- Herb Martin From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 22:46:02 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:46:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051217224602.49397.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Liberating Iraq is good, is great-- however the caveat is we don't know at all whether Iraqis will STAY free, that's my message. Again no one knows what will happen in Iraq or the region. No one. Don't write as if it is a done deal. We're asking residents of the region to move from feudalism to something more like the West, that is going to be touch & go, we will know reversals. BTW look what happened to the Soviets: they attempted to go from medevalism to the twentieth century in a few decades; so let's not make the same mistake with Iraq. Let's give it a long, long long time. >As to moral levels we must assume that anyone with >the big picture you tout can see the good in freeing >25,000,000 people from the murderous regime of Saddam >Freeing 25,000,000 trumps pretty much any of your >petty squabbling and attempts to re-write history. nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 22:50:18 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:50:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051217225018.72391.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17557088%255E5001986,00.html > > Singularly fanciful > Andres Vaccari > December 17, 2005 > > The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend > Biology > By Ray Kurzeil, > Viking, 652pp, %59.95 > > OUR bodies will soon be obsolete. Genetic > engineering, smart drugs and > nanotechnology will reverse the ageing process and > make us immortal. > Machines will do the unpleasant work for us, > producing all the energy we > need. We will download our minds into powerful > computers and become > superintelligent, disembodied beings. We will be > able to change bodies at > will and inhabit virtual worlds of our making. > > And all of this will happen in our lifetime, for we > are approaching the > Singularity: a point at which scientific advance > will happen so fast that > technology will become indistinguishable from magic. > This is the picture of > the future presented in Ray Kurzweil's The > Singularity is Near. A renowned > inventor and entrepreneur, Kurzweil is a leading > voice of the extropian (or > transhuman) movement, which preaches that we are on > the threshold of a > golden age of techno-supermen. > > Unsurprisingly, extropianism is largely an American > phenomenon, combining > two potent traditions: Christian millenarianism Mr. Vaccari knows what Christian Millenarianism is. I don't. Maybe he's right, or maybe he's projecting his own meme set. > and > the cult of technology. "Cult" of technology?! Well, okay, maybe technophiles have an over-the-top irrational exuberance where technology is concerned. And since we're talking about the future -- the inherently unknown "yet-to-be" -- some of the error to be found in predictions may take the form of "more" or "faster" (rarely if ever the former, consistently the latter). But the term "cult" gives away his game: an anti-transhumanistic smackdown. (As we shall see, based on linking the >H vision to conservatism/fascism, a contradiction, considering that technology is the driving force of change, the natural antagonist of the status quo.) > This enthusiastic brand of futurism may appear > harmless, charming even, but > it has an ugly side. And guess who will, on this occasion, be the St. George on his white horse to take a turn at slaying the dragon, or if not slay, make harsh comments and scornful looks. > > Kurzweil's central belief is that technological and > scientific progress is > exponential. That is, science and technology do not > only improve, but the > rate of progress also accelerates, tending towards > infinity, at which point > we will experience "an expansion of human > intelligence by a factor of > trillions through merger with its non-biological > form". A variation on the > Enlightenment myth Is science and technology really "mythical"? > of rational progress, Kurzweil's > model departs from a > restricted notion of technology (basically, > processing power). In the final > analysis, it is based on a bad inference. > > Kurzweil's technological determinism is equally > myopic. > The political and > social environment that shapes the nature and > direction of technology is > completely missing from his picture. Here's the secret thesis,...and fundamental error. He's got it backwards. Technology does the shaping. Through the ages, from the random "shaping" of "biotechnology" by evolution which gave us perception, consciousness, thought, and speech, from which bright legacy we moved on to fire, tools, agriculture, civilization, and finally the non-mythical enlightenment innovation we refer to as science (with a nod to the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans who set us well down that path thousands of years earlier). > Technology is > neither an autonomous > force nor an outgrowth or continuation of biological > evolution. Repeating the mistake makes it true. Not. > The recent > debacle concerning AIDS drugs for Africa underscores > the fact technology > means nothing in the face of political unwillingness > and the profit motive. Some "biotech" needs to be reconfigured. Specifically tribalism and greed. Cleaning up that mess is clearly on the >H agenda. But no amount of lynch mob logic can make technology culpable for the dark side of our biological legacy. > Life extension can be granted now to most of the > world's disadvantaged with > remarkably low-tech means, such as food and cheap > medicines. > > An entrenched political conservatism underlies the > transhuman vision of the future. An old -- and ridiculously contradictory -- canard, mayhap arising from a sense of inadequacy in the face of math/science, envy of nerd power, and/or the long history of fascist rantings on the Extro list by the likes of... > Social change is not necessary for Kurzweil, > since it will be > precipitated by the inherent acceleration of > technological progress Got that right. > and driven by the free market model. Without the connection to dark politics, Vaccari's thesis dries up and disappears into the mist, so as he rounds the clubhouse turn and heads for the finish line watch for him to ring that bell repeatedly. > Today's machines represent the principles of the > neo-liberal economy, Clang! > just > as in the 16th century the mechanical clock embodied > the values of the > monarchic state. Clang! > Robots and computer systems > "self-organise", just like > selfish individuals under the invisible hand of the > market. Clang! > > And technology gets better and cheaper all the time, > so that eventually it > will trickle down to the poorest people, just like > capital does in right-wing economics. Clang! > The Singularity, Kurzweil > tells us, is an economic > imperative. Like human knowledge, economic growth is > also exponential and > the market will become the main engine of future > change. We will not only > be immortal but filthy rich. Clang! Clang! Clang! > > Incredibly, Kurzweil argues that factories and farm > jobs in the US have > dropped from 60per cent to 6 per cent because of > automation; no mention of > Third World sweatshops or corporate outsourcing and > downsizing. Clang,clang,clang,clang,clang!!!!! > He even > argues that modern warfare claims fewer casualties > thanks to more accurate > weapons. We should mention that Kurzweil is an > adviser to the US military > and sits on the board of directors of Seegrid, a > robotics company (founded > by fellow extropian Hans Moravec) that subcontracts > to the US Army. Clang! Bang! Clang! Bang! Ratatatatat! > This may explain the absence of ethical concerns in his > discussion of the military applications of new technology. Kaboom! > > Also central to Kurzweil's argument is the notion > that our minds can be > copied into computers built in the image of the > brain. This runs up against > gigantic problems and relies on several unproven > assumptions. The > information sciences have sparked the mystic belief > that everything is made > of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity > can be separated from > the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the > brain. This is a curious > technological rewriting of the notion of the > individual soul, transcendent > from embodiment. And they (the transhumanists) are atheistic God haters, too! > It may be a reassuring story but > there's no evidence to > support it. Kurzweil believes the simulation of > intelligence (or > consciousness, he can't see the difference) is a > matter of fast processing> power. > > But he is not speaking to our more rational > instincts. Though dressed in > the garb of science, these fantasies are addressed > mainly to the anxieties of ageing baby boomers. Could this be a projection of his own mortality-induced anxieties, or simply a pandering to those anxieties among his readership? > As governments of developed nations brace for an > imminent huge swell in the population of elderly and > retirees, this vision > of a future ruled by an army of narcissistic Narcissistic? Another hackneyed slam. When it's him, it's a healthy ego, rational self-interest, and self-esteem. When it's the transhumanists its greedy fascism, narcissism and self-absorption. > baby-boomer cyborgs sounds > like a bad joke. Kurzweil, however, feels naturally > entitled to the fruits > of the latest biomedical knowledge. And he has some > ideas on how to handle > the accompanying strain on economic and natural > resources: nanobots will > produce all the energy we need, cheaply and in an > environmentally > sustainable manner. And the oil giants needn't > worry, Clink! > as the nanobots will > clean the environment too. > > For most of its history, technology has remained > inseparable from religion, > illusionism and magical thinking. > Things haven't > changed much and modern > science and technology continue to inspire beliefs > as baroque as anything > concocted by our forebears. Transhumanists have no regard for the welfare of 'real' humans; they hate god; they are delusional mystics of the dark cult of technology. > The road to the > uncertain future is littered > with the carcasses of brave new worlds that never > were. > > So far, the only reliable law of futurism was > pronounced by J.G. Ballard: > "If enough people predict something, it won't > happen." It's all tribalism. Vaccari offers his creative product to his editor, who okays it for the readership. From ringside they watch the smackdown with jaded attention. Meme contests aren't nearly as rivetting as in-the-flesh gladiators, but they pay the rent, and that's what matters. Time and tide waits for no man. We shall see what we shall see. Be there or be square. Best, Jeff Davis Eternity is a long time, especially toward the end. Woody Allen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 23:13:27 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:13:27 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] a separate peace References: <20051215033418.44103.qmail@web35703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0f5601c6035f$7cc883d0$cd81e03c@homepc> Alan, unless you have changed your mind you might want to fill in the blanks and post it back to the list. You need to replace the X for an age in years for me, and to insert the state whose laws you want to apply, this would normally be the one in which you live and in which you assets reside. ------------ I Alan Brooks, hearby guarantee Brett Paatsch, that on or before the X th anniversary of his birth, he will, by his own reckoning, have attained inner peace through acceptance of the fact that nationalism and gross oppression will presist in concert until 1 July 2051. This pledge, on myself and my estate, is made pursuant to the laws relating to such promises in the state of [Insert-Alan-Brooks-state-here]. -------------- 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 17 23:24:58 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:24:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com> <0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051217171708.01cf6cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:42 AM 12/18/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >Anyway this is a diversion but I needed to say it >Spike. I like you but I think the reason you can't >see the difference between Kerry and Bush is >that you are probably not smart enough. Not... very... likely... Brett, he said judiciously. You do realize that Spike is a dinkie-di** rocket scientist? You did notice his recent post where he amusingly mentioned in passing that his SAT scores were 1330 out of a possible 1600 -- which, according to a web site, is approximately the equivalent of an IQ of 140. If it takes more intelligence than that to decide if there's a significant difference between Kerry and Bush, we're all fucked. In other words, political differences probably depend on factors other than raw intelligence. >Of course, someone might object and say but >hey Brett how do you know that it is you that >is the one that is not smart enough. Easily tested, Brett, what's your own IQ? Not that this is an overwhelmingly good measure of smartness, but it has a certain objectivity, better than trading insults. Damien Broderick **http://www.gigglepotz.com/auslang.htm From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 17 23:39:45 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:39:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proxmire has gone to the Golden Fleece in the sky Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051217173849.01e02040@pop-server.satx.rr.com> A Letter from Louis Friedman Executive Director of The Planetary Society On December 15 former Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin died at the age of 90. Proxmire was no friend of the space program, and in 1979 he gave one his famous "golden fleece" awards for wasteful government spending to NASA for its research in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). A few years later he was instrumental in stopping government support for SETI. But Proxmire also provided The Planetary Society with one of its greatest victories, and consequently earned the respect of Carl Sagan and the organization for his willingness to listen. In the early 1980s NASA's SETI program, known as the Microwave Observing Project (MOP), was gaining momentum. NASA Ames was preparing a targeted search, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was conducting preliminary work towards an all-sky survey. It all came to a sudden stop in 1982, when Proxmire led the Senate to discontinue all federal funding for SETI. The ban took effect just as a group of American scientists, led by SETI pioneers Frank Drake and Bernard Oliver, were about to set out to what was to be a seminal international conference in Tallinn, Estonia. Without the funds they could not go. Sagan said the newly-formed Planetary Society would help. Sagan contacted the Sloan Foundation and arranged for The Planetary Society to apply for a grant. The Society got the grant and saved American participation and funding for the conference. We also began raising funds from our members to support private SETI research, a practice we continue to this day. But at the same time, we began a series of meetings with Senator Proxmire's staff, which culminated in a couple of meetings between Sagan and the Senator. I was fortunate enough to have been a participant in one of them. Sagan explained SETI as a scientific topic and the radio astronomy techniques of listening for possible signals from an extraterrestrial civilization. He presented the Senator with the scientific rationale for SETI and the basis for the experimental approach. Proxmire never became totally convinced of the value of SETI, but he did admit it was not a "golden fleece." Most importantly, he agreed to look the other way when the next request for NASA funding for SETI came before the Congress. He did. NASA's SETI program was restored in 1983 and continued for another decade. The restoration of NASA's SETI program in the early 1980s allowed the Ames Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to build radio receivers and conduct SETI research. In October 1992 NASA launched the High Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS) -- a full-time SETI observation program. Less than a year later, the project was killed by a different Senator, who again initiated a Congressional ban on federal funding for SETI. This time the ban stuck, and all SETI activity became private. The restoration of NASA SETI in the 1980s was the Society's first political victory, which helped establish us both in Washington and in the space community. It was due in a large part to Carl Sagan's personal leadership and his ability to explain science. But it was also due to the willingness of a very skeptical Senator to listen to reason. I was impressed by Proxmire personally and by his willingness (rare for a politician) to back down in the face of an intellectual argument. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 23:52:31 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:52:31 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) References: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com><0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20051217171708.01cf6cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0fbe01c60364$f1baec50$cd81e03c@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:42 AM 12/18/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: > >>Anyway this is a diversion but I needed to say it >>Spike. I like you but I think the reason you can't >>see the difference between Kerry and Bush is >>that you are probably not smart enough. > > Not... very... likely... Brett, he said judiciously. > > You do realize that Spike is a dinkie-di** rocket scientist? I assumed so. For Lochear if I recall correctly. I think Cheney is or was one of the directors. > You did notice his recent post where he amusingly mentioned in passing > that his SAT scores were 1330 out of a possible 1600 -- which, according > to a web site, is approximately the equivalent of an IQ of 140. I noticed the post. I didn't translate it to an IQ of 140, it might be I don't know and haven't checked. > If it takes more intelligence than that to decide if there's a significant > difference between Kerry and Bush, we're all fucked. My point exactly. We're all fucked. Well not quite, but the prognosis for democracy in nation states is not good when voters of the intellect of Spike can't distinguish between Kerry and Bush. Bush is authorising spying on Americans without getting warrants from the court. > In other words, political differences probably depend on factors other > than raw intelligence. Yes, of course. >>Of course, someone might object and say but >>hey Brett how do you know that it is you that >>is the one that is not smart enough. > > Easily tested, Brett, what's your own IQ? Honestly, I don't know. I've only been tested once. The score was 160. I'm hard to test and I'm moody so all the tests that are available popularly like tickle don't work. > Not that this is an overwhelmingly good measure of smartness, but it has > a certain > objectivity, better than trading insults. I completely agree. I meant no insult to Spike. I think Spike is smart enough not to have taken insult. > Damien Broderick > **http://www.gigglepotz.com/auslang.htm Regards, Brett Paatsch From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Dec 18 00:09:11 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:09:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update References: <121220051330.29350.439D7B62000D69F4000072A62200734748010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00e101c60367$6678b7a0$0300a8c0@Nano> So Jim has had his second stem cell transplant and turned 60 last Wednesday: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: artillo at comcast.net To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 5:30 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? 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 Per! haps. 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 spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 18 01:00:23 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:00:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <0fbe01c60364$f1baec50$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512180102.jBI12Me22058@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch ... > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 08:42 AM 12/18/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: > > > >>Anyway this is a diversion but I needed to say it > >>Spike. I like you but I think the reason you can't > >>see the difference between Kerry and Bush is > >>that you are probably not smart enough. Ja, I never claimed to be smart in politics. Interesting thing about using SAT scores to estimate IQ is that there are many different ways to get a high score. You can really nail the math part as I did, but be only so-so at verbal. Or the reverse, but it is easy to see that there are different kinds of smart. I could have specified that W and Skerry were indistinguishable on all the things that I really care about. If you look at the war topic, for instance, by the time of the 2004 election the second war was already over. Skerry still sounded pretty hawkish did he not? He said he would fight a more sensitive war, yet he had testified against himself before congress, revealing that he had both witnessed and committed war crimes in Vietnam. Could we really hand over the nuclear football to him? A conflicted soul I was, for even our guy said some weird things. I noticed he didn't even score 1% of the popular vote. {8-[ > Well not quite, but the prognosis for democracy in nation states > is not good when voters of the intellect of Spike can't distinguish > between Kerry and Bush... ...on those things that matter to me. > > Bush is authorising spying on Americans without getting warrants > from the court... That wasn't on the table at the 2004 election. W isn't currently running for anything. > > > In other words, political differences probably depend on factors other > > than raw intelligence... Ja, and I know now what it is. This exercise of trying to compare political views to IQ has convinced me that if there is any correlation, it is weak indeed. But consider another factor which we can likely show a very strong correlation to political views: land ownership. Land owners tend to vote conservative. So the promotion of liberal causes can be accomplished by making land ownership less attractive. Or alternately pack the masses as close together as possible. > > I completely agree. I meant no insult to Spike. I think Spike > is smart enough not to have taken insult... Brett No offense taken, thanks. {8-] spike From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 01:09:30 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:09:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051218010930.5146.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > Private "militaries" have been nothing but trouble > in countries > where they are common, eg. Somalia, Colombia, > southern Russia. Militaries in general, private or otherwise, have been nothing but trouble. In an earlier time they were the "tribal" followers of a charismatic psychotically-ambitious alpha male. In that role they would do anything to anyone for the big dog. Since the civil war, when the industrial production of war materiel first became a dominating strategic factor, but most pointedly since the end of WW2, the linkage of profit to militarism has penetrated like a cancer to the farthest reaches of the planet, corrupting just governance and turning the entire place into an abattoir. Best, Jeff Davis "We're a band of higher primates stuck on the surface of an atmosphere-hazed dirtball. I can associate with that. I certainly can't identify with which patch of the dirtball I currently happen to be on, and which monkey tribe happens to reside therein. Only by taking the big view we can make it a common dream, and then a reality. It's worth it." Eugen Leitl __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 01:36:07 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:36:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051217171708.01cf6cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com> <0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20051217171708.01cf6cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60512171736n2ce27a4j7db52ffc620fb0e4@mail.gmail.com> Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive differences between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the same statist garbage packaged in two differently colored wrappings. If I was really smart, I wouldn't have chimed in to begin with... Rafal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 02:14:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:14:32 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just a little timed flag test NSA CIA Bush Kerry War Terrorism Kill Spy Howard Message-ID: <001c01c60378$c8d7c2e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Extropes please disregard this message I am just checking its bounce travel time as I note that email I am sending is not coming back to me before the replies to it do. And as a non American in the George Bush's world and John Howards Australia I'm a just a leeetle suspicious by nature of the integrity of unimpaired throughput over the internet. B -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 02:29:09 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:29:09 +1100 Subject: anarcho-capitalism was Re: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick.... References: <200512171931.jBHJVle23236@tick.javien.com><0f0901c60352$b764dc80$cd81e03c@homepc><6.2.1.2.0.20051217171708.01cf6cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60512171736n2ce27a4j7db52ffc620fb0e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004101c6037a$d36d31c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive differences > between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the same statist garbage > packaged in two differently colored wrappings. > > If I was really smart, I wouldn't have chimed in to begin with... I'm glad you did Raf. I noted that you said you were an anarchocapitalist and I checked out anarchocapitalist in wikipedia read the first paragraph and concluded yep that could never work in practice. >From WikiPedia " Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and systematic aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses that use physical force only in defense of liberty and property against aggressors. " Is that what you are? I'd rather hear what you are from you. In my opinion you clearly are intelligent but I think you might be one of those politically naive types like John and other generally smart folks that thinks smaller states are actually achievable in a world containing the US nation state as a brute fact. It is clear to me that the only possible direction for government is upward not downward urgo the question is what form that upward sort should take. There is only one biosphere you see and externalities are regarded by those that think in the limited terms of the national interest of nation states as very serious (and potential threatening to them) things. Brett Paatsch From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 02:38:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:38:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512171736n2ce27a4j7db52ffc620fb0e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051218023826.74938.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive > differences > between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the > same statist garbage > packaged in two differently colored wrappings. I agree with you and Spike. It really wasn't much of a choice. Just the illusion of one, which is how democracies are manipulated these days. The primaries serve to weed out all the candidates that the elite don't approve of until you get two "safe" candidates that will serve their masters well. So you end up with a Yalee Bonesman hawk marketed as wine drinker running against a Yalee Bonesman chickenhawk marketed as a beer drinker. That the stock portfolios of their respective masters do not completely overlap will make little difference to the average American. Although I could see how foreigners might think they have a stake in it. After all the President can't authorize the use of cruise missiles against Americans . . . or can he? 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 03:07:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:07:43 +1100 Subject: JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc><001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer><0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc> <003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <008301c60380$36c58790$cd81e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > "Brett Paatsch" > >> It wasn't just an idea, it was an action. An inherently >> dishonourable action > > I realize that,... now. It was dishonorable not because it broke some > mythical thing called "international law" [[[*1]]]]but because it was > based on something that was untrue, the entire Weapons of Mass Destruction > crap. I don't know if they were lying or if they really > believed that load of putrid shit. [[[*2]]] > And I don't know which is more disturbing either. [[[*3]]]] [[[*1]]] If I do you the service of proving to you that international law is not a myth, that it is every bit as real as the US Constitution, how would you propose to express your gratitude? I would really like for us to be able to get past this John, then we could have a good discussion, but I need to get some sense that it will be possible for you to recognize that international law exists. [[[*2]]] Do you care to know? [[[*3]]] Please do think about it. I'd like to know which would disturb you more that "they" genuinely believed or that they were lying and deceiving including to Congress and to the American people. It would help me understand your moral code to see which disturbs you more. >> You weren't *seeing* the real gameboard and the importance of >> international law > > And I don't see the importance of international law to this day. I know please see above. I await your reply with genuine eagerness, so much so that I expect you will dodge the questions or not send it ;-). > People > forget but at one time it looked like Bush had a good chance of getting > UN approval for the war; if he wasn't such a bumbling diplomat > it could very well have happened. I haven't forgotten. This is not quite right but nearly. > But if that had happened would you now be saying good things about Bush? I can say good things about Bush. I think he really loves his family. I think he is probably genuine in his faith in God. > I wouldn't because Iraq would still be a horrible mess. > > Or suppose Bush invaded without the UN seal of approval but he found > loads of weapons of mass destruction just as he said he would, and the > Iraqi people really did greet American soldiers as liberators, and today > Iraq was peaceful free and prosperous; would you still say bad things > about Bush? This is getting almost too hypothetical to deal with as too many facts have to change for it to have been so. > I wouldn't. I understand that. It follows from your notion that international law is a myth and so would fit into the category of no-harm no foul. But America paid a heavy price in blood in world war two to make international law exist and it does exist. If you want to have a conversation with a rationalist, humanist that thinks different then see the above. I hope you do. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 03:46:01 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:46:01 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) References: <20051218023826.74938.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a301c60385$90779e90$cd81e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > >> Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive >> differences >> between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the >> same statist garbage >> packaged in two differently colored wrappings. > > I agree with you and Spike. It really wasn't much of a > choice. Just the illusion of one, which is how > democracies are manipulated these days. No Stu, in my opinion, that's too much conspiracy theory, so is Jeff Davis's views. Things haven't gotten quite to that stage yet. There is a lot more keystone cops stuff going on. I don't want to waste time praising Kerry, people might mistake me for a Democrat hack, but his position was different to Bush's. > The primaries serve to weed out all the candidates that > the elite don't approve of until you get two "safe" candidates > that will serve their masters well. Stu, this looks like speculation on your part. Can you show real evidence for it? I think both you and Jeff Davis are going too far into speculative conspiracy-theory, I think you are both overestimating how much individuals of high personal wealth can influence things, at present, but I could be wrong, and I am certain that the direction we are headed is in the direction you and Jeff fear. And that is not a good direction even for the high wealth individuals. They lose if they go that direction. > So you end up with > a Yalee Bonesman hawk marketed as wine drinker running > against a Yalee Bonesman chickenhawk marketed as a > beer drinker. That the stock portfolios of their > respective masters do not completely overlap will make > little difference to the average American. Although I > could see how foreigners might think they have a stake > in it. > > After all the President can't authorize the use > of cruise missiles against Americans . . . or can he? Not legally, no. Not to my knowledge but accidents happen and the general trend is not good. As the absurd unwinnable war on terror fiasco drags on and real people with real grievances decide to act violently and with no more respect for the rule of law than was shown them you will see increasing desperation from governments who are perhaps only now beginning to understand what they have unleashed. Brett Paatsch From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Dec 18 04:13:40 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:13:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display References: <121220051330.29350.439D7B62000D69F4000072A62200734748010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> <00e101c60367$6678b7a0$0300a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <017e01c60389$82c68910$0300a8c0@Nano> Got one in - "Fast Company" Mag: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Kind regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Gina Miller To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:09 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update So Jim has had his second stem cell transplant and turned 60 last Wednesday: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: artillo at comcast.net To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 5:30 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Any Second Life users? 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 Per! haps. 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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 04:15:41 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:15:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20051218041541.57643.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> I find myself in the rare but pleasant situation of agreeing with John Clark. Of particular note is that I find in John two uncommon and admirable traits. First, he seems not at all hesitant or stressed over admitting when he got it wrong. I like this because it suggests that he can and does separate -- as should we all -- his sense of self -- I might say self-respect -- from an issue that is outside himself, and the rightness or wrongness that must inevitably result when he(one) takes a stand. It makes it easy for me to move forward with him to the next issue. No hanging around interminably arguing a dead issue because you've got an ego stake in being right/not being wrong. Thanks John, for that. And the second thing is something that I sense rather than have hard evidence for, so I may be going out on a limb here. I sense that John is consistent in his views, and that this reflects a certain high quality/clarity of thinking. Why are these things worth mentioning? Well, for one thing there is an old saying, "Applaud in public, reprove in private." The second is that when you experience a feeling of respect or admiration, it cost nothing to speak up and say so. And this is helpful if and when, later, you find yourself all snarly over some point of passionate disagreement. So there it is. --- John K Clark wrote: > [The Iraq war] was dishonorable not because it broke some mythical thing called "international law" but because it was based on something that was untrue, the entire Weapons of Mass Destruction crap. I don't know if they were lying or if they really believed that load of putrid shit. > And I don't know which is more disturbing either. They were lying. But in an odd, effective-men-of-action sort of way. They had an agenda. A "reality" that they were committed to forging. To accomplish this thay used words to further their ends. Words deliberately and precisely crafted so as to achieve a precise effect. Words directed at certain groups to elicit behaviors that would move the agenda forward. Words as tools. The truthfulness or factualness of the assertions formed by the words,... well, ... that was not something they were much concerned with. They were agnostic on the issue of truth. Truth and truthfulness were the considerations of that vast legion of inevitably ineffectual people who gain power but let the opportunity slip, people who foolishly hobble themselves with quaint codes of conduct, with considerations of ethics (if you can believe it!) Cheney et al (among the "et al" was Bush the meat puppet front man) were better than that. They were smarter than that. They had achieved the long sought goal. They had in their hands at last, the reins of power. They were the real deal. For a fleeting moment they had the means to actually make a difference on the grandest of scale in the great game. At this crucial moment the Straussian super-realists knew that the key to success, the key to great achievement, lay in cutting a certain Gordian knot, in acting "outside the box" of restrictive quaintness, of dispensing with the emotional self-indulgence of honor, ethics, truthfulness, and nobility. When you succeed, when you succeed big no one quibbles about a little lie here or there. So it wasn't that they were truthful or untruthful, but rather that such considerations had no place in their plan. So they crafted their words, and they achieved their "success". "Mission Accomplished!" Or not. > Or suppose Bush invaded without the UN seal of approval but he found loads of weapons of mass destruction just as he said he would, and the Iraqi people really did greet American soldiers as liberators, and today Iraq was peaceful free and prosperous; would you still say bad things about Bush? I > wouldn't. Yes, indeed. That's the beauty of it. Nothing succeeds like success. They expected to succeed and be covered in glory and be vindicated as the bold geniuses that they knew themselves to be. Expected that the naysayers would be scorned, spat upon, and derided as small visionless men. Men of impotence, mediocrity, and no importance. The sort of men whose incompetent leadership was responsible for the failure of human promise down thru the ages. Blah, blah, blah. Cheney et al expected that success would wash away whatever sin of expedient action they might have committed along the way. Whoops! Now they find that arrogance, cluelessness, and delusional self-adulation lead to deep-shit catastrophe. And that deep-shit catastrophe doesn't wash away sin but rather amplifies and aggravates. And that deep-shit catastrophe mediated by dedicated unrelenting serial mendacity -- ie Professional Lying -- leads first to public humiliation, then to political implosion, then to impeachment, then to indictment, and finally to comeuppance. In the case of Cheney et al, public humiliation is virtually complete, and political implosion is well on its way. But the game is not over, and the reins of power are still in the hands of those who have shown a talent for incompetence. They still have time and substantial resources. Will they pull out of our death spiral? Or will they draw on the creative potential of their talent for incompetence and fuck things up even more? Will we trade Darth Cheney for Ayatollah Bush? When the iconic warm and fuzzies of Thursday's election fade, and American dead pass three thousand as our own iconic November approaches, will "impeachment" and "twofer" be on everyone's lips? Will someone nuke Iran? Or will five hundred thousand Iraqi troops finally subdue unemployment and the insurgency, and gushers of fifty-dollar-a-barrel Iraqi oil bring smiles to Halliburton, Bechtel, and the Iraqi pupp...er, client state protected by it's "enduring" garrison of fifty thousand American troops? We'll just have to wait and see. We live in interesting times. Best, Jeff Davis "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron..." H. L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Dec 18 04:47:05 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:47:05 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick References: <200512180215.jBI2FNe29072@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001901c6038e$278fe960$0901a8c0@EF02jack> > From: "Herb Martin" > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require > Saddam to comply. > > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by > all who voted as authorizing force. > > So unless you wish to see those 25,000,000 re-enslaved > by Saddam it is time to learn to see the BIG PICTURE > and realize that no matter what you petty political > feelings this was a VERY GOOD THING. > 1441 did not authorize force. It implied severe penalties IF the security council was apprised of further non-compliance and IF it then reconvened to consider the matter further. This was also noted in the joint French/Russian/Chinese interpretations (Google - they are everywhere) The 1441 resolution was referred to by Kofi Annan as a 'step towards a peaceful resolution'... War is never a VERY GOOD THING and it remains extremely doubtful that very many Iraqis might feel any kind of benevolence towards the US and it's allies for their actions. Lots of enemies have been made, lots of money wasted, lots of lives lost - and close to zero progress made... In fact, all the hi-tech weaponry and 'surgical' strikes were just skirmishes - the real war is always fought in the hearts and minds of human beings. This is why there are no winnable wars - just various ways to hide your losses by trumpeting about tyrants brought to justice and democratic reforms introduced. Jack Parkinson From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 18 06:00:51 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:00:51 -0500 Subject: My monopolist, right or wrong/was Re: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com><04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <006401c60398$66e2f4e0$5f893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:54 PM Rik van Riel riel at surriel.com wrote: >> Nope. You move to private militaries and then >> you can use technologies like nuclear weapons >> in self-defense. > > Private "militaries" have been nothing but trouble > in countries where they are common, eg. Somalia, > Colombia, southern Russia. In the middle case above, the problem is outside funding of them and also that what's really going on looks more like a civil war. In fact, free entry into the security market is not an option in Colombia. Without that, that means there's some form of statism going on -- and, in this case, the only meaning to various groups being "private" really just means they're not recognized as states even if they are. (Recall, states have territorial monopolies on the use of force.) > Having too much power without checks and > balances is bound to lead to several cases of abuse... I agree. What "checks and balances" do you suggest? Having a monopoly that answers to no one (since no one can successful challenge it) control security and law? I feel the best check and balance on such power is to have power to rival or check it. That means not having a monopolist in security production. I believe that once one has such a monopoly in place, it's only a matter of time before it erodes all checks and balances on its powers. (This is not to say having a free market in security production is not without its problems. It's merely better than the alternatives.) Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ "... governments kill far more people than do terrorist groups. From 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to the U.S. State Department. Yet, in the same decades, governments killed more than 10 million people in ethnic-cleansing campaigns, mass executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters. The 9/11 attacks made 2001 probably the only year in decades in which the number of people killed by international terrorists even approached 1 percent of the number killed by governments. Governments pose a far greater threat to peace and survival than do terrorist groups." -- James Bovard at http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun Dec 18 06:35:02 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:35:02 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ as a function of political philosophy (was TheNeoCon Mind-Trick) In-Reply-To: <200512171924.jBHJO0e22513@tick.javien.com> References: <200512171924.jBHJO0e22513@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43A50316.8000905@optusnet.com.au> >>"While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid >> people, it is nevertheless undeniable that practically >> all stupid people are conservative." >> John Stuart Mill >> >> > >Hmm, I wonder what John Stuart Mill's political >persuasion might be? {8^D Of course if sufficiently >stupid, their political leaning is irrelevant, for >they are unable to find the polling place, or once >there, they accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. > >We can suppose it depends on one's frame of reference. In >my admittedly insular world, I go to work, those I see >there are nearly uniformly conservative and smart. On >those occasions when I am at home sick, turn on >Oprah, the audience is nearly uniformly liberal >and profoundly stupid. So Mill's comment works >just as well if reversed, or better in my world. > > > I think that he might have meant conservative in the original sense of being "opposed to change", rather than the US political sense of "right wing". In which case I would tend to agree with him :) From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 09:16:15 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:16:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512171736n2ce27a4j7db52ffc620fb0e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051218091615.33216.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> Ditto here. There were days I was so disgusted with Kerry that I genuinely wanted to vote for Bush. But I took a vow in '92 not to vote for Dems or Repubs (except under special circumstances: specifically, their views have to closely correspond with mine. There's little danger of that happening.), so it was just a case of being faithful to my vow. And not voting was like daylight savings, it gave me back an hour of my life. Jeff Davis --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive > differences > between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the > same statist garbage > packaged in two differently colored wrappings. > > If I was really smart, I wouldn't have chimed in to > begin with... > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 09:53:44 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:53:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com> <04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 12/15/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can use technologies > like nuclear weapons in self-defense. Your neighbors might have a huge > army, but that will be a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend to be -- > while your nuclear device keeps them from invading. > Hehe... "He's not our customer!" -- Wil W. Brierson, in Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned" http://everything2.com/?node=Briefest+apologia+for+the+use+of+nuclear+weapons+in+literature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ungoverned -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 10:22:36 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:22:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <00a301c60385$90779e90$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051218102236.21412.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > No Stu, in my opinion, that's too much conspiracy > theory, > so is Jeff Davis's views. Things haven't gotten > quite to that > stage yet. There is a lot more keystone cops stuff > going > on. I am not talking about a secret cabal here. I am talking about the people writing the fat checks that gave Bush and Kerry their multimillion dollar campaign funds. The Waltons come to mind. > > I don't want to waste time praising Kerry, people > might > mistake me for a Democrat hack, but his position was > different to Bush's. So he said. When he started out his position was completely inscrutable. Then when he was pressed to actually state his position, he was vague. When his position was criticized, he changed it. What was his position again? Oh yeah, different than Bush's. ;) > > The primaries serve to weed out all the candidates > that > > the elite don't approve of until you get two > "safe" candidates > > that will serve their masters well. > > Stu, this looks like speculation on your part. Can > you show > real evidence for it? The closest thing I have to evidence of this was the media's character assassination of Howard Dean. The guy ran a grassroots campaign where he raised money from millions of small contributers by innovative use of the Internet so he would really have been a "people's candidate". He was a centrist that served something like 6 terms as governor of Vermont where he balanced their budget and lowered their taxes, earning a reputation as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. He is a physician of all things which would have been an historic first for the U.S. Can you imagine a president that had sworn the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm?" And he had a lot of good ideas for things ranging from health care reform and education. He was also staunchly against the war in Iraq. In short I thought he would have made a great President. Unfortunately, during a speech in the Iowa Caucus (one of those pecularities of American politics, I never quite understood was why every state can't have their primaries on the same day, unless it is to give the media a chance to influence the outcomes of the primaries in the rest of the nation), he gave a speech to very loudly cheering crown wherein he had to shout to be heard over the crowd and at one point he screamed as he ran out of breath. Out of his 20 minute long speech in which he had many good things to say, the news channels edited out the cheering crowd and played only the 10 seconds of him screaming, apparently to a very quiet audience. They played it some 644 times in the next four days, until Dean became the butt of jokes on Letterman and the Tonight Show. The media made the most electable democratic candidate that year out to be a raving lunatic and thus died grassroots politics in the U.S. A good entry on his life and career can be read at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean > I think both you and Jeff Davis are > going too far into speculative conspiracy-theory, I > think you are both overestimating how much individuals of high > personal wealth can influence things, at present, > but I could > be wrong, and I am certain that the direction we are > headed > is in the direction you and Jeff fear. Talk like that worries me even more. If you can see the ruinous trajectory that I think we are on and our only disagreement is how far along that trajectory we are, then we have a problem, Houston. Intelligent minds are good at seeing patterns. Yeah, sometimes those patterns are not really there. But sometimes they are. It could all be a string of unfortunate coincidences, but talk about unlucky. Why the democrats would select a corpse in a suit to run against Bush instead of a young vibrant idealist with real intelligence, skills, and integrity is beyond me. > And that is not a good direction even for the high > wealth > individuals. They lose if they go that direction. Not necessarily. If the U.S. economy collapses, they still have their Swiss bank accounts and gold boullion to fall back on. They can just flee the country. They are the jet-set after all. > > After all the President can't authorize the use > > of cruise missiles against Americans . . . or can > he? > Not legally, no. Not to my knowledge but accidents > happen and the general trend is not good. On that note, were you aware of this? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/ No arrest, no trial, only summary execution for running off of an airplane. If Thomas Jefferson wasn't already dead, this would have killed him. > As the absurd unwinnable war on terror fiasco drags > on and real people with real grievances decide to > act > violently and with no more respect for the rule of > law > than was shown them you will see increasing > desperation > from governments who are perhaps only now beginning > to understand what they have unleashed. I agree. To wage war on a vague and insubstantial bogeyman is to contrive an excuse to wage perpetual war against targets of opportunity. There is no objective in this war, the war itself is the objective. And with it comes emergency powers for the government and lucrative defense contracts for the privilaged few at the expense of any true hope of freedom, security, or peace. 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 10:31:37 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:31:37 +1100 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) References: Message-ID: <022c01c603be$3a1aeaf0$cd81e03c@homepc> Herb Martin wrote: > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require > Saddam to comply. > > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by > all who voted as authorizing force. How much would you like to bet with me that the above statement is true? I say it is false and I stand ready to accept your money if you chose to put it where your mouth is. Or to accept your apology and deem you a man of honour if you wish to retract the statement on this list upon educating yourself. Or to hold you in the appropriate amount of small regard should you do neither. Brett Paatsch From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 18 14:14:24 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:14:24 -0600 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] The NeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <022c01c603be$3a1aeaf0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Brett Paatsch > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:32 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] The > NeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) > > Herb Martin wrote: > > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding > > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require > > Saddam to comply. > > > > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it > > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by > > all who voted as authorizing force. > > How much would you like to bet with me that the above > statement is true? I say it is false and I stand ready to > accept your money if you chose to put it where your > mouth is. > > Or to accept your apology and deem you a man of honour > if you wish to retract the statement on this list upon educating > yourself. > > Or to hold you in the appropriate amount of small regard > should you do neither. 1441 was unamimous (indisputable) No subsequent resolution was ever voted prior to the war that affected this issue (indisputable) 1441 found Saddam in breach (clearly worded in 1441 and thus indisputable) "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" Saddam was already required to comply (detailed in 1441 and indisputable both there and previous resolutions) 1441 was binding (detailed in 1441 and indisputable) The next (subsequent) binding resolution to take up the situation in Iraq is 1443 25Nov2002 which doesn't material affect the prior resolutions but rather extends some provisions and is of course subsequent to the overthrow of Saddam: (FYI: 1442 concernds Cyprus) That it authorized war is open to discussion due to the fact that the language was purposely chosen to be ambiguous and to conform to the diplomatic niceties the UN feigns, but consider: 1) A state of war already existed. Gulf War 1 was never closed by a peace treaty only cease fire. 2) A blockade was in effect, such blockades have long been considered "acts of war". Thus both a defacto and a technical state of war existed. 1441 clearly states that serious consequences will result -- other than a state of war serious consequences was chosen to indicate that force would be use (force was already being used): 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenEleme nt Colin Powell has clearly indicated that such was made explicit in direct conversations with other permanent members of the council and that this would indeed mean war if Saddam did not fully comply. So with which of the above elements do you disagree? (or something that I didn't mention perhaps...) One can have a (semi) legitimate disagreement about the "serious consequences" since the wording was veiled in somewhat ambiguous diplomatic terms so there is no way I can claim that is entirely unambiguous with the surrounding context which is in fact clear. Gee, facts are fun: Enjoy. Oh, and just in case you think Saddam didn't have WMD or that he EVER COMPLIED by accounting for them below is a (partial) list of the WMD elements he ADMITTED to possessing and for which he did not (in general) provide an accounting. -- Herb Martin * Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas * Iraq acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX. * Iraq produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas. * Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax. * Iraq produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads. * Iraq produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. * Iraq produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons. * Iraq produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. * Iraq produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum). Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis. From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 18 14:34:49 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:34:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick In-Reply-To: <001901c6038e$278fe960$0901a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Jack Parkinson > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 10:47 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick > > > From: "Herb Martin" > > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding > > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require > > Saddam to comply. > > > > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it > > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by > > all who voted as authorizing force. > > > > So unless you wish to see those 25,000,000 re-enslaved > > by Saddam it is time to learn to see the BIG PICTURE > > and realize that no matter what you petty political > > feelings this was a VERY GOOD THING. > > > 1441 did not authorize force. It implied severe penalties IF > the security > council was apprised of further non-compliance and IF it then > reconvened to > consider the matter further. This was also noted in the joint > French/Russian/Chinese interpretations (Google - they are > everywhere) The > 1441 resolution was referred to by Kofi Annan as a 'step > towards a peaceful > resolution'... > > War is never a VERY GOOD THING and it remains extremely "Never" is a big word. May we presume you think Saddam should still be in power? Or that the French should have capitulated to Hitler without fighting? Or that Britain and the US should not have invaded on D-Day and re-captured Europe from the Nazi regime? Sometimes was is absolutely superior to all other choices, and in that sense a good thing, but freeing 25,000,000 people from tyranny is DEFINITELY A GOOD THING. President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000 human beings. Not bad for six years. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, and Haiti) No one who politically opposes him is willing to admit or credit this however. Your petty politics stand up poorly to the results. And let's be clear about that old saw reference ends and means is just plain wrong and should read: "The ends had damn well better justify the means." -- Herb Martin From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 18 15:48:59 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:48:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong References: <2ca.36b959.30d37271@aol.com><04f901c60201$4b179f60$21893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <00e001c603ea$911c0100$88893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:53 AM Neil H. neuronexmachina at gmail.com wrote: >> Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can >> use technologies like nuclear weapons in self-defense. >> Your neighbors might have a huge army, but that will be >> a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend to be -- while >> your nuclear device keeps them from invading. > > Hehe... > > "He's not our customer!" > -- Wil W. Brierson, in Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned" > > http://everything2.com/?node=Briefest+apologia+for+the+use+of+nuclear+weapons+in+literature > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ungoverned Remember, that's a fictionalized account. In the real world, I bet most nation states would not try to antagonize anyone armed with nukes, so having them is a good defense policy, especially given the bang for the buck when thinking about market anarchism. In other word, it's much easier to hide and maintain a few nukes on standby than it is to maintain a big military ready to thwart would be invaders. The nukes impose a very high cost for invasion -- a much higher cost than having countering forces. This is not to say that no one will ever invade a nuclear armed power or that there won't be ways of countering nukes, such as new technologies or having what John J. Mearsheimer calls "splendid first strike capability" (the ability to overwhelm a nuclear power with one's own nukes), but that nukes will handle many situations driving down the cost of defense because they drive up the cost of offense. (See Mearsheimer's _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_.) Also, if my memory's correct, the New Mexicans (?) -- the evil invading nation in the story -- were unaware of the farmer with the nuke. It would probably be a good defense policy to let would be hostiles know that you _might_ have a nuke. That way, they'll think before invading. After all, the point of having one (or many) for defense is so that you don't have to use them -- as a deterrent. On this, see the typo ridden essay "Is the nuclear proliferation a blessing?" at: http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf And also _Basement Nukes_ by Erwin S. Strauss Regarding how nation states evaluate threats, especially when playing for keeps, see "The Credibility of Power: Assessing Threats During the 'Appeasement' Crises of the 1930s" (in _International Security_ 29(3) [Winter 2004/2005]) by Daryl G. Press and also his _Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats_. Also, as Samantha and I have argued, these free societies would have an economic and technological leg up over their neighbors with huge standing armies. In fact, historically, it's usually been the economically more free societies that have one out despite usually having smaller armies. (What usually happens is they become economic powerhouses and can raise better militaries than and otherwise outperform their opponents.) If you more talking about how a private security firm might decide not to defend a non-customer, well, that's true, but this is also true of nation states. They can decide not to defend non-citizens or other nation states, as when Britain and France, despite their treaties, did not come to the rescue of Czechoslovakia during late 1930s and how the US sat back and let East Timor be gobbled up by Indonesia during the 1970s. It's also true, though, that private firms could decide to band together -- just as nation states do. This is not enough of an example to decide between the two systems. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ "... governments kill far more people than do terrorist groups. From 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to the U.S. State Department. Yet, in the same decades, governments killed more than 10 million people in ethnic-cleansing campaigns, mass executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters. The 9/11 attacks made 2001 probably the only year in decades in which the number of people killed by international terrorists even approached 1 percent of the number killed by governments. Governments pose a far greater threat to peace and survival than do terrorist groups." -- James Bovard at http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html From l4point at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 16:21:01 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:21:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mississippi capital murder/2nd amendment case Message-ID: <6b5e09390512180821i1cf557fbpdb80bbe535ff7b51@mail.gmail.com> http://www.mayeisinnocent.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye http://theagitator.com What do you expect from Mississippi? Mike Hayes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 17:06:52 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:06:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming In-Reply-To: References: <2c8.54da53.30d52b1d@aol.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512180906h3e45417ds6ef28521cd09f1b6@mail.gmail.com> Sunday, 18 December 2005 On 12/17/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > [snip Robert's superior summary] > The entire discussion (that I've seen thus far) assumes that one wants to > terraform a planet in the first place. Seems questionable to me -- lets go > create more habitats at the bottom of gravity wells making rather poor use > of the easily available resources rather than engineer lifeforms that don't > require gravity and/or make optimal use of the resources at our disposal. > > Robert > > P.S. I've got *two* copies of Terraforming... :-) Someday I'll probably > put it online but it is unlikely to be anytime soon. > Ah! I look up from my scanner just in time to see the market flooded. Well, that price probably sat pretty far from optimal. OTOH, Alibris suggests otherwise. http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6617698&wtit=Terraforming&matches=2&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title > 1. The beaming of power from SPS to the surface with microwaves can be > tricky because various molecules in the atmosphere could absorb the > microwaves which would make the atmosphere hotter, not cooler. You could > manage this by selecting microwave frequencies that don't have this effect > but I don't know what the frequencies would be given the materials one would > have on hand for the building the transmitters and receivers for the power. > This entire area would require some research. > Environmental consequences of SPS got short shrift in O'Neill's time. Some references might exist here, in the online copy of NASA's Space Settlement Design Study. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html Edwards's "The Space Elevator" Chapter 4 discusses power transimission via free-electron lasers. With an online search, perhaps at SpaceDaily or The Space Review or SpaceRef or Encyclopedia Astronautica, one might find references to various high-alititude aircraft and airship projects relying on beamed power. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 17:34:05 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:34:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick In-Reply-To: References: <001901c6038e$278fe960$0901a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: Herb Martin wrote: > President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000 > human beings. Not bad for six years. While it is good that many people are now "free" who were not six years ago, I would offer this. The Bush directly accountable death toll (to U.S. citizens) will exceed the death toll (to U.S. and foreign citizens) due to the 911 terrorists sometime in early 2007 [1]. In fact it is almost certain that the Bush responsible death toll will exceed the 911 death toll by July 4, 2007 (quite a present for the 4th of July... :-(). Now, one has to ask -- "Is the 'freedom' of 60,000,000 people worth another ~3000 U.S. lives?" I am not saying that it is not. One could look at the civil war or perhaps WWII where they were clearly justified on the basis of "freeing" people. However that was *not* the case with the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. They were largely sold on the basis of *potentially* protecting American lives in the future. And IMO, if you look on balance at the amount of money spent on wars overseas over the last six years vs. the amount of money being spent on preparing for a "natural" disaster such as a breakout of the H5N1 virus there is a gross imbalance of priorities. Take a step back and look at it from an extropic perspective -- *how* many of those 60,000,000 now "free" lives would have been lost had the U.S. not decided to exercise the military option? Could 60,000,000 *DEATHS* have been prevented if the same amount of money and energy been dedicated to something like world hunger or disease prevention? ([2] is interesting...). As I calculate it, the war in Iraq has cost us approximately *8* full years of NIH funding. Those kinds of questions explain why Bill & Melinda Gates are Time Magazine's "Persons of the Year" and *not* George W. Bush. And for the record, I was *for* going into Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent going into Iraq -- but I have had some time (and more information) that have led me to rethinking my former perspectives. Robert 1. This is based on calculations I did back in 2005. But the rate of deaths has not changed significantly since then and I doubt it will change before 2007 given current trends. 2. http://costofwar.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 18 17:35:25 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:35:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mississippi capital murder/2nd amendment case In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512180821i1cf557fbpdb80bbe535ff7b51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: Mike Hayes > http://www.mayeisinnocent.com > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye ? http://theagitator.com Mike Hayes In reference to this case, an "Open Letter to Gov. Haley Barbour" is found here.... http://silentrunning.tv/?p=402 If the facts are as indicated (and one of your sources points out the dangers of second and worse press reports) then it seems that this man did nothing wrong -- must less something deserving of murder charges much less the death penalty. It really isn't a Second Amendment case even (AFAIK there was no charge for legal possesion of the firearm used); it is really about the reasonable man theory of self-defense. The key phrase that would argue this was that Corey Maye was in fear of his life, the life of his daughter, and had no reasonable way to determine that the police were those breaking into his home (without notification). He is reported to have immediately surrendered both his firearm and himself when the identities of the intruders were made known to him. > What do you expect from Mississippi? Better actually. In Texas, I would expect that the prosecuter would decline to bring charges, that a Grand Jury would "no bill" if charges were sought, and that a jury would acquit, but one can never be certain... -- Herb Martin _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 18 18:01:17 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:01:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: _____ From: Robert Bradbury Herb Martin wrote: President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000 human beings. Not bad for six years. While it is good that many people are now "free" who were not six years ago, I would offer this. Generally the entire thread is incredibly tedious and rude to any who did not sign up for this topic (including mine), but your post is so reasonably as to warrant a reply.... The Bush directly accountable death toll (to U.S. citizens) will exceed the death toll (to U.S. and foreign citizens) due to the 911 terrorists sometime in early 2007 [1]. In fact it is almost certain that the Bush responsible death toll will exceed the 911 death toll by July 4, 2007 (quite a present for the 4th of July... :-(). Now, one has to ask -- "Is the 'freedom' of 60,000,000 people worth another ~3000 U.S. lives?" Generally the soldiers who fight, and those of us who have fought previously, say "Yes". I am not saying that it is not. One could look at the civil war or perhaps WWII where they were clearly justified on the basis of "freeing" people. However that was *not* the case with the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. They were largely sold on the basis of *potentially* protecting American lives in the future. "Sold" is irrelevant -- outcomes are what count but contrary to popular misconception the war in Iraq was NOT SOLD STRICTLY on WMD or fighting terrorism, these were just the areas where concentration was focused. No one ever claimed these were the only reasons and there was no doubt (at the time) and little rational doubt even now that Saddam (had) had WMD and would pursue them at the earliest opportunity -- sanctions were rapidly disintegrating, and Saddam would soon had been lose from them. There was also the issue of the (claimed) deaths of Iraqi citizens DUE to the sanctions (and of course really due the UN mismanagement of them due to corruption). And IMO, if you look on balance at the amount of money spent on wars overseas over the last six years vs. the amount of money being spent on preparing for a "natural" disaster such as a breakout of the H5N1 virus there is a gross imbalance of priorities. Take a step back and look at it from an extropic perspective -- *how* many of those 60,000,000 now "free" lives would have been lost had the U.S. not decided to exercise the military option? Saddam was killing approximately 100,000 per year so the math is quite easy if we just take `ONE TENTH that number. In four years Saddam would have murdered (VERY) conservatively another 40,000 which exceeds the generally accepts death toll. (And at his actual rate he would have approach another one half MILLION.) Most of those deaths also are not attributable to the US as well. While it is popular to do so, it is wrong to hold the use accountable for deaths (to Iraqis) by the terrorists and insurgents who target them, or to include the COMBATANT deaths in such calculations of "good" verses saving the lives and freedom of the innocent Iraqi citizens. Finally, there is a question of just how much FREEDOM is worth. Many (most?) Americans, some from other countries, will argue that freedom is to be retained even at the cost of life. Many will back that up with their own lives as our soldiers both current and former have done. Could 60,000,000 *DEATHS* have been prevented if the same amount of money and energy been dedicated to something like world hunger or disease prevention? ([2] is interesting...). As I calculate it, the war in Iraq has cost us approximately *8* full years of NIH funding. Perhaps but there were many other reasons (at least a half dozen necessary and sufficient reasons) for removing Saddam and no one proposed using the money for any other such program. Someone might offer such a proposal and argue specifically for it (not hypothetically) and that would not change the value of freeing so many people and the possibility of having this lead to a sea change in Middle East politics, freedom for the region in general, and a development that will allow the Arab world to leave the dark ages politically and religiously. Those kinds of questions explain why Bill & Melinda Gates are Time Magazine's "Persons of the Year" and *not* George W. Bush. And for the record, I was *for* going into Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent going into Iraq -- but I have had some time (and more information) that have led me to rethinking my former perspectives. And that it was a favorable decision in 2002 cannot be changed by subsequent developments in 2005 -- it would always remain the best decision given the facts as they were known but that isn't a necessary argument since it is in fact reaping freedom for so many. Robert 1. This is based on calculations I did back in 2005. But the rate of deaths has not changed significantly since then and I doubt it will change before 2007 given current trends. 2. http://costofwar.com/ It isn't about "how many verses the 9/11" -- were it merely revenge perhaps that would make perverted sense but rather how many against freedom, both liberty and freedom from attack by Islamo-Fascist or any other brand of international terrorism. [D-DAY also lost far more US soldiers than did Pearl Harbor so you can easily see how the above analysis equating Iraq-9/11 causulties is misapplied.] Many people overlook that following 9/11, we declared war NOT just on "Al Qaeda" but rather on "Terrorists of Internal Scope and the Countries that aid and harbor them." Saddam was openly guilty of the latter, and arguably guilty of support for Al Qaeda in specific (Zarqawi had already been given refuge in Iraq before the war, and was shuttling back and forth with support for Ansar Al Islam.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 18 19:01:25 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:01:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick In-Reply-To: References: <001901c6038e$278fe960$0901a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <22360fa10512181101v1e3aae2ic7610418ab7589d7@mail.gmail.com> I normally tend to stay out of these discussions, but when someone as rationally and objectively thinking as Robert makes what appear to me as very narrow statements, I feel compelled to contribute a point of view that seems under-represented. The military action in Iraq is not primarily about WMD, or about the attack on the World Trade Center, or even about "terrorism", which is currently so over-used and broadly defined as to be more misleading that meaningful. It's about economics in the broadest sense. It's about the intentional disruption of a socio-economic structure, geographically located mainly in the Middle East, that is a perceived threat to the future well being of another socio-economic structure that happens to be much more powerful in its capabilities and connections. Since the two structures are at odds, there will be competition for survival and eventual growth of a particular set of values. It's convenient to speak to the masses about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's convenient to fuel the flames ignited by the attack on the World Trade Center, and it's convenient to label many of the opponents as "terrorists" when they would just as easily be labeled "freedom fighters" if they were on the other side. To reduce the argument to comparing numbers of individual lives lost or saved within any subcontext misses the larger context within which these actions are being decided. >From my limited perspective, not having access to all the information of the decision-makers, I think the recent offensive and subsequent efforts at rebuilding Iraq were very poorly timed and executed, leaving the US morally weaker in the eyes of potential allies at a time when stronger cooperation is needed. But in the bigger picture, conflict will continue until we reach a new metastable level of socio-economic organization. BTW, I was happy today to see that Bill and Melinda Gates, and Bono are being recognized for their humanitarian efforts. - Jef On 12/18/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Herb Martin wrote: > > > President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000 > > human beings. Not bad for six years. > > > While it is good that many people are now "free" who were not six years > ago, I would offer this. > > The Bush directly accountable death toll (to U.S. citizens) will exceed the > death toll (to U.S. and foreign citizens) due to the 911 terrorists sometime > in early 2007 [1]. In fact it is almost certain that the Bush responsible > death toll will exceed the 911 death toll by July 4, 2007 (quite a present > for the 4th of July... :-(). > > Now, one has to ask -- "Is the 'freedom' of 60,000,000 people worth another > ~3000 U.S. lives?" > > I am not saying that it is not. One could look at the civil war or perhaps > WWII where they were clearly justified on the basis of "freeing" people. > However that was *not* the case with the war in Afghanistan or the war in > Iraq. They were largely sold on the basis of *potentially* protecting > American lives in the future. > > And IMO, if you look on balance at the amount of money spent on wars > overseas over the last six years vs. the amount of money being spent on > preparing for a "natural" disaster such as a breakout of the H5N1 virus > there is a gross imbalance of priorities. > > Take a step back and look at it from an extropic perspective -- *how* many > of those 60,000,000 now "free" lives would have been lost had the U.S. not > decided to exercise the military option? Could 60,000,000 *DEATHS* have > been prevented if the same amount of money and energy been dedicated to > something like world hunger or disease prevention? ([2] is interesting...). > As I calculate it, the war in Iraq has cost us approximately *8* full years > of NIH funding. > > Those kinds of questions explain why Bill & Melinda Gates are Time > Magazine's "Persons of the Year" and *not* George W. Bush. > > And for the record, I was *for* going into Afghanistan, and to a lesser > extent going into Iraq -- but I have had some time (and more information) > that have led me to rethinking my former perspectives. > > Robert > > 1. This is based on calculations I did back in 2005. But the rate of > deaths has not changed significantly since then and I doubt it will change > before 2007 given current trends. > 2. http://costofwar.com/ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Dec 18 19:56:55 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:56:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A third extropic path Message-ID: Please forgive me if we have discussed this before, currently I just don't happen to recall exploration of this topic in a way I would consider to be "complete". One of the reasons I consider myself to be an "extropian" is because I consider there to be relatively inherent value in the information which involved in the exploration of the phase space of reality, existence, life, etc. The development of the laws of science, the exploration of the universe we (in theory) live in, the forms of "life" it may support, etc. all fall within the exploration of the phase space. IMO, there is less value in the rediscovery of phase space which has already been explored and more value in extending the boundaries of the known phase space or discovering completely unknown phase space. This can be viewed as an information science axiom -- "more bits are good". This can then be extended when one gets into subjective analysis to -- "better bits are even *more* good". But the question, as recent political discussions suggest is *who* defines "better?" I have tended to use survival/preservation of the bits as an overall priority in my life with the value judgements of the usefullness of bits to be something to be determined in the future in specific environmental instances [1]. Personal experiences, the history of the ExI list, bioethics, etc. prompt me to raise the question for discussion -- "Should extropians (and/or ExI) support a 'third path'"? I will try to make this brief but it really involves a complex analysis. Historically one may view longevity, lifespan extension, etc. as wanting to preserve "currently active" bits. There is of course the survival instinct (genetic program) at work in each individual in this. In fact the biochemistry involved seems to suggest that if one does not keep it active one gradually may lose the bits (e.g. use it or lose it). Cryonics has traditionally largely been viewed as a transitory state (i.e. one preserves the bits until one can return them to an active state). Over the last decade I have run into two specific situations where I suggested cryonic suspension as a viable alternative to two individuals who were very capable of affording it. One of those individuals is now dead, another might well be within the next few years. The first rejected it on the basis of "I would not want my family to go on living not knowing whether I was alive or dead." The second rejected it on the basis of "Who would want to be alive when all of your friends are dead (presuming they had all previously died and/or were not suspended)." I will simply point out that these were *not* objections to whether or not cryonic suspension and reanimation *would* work but were more along the lines of *would* you want it to work? Now, this raises the question of a third option -- "Would you be willing to bequeth your bits but retain your 'self'?" I.e. One would preserve the bits within a brain, allow them to be available for perusal, etc. but never allow/enable the reactivation of the individual "consciousness". With cryonics and nanobot enabled selective information extraction and/or uploading this should be possible. This would to some extent satisfy the wishes of the people outlined above in that they would never know/experience the perceptions of their love ones and never again experience the pain of the loss of friends but at the same time preserve their knowledge (bits) which at this time cannot effectively be "outloaded". This has interesting bearing on capital punishment perspectives -- i.e. one preserves the knowledge of an individual but never allows them to "run" off of it again (i.e. one is "suspended" permanently). Now, where this tends to get interesting from my perspective involves the question of the extent to which one can "backtrack". If I have the DNA of RJB, and I have the frozen brain contents of RJB, and I have written, audio, video and individual subjective impressions of RJB *and* I have a lot of CPU cycles and bit storage at my disposal -- how difficult is it *really*(?) to resurrect RjB? Even if one does not "run" the best approximation a cryonic reanimation can produce it would seem that one could backtrack from the public information to "me". (This thought line is in part due to the fact that they are currently putting Cave Bears, Wooly Mammoths and Neanderthals back together -- and we are very far from the limits physics and simulations would seem to allow.) If one knocks out one or more components of the above list one simply gets a less accurate resurrection. But you can consider this to be kind of an extended Turing Test -- how many components and to what extent would they have to be removed before one knows it is *not* RjB. So it begs some questions... Should we bring Sasha back? And if so, to what extent? I know aspects of this must have been discussed in various SciFi contexts (it comes up to some degree in The Sixth Day) -- what I am interested in is distilled conclusions regarding the risks/benefits of the preservation of the information (bits) with the removal of the framework acting out of those bits. Robert 1. This is a consequence of the fact that we are not even close to max'ing out the information storage capacity of our planet, solar system, galaxy, etc. It is not until we reach the storage capacity limits that we will need to begin making tradeoffs. Think of this iPod terms. How many years before all of the music ever composed will fit on your personal iPod? How many years before one has the thought (CPU) capacity (time) to listen to and decide what subset of that information is valuable (and should be retained) is possible? And then given that the creation of music presumably takes longer (more CPU) than evaluating it seems we will be in this situation of "total information" > "valued information" > "new information" for some time. This leads to -- "store it" -> "evaluate it" -> "use it to drive the creation process". (Of course this has to be modified as one becomes more selective with respect to distinguishing "noise" from "information".) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Dec 18 21:49:18 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:49:18 -0500 Subject: JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc><001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer><0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc><003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer> <008301c60380$36c58790$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <000f01c6041c$f52adc20$45064e0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > I need to get some sense that it will be possible for you to recognize > that international law exists. [....] I await your reply with genuine > eagerness, so much so that I expect you will dodge the questions or not > send it. Let me relieve your anxiety, I have no intention of dogging your question. If the day comes when you can show me the error of my ways and that for years I have been laboring under a misconception and you prove to me that international law does indeed exists I will be forever grateful to you for correcting my grievous and long lived mistake. To render me this service all you have to do is name one aircraft carrier under the command of international law, or cruiser, or destroyer, or PT boat, or tug boat, or dingy, or bb gun, or cap pistol. Until that day comes to pass I will call it for exactly what it is, international suggestions. Why do you suppose people debating if Australian law existed or not would be absolutely absurd, an exercise fit only for morons? It would be absurd because the answer is so blindingly obvious. The fact that the very existence of international law is controversial is pretty damn good evidence to me of its mythical nature and can join its noble brethren, Big Foot, flying saucers, cold fusion, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, far from it! Perhaps someday billions of people will have enough confidence in international law to entrust their freedom and safety to it, I hope so, but we're not there yet. > I'd like to know which would disturb you more that "they" genuinely > believed or that they were lying and deceiving including to Congress and > to the American people. You are asking me who is worse, a liar or an idiot. I have no easy answer. Would you rather be shot or hung? > I can say good things about Bush. I think he really loves his > family. Granted. > I think he is probably genuine in his faith in God. Yes but believing in something (faith) when there is no good reason for doing so is not a virtue it is a vice. Bush had faith there were WMD in Iraq and look where that got us. If you put a gun to my head I would say there is a 51% probability that Bush really did believe all that WMD crap; but the fact that the man who could destroy all human civilization in a few hours with the wave of his hand is probably an idiot rather than a liar does not enable me to sleep more soundly at night. John K Clark From moulton at moulton.com Sun Dec 18 22:21:55 2005 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:21:55 -0800 Subject: Vinge's politics/was Re: [extropy-chat] Vinge's next novel, Rainbow's End In-Reply-To: <006601c6030e$c02ae560$3c893cd1@pavilion> References: <20051216224423.1D6EA57F5D@finney.org> <006601c6030e$c02ae560$3c893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <1134944515.18295.1840.camel@localhost.localdomain> For the record, Vinge does consider himself libertarian and has said so on a number of occasions. His work "The Ungoverned" was awarded the Libertarian Futurist Society Hall of Fame award at the World Science Fiction Convention held in Boston September 2004. Vernor was not able to be present however David Friedman was there and accepted the award for him. David mentioned how Vinge's fiction writing has provided interesting points to consider when he was writing non-fiction essays. And Vernor had read David's Machinery of Freedom long ago. So it appears that to be an interesting cross-fertilization. I last spoke with Vernor in September at the Accelerating Change Conference and he told me about the book coming out. At the time he mentioned that is was not a "libertarian" book in the sense of trying to push a political point. I look forward to seeing it. For more info see: http://www.lfs.org/ http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Vernor_Vinge http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Dec 18 23:11:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:11:53 +1100 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] TheNeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) References: Message-ID: <033b01c60428$6f1e2f90$cd81e03c@homepc> >> Herb Martin wrote: >> > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding >> > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require >> > Saddam to comply. >> > >> > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it >> > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by >> > all who voted as authorizing force. >> >> How much would you like to bet with me that the above >> statement is true? I say it is false and I stand ready to >> accept your money if you chose to put it where your >> mouth is. >> >> Or to accept your apology and deem you a man of honour >> if you wish to retract the statement on this list upon educating >> yourself. >> >> Or to hold you in the appropriate amount of small regard >> should you do neither. [A lot of additional words from Mr Martin snipped out and still available in his post ] > That it authorized war is open to discussion ... No longer between you and I Mr Herb Martin as the above statement you've made and which I have challenged you on is false, resolution 1441 was not understood by all who signed it to authorise force and I think your above comment about it being "open to discussion" shows that you know that. I will credit no further words from you as being true when you are unwilling to stand behind the statements you have already made. Whether others do is a matter for them. For others I offer this refute to your false statement. 1441 was unanimous in its entirety. It unanimously granted Iraq "one final opportunity", the duration and expiration of which was not the US President's right to unilaterally determine. The Security Council was "seized of the matter". Under the operative provisions of the UN Charter signed and ratified by the US Senate and therefore under the provisions of the US Constitution and by his oath of office President Bush, was obliged NOT to instigate the use of military force on that same matter without the Security Council determining the end of that final opportunity. That a further resolution was required was the reason why a further resolution was sought by the United States and the United Kingdom. Brett Paatsch From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 23:21:03 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:21:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <200512171820.jBHIKXe16717@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051218232103.63223.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > >RE: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to > invade say Iraqis > > I am pleased in a way that a majority of Iraqis say > that the US was not right to invade. That means they > will cheer when the US devades, or exvades. (What is it > called when we go away? Bail. Cut and run. Better late than never. Good judgement, at long last. > I call it the start of the fourth > Iraqi war, The bit about "There'll be a horrible civil war if we leave!" is just another lie brought to you by the same folks who brought you the WMDs and the Al-Quaida connections. These were the lies to get the US in, the "civil war" exaggeration is the lie to keep us in. They're professional liars with the emphasiss on "professional". When they move their lips, your first thought should be, "Bullshit!" If we left in the most precipitous fashion imaginable there would be a short spasm of violence (maybe six weeks tops) until equilibrium was established, and then the Iraqis would get on with enjoying being the filthy rich nation they will be when they finally get rid of the foreign bandits and/or their domestic clients who have been looting the country since 1920. (For verification of this last point see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml) I could make the case for the above assertion -- no civil war of any import -- with data, argument, and links, but I offer it without these so as to bring attention to the fact that the counter-assertion -- about the horrible civil war -- was itself just thrown at you with no evidence to support it, by proven, declared (see the philosophy of Leo Strauss), previously convicted liars. Yet so utterly uncritical and recalcitrantly credulous are all segements of the US that no one says, "What clothes? What wolf? What's wrong with this picture?" > and good luck to the Iraqis in that one.) > > > ...Anymore than you know that Iran or other > > countries didn't become more hostile and more > > likely to want to harm > > Americans... Brett Paatsch > > If you read the yankee newspapers, it sounds like > the Iranians are hostile to the Europeans more than the > US. Give me a link on this on, spike. I've never noticed it. > Of course our press lies, so I don't know if > the Iranian president really did say Israel should > be wiped off the map or that the holocaust never > happened. > But if he did say these things, > it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets > into a shooting war with the EU. Not a chance. The Europeans are working their tails off just trying to keep the US an/or Israel from attacking Iran and setting off a war stretching from the Meditterranean to Kashmir. They prefer oil at fifty rather than five hundred dollars a barrel. > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/index.html > > In all this reprehensible bluster, the Iranian prez > does make one interesting point: the Europeans slew > the Jews, so why was Israel established in Palestine > instead of Germany? I don't have the answer to that > one. You're kidding, right? First, show me a nation European or otherwise that ever evinced a willingness to donate (its own) national territory for any purpose whatever. Someone else territory? No problem. Wog territory? Sure, what's in it for us? (Approximation of the discussion between the British power elite and the leadership of the World Zionist Organization circa 1917.) > > Perhaps if Israel had been established elsewhere > besides Palestine, there would not be the one thing on which > pretty much all Arabs agree: a hatred for the Jews > and Israel. Ya think? ;-} > So without them, the Arab world would be > pretty much constantly at war with itself Or -- absent the anti-arab bigotry -- polishing their Mercedes', tending their gardens, and snacking on hummus. > and it would scarcely make mention in the newspapers here, > any more than it did in those years that Iran and > Iraq were fighting each other back in the 80s. With Rumsfeld glad-handing Saddam, and US corporations selling him the precursors for those WMDs. Right about now is a good time to recommend this link: Harold Pinter ? Nobel Lecture. Art, Truth & Politics. http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html You may have heard of it. I you want, you can skip the first part, a discussion of literary matters. And if you're really pressed for time, just start at 10min 30 secs and listen to the next 50 secs. Listen further as pleases you. My dog is bugging me to go out for walk, so I'm gonna forgo my usual spell check. Please forgive. Best, Jeff Davis "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Sun Dec 18 23:39:04 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:39:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] QALY pharmacoeconomics] Message-ID: <43A5F318.1030806@sasktel.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: QALY pharmacoeconomics Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:37:32 -0600 From: Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO To: Marc Paquette , "Barb St.Jean" , Brian Taylor , Alison Myrden , Lynne Belle-Isle , bernhard.juurlink at usask.ca, Noreen Evers , maxcorn63 , ocma-bamc , valerie_lasher at hc-sc.gc.ca, medusers at yahoogroups.com, medpot-discuss at yahoogroups.com, ExI chat list , futuretag at yahoogroups.com, Morris Johnson , John Turmel Questions I'd like to pose for discussion: How to determine QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) values for preventative medical use of natural health products. Is there any published work to use? How to compare these to known QALY values for crisis managment treatment measures which are used once a condition develops. This would be complicated by the comparison of 2 separate age groups and health states (young and healthy for preventative, aged and disease prone or with active disease for crisis management) and the uncertainty of whether a predicted future cost would happen , which future cost to compare to or how to justify using a specific future cost to compare with. Health care rationing can be in the form of waiting times during which future disease progresses from very long term X moderate cost , easily treatable OR more costly crisis X long term continued management OR less total cost , high cost short term palliative end-stage care. Without such cost estimates public funders can argue they lack information to make decisions to cover or refuse to cover dietary or nutraceutical preventative health care measures. Also of note is the contention that authorities sometimes try to dissallow access by regulatory or liability means to those willing to pay personally for experimental or unproven unconventional drugs or treatments. If a public system refuses to pay and the individual pays can the public system interfere with a market driven exchange of services or products between a willing buyer and a willing seller? The rights of the patient to determine what measures they wish are the exact opposite of the patient's right to decline treament or even intentionally undertake measures to damage theit health status. If living wills and refusal of treatment are not a crime how can the exact opposite be denied or abstructed by regulators and lawmakers? For example: A patient who is extremely wealthy (say billionaire Ray Kurzeil or Bill Gates) decides that after 20 years of smoking (a ficticious statement in the case of the 2 named individuals) to have extensive body scans done. He pays to have these on demand by leasing his own MRI. He then hires a clinic and doctor (by bringing to to North America a doctor from a chinese hospital where these procedures are a practice) to privately to inject liquid nitrogen into precancerous lung tissue to prevent future cancer. He pays an herbalist practitioner to formulate and compound for consumption numerous herbals and off-lable Rx medications to regenerate damaged tissues. He then finishes by renting a hyperbaric diving decompression chamber (hyperbaric hydrogen therapy) for a month to scavange any missed cancer or pre-cancer. It is given in this case that a person like Ray Kurzweil who is a billionaire who already spends well over a million dollars a year to prevent diseases and aging processes he only knows might be statisically possible if faced by the above history would not balk over the 4-10 million dollar personal expenditure of tax paid dollars over a year to carry out the above. Would authorities use numerous regulatory and other legal means to deny access to someone who demands to not be interfered with as he directs and pays for all these activities and services? I am posing the case that not only might health care be rationed by denial of already available conventional services but might also be denied by indirect means. In the context of the attached thesis can a free society act to deny the above health care personal actions without infringing on the constitutional rights of the citizen to own and control their body just like any other piece of personal property under the Property Rights provision of the Charter Of Rights? The attachment, a 100 page thesis is forwarded by separate message as it may not pass the spam/file-size or other filters of some of you. Morris Johnson mfj.eav at gmail.com 306-447-4944 Box 10 Beaubier, Sk. Canada S0C-0H0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at hotmail.com Sun Dec 18 23:49:24 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:49:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Quali Message-ID: >>>Mon Dec 12 23:22:42 MST 2005 The Avantguardian wrote: >>>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. >Ok..i'm going to ask a bunch of naive questions. >Please do not respond if it's going to be unpleasant. >I know I was moderated but I am simply curious and wondering if i'm >understanding properly the direction of the conversation. If I couldn't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or speak, wouldn't I simply just exist but know nothing? Wouldn't I only know "5" is "5" because someone suddenly awakened one of my senses and taught me that "red" is "red"? Should I be focusing on the purpose of "5" or "red" or should I concentrate more on the fact why "5" or "red" exist? Would that mean that the more senses you use, the more conscious you are? Would that mean that aliens have different senses or that someone taught them that "5" is "3"? Thank you Anna _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From megao at sasktel.net Sun Dec 18 23:37:32 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:37:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] QALY pharmacoeconomics Message-ID: <43A5F2BC.5050106@sasktel.net> Questions I'd like to pose for discussion: How to determine QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) values for preventative medical use of natural health products. Is there any published work to use? How to compare these to known QALY values for crisis managment treatment measures which are used once a condition develops. This would be complicated by the comparison of 2 separate age groups and health states (young and healthy for preventative, aged and disease prone or with active disease for crisis management) and the uncertainty of whether a predicted future cost would happen , which future cost to compare to or how to justify using a specific future cost to compare with. Health care rationing can be in the form of waiting times during which future disease progresses from very long term X moderate cost , easily treatable OR more costly crisis X long term continued management OR less total cost , high cost short term palliative end-stage care. Without such cost estimates public funders can argue they lack information to make decisions to cover or refuse to cover dietary or nutraceutical preventative health care measures. Also of note is the contention that authorities sometimes try to dissallow access by regulatory or liability means to those willing to pay personally for experimental or unproven unconventional drugs or treatments. If a public system refuses to pay and the individual pays can the public system interfere with a market driven exchange of services or products between a willing buyer and a willing seller? The rights of the patient to determine what measures they wish are the exact opposite of the patient's right to decline treament or even intentionally undertake measures to damage theit health status. If living wills and refusal of treatment are not a crime how can the exact opposite be denied or abstructed by regulators and lawmakers? For example: A patient who is extremely wealthy (say billionaire Ray Kurzeil or Bill Gates) decides that after 20 years of smoking (a ficticious statement in the case of the 2 named individuals) to have extensive body scans done. He pays to have these on demand by leasing his own MRI. He then hires a clinic and doctor (by bringing to to North America a doctor from a chinese hospital where these procedures are a practice) to privately to inject liquid nitrogen into precancerous lung tissue to prevent future cancer. He pays an herbalist practitioner to formulate and compound for consumption numerous herbals and off-lable Rx medications to regenerate damaged tissues. He then finishes by renting a hyperbaric diving decompression chamber (hyperbaric hydrogen therapy) for a month to scavange any missed cancer or pre-cancer. It is given in this case that a person like Ray Kurzweil who is a billionaire who already spends well over a million dollars a year to prevent diseases and aging processes he only knows might be statisically possible if faced by the above history would not balk over the 4-10 million dollar personal expenditure of tax paid dollars over a year to carry out the above. Would authorities use numerous regulatory and other legal means to deny access to someone who demands to not be interfered with as he directs and pays for all these activities and services? I am posing the case that not only might health care be rationed by denial of already available conventional services but might also be denied by indirect means. In the context of the attached thesis can a free society act to deny the above health care personal actions without infringing on the constitutional rights of the citizen to own and control their body just like any other piece of personal property under the Property Rights provision of the Charter Of Rights? The attachment, a 100 page thesis is forwarded by separate message as it may not pass the spam/file-size or other filters of some of you. Morris Johnson mfj.eav at gmail.com 306-447-4944 Box 10 Beaubier, Sk. Canada S0C-0H0 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 19 00:49:59 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:49:59 +1100 Subject: JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc><001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer><0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc><003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer><008301c60380$36c58790$cd81e03c@homepc> <000f01c6041c$f52adc20$45064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <037001c60436$23c388c0$cd81e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > "Brett Paatsch" > >> I need to get some sense that it will be possible for you to recognize >> that international law exists. [....] I await your reply with genuine >> eagerness, so much so that I expect you will dodge the questions or not >> send it. > > Let me relieve your anxiety, I have no intention of dogging your question. > If the day comes when you can show me the error of my ways and that for > years I have been laboring under a misconception and you prove to me that > international law does indeed exists I will be forever grateful to you for > correcting my grievous and long lived mistake. > To render me this service all > you have to do is name one aircraft carrier under the command of > international law, or cruiser, or destroyer, or PT boat, or tug boat, or > dingy, or bb gun, or cap pistol. Until that day comes to pass I will call > it > for exactly what it is, international suggestions. This doesn't make any sense you offer me only absurd ways to convince you. But okay lets try it. The USS Enterprise. Are you convinced? ;-) > Why do you suppose people debating if Australian law existed or not would > be > absolutely absurd, an exercise fit only for morons? Because it does clearly does exist. > It would be absurd > because the answer is so blindingly obvious. Its obvious to me that my answer is that it does. Its not obvious to me that you will grant that it does, why should you, Australian law doesn't compell you to do anything unless you are under its jurisdiction? So far as I know you only acknowledge the existence of laws that have force behind them. If a murder was committed in the US and the person escaped conviction it is not clear to me that you would consider that the crime of murder existed. The law doesn't cease to exist merely because it is not applied in some cases. Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose all the US Supreme Court justices conspired to together break a law that only the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate. Would the relevant law cease to exist merely because it could not be applied in that case? > The fact that the very > existence of international law is controversial is pretty damn good > evidence > to me of its mythical nature and can join its noble brethren, Big Foot, > flying saucers, cold fusion, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The trials of Michael Jackson and O J Simpson were controversial does that make the crimes they were charged with non-existent of mythical. > Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, far from it! I am *trying* to understand. > Perhaps someday billions of people will have enough confidence in > international law to entrust their freedom and safety to it, I hope so, > but > we're not there yet. John the big part of my concern about this is that it had already started to happen in a very limited way with the signing and ratification of the UN Charter. I really don't get why you don't get that. But the fact is that you don't get that do you? This is where you and I don't understand each other I think. > >> I'd like to know which would disturb you more that "they" genuinely >> believed or that they were lying and deceiving including to Congress and >> to the American people. > > You are asking me who is worse, a liar or an idiot. I have no easy answer. > Would you rather be shot or hung? No. I'm trying to get a handle on if or how you see ethics and degrees of rightness or wrongness. That would help me understand how you see law. It seems to me that you only see law as being about compulsion. I think that you might think that if you and I made mutual promises and there was no compulsion that you would still feel an ethical obligation to honour your promise but you have not told me that that is the case yet. >> I can say good things about Bush. I think he really loves his >> family. > > Granted. > >> I think he is probably genuine in his faith in God. > > Yes but believing in something (faith) when there is no good reason for > doing so is not a virtue it is a vice. Bush had faith there were WMD in > Iraq > and look where that got us. If you put a gun to my head I would say there > is > a 51% probability that Bush really did believe all that WMD crap; but the > fact that the man who could destroy all human civilization in a few hours > with the wave of his hand is probably an idiot rather than a liar does not > enable me to sleep more soundly at night. I follow your thinking in this bit which makes it all the more strange that I don't in the other bit. You say international law does not exist and I say it does so one of us must be logically incorrect. I think it is you because you are making a category error and mixing up enforceability in some circumstances with existence of the law per se. Brett Paatsch From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Mon Dec 19 01:35:33 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:35:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [futuretag] QALY pharmacoeconomics Message-ID: Interesting question, albeit not very coherently stated. Some observations: QALYs are a tool for assessing the social utility that can be generated by alternative investments of public monies. It can certainly be extended to include the social utility produced by both public expenditures and regulatory efforts, which are also an investment of sorts. However your posts seems to assume that public regulation is only to be judged in terms of how many benefits they deny the public access to. I'm willing to concede some of that, but I think there is a much stronger case on the other side: in general, food and drug regulations keep the public from wasting money on unproven, ineffective and dangerous drugs, "natural" and otherwise. For instance, millions of women took estrogen replacement therapy and then found out that it increased their risks of cancer and heart disease. In retrospect, it would have been nice to have required a large scale double-blind clinical trial of HRT before it was prescribed rather than after. As for "natural" therapies, a major study of milk thistle just found it ineffective in reducing liver disease, and St. Johns wort has been shown to be ineffective in treating depression. The reason that QALY calculations have not included "natural" treatments hitherto is because once we know, through clinical trials, what efficacy a treatment actually provides then its not "natural" anymore - its just medicine. As we've seen with Vioxx and many other drugs, however, even the process of clinical trsting is very problematic. Although the process and science of clinical trials can be much improved, if anything, public health and QALY maximization would be improved by more aggressive food and drug regulation, not less. What keeps the FDA from acting in the public interest is the influence of the pharmaceutical and health supplements industries, pursuing their various forms of lobbying and influence, increasingly naked and unashamed under the Bush administration. So if your real concern is QALY maximization, let's start with policy questions such as: - what QALYs are being produced by investing in the administrative overhead of 1500 private insurance firms (and the administrative externaltiies they impose on hospitals and doctors' offices) versus investment in something like universal health insurance in the US? ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From HerbM at learnquick.com Mon Dec 19 02:49:52 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:49:52 -0600 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat]TheNeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <033b01c60428$6f1e2f90$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512190250.jBJ2o7e12567@tick.javien.com> > From: > Brett Paatsch > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:12 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: HM Re: > [extropy-chat]TheNeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresident > ial growth) > > [A lot of additional words from Mr Martin snipped out > and still available in his post ] > > > That it authorized war is open to discussion ... > > No longer between you and I Mr Herb Martin as the above > statement you've made and which I have challenged you on > is false, resolution 1441 was not understood by all who signed > it to authorise force and I think your above comment about > it being "open to discussion" shows that you know that. So you answer facts and logic and an honest statement of where discussion might make sense by stomping your (metaphorical) foot and declaring your own victory -- such is intellectual dishonesty on your part. > I will credit no further words from you as being true when > you are unwilling to stand behind the statements you have > already made. Whether others do is a matter for them. Thank you -- your failure to listen, to work through facts and logic and your unwillingness to consider arguments is it's own reward when dealing with human fly paper such as yourself. Your impotence to erect even a simple argument using such facts and logic is reason enough to be shed of your but your unilateral declarations of victory are the act of a "bully" who finds someone stands up to him and then stomps that little foot and says "No fair, facts and logic do not count." > For others I offer this refute to your false statement. > > 1441 was unanimous in its entirety. It unanimously granted > Iraq "one final opportunity", the duration and expiration of > which was not the US President's right to unilaterally > determine. The Security Council was "seized of the matter". Yes, one final opportunity which Saddam failed to take. One final opportunity before "serious consequences". Saddam made his choice and received those serious consequences. Thank you for admitting it was unanimous and that is was the FINAL OPPORTUNITY. The US brought truth to that resolution -- it was in fact the FINAL OPPORTUNITY. > Under the operative provisions of the UN Charter signed > and ratified by the US Senate and therefore under the > provisions of the US Constitution and by his oath of office > President Bush, was obliged NOT to instigate the use of > military force on that same matter without the Security Council > determining the end of that final opportunity. No, he was required (requested I believe but required is ok) to take the matter to the UN, which he did and received a UNANIMOUS resolution to the surprise of practically everyone. Had he not received 1441 he still would have been authorized to remove Saddam. > That a further resolution was required was the reason why > a further resolution was sought by the United States and the > United Kingdom. No, such attempts by the dishonest such as you to "change history" will not be accepted by those who know and remember that in truth the reason for attempting another resolution was because Tony Blair and the British that that such an ATTEMPT was important. The final outcome was however that no such resolution was ever formally offered and 1441 remained the controlling resolution. > Brett Paatsch That you have rejected all future facts that I may offer thankfully gives me leave to give your messages the attention that all such messages from the intellectually dishonest such as yourself deserve: nothing unless I choose to refute such lies for the benefits of others who may otherwise be taken in. Thank you. From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 19 03:51:40 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:51:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A third extropic path In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512181951n5001a5feu79d96b99ce20a045@mail.gmail.com> On 12/18/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > One of the reasons I consider myself to be an "extropian" is because I > consider there to be relatively inherent value in the information which > involved in the exploration of the phase space of reality, existence, life, > etc. We might need to distinguish information from data, and organization from complexity. > The development of the laws of science, the exploration of the > universe we (in theory) live in, the forms of "life" it may support, etc. > all fall within the exploration of the phase space. IMO, there is less > value in the rediscovery of phase space which has already been explored and > more value in extending the boundaries of the known phase space or > discovering completely unknown phase space. This can be viewed as an > information science axiom -- "more bits are good". As long as the additional bit provide significant additional utility, and acknowledging that there is a cost/benefit tradeoff, however small. Fundamental question: In general, what is the relative value of archived information compared to new leading edge information, given negligible storage cost but significant constraints on processing capacity? I suspect that data that is not organized and utilized fairly soon will tend to vanish like raindrops in a flood, recoverable in principle but never in practice. > This can then be > extended when one gets into subjective analysis to -- "better bits are even > *more* good". But the question, as recent political discussions suggest is > *who* defines "better?" What is "better" is certainly subjective, but those elements which are valued over a greater scope of subjective agents, types of interactions, and greater span of time, tend to be seen as increasingly "good" as they approach objective status. > I have tended to use survival/preservation of the > bits as an overall priority in my life with the value judgements of the > usefullness of bits to be something to be determined in the future in > specific environmental instances [1]. This thinking appears to be incomplete or ambiguous, since actions taken in the present imply a value judgment in the present. (I'm probably nit-picking here, since I understand you necessarily have an a priori estimate of the general overall value of this data, based on your expectations that some portion of it will eventually become useful information.) > I will try to make this brief but it really involves a complex analysis. > Historically one may view longevity, lifespan extension, etc. as wanting to > preserve "currently active" bits. Preserve bits, or grow from them? (Red Queen principle.) > There is of course the survival instinct > (genetic program) at work in each individual in this. In fact the > biochemistry involved seems to suggest that if one does not keep it active > one gradually may lose the bits (e.g. use it or lose it). Cryonics has > traditionally largely been viewed as a transitory state (i.e. one preserves > the bits until one can return them to an active state). > > Now, this raises the question of a third option -- "Would you be willing to > bequeth your bits but retain your 'self'?" This is problematic, since "examining" the bits is actually a form of processing them, and the difference between actually "running the consciousness" of that stored brain and merely "processing the information" stored within diminishes as the knowledge, thoughts, insights, values of the stored self are transferred to a new dynamic medium (the examiner) whose future actions are now determined to some extent by what has been transferred. > > I.e. One would preserve the bits within a brain, allow them to be available > for perusal, etc. but never allow/enable the reactivation of the individual > "consciousness". With cryonics and nanobot enabled selective information > extraction and/or uploading this should be possible. This would to some > extent satisfy the wishes of the people outlined above in that they would > never know/experience the perceptions of their love ones and never again > experience the pain of the loss of friends but at the same time preserve > their knowledge (bits) which at this time cannot effectively be "outloaded". > > This has interesting bearing on capital punishment perspectives -- i.e. one > preserves the knowledge of an individual but never allows them to "run" off > of it again (i.e. one is "suspended" permanently). This could be very practical, given the forfeiture of individual rights implied in such a situation, and the advantages to society of examining the previously hidden information bearing on issues of concern to society at large. > > Now, where this tends to get interesting from my perspective involves the > question of the extent to which one can "backtrack". If I have the DNA of > RJB, and I have the frozen brain contents of RJB, and I have written, audio, > video and individual subjective impressions of RJB *and* I have a lot of CPU > cycles and bit storage at my disposal -- how difficult is it *really*(?) to > resurrect RjB? Even if one does not "run" the best approximation a cryonic > reanimation can produce it would seem that one could backtrack from the > public information to "me". (This thought line is in part due to the fact > that they are currently putting Cave Bears, Wooly Mammoths and Neanderthals > back together -- and we are very far from the limits physics and simulations > would seem to allow.) If one knocks out one or more components of the above > list one simply gets a less accurate resurrection. But you can consider > this to be kind of an extended Turing Test -- how many components and to > what extent would they have to be removed before one knows it is *not* RjB. > > So it begs some questions... Should we bring Sasha back? And if so, to > what extent? So it becomes a moral question, and all questions of morality are decided by the living. We can see that, in general, greater information (about ourselves and about how things work) leads to better decision-making and better results. For this reason, it would seem that reasonable people would tend to want to leave the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom for others to use, even if they chose to die, or otherwise abandon or change the form of their consciousness beyond the likelihood of future contact. This would be considered "reasonable" since one would do so with the expectation that others would do the same, to the general benefit of all. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that self-determination is a fundamental moral good (in order to be able to freely decide about anything) so if--no matter how irrational it may seem--an agent decided to terminate itself with the intention of being irretrievable, it seems that such a wish should be respected, if the living understood that such wish was well considered and "freely" made. ["Freely" is understood to mean within the conventional context of valid free will, and not intended to provoke the argument over determinism and free-will.] And now, to your specific question -- and I'll repeat, moral decisions are necessarily made by the living -- a reasonable person might be likely to assess Sasha's state at the time of his decision as one of great pain and lacking the freedom to alleviate it, therefore his decision was not made "freely" as conventionally understood. Therefore, the "right" thing to do would be to revive him to a pain-free state and give him another chance to decide. This discussion opens the floodgate to a wide range of speculation, but I hope I have stayed close to the intent of your post. - Jef From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Dec 19 04:24:47 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:24:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [futuretag] QALY pharmacoeconomics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60512182024x5482c3bcv5b2f12d099ee23b3@mail.gmail.com> Can't this kind of stuff stay on wta? Rafal On 12/18/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Interesting question, albeit not very coherently stated. > > Some observations: > > QALYs are a tool for assessing the social utility that can be generated > by alternative investments of public monies. It can certainly be > extended to include the social utility produced by both public > expenditures and regulatory efforts, which are also an investment of > sorts. However your posts seems to assume that public regulation is only > to be judged in terms of how many benefits they deny the public access > to. I'm willing to concede some of that, but I think there is a much > stronger case on the other side: in general, food and drug regulations > keep the public from wasting money on unproven, ineffective and > dangerous drugs, "natural" and otherwise. > > For instance, millions of women took estrogen replacement therapy and > then found out that it increased their risks of cancer and heart > disease. In retrospect, it would have been nice to have required a large > scale double-blind clinical trial of HRT before it was prescribed rather > than after. > > As for "natural" therapies, a major study of milk thistle just found it > ineffective in reducing liver disease, and St. Johns wort has been shown > to be ineffective in treating depression. > > The reason that QALY calculations have not included "natural" treatments > hitherto is because once we know, through clinical trials, what efficacy > a treatment actually provides then its not "natural" anymore - its just > medicine. As we've seen with Vioxx and many other drugs, however, even > the process of clinical trsting is very problematic. > > Although the process and science of clinical trials can be much > improved, if anything, public health and QALY maximization would be > improved by more aggressive food and drug regulation, not less. > > What keeps the FDA from acting in the public interest is the influence > of the pharmaceutical and health supplements industries, pursuing their > various forms of lobbying and influence, increasingly naked and > unashamed under the Bush administration. > > So if your real concern is QALY maximization, let's start with policy > questions such as: > > - what QALYs are being produced by investing in the administrative > overhead of 1500 private insurance firms (and the administrative > externaltiies they impose on hospitals and doctors' offices) versus > investment in something like universal health insurance in the US? > > ------------------------ > James Hughes Ph.D. > Executive Director > Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies > http://ieet.org > Williams 229B, Trinity College > 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 > (office) 860-297-2376 > director at ieet.org > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Dec 19 05:02:13 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:02:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] private ownership of nuclear weapons Message-ID: Excellent comments. However, I'm still a little wary when it comes to private ownership of nuclear weapons. You only mention defensive uses of nuclear weapons (which could be quite useful), but there's bound to be at least a few people who desire to use such weapons for ideological/offensive purposes. Since nuclear weapons are so difficult to defend against, this could definitely be problematic in the long term. I've devoted some brain cycles in the past to trying to devise a sustainable framework for private nuclear weapon ownership, but haven't been too successful yet. In the case of "The Ungoverned," it's mentioned that if the farmer's neighbors realized he had a nuke, they probably would've lynched him immediately to protect themselves. What if all owners of nuclear weapons are required to own insurance to cover potential damages? If the owner is mentally unstable or they have weak safeguards for the nuke, insurance would be prohibitively expensive or downright impossible to get. Of course, there's then the problem of how to require insurance for something in an anarcho-capitalist society. One way is if possession of an uninsured nuclear weapon within blast range is considered to inherently be a violation of the non-agression principle and grounds for the use of force. There seems to be some ambiguity there though, so I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with it yet. On 12/18/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > On Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:53 AM Neil H. neuronexmachina at gmail.com > wrote: > >> Nope. You move to private militaries and then you can > >> use technologies like nuclear weapons in self-defense. > >> Your neighbors might have a huge army, but that will be > >> a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend to be -- while > >> your nuclear device keeps them from invading. > > > > Hehe... > > > > "He's not our customer!" > > -- Wil W. Brierson, in Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned" > > > > > > http://everything2.com/?node=Briefest+apologia+for+the+use+of+nuclear+weapons+in+literature > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ungoverned > > Remember, that's a fictionalized account. In the real world, I bet most > nation states would not try to antagonize anyone armed with nukes, so > having them is a good defense policy, especially given the bang for the > buck when thinking about market anarchism. In other word, it's much > easier to hide and maintain a few nukes on standby than it is to > maintain a big military ready to thwart would be invaders. The nukes > impose a very high cost for invasion -- a much higher cost than having > countering forces. > > This is not to say that no one will ever invade a nuclear armed power or > that there won't be ways of countering nukes, such as new technologies > or having what John J. Mearsheimer calls "splendid first strike > capability" (the ability to overwhelm a nuclear power with one's own > nukes), but that nukes will handle many situations driving down the cost > of defense because they drive up the cost of offense. (See > Mearsheimer's _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_.) > > Also, if my memory's correct, the New Mexicans (?) -- the evil invading > nation in the story -- were unaware of the farmer with the nuke. It > would probably be a good defense policy to let would be hostiles know > that you _might_ have a nuke. That way, they'll think before invading. > After all, the point of having one (or many) for defense is so that you > don't have to use them -- as a deterrent. > > On this, see the typo ridden essay "Is the nuclear proliferation a > blessing?" at: > > http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf > > And also _Basement Nukes_ by Erwin S. Strauss > > Regarding how nation states evaluate threats, especially when playing > for keeps, see "The Credibility of Power: Assessing Threats During the > 'Appeasement' Crises of the 1930s" (in _International Security_ 29(3) > [Winter 2004/2005]) by Daryl G. Press and also his _Calculating > Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats_. > > Also, as Samantha and I have argued, these free societies would have an > economic and technological leg up over their neighbors with huge > standing armies. In fact, historically, it's usually been the > economically more free societies that have one out despite usually > having smaller armies. (What usually happens is they become economic > powerhouses and can raise better militaries than and otherwise > outperform their opponents.) > > If you more talking about how a private security firm might decide not > to defend a non-customer, well, that's true, but this is also true of > nation states. They can decide not to defend non-citizens or other > nation states, as when Britain and France, despite their treaties, did > not come to the rescue of Czechoslovakia during late 1930s and how the > US sat back and let East Timor be gobbled up by Indonesia during the > 1970s. It's also true, though, that private firms could decide to band > together -- just as nation states do. This is not enough of an example > to decide between the two systems. > > Regards, > > Dan > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > "... governments kill far more people than do terrorist groups. From > 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to > the U.S. State Department. Yet, in the same decades, governments killed > more than 10 million people in ethnic-cleansing campaigns, mass > executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters. The > 9/11 attacks made 2001 probably the only year in decades in which the > number of people killed by international terrorists even approached 1 > percent of the number killed by governments. Governments pose a far > greater threat to peace and survival than do terrorist groups." -- James > Bovard at http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Mon Dec 19 06:44:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:44:43 -0800 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <20051218232103.63223.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512190646.jBJ6kie03743@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:21 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis > > --- spike wrote: > ... > > I call it the start of the fourth > > Iraqi war, > > The bit about "There'll be a horrible civil war if we > leave!" is just another lie brought to you by the same > folks who brought you the WMDs and the Al-Quaida > connections... Jeff, I'm with you on that partially. I expect a continued low level war in the Arab nations, but not a horrible civil war. After seeing the participation level in last week's election, I am much more optimistic about that, if the news reports can be trusted. I am inclined to believe them, for anything good that happens in Iraq is bad for the yankee press. They downplay it if at all possible. It is easy to imagine the fourth Iraq war continuing much as it is now, with the elected Iraqi government struggling with insurgents blowing up police stations and government buildings occasionally, causing an average of perhaps a dozen to twenty casualties a week. That kind of war could go on indefinitely, but the nation itself will survive it. Seeing nightclubs explode in random places around the globe is something we will likely have with us for longer than you and I are likely to live, and there is nothing we can do about that. I doubt we are going to give up our alcohol or blasphemy, or start making women cover themselves. Suggestions welcome. > > But if he did say these things, > > it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets > > into a shooting war with the EU. > > Not a chance. The Europeans are working their tails > off just trying to keep the US an/or Israel from > attacking Iran and setting off a war stretching from > the Meditterranean to Kashmir... Oh I don't doubt for a minute the Europeans are working their tails off to prevent a war that would be tragic beyond imagination, but Iran is looking more hostile every day. If they keep picking a fight, eventually Europe will be forced to give them one. President Ahmadinejad seems to be intentionally provoking European ire. > They prefer oil at fifty rather than five hundred > dollars a barrel. Jeff, this is an important point: oil cannot go to 500 dollars a barrel. It is at the point now to where alternatives are attractive. The reason the alternatives are slow to take off is that we have no protection against sweet crude returning to 15 bucks, which would ruin investors who dumped capital into coal conversion for instance. Coal can be converted to diesel oil for an equivalent of about 35 bucks a barrel, but the conversion plant is expensive. This source says 7.5 billion USD for a 150,000 barrel a day unit. http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/02/bui ld/state/25-coal-fuel.inc The camel jockey oilmen know this, and will play the game just so to keep these kinds of investments from being attractive. The fact that all that sweet crude is there, and comes out of the ground on its own is a persistent threat to the investment community who would otherwise develop oil alternatives. these alternatives are ones we already know how to do. We are not waiting for new technology, no new research. We are only waiting for the supply of cheap sweet crude to be used up. Then we can invest in coal conversion and other attractive alternatives that will keep energy no more expensive than it is today. With oil futures at 55 bucks and holding, I expect to see these kinds of plants coming online gradually but steadily in the next several years. The pace could accelerate dramatically if anything can protect us against oil falling to 15 dollars again. spike From Mike15007 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 07:01:09 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:01:09 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuclear terraforming Message-ID: <28c.2a4a063.30d7b4b5@aol.com> In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:57:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jrd1415 at yahoo.com writes: Oh, heck. Clearly Mike beat me to the sunshade idea. I didn't read ahead. My bad. Congrats Mike. Great minds think alike. No prob :-) I didn't even come up with the idea. I think I got it from "Transhuman Space: In The Well" a few years back, which may have gotten it from somewhere else. THS may be a little dated now (plus it is a game book, admittedly), but has a few good ideas still, IMO. Best, Jeff Davis Mike "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles Good quote. I like. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike15007 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 07:21:09 2005 From: Mike15007 at aol.com (Mike15007 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:21:09 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] RAND Pardee: 50 Books for Thinking About the Future Human ... Message-ID: <2a3.25c7a82.30d7b965@aol.com> In a message dated 12/17/2005 1:37:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pgptag at gmail.com writes: My three suggestions: The Age of Spiritual Machines (the new Kurzweil's book is, I think, just a followup) - Citizen Cyborg - More than Humans. Kurzweil's new book, "The Singularity Is Near," May be a follow-up. But is certainly comprehensive enough (I have it, and just going by the several chapters I've read so far) to be worth it :-) Nice companion to "Spiritual Machines" and the others you mention. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Dec 19 08:27:39 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:27:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Organizing conference in a metaverse Message-ID: <470a3c520512190027h6503111fm360a301e14ddfcb4@mail.gmail.com> On the futuretag list we are discussing and planning to hold a major and profitable conference on future emerging technologies with H+ bias in cyberspace. Think of it as a scaled up Transvision in a virtual world (Second Life or another VR). The conference could be a Transvision, or we could call it something else. We should have top level invited and paid speakers plus volunteer speakers. We should do a very professional work and follow as close as possible the conference metaphor - people are already used to interact in a conference, so the VR event should be similar to a physical conference - speakers give lectures, you can ask questions from the audience, round tables, desks and chairs, coffee breaks, parallel sessions, private meeting rooms etc. Everything should be recorded on machinima video generated in world, and the proceedings distributed on DVD. Some research is needed on e.g. support for Power Point, video presentations and audio feeds, but I am sure everything can be done with existing tools. We are now discussing the detailed requirements and the suitability of different metaverse implementations - Second Life is the "obvious" candidate but we are discussing possible alternatives, for example building the workspace on Croquet. To those who have contributed to the previous threads (Alexander, Jay, Sampo, Brandon, Jef, Gina, Jani, Artillo etc.), please join the discussion on futuretag is you wish to participate (see http://futuretag.com/about/forum or write to me). I will post project updates here is there is enough interest. From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 19 09:04:01 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:04:01 -0500 Subject: JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <200512151606.jBFG6Se29690@tick.javien.com><089401c601dd$9f4817a0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43A21D8E.3000703@goldenfuture.net><08d201c601e6$82988fa0$cd81e03c@homepc><43A22C35.3070408@goldenfuture.net><09e801c6020a$d864efe0$cd81e03c@homepc><001f01c60269$289c9590$f00a4e0c@MyComputer><0d0201c602a5$a878db70$cd81e03c@homepc><003a01c6032e$f23709b0$10064e0c@MyComputer><008301c60380$36c58790$cd81e03c@homepc><000f01c6041c$f52adc20$45064e0c@MyComputer> <037001c60436$23c388c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <001c01c6047b$34b31d40$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > This is getting almost too hypothetical to deal with as too > many facts have to change for it to have been so. So you're saying your powers of imagination are so weak you can not envision a hypothetical where the international community condemns an action that nevertheless turns out to be for the good. You treat the words "international law" as a synonym for virtue and infallibility, I don't. > The USS Enterprise. Are you convinced? What do you think? Like it or not the ultimate commander of the USS Enterprise is George W Bush not international law. The world might indeed be a better place if that was untrue but it is not. > you only acknowledge the existence of laws that have > force behind them. You tell me, if there is no force behind the "law" how is it different from a suggestion? The entire purpose of law is to protect people, only a fool would entrust their safety to something that has no power. >The law doesn't cease to exist merely because it is not applied in > some cases. I agree, but the problem is "international law" is not applied in ANY cases; or rather it is applied ONLY when the major NATIONAL powers want it to. And that makes it just the national law of the big powers. I'm not saying that's a good thing but that's the way it is. > It seems to me that you only see law as being about compulsion. For me to consider something a law I must first respect it. For me to consider something a good law I must think it can protect me. International law fails on both counts. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 19 09:22:25 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:22:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Message-ID: <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Brent Allsop" > The idea was that two different atoms of the same element, causally > indistinguishable from each other I fire my trusty 44 magnum at one object and it most defiantly CAUSES an effect on it, if the other object 180 degrees away is unaffected then we are dealing with 2 objects and they are not "causally completely indistinguishable from the other". If however the other object is similarly effected by my bullet then there is only one object and I might start thinking about a mirror. John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 10:26:36 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:26:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] my country, right or wrong In-Reply-To: <20051216053441.83007.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216053441.83007.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3E05DDEB-8633-4E1D-8778-984336EB379B@mac.com> On Dec 15, 2005, at 9:34 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Alan Brooks wrote: > >> I can clearly remember being told in kindergarten >> about forty five years ago of how "a real man will >> lay down his life and serve his Country"-- right or >> wrong; the situation hasn't changed all that much >> since then. We're inching forward like snails and >> it's time to admit it. > > But "my country, right or wrong" cuts right to the > heart of the hypocrisy of the ruling the class. When > it comes to unilateral military action using > tax-payer's money, they invoke nationalism and the > need to "protect our borders" with much flag waving > and hoopla. But when it comes to whittling down their > overhead by offshoring precious American jobs > overseas, they invoke globalism. Can't agree with you here. Globalization is not just about "making the rich richer". It also has real benefits for all of us AND for people in the other countries that some of the commodity jobs go to. > "Those Chinese people > need to eat too don't ya know, it's a global economy > now." That is a fact. It is a global economy. This is a good (although often disruptive) thing. > So the simple truth of the matter is the > financial elite want their cake and to eat it too. > This is a particularly bitter pill for me to swallow > since I served in the military like I was told a "real > man should". What does your falling for such a manipulation have to do with the issue? Hmm. What exactly was/is the issue anyhow? > I don't remember seeing any trust fund > babies with me in my fox-hole in Panama during the > reign of Bush the First. Well of course not. But this is an argument that should be pointed against bloated government rather than against those who have more money than you (or I). - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 10:35:21 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:35:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <20051216091543.GS2249@leitl.org> References: <380-22005125162711794@M2W086.mail2web.com> <43A22421.1060904@goldenfuture.net> <20051216091543.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <93437F9D-FC87-4AFD-99F5-D0C94B281914@mac.com> Well go ahead and get all emotional and throw a tantrum then. - samantha On Dec 16, 2005, at 1:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:19:13PM -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> However, are incendiary and factually incorrect posts about >> politics to >> be simply ignored in the interests of maintaining such a policy? I >> will > > No. I will not ignore them. I will unsubcribe. > >> be more than happy not to post about politics first, but once the >> deed >> is done, I think it's only decent to allow a response... > > Which is *precisely* the reason that any first-poster must be > immediately > jumped upon, and beat senseless with baseball bats. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 10:36:32 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:36:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] terrorist self-hatred? In-Reply-To: References: <200512160308.jBG38re22299@tick.javien.com> <092f01c601f1$435ca910$cd81e03c@homepc> <09ff01c6020e$5d3749e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <75C73101-7819-435C-98BD-2AA9C6C4E725@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:29 AM, gts wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:00:14 -0500, Brett Paatsch > wrote: > >> Terrorist is a pejorative term used for political purposes. >> A person would no more claim to be or self-identify as >> a terrorist than they would claim to be or self-identify >> as an evil-doer. > > True, but an objective definition of 'terrorist' still seems > possible. Unlike other soldiers, (and I use that word loosely), > terrorist soldiers use fear as a weapon. As in "Shock and Awe"? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 10:44:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:44:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: Political topics, opinions and discussions In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <606298F9-2F0E-4675-BE8F-7558C982AAFC@mac.com> What contributes most to list discord imho is bright people who cannot seem to manage to discuss certain topics without going irrational and attacking speakers or the very act of speaking about some topics. Folks, if we are going to have a chance in hell of pulling through this period in human history then we have to develop a bit more equanimity and maturity than this. I am really disgusted by all the wringing of hands and slamming closed communication every time certain subjects come up. It would be fine if we simply insisted those subjects are dealt with in a more quality way. But that is not what we are doing. - samantha On Dec 16, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 12/16/05, gts wrote: >> Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 >> years >> because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can >> bitch and >> moan about just about anything. :) > > And it is this tendency toward mental masturbation that contributes to > the significant drop in signal to noise that we've seen. > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 11:13:23 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:13:23 -0800 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper In-Reply-To: <200512170142.15270.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051216200650.01d4f948@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200512170142.15270.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: <2065CB41-6265-46A9-976D-0FCE8620ECAA@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2005, at 7:42 PM, Diego Caleiro wrote: > >> The >> information sciences have sparked the mystic belief that >> everything is made >> of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity can be >> separated from >> the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the brain. This is a >> curious >> technological rewriting of the notion of the individual soul, >> transcendent >> from embodiment. It may be a reassuring story but there's no >> evidence to >> support it. > > > > Absolutely true, I would even say, painfully true. > As we are not that advanced *yet* of course there is no evidence. At one time there was no evidence for the ability to fly heavier than air craft. There were more than a few learned dissertations on why such was preposterous and utterly impossible. Wait and see. Transcendence of human misery is not a bad goal at all. With proper technology you don't have to practice make-believe to significantly achieve it. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 11:39:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:39:12 -0800 Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> On Dec 17, 2005, at 4:35 AM, Herb Martin wrote: >> From: Jeff Davis >> --- Joseph Bloch >> wrote: >> >>> The irony here is, they would not be able to decide >>> that, if we had not >>> overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under >>> the jackboot of >>> Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would >>> still be in operation. >>> People would still be thrown living into plastic >>> shredders... head-first >>> if the death was to be merciful. >> >> No, the irony here is that Saddam's atrocities were of >> no interest to you when he was the US ruling elite's >> pal (against the Iranian's) in the eighties, when >> Rumsfeld was glad-handing him, and the US corporations >> were selling him the precursors for the WMD's he was >> using to fill up those mass graves with Iranian >> corpses that you never gave a damn about, and Iraqi >> corpses that you are now so very very shocked to learn >> about, and which the US power elite, as Saddam's > > > Again someone like Jeff posts the "common knowledge" > that is JUST WRONG. It is so tiring when people fail > to see through such propaganda and bithely repeat it. > As opposed to you own version that contradicts much of what I have gathered? > The US WANTED to support Iraq against Iran in those > days when the main enemy was the still vital and > threatening, but was unable to stomach Soddam and > his behavior and so stood aside mostly during the > war with Iran. > The US put Saddam in power to start with. He was "our man" we thought for a while. We didn't go after him until he stopped doing what we wanted instead of what he wanted or thought best for Iraq. > As to precursors, these are the same chemicals that > are used in agriculture as pesticides and are also > equipement and stocks used in pharmaceuticals -- in > those days Saddam had not (yet) shown his prediliction > for GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE and developing other > weapons of mass destruction BY THE TON (and long since > admitted by Saddam.) > Funny. At the time the US military said the gas involved was Iranian. Again, the caps make your argument much weaker. > The US was NOT a major supporter of Saddam despite > the lies you have heard and may even have fallen into > the habit of repeating. > Incorrect. > The attempts to change history in order to rehabilitate > the murderer Saddam are just plain disgusting. > The attempt to justify any stupidity we do in the region by saying it was all about removing Saddam for the sake of the Iraqi people is a most disgusting manipulation and blatant lie. The good of the Iraqi people was not our motive. Neither were mythological WMD. So endless inflation of Saddam's admitted evil or back and forth about how much we supported him rather misses the most important point. What was our real reason for going there and remaining there at great cost? > Any argument against removing Saddam most devolve down > eventually to: THe world would be better off if this > murderer were never removed from power so the US should > just leave Iraq and return Saddam to power. We and the Iraqis would have been better off to have not done Desert Storm in 91 and to have never imposed the sanctions. We set up Saddam then and bombed the hell out of the infrastructure. We knew after that and the sanctions and occasional targeted (at industrial targets) bombings since that there was no way that Saddam was a real threat. I and a few others said so at the time. Assuming for a moment that Saddam was every bit as evil as your opinion states, would it have been legitimate for us to go over and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (even Bush admits to 30,000) and inflame the entire region greatly increasing the hatred toward the US just to remove him? It doesn't seem like a very well-justified action to me. Apparently it didn't seem well justified to this administration either as they lied through their teeth about WMD and the means to deliver it being in Saddam's hands in order to scare Congress and the American people into going along with this farce. So turning around now and saying we did the right thing because Saddam is soooo evil and we care about the Iraqi people sooo much is utterly contrived and pathetic. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 19 11:57:46 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:57:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: Political topics, opinions and discussions In-Reply-To: <606298F9-2F0E-4675-BE8F-7558C982AAFC@mac.com> References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com> <8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> <606298F9-2F0E-4675-BE8F-7558C982AAFC@mac.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512190357n47cc5921p6007cb3689f64b81@mail.gmail.com> Seeing Samantha's post quoting my rather pointed but blunt comment, I think a bit of clarification is due. I personally support intelligent discussion on this list of all topics, including politics, as long as each post is intended to *contribute something of value* to the group. On the other hand, I object to individuals abusing this commons by using it primarily to pleasure themselves at cost to others, whether by trolling to provoke responses on controversial topics, or instigating or prolonging a discussion only as a platform to exhibit their own inflated sense of superiority, or for general "bitching and moaning", no matter how "intelligent" the poster may feel. - Jef On 12/19/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > What contributes most to list discord imho is bright people who > cannot seem to manage to discuss certain topics without going > irrational and attacking speakers or the very act of speaking about > some topics. Folks, if we are going to have a chance in hell of > pulling through this period in human history then we have to develop > a bit more equanimity and maturity than this. I am really disgusted > by all the wringing of hands and slamming closed communication every > time certain subjects come up. It would be fine if we simply > insisted those subjects are dealt with in a more quality way. But > that is not what we are doing. > > - samantha > > On Dec 16, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > On 12/16/05, gts wrote: > >> Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 > >> years > >> because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can > >> bitch and > >> moan about just about anything. :) > > > > And it is this tendency toward mental masturbation that contributes to > > the significant drop in signal to noise that we've seen. > > > > - Jef > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 12:01:59 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:01:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: <003601c60311$313fa5e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <003601c60311$313fa5e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2005, at 5:52 AM, Gary Miller wrote: > If the United Nations would have developed as a just and courageous > vehicle > for the upholding of international law and resolving differences > peacefully > and fairly, Americans might have given the UN dissenting opinions > to the war > a lot more weight. > It can do this exactly how unless we agree to it having any such ability? Remember the ICC? We squash the UN having such power. Personally I wouldn't want this body to have as much power as you suggest. > As we found out, they are just a group of corrupt representatives > all with > their country's and individual hands out. > As opposed to Enron cqziness with this administration, A VP whose former company gets most of the juicy pork from our Iraqi adventure, a President whose family is long time entangle with Saudi royalty and has ties to the oil industry? What of what you are saying could not be applied to our own government? > Had the oil for food fiasco not happened, Americans might feel a lot > differently even repentant about not listening to them. > Not in the least did the oil for food ploy become a "fiasco" soffucient to ignore whether dissenters , most of whom had nothing to do with oil for food, had a valid point. > Regardless of whether we went to war for the right reasons or not > the UN at > large was on Sadam's payroll. > This is a preposterous accusation. Saddam didn't have enough bucks for such massive bribery. The US on the other hand effectively controls the UN and much of its purse. > For most Americans now the United Nations and international now is > a sad > joke. It is when Bush would not even support the ICC. > We have quite enough corruption to root out in our own > government. I > don't think we need to complicate our decisions and foot the bill > besides > for an international organization more concerned with lining it's > pockets > than preventing genocide in the world. That is quite a leap you are making. From one scandal in a program that was preposterous to start with to divining the entire character and worth of the entire UN. > > Most Americans have a pretty strong moral compass. For an > international > body to have major influence over us it must be above reproach. > If we had such a strong moral compass we would have sacked Washington DC and salted the earth it was on generations ago. > > I for one think Sadam should have been removed due to the atrocities > committed on his people. > Great. Next time go do it on your own time instead of taking money from me at gunpoint for your foolish adventures. > One would have hoped the Iraqi people would have all came together and > embraced each other as a country and cherished this chance at > democracy and > a better way of life we have given them. We are not giving them a better way of life. They live under occupation and fear in a country with seriously comprised infrastructure. Also many of the Iraqi factions do not want any sort of peaceful melting pot that we might dream of imposing. Many faction are not remotely interested in what they consider decadent Western notions of democracy. > And I too would like us to return to Extropian topics. Everyone > has already > analyzed this to death and came to their own understanding right or > wrong on > these issues long ago. If I or anyone else think they are going to > change > anyone's minds on what they already have come to decide on this > topic, I > think they're living in a dream world. > If we can't learn to question or opinions and discuss them with one another then imho we have a long way to go to achieving any sort of extropic future. >>> I think your nation state of America has become the single greatest > threat to extropy in the world because your countrymen have been so > complacent in regard to their responsibilities to their fellow > human beings > that they have allowed successive US Presidential administrations to > increasingly flagrantly undermine the basis of international laws > established for the purpose of maintaining international peace and > security. Hey, I can't argue with some of that. More importantly, we have not stood up to increasing imperialism and a run away government that has pretty much eviscerated our rights and freedoms. The Emperor is naked. We have little left to wave in the face of other sovereign nations as being so obviously superior that they should be overjoyed if we invade their country next on the pretext of "helping" them. - samantha From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Mon Dec 19 13:36:58 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:36:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [futuretag] QALY pharmacoeconomics Message-ID: > Can't this kind of stuff stay on wta? Paragon of tolerance aren't we? J. From megao at sasktel.net Mon Dec 19 14:58:55 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:58:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] QALY pharmacoeconomics Message-ID: <43A6CAAF.6030804@sasktel.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: QALY pharmacoeconomics Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:21:26 -0600 From: Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO To: futuretag at yahoogroups.com, Morris Johnson References: Hughes, James J. wrote: > Interesting question, albeit not very coherently stated. > > Some observations: > > QALYs are a tool for assessing the social utility that can be generated > by alternative investments of public monies. It can certainly be > extended to include the social utility produced by both public > expenditures and regulatory efforts, which are also an investment of > sorts. However your posts seems to assume that public regulation is only > to be judged in terms of how many benefits they deny the public access > to. I'm willing to concede some of that, but I think there is a much > stronger case on the other side: in general, food and drug regulations > keep the public from wasting money on unproven, ineffective and > dangerous drugs, "natural" and otherwise. > The idea behind QALY is to compare cost with efficacy. The key would be to generate QALY from these less than perfect services with the risk being that they are QALY deficient. Low cost NHP's might compare favorably overall when compared to high cost of disease treatments they might forestall or compress into later life. > For instance, millions of women took estrogen replacement therapy and > then found out that it increased their risks of cancer and heart > disease. In retrospect, it would have been nice to have required a large > scale double-blind clinical trial of HRT before it was prescribed rather > than after. > > As for "natural" therapies, a major study of milk thistle just found it > ineffective in reducing liver disease, and St. Johns wort has been shown > to be ineffective in treating depression. > At an NHP regulatory course I took I think I discovered one cause for this. Their sample protocol was 2 caps echinacea with cisplatin as a trial to extend teminal cancer survival times. I said "whoa, if you want efficacy with herbals don't give 2 caps give 20. When I use NHP's I use teaspoons full not itsy bitsy drug scale amounts." So negative results can be the result of poor study dosage criteria for example. > The reason that QALY calculations have not included "natural" treatments > hitherto is because once we know, through clinical trials, what efficacy > a treatment actually provides then its not "natural" anymore - its just > medicine. As we've seen with Vioxx and many other drugs, however, even > the process of clinical trsting is very problematic. > NHP's can do clinical trials just like regular pharma and still be NHP's...in Canada anyway. I'm sure some crude guesses can be generated for herbal NHP's without formal trials. Ginseng might be given some ball-park QALY compared with the pharma quality clinical trialed "Cold FX" extract. > Although the process and science of clinical trials can be much > improved, if anything, public health and QALY maximization would be > improved by more aggressive food and drug regulation, not less. > Getting all the data system-wide from all charts and records into an accessible e-format and then data mining it to find patterns would help things along. An impediment is the confidentiality thing. To me over-regulation of privacy is a problem. > What keeps the FDA from acting in the public interest is the influence > of the pharmaceutical and health supplements industries, pursuing their > various forms of lobbying and influence, increasingly naked and > unashamed under the Bush administration. > Politicians are as a group not med-tech insiders with enough life experience to jump over their own bureaucracy. > So if your real concern is QALY maximization, let's start with policy > questions such as: > > - what QALYs are being produced by investing in the administrative > overhead of 1500 private insurance firms (and the administrative > externaltiies they impose on hospitals and doctors' offices) versus > investment in something like universal health insurance in the US? > Under a pure public medicare system there is the complaint often that "union" dictated work protocols reduce the flexibility of chains of command ability to maximixe individualization of service delivery to give the same level of service per billed hour. (system inefficiencies) I would propose that total transactions over the totality of some conditions over a lifetime are higher because waiting list use allows conditions to become more advanced and thus require more dramatic treatments. If you are very ill (stroke) you get priority treatment, if you are moderately ill (say need hip replacement) you wait your turn for months at times. QALY rationing at work perhaps. However there are bottlenecks in MRI and specialist consult access wait times in the public system. QALY breakdown. How a mostly private system where a slice of every definable transactional portion is carved off as profit to the owners of each drug, service or facility capital compares is one of my concerns. Overall I believe the Canadian per capita health care costs are only 70% of the mostly private USA system. One would conclude from that that if the same amount of money was expended by a pure public system that there would not be wait lists and that total service would surpass the mostly private system. The average patient when entering for public system crisis treatment in a system with rationing based waiting lists is generally sicker by the time non-life threatening conditions are treated compared to under a first come first served higher fee private system. QALY breakdown. There is a slice of the mostly private system clientel who are rationed by way of being un or under-insured and not able to be listed on any wait list. So there is a sort of invisible wait list that is never counted. The libertarian view is "pay up or die". The pure public system is "hurry up and wait". The other side for public systems however is that early detection access is faster at the start so people who might not see a doctor do so without need to fit such a visit into their budget or HMO plan coverage terms.(walk-in cataract surgery) Public payors tend to cap the higher cost salaries much better than the low end salaries. QALY are the basis of disease criteria coverage rationing of highest cost drugs. It's hard to give the drug companies all the blame as they seem to struggle just to keep shareholders happy. I had a friend who had a heart lung transplant for polymyosistis in California a couple of years back. He was on a waiting list up here. When he asked for some cost sharing by medicare they said "If we knew that you were going to get it someplace else we would have put you through sooner, so we are not sharing in your costs since you did not wait your turn. " My friend said "I'd have died if I had waited so I had no choice." QALY based public waits VS market driven waits. It is stated that the more private system generates more technological competition and I must give that some importance. In Canada, Ray Kurzweil would not be booking into a clinic one day a week to push the limits of technology as well as getting unrestricted services on demand. The system would dictate that since diabetes has an average course it is not fair for one person to get so much service when others are waiting for consults. The public system would not put resources into individual life-extension over systemic palliation. This is the one major fault in the public system. My business activities deal with the component of life extension from NHP's and I see an uphill battle when dealing with both systems with the public being the worse off as a result. I don't want to play on the negative but think the QALY model has some deficits in it's way of creating the numbers. It needs improvement and better explanation to those who make pharma/med-economic rationing decisions. Especially in a monopoly public payor only system. MFJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Dec 19 15:32:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:32:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensionaltime! In-Reply-To: <002001c60263$b5c03bd0$940e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20051215231258.49404.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <002001c60263$b5c03bd0$940e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 12/16/05, John K Clark wrote: > > Brent Allsop Wrote: > > > Interesting idea about physical existence without having > > any causal property. > > No not really. > > > Isn't it possible that you could have two physical objects - both a > > particular atom or something that can be causally completely > > indistinguishable from the other. > > Then how do you know you have two physical objects and not one? > > That problem has been dealt with by Quantum Statistics. The answer is different from the classical and results in different physical properties in (say) metals. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 17:51:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:51:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <000f01c6041c$f52adc20$45064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20051219175151.69060.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > To render me this service all > you have to do is name one aircraft carrier under > the command of > international law, or cruiser, or destroyer, or PT > boat, or tug boat, or > dingy, or bb gun, or cap pistol. Until that day > comes to pass I will call it > for exactly what it is, international suggestions. Does the International Space Station count for this purpose? Would it count more if it was equipped with weapons? What about a space ship for an international mission to Mars? 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 benboc at lineone.net Mon Dec 19 18:38:13 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:38:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <200512190502.jBJ52de25143@tick.javien.com> References: <200512190502.jBJ52de25143@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43A6FE15.70508@lineone.net> Anna Tylor wrote: > If I couldn't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or speak, > wouldn't I simply just exist but know nothing? My guess is that if you were born unable to see, hear, etc., then you would never develop a consciousness in the first place. There would be no 'you' to exist. On the other hand, if you were suddenly rendered incapable of seeing etc., then it probably wouldn't be long before you went comatose. We know that a brain deprived of sensory input starts to invent it's own input, but i don't know how long that could be sustained without any actual physical input from the real world. I think it would gradually fade away, resulting in coma. If the deprivation of senses was permanent, the comatose state would be too. I suppose this would be "existing but knowing nothing", in a sense, but probably not what you meant, as the 'you' - your consciousness - would be non-existent. An interesting (gruesome, but interesting) question is: what would happen if someone had all their sensory inputs severed (say because of some freak injury - yeah, i know, that would be all but impossible), but they were kept on life support for a number of years, then a future neural interface technology was used to reconnect them to the world? What would happen? Would they awake from their coma, more-or less the same person as before, or would they be a gibbering idiot? Or perhaps they would simply remain in the coma, having lost the capacity to process any inputs? In any case, "existing but knowing nothing" doesn't seem possible, when applied to a person. The nearest thing to it would probably be a state of deep meditation, of the type where you 'still your thoughts'. ben From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 18:55:11 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:55:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <200512190646.jBJ6kie03743@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051219185511.50227.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > The camel jockey oilmen know this, and will play the > game just so to keep these kinds of investments > from being attractive. The fact that all that sweet > crude is there, and comes out of the ground on its > own is a persistent threat to the investment > community > who would otherwise develop oil alternatives. these > alternatives are ones we already know how to do. > But this is circular logic. Any development of alternative energy sources would automatically cause a drop in the price of oil. To use the fear of this as an an excuse not to invest in these alternatives is silly. It's like saying that calculators should not have been developed because it caused a reduction in the price of slide-rules. This is true, but it did not mean that suddenly the demand for slide-rules shot up. What these investors have to understand that if alternatives are developed, people will switch to them, even if they are a little more expensive, for no better reason than to feel good about being high-tech. This will especially be true if we convince consumers that what the spend on cheap oil based energy goes to fund TERRORISM. If you want to end terrorism, you don't try to bomb it into submission, you merely spend your money elsewhere and starve it away. We should switch to the alternatives no matter how cheap their oil gets because we need to show them that they need our money more than we need their oil. Then maybe they will start making an effort to get along with the rest of the world. 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 19 19:05:09 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:05:09 +0000 Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <200512190646.jBJ6kie03743@tick.javien.com> References: <20051218232103.63223.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> <200512190646.jBJ6kie03743@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/19/05, spike wrote: > > > > > The bit about "There'll be a horrible civil war if we > > leave!" is just another lie brought to you by the same > > folks who brought you the WMDs and the Al-Quaida > > connections... > > Jeff, I'm with you on that partially. I expect a > continued low level war in the Arab nations, but > not a horrible civil war. After seeing the participation > level in last week's election, I am much more optimistic > about that, if the news reports can be trusted. I am > inclined to believe them, for anything good that happens > in Iraq is bad for the yankee press. They downplay it > if at all possible. If you want to know what is happening, or likely to happen, ditch CNN and read AlJazeera. ... > > > But if he did say these things, > > > it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets > > > into a shooting war with the EU. > > > > Not a chance. The Europeans are working their tails > > off just trying to keep the US an/or Israel from > > attacking Iran and setting off a war stretching from > > the Meditterranean to Kashmir... > > Oh I don't doubt for a minute the Europeans are > working their tails off to prevent a war that > would be tragic beyond imagination, but Iran > is looking more hostile every day. If they > keep picking a fight, eventually Europe will > be forced to give them one. President > Ahmadinejad seems to be intentionally > provoking European ire. Er... as far as Iran goes, it is the US and Israel that seems intent on picking the fight. The US labelling them as one of the 'axis of evil', and invading No 2 (Iraq) while issuing dire threats, both directly and by proxy (Israel), is not going to make them all friendly now, is it? Esp when they see that No 1 is off the menu because they really do have WMDs. What message do you think that sends? And Europe will certainly not be fighting the Iranians. The latter have no problem with Europe compared to the US and Israel. If Iran goes nuclear, either before or after 'pre-emptive strikes' by the US or Israel, Europe is going to side with the Iranians. Of course, there may be temporary sanctions, but that will be all. If the US can forgive Pakistan going nuclear the EU can certainly do that with Iran. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 19 20:15:24 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:15:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] hero robot Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051219141353.01ccff58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/051219-2.html 'Mighty Mouse' machine stages rescue at US government facility. Michael Hopkin It sounds like something you might pitch to a Hollywood studio. A high-security US radiation lab is thrown into turmoil when a cylinder spewing out deadly radiation gets trapped in its network of delivery tubes. A robot is sent to try and free the canister before the radiation eats away at its circuits. After a string of failures, the intrepid machine saves the day. The drama happened in October, at the US defence department's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Records released this week describe how the base's Gamma Irradiation Facility was paralysed when a cylinder containing cobalt-60 became lodged in one of the lab's air-pressure tubes, similar to the document-delivery systems once used in offices. The cobalt, powerful enough to kill a person in half a minute, got jammed between its storage area and the site where it was to be used to test the effects of radiation on vehicles and circuit boards. Once stuck, there was no way that lab staff could go near the tube, even wearing radiation suits. They watched from their control room as the lab's radiation alarms began to blare. After trying to dislodge the canister by upping the pressure in the tube, the team called in a 270-kilogram bomb-disposal robot from the nearby Sandia National Laboratories. The remote-controlled machine, bristling with drills and robotic arms, seemed perfect for the job. But the radiation would disable its circuits within 50 minutes, its handlers calculated. The canister, about the size of a salt cellar, was jammed against a seesaw-shaped switch inside the tube that was stuck in the wrong orientation. So the robot drilled a hole in the tube to try and wiggle the switch back into position. Two attempts failed. The robot then tried drilling straight into the switch's hinge, to allow the whole thing to be pushed aside. But the high pressure used to try and blow the canister out had buckled the switch out of shape. By now, the robot had been in the radiation zone for 90 minutes. The team decided to regroup, but the robot's electronics had failed and it was rooted to the spot. Thankfully, the team had tied a rope around the machine, and it was hauled in, almost knocking over a radiation shield in the process. The team sent the robot back the next day, determined to unscrew a section of the tube's metal panelling and remove the switch. They fitted a plastic part to the robot that would allow its screwdriver to engage with the screws. But the radiation melted the plastic. On the third day, and after three weeks of continuous warning sirens, the team sent in the robot with a metal screwdriver. It unscrewed the plate, dislodged the switch, and sent the tube safely to its storage bay. "The team effort produced a marvellous job," says White Sands staff member Richard Williams. It is unclear whether, once their headaches have gone and their well-chewed fingernails have grown back, the team will sell the movie rights to their escapade. The robot, nicknamed Mighty Mouse or M2 for its heroics, is taking a well-earned rest. [completely wrecked its positronic brain, though...] From jonkc at att.net Mon Dec 19 20:57:10 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:57:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> Message-ID: <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> "Samantha Atkins" > We and the Iraqis would have been better off to have not done Desert > Storm in 91 and to have never imposed the sanctions. Well you're half right. A thief is always better off if he is not caught so yes, the Iraqis would have been better off if they could invade their neighbors and receive no opposition, not even sanctions. (Could we at least give Saddam a tongue lashing or is even that too harsh?) The Iraqis would be better off but the rest of the world would not be. Without Desert Storm Saddam Hussein today would have his hand on the throttle of the world economy, he would rule the top 3 oil exporting countries on Earth, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait and he would own 50% of the oil on this planet. Saddam would be richer than God and after having first hand experience with the spineless nature of western democracies I have no doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic and horrible weapons with a vengeance. One of the reasons I didn't vote for John Kerry was his opposition of the war in 91, which was an even bigger blunder than Bush starting a war in 03. But in all fairness to Mr. Kerry, at least he thought we should impose sanctions, but you say even that is to big a punishment just for murdering thousands and invading your rich neighbors. John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 21:14:28 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:14:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: <200512172040.jBHKeBe30095@tick.javien.com> References: <200512172040.jBHKeBe30095@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Can the $100K reward be claimed for a prime with at least 10 million digits that is not a Mersenne prime? - samantha On Dec 17, 2005, at 12:38 PM, spike wrote: > > > Wooooohooooo! {8^D > > The primenet may have discovered a new record breaking > Mersenne prime, number 43. It waits to be verified of > course, which will take about 3 to 4 weeks. But each > time it has reached this stage before, it has been proven > correct. If true, this has been a hell of a year for > mathematically-oriented humanity. {8-] > > Interesting note: this one is probably still not at > the ten million digit mark, which is worth $100k-bucks > to the discoverer, but rather more likely around 8 to > 9 million digits. So if anyone wants to take a shot > at the 100k, you know what to do, or if not, google > on primenet, mersenne, or just go here, read and do: > > http://www.mersenne.org/ips/ > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Dec 19 21:29:10 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:29:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <43A6FE15.70508@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20051219212910.46011.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > An interesting (gruesome, but interesting) question is: what would > happen if someone had all their sensory inputs severed (say because > of > some freak injury - yeah, i know, that would be all but impossible), > but > they were kept on life support for a number of years, then a future > neural interface technology was used to reconnect them to the world? > What would happen? Would they awake from their coma, more-or less the > same person as before, or would they be a gibbering idiot? Or perhaps > they would simply remain in the coma, having lost the capacity to > process any inputs? It seems like this is the kind of thing that actually could be done in experiment - on a mouse, at least. Train a mouse on a maze, enough that the mouse will remember the maze long-term (that is, so ordinary forgetfulness over the course of the experiment can not explain the results). Disconnect then reconnect the mouse's senses, and see what effect that has on the mouse's memory of the maze. (If the mouse remembers the maze, that's not total proof that the mouse isn't otherwise "gibbering idiot" level. But if the mouse doesn't remember - or if the mouse remains in a coma after being reconnected - there's proof of the hypothesis: even a lesser intelligence can't survive that experience.) ...which leads me to wonder if, perhaps, someone has actually done that experiment. From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 19 21:31:04 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:31:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: <20051218023826.74938.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051218023826.74938.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2005, at 6:38 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > >> Just to chime in - I also failed to see substantive >> differences >> between Kerry and Bush. To me both seem like the >> same statist garbage >> packaged in two differently colored wrappings. > > I agree with you and Spike. It really wasn't much of a > choice. Just the illusion of one, which is how > democracies are manipulated these days. Yep. I voted for Badnarik. I couldn't see voting for death by firing squad vs. death by lethal injection. Since 9/11 and although I am certainly not a registered Democrat, I have occasionally sent leaders to various Democrat party leaders pleading with them to take stands that would differentiate their party from that of the pseudo- Republican neocons. I received nothing but mealy mouth excuses and the kind of "reasons" I see on CNN back. This led me to the conclusion that what is really going on is that almost all of the federal politicos are reading from the same play book for reasons they have not bothered to share with the public. I could take some guesses what those reasons are. In the meantime I see no point in casting votes in federal elections. - samantha From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 19 21:33:52 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:33:52 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: Political topics, opinions and discussions References: <200512160351.jBG3p1e26380@tick.javien.com><8df7190ad9dd242af46a229f117b539f@HarveyNewstrom.com><22360fa10512160600m2ccf2cc5wf5cdf2553b1c3510@mail.gmail.com> <606298F9-2F0E-4675-BE8F-7558C982AAFC@mac.com> Message-ID: <01ef01c604e3$e83f2ee0$cd81e03c@homepc> Hooray!!! Hey welcome back Sam, I missed you ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: Political topics, opinions and discussions > What contributes most to list discord imho is bright people who > cannot seem to manage to discuss certain topics without going > irrational and attacking speakers or the very act of speaking about > some topics. Folks, if we are going to have a chance in hell of > pulling through this period in human history then we have to develop > a bit more equanimity and maturity than this. I am really disgusted > by all the wringing of hands and slamming closed communication every > time certain subjects come up. It would be fine if we simply > insisted those subjects are dealt with in a more quality way. But > that is not what we are doing. > > - samantha > > On Dec 16, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > >> On 12/16/05, gts wrote: >>> Shucks, Harvey. I came back to this list after being away for 2-3 >>> years >>> because I remember it to be a place where intelligent people can >>> bitch and >>> moan about just about anything. :) >> >> And it is this tendency toward mental masturbation that contributes to >> the significant drop in signal to noise that we've seen. >> >> - Jef >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 21:34:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:34:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Quali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051219213456.43410.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anna Tylor wrote: >Ok..i'm going to ask a bunch of naive questions. These questions are not naive and they don't have any right answer. The answer you get to them would depend on what school of philosophy of mind the person you asked belonged to. Because much of the content of the previous threads regarding qualia and consciousness have been devoted to Western philosophical traditions, it would be tedious for me to summarize them here. instead I will answer these questions as a zen buddhist might. > If I couldn't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or > speak, > wouldn't I simply just exist but know nothing? In buddhism the self is an illusion that is developed over a lifetime of sensation. What you see, hear, touch, smell, or otherwise sense makes you believe that you are separate from the earth, sky, and the grass beneath your feet. If you NEVER had these senses, then you would be empty and in Nirvana without suffering for your entire life as you would never have developed any concept of self. You would in essense be no different than the blades of grass that grow and flourish without worrying if they will live or die or if the neighboring blades of grass recieve more sunlight than they do. Thus the physical you would exist but not the You that asked me this question and thinks she is a separate entity from the one who is answering this question. That the senses are fallible and imperfect and capable of being either lost, blunted, or deceived means that there is no way of truly "knowing" anything. One can only draw conclusions by the sensory evidence at hand and hope for the best. Thus even if you had ALL your senses you could not be sure that you were not dreaming at any particular moment. This is illustrated by the following Buddhist legend: Once upon a time the buddhist monk Won-Hyo was crossing the country side and when a fierce storm blew in. He sought shelter from the storm in a damp cave. Safe from the wind and the rain he went to sleep and around midnight he awoke, very thirsty. It was pitch-dark so, half asleep he groped along on all fours, searching for water. At last his hand touched what he percieved as a cup on the ground. He picked it up and drank from it and the water was cool, soothing, and sweet. His thirst sated, he went back to sleep, gratitude in his heart. The next morning Won-Hyo woke up and saw beside him what he had taken for a cup the night before. It was a shattered skull, blood-caked and with tattered shreds of flesh still stuck to the cheek-bones and bits of brain still caked in its hollow. Maggots and ants crawled through the decaying flesh of the skull and floated on the surface of the filthy rainwater inside it. Won-Hyo looked at the skull and felt a great wave of revulsion and nausea. He opened his mouth and vomited and as the vomit poured out, his mind opened and he had an epiphany. He suddenly understood the secret of life, death, the universe, and the nature of existense. The night before, since he hadn't seen anything and hadn't thought about it, the skull was a cup and the water in it was delicious. This morning, seeing what he drank from and thinking about it had made him vomit. The moral of this story is simply that it is thought and thought alone that differentiates good from bad, life from death, pain from pleasure, and brings into being all the complex dualities of life. Without thinking, there is no universe, no self, and no suffering. ALL is ONE, and the ONE is EMPTINESS. To quote the rock band Rush, "You are made from dust of stars and the oceans flow in your veins." > Wouldn't I only know "5" is "5" because someone > suddenly awakened one of my senses and taught me > that "red" is "red"? Yes but only because you are taught that your perception is called this color or that number. What is "five" to you is cinqo to a Mexican, or quintus to an ancient Roman. Likewise what is "red" to you is "rouge" to a Frenchman. These things are but labels for perception. Is "red" truly "red"? Or is it instead "scarlet" or "carnelian"? It is none of these, merely your perception. Turn out the lights and let your eyes get adjusted to the dark and look at something you know is red. It will look a greyish-brown. > Should I be focusing on the purpose of "5" or "red" > or > should I concentrate more on the fact why "5" or > "red" > exist? There is no purpose and no why. There is no "5" and there is no "red". All of being is merely perception and thought. Be content to see the beauty red and understand that five is more than four and ease your troubled mind. > Would that mean that the more senses you use, the > more > conscious you are? Yes, but the more conscious you are, the more disconnected you will feel from all that is around you. The more you are aware of the more you will suffer. You cannot want what you cannot perceive and you cannot be deprived of what you do not want. Be at peace, Anna. > Would that mean that aliens have different senses or > that someone taught them that "5" is "3"? MOO! Unthink that thought. Do not invite aliens into your reality by contemplating how they do math. You have no use for aliens, they will only cause trouble for you. Ignore them and they will not bother you, do not think of them and they will cease to exist. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 19 22:27:43 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:27:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Quali In-Reply-To: <20051219213456.43410.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051219213456.43410.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051219161746.01db8638@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:34 PM 12/19/2005 -0800, Avant wrote: >At last his hand touched >what he percieved as a cup on the ground. He picked it >up and drank from it and the water was cool, soothing, >and sweet. His thirst sated, he went back to sleep, >gratitude in his heart. > >The next morning Won-Hyo woke up and saw beside him >what he had taken for a cup the night before. It was a >shattered skull, blood-caked and with tattered shreds >of flesh still stuck to the cheek-bones and bits of >brain still caked in its hollow The trouble with this parable is that it's complete bullshit. Unless Mr Won-Hoy's senses were completely obliterated by his ordeal, he would have had absolutely no trouble in detecting the difference in smell, taste, texture, viscosity, etc between rancid blood and fresh water. I can think of two instances where some version of this story might make sense, both involving trickery and subterfuge of a kind that renders the original parable meaningless or inverted: Actually he drank the water, but the next morning it had been switched for a bloody skull by a trickster; or he was hypnotised into thinking that he saw, smelled, touched either the water or the blood. I suppose there is another alternative: actually he had taken up a cup of watery wine, which was accidentally left there by a passing Christian priest after it had been consecrated into the sacred blood of Jesus Christ. Imagine how cross (no pun intended) that would have made both of them. Damien Broderick From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:51:52 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:51:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] warfare and masculinity Message-ID: <20051219225152.99374.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What I was attempting to point out by mentioning what I was told forty five years ago-- "a real man will serve his country and lay down his life"--is how slowly the situation has changed in forty five years, and how slowly the situation will likely change in the next forty five years: "our notions of warfare and masculinity are shaped by the era of hunting and gathering..."-- Richard Brookhiser nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 23:03:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:03:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Quali In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051219161746.01db8638@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051219230315.11604.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > The trouble with this parable is that it's complete > bullshit. Unless Mr > Won-Hoy's senses were completely obliterated by his > ordeal, he would have > had absolutely no trouble in detecting the > difference in smell, taste, > texture, viscosity, etc between rancid blood and > fresh water. It's a legend, Damien. I don't make any more claim for its veracity than I do the labors of Hercules. Also it was supposedly water in the skull, there may have been some blood in the water but he was was not drinking pure(?) rancid blood. Have you ever done the kid's science fair experiment where you are blindfolded and fed either a small piece of onion or a small piece of apple with your nose pinched shut? Most people can't tell the difference. Do you know how many old people poison themselves in the middle of night by mistaking household chemicals for medications? Judge not lest you awaken to find that you have brushed your teeth with Preparation H. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 23:33:03 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:33:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <20051219212910.46011.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051219212910.46011.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ben wrote: >> An interesting (gruesome, but interesting) question is: what would >> happen if someone had all their sensory inputs severed We were pondering a similar and I think even more interesting question here recently: some blind people can respond to objects in their field of vision even with no conscious experience of seeing. Apparently they can see but don't know how they can see, like Tommy the Pinball Wizard. Imagine a person with this sort of blind-sight for all his senses, and imagine his blind-sight was perfectly accurate. Wouldn't that person seem no different from anyone else? Acy argued he would not be like us; that he would not be able to respond appropriately to questions like, "Hmm, nice weather today, yes?" But I don't see why that is so. Presumably he would know it was a nice day, but not know what he meant by it. :) -gts From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 19 23:34:40 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:34:40 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? Message-ID: <026401c604f4$c89d6f50$cd81e03c@homepc> If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that President George W Bush will be impeached what odds would serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Dec 19 23:44:21 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:44:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick (was letterconcerningpresidential growth) In-Reply-To: References: <20051218023826.74938.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47779.72.236.102.114.1135035861.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Yep. I voted for Badnarik. I couldn't see voting for death by > firing squad vs. death by lethal injection. I also voted for Badnarik. Why vote for someone I *didn't* want to have win? Regards, MB From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Dec 19 23:54:37 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:54:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <026401c604f4$c89d6f50$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <026401c604f4$c89d6f50$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <5366105b0512191554r11bd4ce6l29f580287bdb569e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/19/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that President > George W Bush will be impeached what odds would > serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? > Find out the odds at http://www.ideosphere.com/. This won't let you use US currency, but it might let you estimate the odds. If you want to build a site specific to the question, try http://www.foresighttechnologies.com/ or http://sourceforge.net/projects/ideafutures. Please let me (or the list, if you think it of general interest) know what odds you get. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 19 23:56:23 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:23 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? References: <026401c604f4$c89d6f50$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <02bd01c604f7$d0d374f0$cd81e03c@homepc> I wrote: > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that > says that President George W Bush will be impeached > what odds would serious minded people like to offer > me I wonder? Spike?, John?, Stu?, Jeff, Alan, Robin, Hal ? Anyone? This should be a question that facilitates thinking about politics in an extropic manner. Allow me to provide a data point that might assist you in your deliberations. Recently a poll was conducted in which 1000 people were asked the following question http://www.rasmussenreports.com/MembersOnly/2005%20Dailies/December%202005/Dec%209-10b.htm "Suppose a candidate for Congress announces that, if elected, he or she will work to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Knowing this, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?" Brett Paatsch From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 00:07:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <02bd01c604f7$d0d374f0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051220000747.99420.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > I wrote: > > > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money > that > > says that President George W Bush will be > impeached > > what odds would serious minded people like to > offer > > me I wonder? > > Spike?, John?, Stu?, Jeff, Alan, Robin, Hal ? > Anyone? Well I would guestimate the odds at being 3:1 against him being impeached, but I could not cover that bet for $1000. Bet me $25 dollars on the other hand and I would stake $100 on the outcome and be happy to lose. The odds may drop a little if a democratic congress comes into play in Nov. 2006. > > This should be a question that facilitates thinking > about > politics in an extropic manner. > > Allow me to provide a data point that might assist > you in your deliberations. > > Recently a poll was conducted in which 1000 people > were asked the following question > > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/MembersOnly/2005%20Dailies/December%202005/Dec%209-10b.htm > > "Suppose a candidate for Congress announces that, if > elected, > he or she will work to impeach President Bush and > Vice President Cheney. Knowing this, would you be > more > or less likely to vote for that candidate?" 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 00:37:07 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:37:07 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220000747.99420.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02ef01c604fd$81accba0$cd81e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > I could not cover that bet > for $1000. Bet me $25 dollars on the other hand and I > would stake $100 on the outcome and be happy to lose. > The odds may drop a little if a democratic congress > comes into play in Nov. 2006. Lets say I'd prefer bigger amounts because of the transaction costs but offers for smaller amounts would be considered, ie. folks with only US$1 could offer odds for part of the action. Brett Paatsch From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 01:25:24 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:25:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <02bd01c604f7$d0d374f0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money > that says that President George W Bush will be > impeached what odds would serious minded people like to > offer me I wonder? Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 After Jan 2007: even money. Best, Jeff Davis "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Tue Dec 20 01:35:37 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:35:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? Message-ID: <20051220013537.9B4F757F5B@finney.org> Brett writes: > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that President > George W Bush will be impeached what odds would serious minded people > like to offer me I wonder? There is a related claim at the FX game, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp : Claim BuImp - Bush impeached or resigns : : This claim will be true if a majority of the US house votes to impeach : George Bush--or Bush resigns from office. It may be judged when another : US president is inaugurated or George Bush out of office. : : Note: it is not necessary for the Senate to convict Bush for this claim : to be true. Since its creation in September, the claim has traded very stably at about 20, implying a roughly 20% chance of coming true. This counts both resignation and impeachment, so the odds of just impeachment would be somewhat lower, but I don't know how much. So I'd be willing to offer 4 to 1 odds against, and feel like I had a modest profit expectation. And yes, I'd be willing to cover the $1000 bet (putting up my $4000 against that). Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 01:44:15 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:44:15 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <033401c60506$e29b2980$cd81e03c@homepc> Jeff Davis wrote: > Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 You sure Jeff, i.e. you have US$10K in assets you are willing to guarantee with and effectively place in escrow now? Brett Paatsch From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Dec 20 02:08:18 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:08:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Spin on Holiday Gift Giving Message-ID: <380-22005122202818622@M2W055.mail2web.com> Here is a meaningful spin on gift giving: Smart Cell International (Europe, Middle East, and Asia) is wrapping stem cells as Christmas gifts for grandparents who are purchasing gifts for their grandchildren. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/19/stem.cells.gift/index.html Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 02:37:47 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:37:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com> On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:57 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Samantha Atkins" > >> We and the Iraqis would have been better off to have not done Desert >> Storm in 91 and to have never imposed the sanctions. > > Well you're half right. A thief is always better off if he is not > caught so > yes, the Iraqis would have been better off if they could invade their > neighbors and receive no opposition, not even sanctions. (Could we > at least > give Saddam a tongue lashing or is even that too harsh?) The Iraqis > would be > better off but the rest of the world would not be. The point was that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam asked us if we had any problem with the action he proposed to take. we said "no". Then we proceeded to pretend to be surprise and to outright lie about the size of force involved and Saddam's intentions. We faked satellite data and put out preposterous stories (e.g., babies taken from incubators and killed). > > Without Desert Storm Saddam Hussein today would have his hand on the > throttle of the world economy, he would rule the top 3 oil exporting > countries on Earth, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait You have no way to support such a wild guess. he had no intentions to rule either country afaik. What would he gain by such an attempt but a world of hurt? He got the hurt but outside our propaganda and fraud at the time it may be harder to prove such intent. Making success likely IF he did have such intent is harder still. > and he would own 50% of > the oil on this planet. Saddam would be richer than God and after > having > first hand experience with the spineless nature of western > democracies I > have no doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic and > horrible > weapons with a vengeance. > > One of the reasons I didn't vote for John Kerry was his opposition > of the > war in 91, which was an even bigger blunder than Bush starting a > war in 03. > But in all fairness to Mr. Kerry, at least he thought we should impose > sanctions, but you say even that is to big a punishment just for > murdering > thousands and invading your rich neighbors. That was one of the few reasons that I considered voting for him. I have no beef with sanctions without DS for real evils of Saddam and country rather than fabricated ones. But not to the degree or for as long as they were employed. They caused tremendous harm to the Iraqi people far beyond any need to corral Saddam. DS itself was based on fabrication in large part and deserved to be opposed. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 02:37:14 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:37:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:25:24 -0500, Jeff Davis wrote: > Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 Those odds seem about right to me. Most amazing is the fact that impeachment seems a possibility. I admit it was the first thought that came to mind when I heard about his authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant. At any other time in history that would be immediate grounds for impeachment. Impeachment might still be a possibility, but progress in Iraq is very good news. Also I was very impressed by Bush's honesty in his speech last night. Strange how the good news about the voter turnout in Iraq and the relative peace on that day appeared at about the same time that we learned our president was spying on his own citizens. Recently we removed a dictator who did that sort of thing. I count the spying as a partial victory for the terrorists we're trying to defeat. -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 03:21:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Quali In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051219161746.01db8638@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051220032113.81058.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Unless Mr > Won-Hoy's senses were completely obliterated by his > ordeal, he would have > had absolutely no trouble in detecting the > difference in smell, taste, > texture, viscosity, etc between rancid blood and > fresh water. Upon further consideration, I bow to Damien's experience as a story-teller. My gory embellishments to the story for dramatic effect were unnecessary. They run counter to the spirit of Zen Buddhism which lay in simplicity and they detract from the "truth" inherent in the tale. I hereby amend the story such that upon awakening Won-Hyo discovered that he had drunk rain water from a human skull of dubious cleaniness, which in itself, would be sufficient to turn the stomachs of most civilized folk. Even those used to drinking ground water from wells dug in earth. 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 Tue Dec 20 03:26:03 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:26:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] China now No 4 Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4541220.stm "...That extra growth would place China's economy as the world's fourth biggest, behind the US, Japan and Germany. China has been benefiting from strong exports and improving domestic demand. It also has been accused of undervaluing its currency in an effort to boost foreign sales. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said last month that domestic demand would improve between 2006 and 2007 and that China would increase its share of global trade. The OECD expects the Chinese economy to grow by 9.3% in 2005, rising to 9.4%next year and 9.5% in 2007." _________ Based on such growth China is likely to reach economic parity with the US within 5yrs if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Dec 20 03:48:03 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:48:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Spin on Holiday Gift Giving References: <380-22005122202818622@M2W055.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <017801c60518$3b77f8b0$0300a8c0@Nano> Very cool. Anyone who can do this, should do this. You never know when it might come in handy. Thanks Natasha! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ http://www.nanoindustries.com http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html ----- Original Message ----- From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Spin on Holiday Gift Giving Here is a meaningful spin on gift giving: Smart Cell International (Europe, Middle East, and Asia) is wrapping stem cells as Christmas gifts for grandparents who are purchasing gifts for their grandchildren. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/19/stem.cells.gift/index.html Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 03:51:05 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:51:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] China now No 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051220035105.89580.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Based on such growth China is likely to reach > economic parity with the US > within 5yrs if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. But does your calculation take into account the huge windfall ROI from the War in Iraq that Dubya was promised by God? :j :| :( 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 Tue Dec 20 04:11:12 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:11:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] China now No 4 In-Reply-To: <20051220035105.89580.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051220035105.89580.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A78460.7070802@goldenfuture.net> Perhaps we should see how long you can go without bashing Bush even in a completely unrelated thread... What odds am I offered? ;-) Joseph The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Based on such growth China is likely to reach >>economic parity with the US >>within 5yrs if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. >> >> > >But does your calculation take into account the huge >windfall ROI from the War in Iraq that Dubya was >promised by God? > >:j > >:| > >:( > > > > > >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 >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Dec 20 04:24:25 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:24:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051219225521.0775aa28@unreasonable.com> gts wrote: >Strange how the good news about the voter turnout in Iraq and the relative >peace on that day appeared at about the same time that we learned our >president was spying on his own citizens. Separate, largely unrelated thoughts in each paragraph: Or, strange how the New York Times reportedly had the story for a year, and printed it at about the same time that we had good news from Iraq. One of the most offensive aspects of life in these times is how commonplace activities are trumpeted as dramatic and unprecedented. Behaviors that are routine in Washington, in US history, and in world history, call for banner headlines. With specific regard to "our president was spying on his own citizens" -- read a bit of history, particularly The Puzzle Palace. With regard to impeachable behavior -- even if everything Bush has been accused of were absolutely true, he'd still be a piker compared to other presidents. I'm not sure which disgusts me more: the people who push a storyline they know is a lie, for the good of their cause, the lapdogs who repeat the storyline, without caring whether it is true, or the great unwashed, who lack the knowledge and critical skills to see through the lies and distortions. I have another bet to propose. What are the odds that Bush's approval rating will rise to 60%? To 70 or 80%? My best guess is that a Bush approval rating of 70% is more likely than articles of impeachment passing. -- David. From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Dec 20 04:57:38 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:57:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Message-ID: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> This is almost beyond belief. The Nation has devoted a big portion of its issue on the subject of torture (although Bush says the US does not torture prisoners): http://www.thenation.com/issue/20051226/ ... and Americans are seemingly apathetic? From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 06:21:10 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:21:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20051220062110.18741.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > Without Desert Storm Saddam Hussein today would have his hand on the throttle of the world economy, he would rule the top 3 oil exporting countries on Earth, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait and he would own 50% of the oil on this planet. Saddam would be richer than God and after having first hand experience with the spineless nature of western democracies I have no doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic and horrible weapons with a vengeance. ***************************** And this is bad and scary because...? ***************************** Saddam was thoroughly demonized in the lead up to Gulf War I. The final chapter of that demonization process was the "babies dumped from incubators" focus-group-derived fiction, courtesy of Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm. Another Bush war sold with a lie. Before then Saddam was just another of the world's many tin pot dictators. No big deal. We knew nothing of his crimes and were not the least bit interested. In a sense -- the "real world" sense where perception is (indistinguishable from) reality --his crimes did not exist. So, let's consider the hypothetical situation John implies above, an alternate reality, one based on an alternate context where President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had not been demonized. The narrative could have gone something like this: Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, finally lost patience with Kuwait's ruling family, the Al Sabah's. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Al Sabah's relied on Saddam to protect them from attack. And indeed, Iraq's powerful military did just that, protecting Kuwait from the march of Iranian fundamentalism led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Yet, after a long and bloody conflict which cost the lives of millions of Iraqis and Iranians, Kuwait, which provided not a single soldier nor sacrificed a single life, refused to contribute to the financial burden of its defense, and then, astonishingly, compounded this insult by slant drilling beneath the Iraq-Kuwait border into Iraq's oil reserves. An aggrieved President Saddam Hussein consulted with the US on the matter and was assured by Ambassador April Glaspie that: ***http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html*** "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." On the basis of these assurances Saddam Hussein instructed his military forces to restore Kuwait to Iraqi sovereignty and protection. This was swiftly accomplished on August 2, 1990 with minimal property damage or loss of life. Kuwaiti oil production continues without interruption. Oil prices in the world market remain stable at $15 a barrel. The Al Sabah family fled Kuwait for a lavish exile in London, St. Tropez, and the capitals of Europe, funded by billions in Kuwaiti oil revenue stashed in foreign accounts and investments. In an atmosphere of national euphoria President Saddam Hussein has declared August 2nd a day of national remembrance, declaring, "The dignity of the Iraqi nation has been made whole. The province of Kuwait, its people, territory, and resources have at last been restored to their rightful place in the patrimony of the arab nation and the great nation of Iraq." *************************************** So what really is true? We hear nothing of the rape rooms and torture chambers of the Shah of Iran, who was installed by the CIA after the destruction of the first and only moderate secular Iranian democracy, the first secular democracy in the Mideast. ******************************************** John wrote: > ...I have no doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic and horrible weapons with a vengeance. Yet had he been seen as a strong and respected Arab leader, how would this have been a problem? After all, the US has exotic and horrible weapons, and has used them,...was the first to use them. Yet we are not monsters (YMMV). We value our nuclear arsenal -- or used to -- for its deterrent, war-preventing, stabilizing effect. Why would not Saddam's possession of such weapons provide the same stabilizing influence? The moment he gained a nuclear capability, nuclear weapons would have been aimed at him. Naturally. And he would have known that, of course. Answer: Because then Iraq's credible deterrence would have prevented the US hegemon, committed to "full spectrum dominance", from the "freedom" to coerce or invade Iraq any ol' time it wanted to. (Which, by the way, is what the NPT is ***really*** about.) ******************************** It's gettin' late. I'm not sure I've accomplished anything here. Saddam was a bad actor. Very bad. His removal from power is an unalloyed good thing. But the other stuff attendant to his removal...bad. Very bad. And it's not over yet. Could get better. Could get worse. We shall see. In sum, better that Saddam had been left with Kuwait, and then taken out by a special ops op, a smart bomb, or eventually, by father time(the Franco option). Or, while we're pondering woulda coulda shoulda, consider if the US had just not come to his rescue in '82, when Iran was poised to impose its own dose of regime change on Saddam. Imagine twenty-three years ago we could have had near exactly what we're about to end up with now, and saved ourselves a whole heap o' trouble. Talk of alternate universes. Screw the spell check. You figure it out. Best, Jeff Davis "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it--no matter if I have said it--unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." Buddha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 06:33:24 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:33:24 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <033401c60506$e29b2980$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <038e01c6052f$47af9950$cd81e03c@homepc> > Jeff Davis wrote: > >> Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 > > You sure Jeff, i.e. you have US$10K in assets > you are willing to guarantee with and effectively place > in escrow now? Jeff, speak to me, I need to know if your bid is the highest and for the full amount, as there's another from Hal for the full amount ? Are you thinking it over ? Sleeping? What? ;-) Brett From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 20 06:37:36 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:37:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com><002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> <87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com> Message-ID: <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> "Samantha Atkins" > The point was that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam said that, but I have some doubt it's true. Just between you and me I'm beginning to suspect that sometimes Saddam shades the truth just a teeny tiny bit. Kuwait has plenty of oil and it's hard to understand why they'd need to steal it from somebody much stronger than they are, but it's irrelevant even if true. > Saddam asked us if we had any problem with the action he > proposed to take. we said "no". I've heard conflicting stories about that, but again, for what I was discussing the incompetent nature of American diplomacy is irrelevant. > Then we proceeded to pretend to be surprise Oh I don't think we needed to pretend very hard. > and to outright lie about the size of force involved and Saddam's > intentions. Why would we need to lie about Saddam's intentions? Nobody needed to come to us to know what Saddam's intentions were, they were obvious from his actions, his soldiers occupied Kuwait in a matter of hours. Saudi Arabia would rather eat ground glass than let American soldiers on their land but they did it anyway because they knew they were next on Saddam's hit list and he had the fourth largest army on Earth; they could never stop him alone. > he had no intentions to rule either country . What on earth are you babbling about?! The man was already ruling one of them! > What would he gain by such an attempt I suppose he did it for the same reason another dictator thought invading Poland was a good idea. John K Clark From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 06:40:25 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:40:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? In-Reply-To: <033401c60506$e29b2980$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051220064025.53989.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Jeff Davis wrote: > > Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 > > You sure Jeff, i.e. you have US$10K in assets > you are willing to guarantee with and effectively > place in escrow now? I'm sorry, Brett, I didn't mean to imply that I was actually taking the bet. Truth is I haven't two nickels to rub together. Which might be bad news except I have a rich wife who is devoted to me -- go figure -- and who has a summer home in Canada, and a winter home in Mexico. It's better to be lucky than smart. Please accept my invitation. If you ever find yourself on this side of the big pond, please stop in for a visit. I'll put another Yank on the barbie. Maybe that Herb Martin guy. Best, Jeff Davis "I thought I was taller."* Milton Berle * Uncle Milty raises his stogey as if to take a puff, then jabs his forehead with the chewed-on end. And says,... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 20 07:15:20 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:15:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <20051220062110.18741.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003701c60535$363c39c0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> "Jeff Davis" > Saddam Hussein instructed his military forces to restore Kuwait to Iraqi > sovereignty and protection. Restore? Historically Kuwait was NEVER under Iraqi sovereignty except for a few months in 1991. > Yet had he been seen as a strong and respected Arab > leader, That's the problem, he was a strong and respected Arab leader, the Arab street mobs loved Saddam > how would this have been a problem? [...] And this is bad and scary > because...? Giving a very evil man trillions of dollars and putting him in charge of the entire world economy and giving him nuclear weapons to boot, well call me crazy but that just doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. > After all, the US has exotic and horrible weapons, and has > used them,...was the first to use them. Yes, we've had nuclear weapons for 60 years and yes we've actually used them and yes I don't want nutcases like Saddam to have them too. If that makes me unfair then so be it; I'm unfair and I'm proud. > consider if the US had just not come to his rescue in >'82, when Iran was poised to impose its own dose of > regime change on Saddam. Hindsight is always 20 20, I can see how it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. We probably should have supported both side and let them kill each other. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 20 07:25:13 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:25:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> Is the bet that Bush will be removed from office or just Impeached? Actually I hope it doesn't happen even though he deserves it because then Dick Cheney would be president, and if you thought Bush was bad... John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 07:35:53 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:35:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:37 PM, gts wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:25:24 -0500, Jeff Davis > wrote: > >> Before Jan of 2007: 1 in 10 > > Those odds seem about right to me. > > Most amazing is the fact that impeachment seems a possibility. I > admit it was the first thought that came to mind when I heard about > his authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without a > warrant. At any other time in history that would be immediate > grounds for impeachment. > > Impeachment might still be a possibility, but progress in Iraq is > very good news. Also I was very impressed by Bush's honesty in his > speech last night. What real progress is that? Lots of people voting? If I were Iraqi I would vote and encourage everyone else to vote to maybe appease the occupying force enough that they would leave. > > Strange how the good news about the voter turnout in Iraq and the > relative peace on that day appeared at about the same time that we > learned our president was spying on his own citizens. Recently we > removed a dictator who did that sort of thing. > I would impeach him for a lot of things starting with 911 and all the lies and coverups associated therewith. > I count the spying as a partial victory for the terrorists we're > trying to defeat. I count it as merely part of why our government allowed (if it didn't help produce) 911. This country is extremely keen on increasing its power over the people over and beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. I think 911 and the "war on terror" were needed to excuse what the government wanted to do in any case. - samantha From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 07:37:44 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:37:44 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > Is the bet that Bush will be removed from office or just Impeached? > Actually > I hope it doesn't happen even though he deserves it because then Dick > Cheney > would be president, and if you thought Bush was bad... Just impeached. Brett Paatsch From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 07:49:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:49:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> <87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com> <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7379A762-FA07-4F7A-B191-F77EE1404958@mac.com> On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:37 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Samantha Atkins" > > > The point was that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. > > Saddam said that, but I have some doubt it's true. It was acknowledged as being true by the US. Why quibble? > Just between you and me > I'm beginning to suspect that sometimes Saddam shades the truth just a > teeny tiny bit. Kuwait has plenty of oil and it's hard to > understand why > they'd need to steal it from somebody much stronger than they are, but > it's irrelevant even if true. > How so? Mangy nations have come to conflict over such things. > > Saddam asked us if we had any problem with the action he >> proposed to take. we said "no". > > I've heard conflicting stories about that, but again, for what I was > discussing the incompetent nature of American diplomacy is irrelevant. > That we say one thing and do drastically another while painting the set-up party as a monster is irrelevant? How so? We weren't incompetent. We set him up exactly as we intended. > > Then we proceeded to pretend to be surprise > > Oh I don't think we needed to pretend very hard. > Yes we did. We even worked hard to make up enough to make our actions seem reasonable. We thought we had to pretend to ourselves and to the world apparently. >> and to outright lie about the size of force involved and Saddam's >> intentions. > > Why would we need to lie about Saddam's intentions? Nobody needed > to come to > us to know what Saddam's intentions were, they were obvious from his > actions, his soldiers occupied Kuwait in a matter of hours. And this was our concern because.. ? We said we didn't care when he asked. > Saudi Arabia > would rather eat ground glass than let American soldiers on their > land but > they did it anyway because they knew they were next on Saddam's hit > list and > he had the fourth largest army on Earth; they could never stop him > alone. That is the story we told but I very much doubt it. > > > he had no intentions to rule either country . > > What on earth are you babbling about?! The man was already ruling > one of > them! > Oops. Yes he intended to take over Kuwait. but he mad no moves on SA or stated such intention. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 07:54:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:54:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> <03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <55E9AA7F-2C76-4D24-8C08-5742EA70DF2A@mac.com> On Dec 19, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > John K Clark wrote: > >> Is the bet that Bush will be removed from office or just >> Impeached? Actually >> I hope it doesn't happen even though he deserves it because then >> Dick Cheney >> would be president, and if you thought Bush was bad... > > Just impeached. > I can't give odds on this with any confidence. I have seen too many things swallowed by the American people in the last five years that I thought would never be accepted. The people may keep on swallowing for the rest of his term, although I would expect them to choke and upchuck real soon now. If the economic disaster I believe we are dancing around catches up with us in the next year or two then impeachment may be the least of his worries. - samantha From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 08:47:56 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:47:56 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com><005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer><03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> <55E9AA7F-2C76-4D24-8C08-5742EA70DF2A@mac.com> Message-ID: <03d901c60542$127ab590$cd81e03c@homepc> Samantha Atkins wrote: > I can't give odds on this with any confidence. I have seen > too many things swallowed by the American people in the > last five years that I thought would never be accepted. The > people may keep on swallowing for the rest of his term, > although I would expect them to choke and upchuck real > soon now. Perhaps it might help you think about the odds if you break down into a sequence what has to happen procedurally in order for Bush to be impeached. Think for instance about how important the 2006 elections might be. In the link I posted 52% of those polled said they'd be LESS LIKELY to support someone running for congress who announced that they were pro-impeachment, only 30% said they'd be more likely. Hal's offer of US$4000 against US$1000 is the best so far but perhaps Spike is crunching some numbers, and there's no word from Robin or anyone else yet so I'll leave it a bit longer. [Aside. As a reader of Robin's papers I'm aware that some interesting things might perhaps be done with a pool of US$5000 or thereabouts, but thats for exploration later. It might have to be located and the formal process of a bet finalised in a jurisdiction like the UK perhaps.] Brett Paatsch From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 10:13:06 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:13:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051220101306.54781.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Before I start in on Herb's post down below a ways, a comment. On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:20:52 -0600 Herb Martin wrote: > ...if you ask those troops who lost > their friends and who risk their lives > you will almost universally find they > believe it was a VERY GOOD THING. > So do most of us who have served... I take you at your word, and thank you for your service and sacrifice. I hope and pray that your friends all come back safe and whole,...and soon. No matter how harshly I take you to task for your views, do not doubt this. In a bad war, those who have died cannot be dishonored by an immediate corrective withdrawal. I feel certain they themselves would say that their sacrifice would have the greatest meaning with the rapid realization of error, and rapid correction, so as to prevent further loss of life. That said... > ...if you ask those troops who lost > their friends and who risk their lives > you will almost universally find they > believe it was a VERY GOOD THING. This is a powerful rhetorical ploy, as there is a strong disinclination to say anything critical about the troops. For all sorts of reasons. I'm gonna get over that hesitation. I've been in the army. During Vietnam. The army indoctrinates you full on. Breaks you down and then builds you up. Makes you a member of the tribe. Bonds you with your fellows. Gives you a new meme set. "The right way, the wrong way, and the army way." It ain't no Chautauqua. No bohemian free-thinking philosophers club. Rather, it's a flippin' mind-control cult of militarism, embedded in a two-tiered (officers and enlisted men) class system, totalitarian and hierarchical, where instant unquestioned obedience is the rule and dissent is betrayal. It's pure tribalism. Loyalty is all. Supposedly this achieves that "unit cohesion" thing, making for more effective soldiers. Supposedly saving lives. Supposedly. What it doesn't do is make anyone from grunt to captain, an expert on ethics or geopolitics. In fact, quite the opposite. It fills your head with jingoist hogwash. Wraps you in the flag and stuffs the ends in your ears. Feeds you, clothes you, houses you, trains you, employs you, tells you what is true and what to think(the SupremeAmerica myth), and then seals you in a cultural bubble with the rest of the cult. So, much as I honor and respect their service and their sacrifice, the nature of the cult of militarism pretty much guarantees that the troops will believe, and say they believe that the war they're in is a good war. Their training would be for shit if they didn't, and it's my impression that US military training is top drawer. Ergo, a priori, the troops' opinion of the rightness of the war, insofar as it is based on cult indoctrination and tribal loyalty fails to meet the lowest possible standard of evidentiary validity. The same holds true of your opinions, Herb, expressed below. It appears you have uncritically swallowed the Bush/Rumfeld/DoD line, and now parrot and defend it with that fierce tribal loyalty instilled by your training. You're out of the cult bubble now. Time to rejoin the reality-based community. This one time I'll give you a hand up. Then you're on your own. I'm on your side. Time for you to be on your side. --- Herb Martin wrote: > Again someone like Jeff posts the "common knowledge" > that is JUST WRONG. Oh my! Look at those caps. I tremble.! > It is so tiring when people fail to see through > such propaganda and bithely repeat it. I try not to do bullshit, Herb. I try for facts supported by documentation. So watch close. I'm going to show you how it's done. > The US WANTED to support Iraq against Iran in those > days when the main enemy was the still vital and > threatening, but was unable to stomach Soddam and > his behavior and so stood aside mostly during the > war with Iran. Ha ha ha ha ha. Sweet. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm >From the National Security Archive U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES Read the docs. Official US docs. Then try this, Herb: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/ Arming of Iraq and the Iran-Iraq War 2. The United States directly and through intermediaries provided extensive support to Iraq during its war with Iran . After the revolution, Washington came to the conclusion that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, and hence secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward. This led to what later became known as the Iraq-gate scandals. Saddam received dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. In February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removed Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. In November, 1983 a National Security Directive stated that the U.S would do ?whatever was necessary and legal? to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran . On December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian envoy for President Reagan and now Secretary of Defense, met with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. In July, 1984 the CIA gave Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In March, 1986 the United States with Great Britain blocked all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. became the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. In May, 1986 the U.S. Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. In the same month the U.S. Department of Commerce approved shipments of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. In September, 1988, the U.S. Department of Commerce approved shipments of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. During the Iraq War the Defense Intelligence Agency provided detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. A vast network of companies, based in the US and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait . Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War citing Russ Baker, IraqGate: The Big One That (Almost) Got Away Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't, Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1993, http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp. See also: John King, Arming Iraq : A Chronology of U.S. Involvement, March 2003, http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php ************************************ Look at the source citations, Herb. You do "something I heard somewhere". I do documented fact. > As to precursors, these are the same chemicals that > are used in agriculture as pesticides and are also > equipement and stocks used in pharmaceuticals Who you kidding, Herb? This was the middle of the Iran-Iraq war. The whole flippin world knows Saddam wasn't making bug spray. > -- in those days Saddam had not (yet) shown > his prediliction for GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE No, just the Iranians. So is unprovokedly attacking the Iranians and poison gassing them okay, Herb? (Regarding the infamous "Halabja gas attack", by the way, the Defense Intelligence Agency says it was the Iranians.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm A War Crime or an Act of War? By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003 ....The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein. ... ...I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair. This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. ********************************** > and developing other weapons of mass destruction > BY THE TON (and long since admitted by Saddam.) In the middle of the war against Iran, Herb. With US knowledge and implausibly deniable support. See refs one and two. > The major exception, aid actually given by the US > during this time, was limited access to satellite > intelligence given largely when Iran threatened to > overrun Iraq. Thoroughly debunked -- by reference one above -- unsupported and unsupportable bull, Herb. Documentation, facts, citations from solid sources -- this is the way it is done, Herb. Believe whatever "someone told me" you want, but in this forum you better have some facts and the solid sources to prove it. So far you've shown us nothing but personal assertions, Herb, all of which have been shown to be junk. > Doubt this? Then merely review the weapons used by > Saddam's Iraq: > > Russian tanks and armored vehicles > French and Russian fighter aircraft > French and Chinese Missiles > Soviet block small arms The world has many weapons suppliers from whom Saddam purchased his inventory. Proves nothing. Irrelevant. > The US was NOT a major supporter of Saddam Flat out wrong and proven so. See References one and two. > despite the lies you have heard and may even > have fallen into the habit of repeating. Not a fact, document, solid source, or citation anywhere to be seen, Herb. Just an assertion based on groundless belief. That won't cut it here, Herb. > The attempts to change history in order to > rehabilitate the murderer Saddam are just plain disgusting. Now you're just wasting my time, Herb. There's no rehab for Saddam, or the US power elite who made him. > > Any argument against removing Saddam most devolve > down eventually to: THe world would be better off if > this murderer were never removed from power so the US > should just leave Iraq and return Saddam to power. An argument against removing Saddam, involving as it does millions of lives and billions of dollars might plausible involve weighing the pros and cons, not just righteously declaring "He's a murderer!!" However, before anyone will be able to engage you in an informed discussion regarding Saddam, or what constitutes the world being better off, you will have to become better informed. Have you any inclination in that direction? > What a crock. Someone as firmly grounded in his own prejudices and so out of touch with reality is unqualified to distinguish crock from not-crock. *************************** That's how it's done. Go thee and sin no more. Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Dec 20 12:40:45 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:40:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <03d901c60542$127ab590$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512201241.jBKCexe30349@tick.javien.com> > Brett Paatsch > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I can't give odds on this with any confidence. I have seen > > too many things swallowed by the American people in the > > last five years that I thought would never be accepted. The > > people may keep on swallowing for the rest of his term, > > although I would expect them to choke and upchuck real > > soon now. > > Perhaps it might help you think about the odds if you break down > into a sequence what has to happen procedurally in order for > Bush to be impeached. Think for instance about how important > the 2006 elections might be. Yes, and state the outcomes clearly, impeachment or conviction? Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted. Nixon was not impeached but he resigned rather than face almost certain conviction. Imprecicion in terms would make it nearly impossible to handicap. -- Herb Martin From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Dec 20 12:51:01 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:51:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200512201251.jBKCpEe31701@tick.javien.com> > John K Clark > "Samantha Atkins" > > > The point was that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. > > Saddam said that, but I have some doubt it's true. Just > between you and me > I'm beginning to suspect that sometimes Saddam shades the truth just a > teeny tiny bit. Kuwait has plenty of oil and it's hard to > understand why > they'd need to steal it from somebody much stronger than they are, but > it's irrelevant even if true. It is a physical impossibility to steal oil over a distance greater than about a mile, MAYBE two, through the drilling techniques he claimed. [I was formerly a direction drilling superintendent.] Less than 5 miles of border oil rights could ever be in dispute through direction drilling methods for "stealing oil", and that would include Saddam stealing from Kuwait as well as the other way around. This would also imply drilling operations located precisely on the border and although I have never definitely checked on this, there has been no indication that such exploration was so located. It would be easy enough to take a picture, point at a drill rig on the border, and say THAT ONE is slant drlling over HERE. > > Saddam asked us if we had any problem with the action he > > proposed to take. we said "no". > > I've heard conflicting stories about that, but again, for what I was > discussing the incompetent nature of American diplomacy is irrelevant. That's old misinformation; likely born of the incompetence of April Gladsby who was NOT firm enough with Saddam but no evidence or real indication has ever shown she or anyone else gave Saddam approval. -- Herb Martin From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Dec 20 13:11:18 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:11:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amI offered? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051219225521.0775aa28@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200512201311.jBKDBUe01371@tick.javien.com> > David Lubkin > gts wrote: > > >Strange how the good news about the voter turnout in Iraq > and the relative > >peace on that day appeared at about the same time that we learned our > >president was spying on his own citizens. > > Separate, largely unrelated thoughts in each paragraph: > > Or, strange how the New York Times reportedly had the story for a > year, and printed it at about the same time that we had good > news from Iraq. > > One of the most offensive aspects of life in these times is how > commonplace activities are trumpeted as dramatic and unprecedented. > Behaviors that are routine in Washington, in US history, and in world > history, call for banner headlines. > > With specific regard to "our president was spying on his own > citizens" -- read a bit of history, particularly The Puzzle Palace. In the entire discussion (news media, politicians, not just here) on "rights violations" it is completely overlooked that every time a citizen or legal resident boards a commercial aircraft that citizens rights are violated far more egregiously than those who were monitored due to contact with a known/suspected terrorist phone or email. The public may find warrant-less body and luggage searches MERELY for traveling to be justified, but this affects some 500 individuals within minutes at every significant airport, while the monitoring was limited to about this many at any one time. Funny that the same people MOST likely to object to the monitoring of those in contact with suspected foreign terrorist phone and email, are most likely to be the same people who have no problem with the government keeping firearms sales records on law-abiding citizens, contrary to law. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the oldest recognized rights of free human beings, arguably the oldest, and the right which ultimately protects all others yet most so-called civil liberties groups in the US cannot even count to ten when discussing the bill of rights without skipping 2, 9, and 10. While almost no one would seriously discount that a right of privacy exists despite it never being enumerated in the US Constitution, those most likely to argue for all sorts of convoluted interpretations of that right invent whole cloth arcane arguments for dismissing right to keep and bear arms which existing within the Constitution PRIOR to the Second Amendment which merely offered specific enumeration and further protection while explaining the States on well-being was (indirectly) predicated on this fundamental right. -- Herb Martin From emerson at singinst.org Tue Dec 20 16:53:53 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:53:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity Institute's 2006 $100, 000 Singularity Challenge - Double Your Gift! Message-ID: <200512201453.jBKErie12201@tick.javien.com> In collaboration with the former CEO of PayPal, Peter Thiel, The Singularity Institute announces our 2006 $100,000 Singularity Challenge. All contributions will be matched dollar-for-dollar by Thiel, up to $100,000. We have a remarkable opportunity to advance our endeavor at this time. We hope you will contribute what you can: http://www.singularitychallenge.com. Contributions for a 2005 tax writeoff must be made by December 31st. Our 2006 Work in Detail: http://www.singinst.org/challenge/#our_work_details Our December 2005 newsletter: http://www.singinst.org/newsletter/2005.3/ With best wishes, ~~ 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 natasha at natasha.cc Tue Dec 20 16:24:35 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:24:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity Institute's 2006 $100, 000 Singularity Challenge - Double Your Gift! In-Reply-To: <200512201453.jBKErie12201@tick.javien.com> References: <200512201453.jBKErie12201@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051220102329.04a65868@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:53 AM 12/20/2005, Tyler wrote: >In collaboration with the former CEO of PayPal, Peter Thiel, The Singularity >Institute announces our 2006 $100,000 Singularity Challenge. All >contributions will be matched dollar-for-dollar by Thiel, up to $100,000. > >We have a remarkable opportunity to advance our endeavor at this time. We >hope you will contribute what you can: http://www.singularitychallenge.com. I hope everyone visits Singularity Institute's site and makes a contribution. No matter how large or small, every cent counts. Proaction! Natasha >Contributions for a 2005 tax writeoff must be made by December 31st. > >Our 2006 Work in Detail: http://www.singinst.org/challenge/#our_work_details > >Our December 2005 newsletter: http://www.singinst.org/newsletter/2005.3/ > >With best wishes, > >~~ >Tyler Emerson | Executive Director >The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence >Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 >emerson at singinst.org | http://www.singinst.org > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 20 16:37:44 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:37:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com><002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer><87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com><002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> <7379A762-FA07-4F7A-B191-F77EE1404958@mac.com> Message-ID: <005001c60583$bfde9d50$540e4e0c@MyComputer> "Samantha Atkins" > It was acknowledged as being true by the US. Why quibble? Quibble? If you really think that is true and sincerely believe that the primary reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because Kuwait was stealing its oil them you have successfully tortured the facts to make them fit your world view, a world view where the USA is always on the side of evil. Congratulations. > We weren't incompetent. We set him up exactly as we intended. So lets see, we deliberately tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait so we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and push the borders back to exactly where they were before. Tell me Samantha, do you also believe the government has a flying saucer and an alien locked up at area 51? > We even worked hard to make up enough to make our > actions seem reasonable. Far from being reasonable your theory makes not one tiny particle of sense. >> Me: >> Saudi Arabia would rather eat ground glass than let American soldiers on >> their land but they did it anyway because they knew they were next on >> Saddam's hit list and >> he had the fourth largest army on Earth; they could never stop him alone. >That is the story we told but I very much doubt it. Why? Saudi Arabia was certain of an imminent invasion in 91 or they'd never in a thousand years let American soldiers on their soil; and today I can find absolutely no reason not to believe they were dead right. After all, if you can invade one rich neighbor and the West does nothing you might as well invade another even richer neighbor. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:09:42 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:09:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:35:53 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:37 PM, gts wrote: >> Impeachment might still be a possibility, but progress in Iraq is very >> good news. Also I was very impressed by Bush's honesty in his speech >> last night. > > What real progress is that? Lots of people voting? If I were Iraqi I > would vote and encourage everyone else to vote to maybe appease the > occupying force enough that they would leave. Iraqi voter turnout was something like 70%. That's fabulous news if true. The US should be so lucky. Most Americans are too apathetic to vote. It's absurd to think Iraqis would vote just to appease the US. -gts From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:42:06 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] defending yourself during a robot uprising Message-ID: <20051220184206.81654.qmail@web35715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> holding your own in hand-to-pincer combat: http://www.robotuprising.com/briefing.htm nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 20 19:06:06 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... Message-ID: The relatively conservative Judge John E. Jones III has ruled in the Dover, PA case [1]. Basically I.D. is out in PA and presumably surrounding regions. How this impacts Kansas will probably need to still play out in the courts. The extractions from the ruling, quoted by CNN, are quite interesting -- somewhat suggesting that "we can see you standing behind the curtain without even pulling it aside" (to use a Wizard of Oz analogy). Going back to my previous comments in this area -- I stand by my statements that I.D. is worthy of scientific discussion, particularly if presented from the perspective of (a) incomplete explanations for "jumps" in biological complexity (RNA life -> DNA life, prokaryotic -> eukaryotic, etc.); (b) whether or not our solar system was "set up" to run a computation using elemental computronium (rather than a virtual/simulated reality); and (c) whether or not we are running in a simulation. Given that both Nick Bostrom and Robert Freitas have written papers related to (c) I consider it to be difficult for anyone to assert an exploration of I.D. to be a topic unworthy of scientific discussion. I (personally) find various amounts of handwaving done by string theorists and experts in quantum mechanics (particularly if they involve assertions which *cannot* be disproved) to be just as bad as those of the creationists. After reading the Wikipedia entry on the background Discovery Institute, I was forced to conclude that their current efforts pushing I.D. are indeed a front for a conservative agenda. Interestingly they appear to have *not* supported the recent efforts to push I.D. into the classroom apparently for fear of receiving the rejection which has now taken place both by the electorate and the legal system. Robert 1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 20 19:12:21 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:12:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/20/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > The relatively conservative Judge John E. Jones III has ruled in the > Dover, PA case [1]. Basically I.D. is out in PA and presumably > surrounding regions. How this impacts Kansas will probably need to still > play out in the courts. The extractions from the ruling, quoted by CNN, are > quite interesting -- somewhat suggesting that "we can see you standing > behind the curtain without even pulling it aside" (to use a Wizard of Oz > analogy). > > Going back to my previous comments in this area -- I stand by my > statements that I.D. is worthy of scientific discussion, particularly if > presented from the perspective of (a) incomplete explanations for "jumps" in > biological complexity (RNA life -> DNA life, prokaryotic -> eukaryotic, > etc.); (b) whether or not our solar system was "set up" to run a computation > using elemental computronium (rather than a virtual/simulated reality); and > (c) whether or not we are running in a simulation. Given that both Nick > Bostrom and Robert Freitas have written papers related to (c) I consider it > to be difficult for anyone to assert an exploration of I.D. to be a topic > unworthy of scientific discussion. I (personally) find various amounts of > handwaving done by string theorists and experts in quantum mechanics > (particularly if they involve assertions which *cannot* be disproved) to be > just as bad as those of the creationists. > > After reading the Wikipedia entry on the background Discovery Institute, I > was forced to conclude that their current efforts pushing I.D. are indeed > a front for a conservative agenda. Interestingly they appear to have *not* > supported the recent efforts to push I.D. into the classroom apparently > for fear of receiving the rejection which has now taken place both by the > electorate and the legal system. > > Robert > > 1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.htm > > BTW, do any of the orgs pushing ID mention the Simulation Argument? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 19:25:25 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:25:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:06 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Going back to my previous comments in this area -- I stand by my > statements that I.D. is worthy of scientific discussion Here is my own take on the subject. Thanks to those here who helped me formulate my thoughts. Comments and criticisms still welcome. ===== Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and Public Science Education The Intelligent Design (ID) movement uses a two-pronged attack in the effort to discredit Darwinism. First, ID proponents posit the existence of irreducibly complex structures in biology, structures such as the bacterial flagellum, which they contend cannot have evolved naturally and so must represent evidence of an intelligent designer. Second, they argue that conventional science in general amounts to a form of religion, a religion they call "methodological naturalism," and that this naturalistic bias prevents science from considering unnatural or supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. The first charge is dismissed easily enough, and won't be covered here. The second charge seems a more serious threat to science education in public schools. If ID proponents can convince legislators and school administrators that science is inherently biased and grounded in something akin to religious faith then other religious ideas might be given equal time in public school science classrooms. Or evolution science or any other branch science could become vulnerable to attack as a violation of the separation of church and state. This debate seems therefore to be not only about evolution. At stake is the definition of science in education. In Kansas, proponents of Intelligent Design have already argued along such lines and succeeded in redefining science for purposes of public education. 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." Kansas' new definition seems on the surface very reasonable, perhaps even an improvement, 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 of human destiny and personality. Perhaps lightening is evidence of angry gods, and perhaps frogs cause warts. Obviously this view of science is unacceptable. We need then either to 1) define what we mean by "natural explanations" and advance stronger arguments for limiting science to natural explanations, or 2) recommend a better definition of science not limited to natural explanations but which still precludes explanations of natural phenomena that intelligent people would consider magical or superstitious. The first option seems most logical, but I see a difficulty in the distinction between ?natural? and ?supernatural.? Presumably everything real in the universe is in the final analysis natural, including the hand of any supposed Intelligent Designer. I?ll argue here for the second option. What do ID proponents mean when they claim science is like religion for reason of its basis in methodological naturalism? As far as I can tell, they mean that the conventional view of science is based in justificationism, positivism and inductivism. This is in fact a common view of science. Positivism is the once commonly held empiricist doctrine, advanced by the Vienna Circle, that meaningful propositions in science are confined to those which can in principle be verified or justified through empirical observation. If science finds its meaning in justificationism/positivism then I think ID proponents would have a point: science might then be considered a form of religion. This is so because the positivist proposition, that propositions are valid only if they can in principle be verified empirically, cannot itself be verified empirically. Positivism fails its own test for meaning and must by the positivist's own standards be a meaningless proposition or a statement of metaphysics or religion. Positivism and its close cousin justificationism can in that sense be considered religion. Hume's thorough refutation of inductivism renders it too a form of religion. We have no justification for believing past observations predict future observations. That the sun has risen each morning is not proof that it will rise again tomorrow. Strictly speaking, such predictions are irrational statements of faith. I do not know how to define methodological naturalism except as a materialistic philosophy of science based in justificationism, positivism and inductivism. Fortunately these 'religions' are not essential to science. Karl Popper's philosophy of falsificationism and critical rationalism are I think a superior philosophy of science, better than justificationism and positivism, and one that does not depend on anything resembling religion. Popper explicitly rejected positivism and justificationism and acknowledges Hume's criticism of inductivism. Perhaps not coincidently, Popper's evolutionary epistemology is an extension of biological evolution into the world of science and ideas. Although Popper was a realist who subscribed to the correspondence theory of truth, science was not to him about finding "justified true beliefs." Popper viewed science as a biological enterprise, a means through which humans use intelligence to adapt to the environment. Successful scientific theories have value then not because they are deemed true, but because they are workable conjectures that provide solutions to real problems of human survival. In this view scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings are in no way sacred, leaving ID proponents with no sacred cows to target. In fact the proper goal of science is to falsify its own propositions. Unfalsifiable theories are rejected as non-science. All knowledge is considered conjectural. Science is then the business of falsifying our conjectures, of sacrificing our theories to save our skins. "On the pre-scientific level, we are often ourselves destroyed, eliminated with our false theories; we perish with our false theories. On the scientific level, we systematically try to eliminate our false theories -- we try to let our false theories die in our stead." -Karl Popper A better definition of science might then be "a continuing investigation using empirical measurement and logical argument to build falsifiable theories about the world, theories which science then attempts to falsify through rigorous hypothesis testing, for the purpose of finding effective solutions to current and future problems of human progress and survival." Does Intelligent Design then qualify as science? ID is arguably unfalsifiable and thus not a valid theory. And if it is falsifiable then it seems already to have been falsified: evolution scientists have offered coherent naturalistic explanations for many so-called irreducibly complex structures. Moreover even if we give ID the benefit of the doubt here, and grant it status as a valid and as yet not falsified theory, the theory seems still to fail our test for science in that it has no problem solving value. The theory that snowflakes are created by angels has as much problem-solving value to humanity as does ID. It would seem then that even a generous appraisal leaves ID looking like nothing more than ordinary mythology. -gts From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Dec 20 19:36:28 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:36:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment In-Reply-To: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 19, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > The Nation has devoted a big portion of its issue on the subject of > torture (although Bush says the US does not torture prisoners) Unfortunately, the media and political class have stripped all denotative value and most of the connotative value from the word "torture". Much like they have done with "terrorist". The homeopathic dilution of the words render any argument based on their presumed definitions worthless. A significant portion of the apathy is the result of this fact, and the media and politicians have only themselves to blame. I will listen to justifications and rationalizations that require "torture" and "terrorist" when those words actually mean something. As things currently stand, everyone on this mailing list is a "tortured" "terrorist" in some fashion or another. J. Andrew Rogers From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 19:49:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:49:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis In-Reply-To: <005001c60583$bfde9d50$540e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> <87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com> <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> <7379A762-FA07-4F7A-B191-F77EE1404958@mac.com> <005001c60583$bfde9d50$540e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8CB3CA2A-4366-43D8-89DA-12BD53F3F0AF@mac.com> On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:37 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Samantha Atkins" > >> It was acknowledged as being true by the US. Why quibble? > > Quibble? If you really think that is true and sincerely believe > that the > primary reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because Kuwait was > stealing its oil > them you have successfully tortured the facts to make them fit your > world > view, a world view where the USA is always on the side of evil. > Congratulations. > Sigh. I said that it is incontestable that Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqi oil. No more or less. >> We weren't incompetent. We set him up exactly as we intended. > > So lets see, we deliberately tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait so > we could > spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and > push the > borders back to exactly where they were before. Tell me Samantha, > do you > also believe the government has a flying saucer and an alien locked > up at > area 51? > No. The ultimate goal is to establish major US control in the region. Saddam was no longer playing ball. Save your snide remarks for the playground where you learned them. They do not belong here. >> We even worked hard to make up enough to make our >> actions seem reasonable. > > Far from being reasonable your theory makes not one tiny particle > of sense. > More snide remarks? Responding further to you on this subject is now a waste of my time. Later. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 19:50:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:50:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:09 AM, gts wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:35:53 -0500, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > > >> On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:37 PM, gts wrote: > >>> Impeachment might still be a possibility, but progress in Iraq is >>> very good news. Also I was very impressed by Bush's honesty in >>> his speech last night. >> >> What real progress is that? Lots of people voting? If I were >> Iraqi I would vote and encourage everyone else to vote to maybe >> appease the occupying force enough that they would leave. > > Iraqi voter turnout was something like 70%. That's fabulous news if > true. The US should be so lucky. Most Americans are too apathetic > to vote. > > It's absurd to think Iraqis would vote just to appease the US. It is their only means at this time to hopefully get control of their own country. Perhaps not to appease the US but it is the only lever they can legally use at the moment. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 20:04:19 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:04:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> Message-ID: Boxer on Impeachment Trail Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.... http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/20/123925/26 Conyers Flies Paper Airplane into Whitehouse. Rep. John Conyers has submitted motions to censure Bush and Cheney, and to establish a select committee to investigate their offenses. He outlines the evidence in The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War. (3.8MB pdf) http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf -gts From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Dec 20 20:04:49 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:04:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal Message-ID: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Who would you recommend? Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From allsop at extropy.org Tue Dec 20 20:06:17 2005 From: allsop at extropy.org (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Murder rates up!! Message-ID: <200512202006.jBKK6G49016589@ra.pacificwebworks.com> Murder rates are up! The end of the world is near! Have you seen the headlines in all the papers about the FBI reports? Oh, wait - if you read a little deeper - the murder rates have been dramatically declining for over 5 years (it declined over 5% last year) along with all other crime statistics. And this year, only the murder rate went up a bit - less than 2%! All other rates are still in dramatic decline. So, why is it that everyone thinks things are so bad? Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Dec 20 20:08:25 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:08:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 12/20/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge > heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Who would you > recommend? > > The best HM bands are German and Scandinavian. I prefer Therion, but that's probably too operatic for your requirements. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue Dec 20 20:48:26 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:48:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... Message-ID: > Discovery Institute, I was forced to conclude that > their current efforts pushing I.D. are indeed a > front for a conservative agenda. Their Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith is also one of the chief opponents of transhumanism-qua-transhumanism: http://www.wesleyjsmith.com Wesley J. Smith on Transhumanism on National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith092002.asp As to your assessment of the scientific debatability of ID theory I agree that the kinds of statistical evidence that IDers point to should be considered legitimate scientific evidence in support of a hypothesis of intelligent design. Evidence of the cosmological unlikelihood of a universe that could support life is precisely what Nick writes about in regards the "anthropic principle." If there is no multiverse, Occams razor suggests we wouldn't be here just by chance. On the other hand, as the critics say, lack of support for the hypothesis of random evolution doesn't support any specific theory of intelligent design. If there was a body of evidence of statistical unlikelihood of our reality, the Simulation hypothesis seems a lot more supportable than an Abrahamic God. In any case, as you point out, there is no reason IMHO for transhumanists in particular to dismiss the ID debate out of hand. -------------------------------------------- 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Dec 20 21:32:25 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051220213225.70943.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > 1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.htm Link is broken with the ".ap". Try this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 21:45:29 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:45:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: <20051220213225.70943.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051220213225.70943.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This an excerpt of the 139 page court opinion found here: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_docs/kitzmiller_342.pdf (IDM = Intelligent Design Movement) "Dramatic evidence of ID?s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the ?Wedge Document.? The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute?s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter ?CRSC?), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM?s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its ?Five Year Strategic Plan Summary? that the IDM?s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with ?theistic and Christian science.? (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM?s ?Governing Goals? are to ?defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies? and ?to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.? Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document?s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity." -gts From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue Dec 20 21:55:31 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:55:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: defending yourself during a robot uprising Message-ID: > holding your own in hand-to-pincer combat > http://www.robotuprising.com/briefing.htm Wilson's book is hilarious, and very educational about the current state of robotics. Check out my interview with him here: 2005.12.10 - How to Survive a Robot Uprising Dr. J. chats with Daniel Wilson, a roboticist and author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising. http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=15492 ---------------------------------- Dr. J. Hughes Changesurfer Radio Mailing address: 56 Daleville School Rd. Willington CT 06279-2106 USA (phone) 860-428-1837 http://www.changesurfer.com/eventhorizon/ jhughes at changesurfer.com Produced at WHUS Storrs U-3008R, Storrs, CT 06269-3008 www.whus.org From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 22:03:24 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:03:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: <20051220213225.70943.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051220213225.70943.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Here is the court's opinion on the question of whether ID is science: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID?s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." -gts From benboc at lineone.net Tue Dec 20 22:19:43 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:19:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <200512200411.jBK4Bce02998@tick.javien.com> References: <200512200411.jBK4Bce02998@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43A8837F.5070403@lineone.net> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > It seems like this is the kind of thing that actually could be done in experiment - on a mouse, at least. > ...which leads me to wonder if, perhaps, someone has actually > done that experiment. Unlikely, i would think. Easy enough to sever all the afferent nerves, but they would have to include the somatosensory nerves involved in physiological feedback loops, so how would you keep the mouse alive? Then there's the big problem - reconnecting them all. Our current technology would probably botch the first problem, and be incapable of solving the second. Anyway, how could you tell whether the animal's behaviour afterwards was mainly due to the period of time with no inputs or to the procedure used to reconnect its nerves? Suppose you reconnected the wrong ones? it could be perfectly sane, and trying to navigate the maze, but in fact be furiously chewing it's own tail, because of crossed wires. ben From benboc at lineone.net Tue Dec 20 22:21:12 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:21:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <200512201900.jBKJ0Qe04696@tick.javien.com> References: <200512201900.jBKJ0Qe04696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43A883D8.5040805@lineone.net> gts wrote: > We were pondering a similar and I think even more interesting > question here recently: some blind people can respond to objects in > their field of vision even with no conscious experience of seeing. > Apparently they can see but don't know how they can see, like Tommy > the Pinball Wizard. > > Imagine a person with this sort of blind-sight for all his senses, > and imagine his blind-sight was perfectly accurate. Wouldn't that > person seem no different from anyone else? > > Acy argued he would not be like us; that he would not be able to > respond appropriately to questions like, "Hmm, nice weather today, > yes?" But I don't see why that is so. Presumably he would know it was > a nice day, but not know what he meant by it. :) I would agree with Acy here. Your scenario supposes 'blind-everything', not just blind-sight. AFAIK this is not possible (I would be astonished if it were). We understand blind-sight, i believe it's an evolutionarily earlier visual pathway. Presumably from a time that pre-dates consciousness, which is why it's not connected up to the bits of the brain involved in consciousness. Such a person would be able to dodge an object coming at his face, i expect, but not say anything about what it was. "Nice weather" is far too abstract a notion for a system like this to be able to cope with. It requires the higher cognition parts of the brain. ben From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue Dec 20 22:34:08 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:34:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... Message-ID: > They are: (1) > ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by > invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the > argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs > the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed > creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks > on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. > As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally > important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in > the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed > publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." I'm glad they lost but (1) ID could be by "natural" causation, i.e. superintelligence (2) ID does not require irreducible complexity, only statistically unlikely complexity (3) A successful defense does not necessarily determine the strength of competing hypotheses (4) Indeed, proving the central proposition of statistically unlikely complexity in the peer-reviewed arena is what is important J. From jonkc at att.net Tue Dec 20 22:43:07 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:43:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade. References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com><002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer><87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com><002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer><7379A762-FA07-4F7A-B191-F77EE1404958@mac.com><005001c60583$bfde9d50$540e4e0c@MyComputer> <8CB3CA2A-4366-43D8-89DA-12BD53F3F0AF@mac.com> Message-ID: <00cf01c605b6$c25a6a90$cc0d4e0c@MyComputer> "Samantha Atkins" Wrote: > Sigh. Sob. > I said that it is incontestable that Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqi oil. I humbly suggest you read the post by Herb Martin, a man who has forgotten more about slant drilling than you or I will ever know. > No more or less. I think less. > Save your snide remarks for the playground where you learned them. They > do not belong here. I'm sorry you feel that way, I truly am. As any longtime reader of this list knows I am no fan of the US government, or any government for that matter; but according to your theory America has done some extremely peculiar and convoluted things, and basically you can give no reason for them engaging in such odd behavior other than the shear joy in committing dastardly deeds. Doctor Evil in the Austin Powers movies had better motivation. > Responding further to you on this subject is now a waste of my time. Translation: I'm losing this argument big time and my elaborate conspiracy theories are starting to look just a little bit dumb if not downright comical, so its time to make a retreat. John K Clark From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 20 23:04:54 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:04:54 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com><5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> Message-ID: <00af01c605b9$ca4fe4c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike, this is a binary proposition, either President Bush will be impeached or not. Every thing except him being inpeached falls into the category of Not. You are a maths guy, so the proposition must interest you from a maths standpoint. You said you couldn't distinguish between Bush and Kerry on matters that mattered to you. Kerry never condoned the illegal invasion of Iraq. Your statement and unwillingness to come to terms with the legal question worries me frankly because it seems to illustrate how well based is my concern that the rule of law doesn't matter to Americans when they are not directly affected. It simply doesn't matter to you, though I think it ought. Perhaps you don't care or see a moral side to this or perhaps you do. But you can't help but see a maths and profit opportunity side to a binary question. You love capitalism Spike so its not fear of making a profit that is holding you back surely. Nor is it the inability to make a judgement. Perhaps you don't know what is involved in impeachment, perhaps you are not that engaged in the processes of your own country which previous generations of American put in place as checks and balances. >From my standpoint I think I am offering a bet on the character of the American people and that is why I am looking for odds. I'm pessimistic that the American people will do the right thing for the right reason but I'm wanting to do the responsible thing in encouraging them to at least think about it, hence this bet. You have an opportunity here to think about a political question that has extropic significance and to personally profit from doing so. There is no fence sitting vote for Badnarik or whatever that irrelevant guys name was option here. Just maths, just profit opportunity with accompanying risk for you and the requirement for you to make a judgement. To care. To get involved. What do you say Spike? What odds? Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Dec 20 23:09:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:09:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <43A8837F.5070403@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20051220230938.95452.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > Then there's the big problem - reconnecting them all. Ah, well. It is, at least, conceivable to someday actually run that experiment, and thus take this out of the realm of pure theory. > Anyway, how could you tell whether > the > animal's behaviour afterwards was mainly due to the period of time > with > no inputs or to the procedure used to reconnect its nerves? Multiple mice, disconnected for different lengths of time and reconnected using the same procedure. A *brief* dip into sensory deprivation does not drive one mad, so madness after a brief disconnect could be ascribed to the reconnection procedure. No such madness after a short break, but loss of memory after a longer one, would lead to the conclusion that sensory input is required sooner or later. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 23:25:32 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:25:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:34:08 -0500, Hughes, James J. wrote: > I'm glad they lost but > > (1) ID could be by "natural" causation, i.e. superintelligence The court considered and rejected that argument: "Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants? expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe))." This is not to say that we here should not consider a natural designer. However Behe, Dempski. and the Discovery Institute clearly have a religious agenda. The movement came into existence as a response to the rejection of old-style Creationism. ID is essentially a stripped-down version of Creationism -- a desperate attempt to wedge religion into science class. > (2) ID does not require irreducible complexity, only statistically > unlikely complexity Behe's version requires irreducible complexity, but perhaps not Dempski's? > (4) Indeed, proving the central proposition of statistically unlikely > complexity in the peer-reviewed arena is what is important I think the enormous stretch of time over which life has evolved presents a mental obstacle. It is almost impossible for the mind to fathom things in the hundreds of millions, much less billions. Personally I subscribe to a sort of universal darwinism. Though it falls short of a theory of everything, darwinism in general helps to explain everything from the evolution of galaxies to the evolution of culture and knowledge. I consider even a multiverse scenario in which ours is one fit enough to have survived. -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 23:32:28 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:32:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment In-Reply-To: <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: That is the biggest BS excuse for apathy I have ever heard. - s On Dec 20, 2005, at 11:36 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Dec 19, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: >> The Nation has devoted a big portion of its issue on the subject >> of torture (although Bush says the US does not torture prisoners) > > > Unfortunately, the media and political class have stripped all > denotative value and most of the connotative value from the word > "torture". Much like they have done with "terrorist". The > homeopathic dilution of the words render any argument based on > their presumed definitions worthless. A significant portion of the > apathy is the result of this fact, and the media and politicians > have only themselves to blame. > > I will listen to justifications and rationalizations that require > "torture" and "terrorist" when those words actually mean > something. As things currently stand, everyone on this mailing > list is a "tortured" "terrorist" in some fashion or another. > > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 20 23:45:46 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:45:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >> Discovery Institute, I was forced to conclude that >> their current efforts pushing I.D. are indeed a >> front for a conservative agenda. > > Their Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith is also one of the chief opponents > of transhumanism-qua-transhumanism: > > http://www.wesleyjsmith.com > > Wesley J. Smith on Transhumanism on National Review Online > http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith092002.asp > > As to your assessment of the scientific debatability of ID theory I > agree that the kinds of statistical evidence that IDers point to > should > be considered legitimate scientific evidence in support of a > hypothesis > of intelligent design. Quite a bit of those arguments are flawed in that they use old contentions that have long been dealt with well by scientists. Statistically unlikely events occur. How exactly does this support the notion that some Intelligent Designer made it so? > Evidence of the cosmological unlikelihood of a > universe that could support life is precisely what Nick writes > about in > regards the "anthropic principle." If there is no multiverse, Occams > razor suggests we wouldn't be here just by chance. > This has always seemed like a silly argument to me. It reifies some absolute "chance" roll of the dice as it were and then expresses wonder that one of the possible results actually occurred! Any possible outcomes that did not result in intelligent life would of course not result in such wonder as there would be no intelligent critters around to wonder. A possible outcome, universe supporting life, occurred. Why is it even interesting that our current cosmological models could produce ziilions of universes that did not support intelligent life? How could this remotely argue that Something rigged the Dice? > On the other hand, as the critics say, lack of support for the > hypothesis of random evolution doesn't support any specific theory of > intelligent design. Sigh. Evolution is not "random". This is a common strawman of the ID folks. > If there was a body of evidence of statistical > unlikelihood of our reality, the Simulation hypothesis seems a lot > more > supportable than an Abrahamic God. > Statistical unlikelihood doesn't seem very relevant. > In any case, as you point out, there is no reason IMHO for > transhumanists in particular to dismiss the ID debate out of hand. > It is not a scientific debate. It is a religious wedge pretending to be science. That is reason enough for me. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 20 23:51:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:51:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade. In-Reply-To: <00cf01c605b6$c25a6a90$cc0d4e0c@MyComputer> References: <6A74161C-2CAD-4789-9215-C89E2978F84E@mac.com> <002301c604de$d081dbe0$850d4e0c@MyComputer> <87B5D2E0-61CD-4689-8607-487ADE601EA3@mac.com> <002a01c6052f$e42130a0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> <7379A762-FA07-4F7A-B191-F77EE1404958@mac.com> <005001c60583$bfde9d50$540e4e0c@MyComputer> <8CB3CA2A-4366-43D8-89DA-12BD53F3F0AF@mac.com> <00cf01c605b6$c25a6a90$cc0d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0C46C6F0-BB0E-467F-9651-22C3548FF4A0@mac.com> Think whatever you wish. i hold no malice or judgment re your opinion on this subject other than that you resorted to attacks that I find intolerable in such a discussion. Others can judge who was losing. I am moving on. - s On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:43 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Samantha Atkins" Wrote: > >> Sigh. > > Sob. > >> I said that it is incontestable that Kuwait was slant-drilling >> Iraqi oil. > > I humbly suggest you read the post by Herb Martin, a man who has > forgotten > more about slant drilling than you or I will ever know. > >> No more or less. > > I think less. > >> Save your snide remarks for the playground where you learned >> them. They >> do not belong here. > > I'm sorry you feel that way, I truly am. As any longtime reader of > this list > knows I am no fan of the US government, or any government for that > matter; > but according to your theory America has done some extremely > peculiar and > convoluted things, and basically you can give no reason for them > engaging in > such odd behavior other than the shear joy in committing dastardly > deeds. > Doctor Evil in the Austin Powers movies had better motivation. > >> Responding further to you on this subject is now a waste of my time. > > Translation: I'm losing this argument big time and my elaborate > conspiracy > theories are starting to look just a little bit dumb if not downright > comical, so its time to make a retreat. > > John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 21 00:04:09 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:04:09 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com><005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer> <03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <013c01c605c2$11246530$cd81e03c@homepc> > John K Clark wrote: > >> Is the bet that Bush will be removed from office or just Impeached? >> Actually I hope it doesn't happen even though he deserves it >> because then Dick Cheney would be president, and if you thought >> Bush was bad... > > Just impeached. > > Brett Paatsch What further information if any do *you* need to offer odds on this John? Brett Paatsch From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 00:13:44 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:13:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Year in Review: Zeitgeist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051221001344.80902.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> All you trend and technology watchers should be interested in Google's 2005 Year-End "Zeitgeist". http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2005.html Be sure to check out the World Affairs section, particularly the search history on "Weapons of Mass Destruction". http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2005/worldaffairs.html Does this tell us anything? And of course the Froogle Top searches, on the main page. Think ipods are popular? 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 Wed Dec 21 00:20:21 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:20:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] defending yourself during a robot uprising In-Reply-To: <20051220184206.81654.qmail@web35715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051221002021.77560.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > holding your own in hand-to-pincer combat: > http://www.robotuprising.com/briefing.htm Thanks for the comic relief, Al. I got quite a few laughs out of the website. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 00:22:11 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:22:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Year in Review: Zeitgeist In-Reply-To: <20051221001344.80902.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051221001344.80902.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:13:44 -0500, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > Does this tell us anything? Google News - Top Searches in 2005 1. Janet Jackson 2. Hurricane Katrina 3. tsunami 4. xbox 360 5. Brad Pitt 6. Michael Jackson 7. American Idol 8. Britney Spears 9. Angelina Jolie 10. Harry Potter Except for 2 and 3, I'd say this tells us nothing good about our fellow netizens. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 01:22:51 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:22:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <5BDA5D9A-4BAF-4159-9BE3-8F0936254E07@mac.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> It's absurd to think Iraqis would vote just to appease the US. > > It is their only means at this time to hopefully get control of their > own country. Perhaps not to appease the US but it is the only lever > they can legally use at the moment. Isn't this true for every voter in every democracy (or in our case republic)? I vote because voting is my only hope of getting control of my country, and the only lever I can legally use. I'm very critical of the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad to see the Iraqis voting in such large number. Bush got us into trouble but it looks like the Iraqi people might bail us out. Bush's told a story in his speech about someone at the polls who was asked if he was Sunni or Shiite. He answered, "I'm an Iraqi." It almost brought tears to my eyes. Let's hope that kind of thinking is spreading in Iraq. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 22:48:06 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:48:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tommy (Was: Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time!) In-Reply-To: <43A883D8.5040805@lineone.net> References: <200512201900.jBKJ0Qe04696@tick.javien.com> <43A883D8.5040805@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:21:12 -0500, ben wrote: > I would agree with Acy here. Your scenario supposes 'blind-everything', > not just blind-sight. AFAIK this is not possible (I would be astonished > if it were). We understand blind-sight, i believe it's an evolutionarily > earlier visual pathway. Presumably from a time that pre-dates > consciousness, which is why it's not connected up to the bits of the > brain involved in consciousness. Such a person would be able to dodge an > object coming at his face, i expect, but not say anything about what it > was. > "Nice weather" is far too abstract a notion for a system like this to be > able to cope with. It requires the higher cognition parts of the brain. I can't say I disagree with you here... my thought experiment is mainly a mental exercise. It goes to the question of qualia that some of us find so intriguing. The observation "Nice weather" seems to require the conscious reflection on the experience of qualia. But the simple experience of qualia seems to happen first at some pre-conscious level, as in the case of the blind person who dodges an object coming at his face. I think most philosophers of the subject don't make this distinction. Certain neurons must fire for us to have conscious reflection on our experience: Specialized Neurons Allow The Brain To Focus On Novel Sounds http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051202132313.htm I think this does not mean qualia require, or are, the conscious awareness of qualia. This is why I believe even lower, presumably unconscious organisms like insects experience qualia. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 01:44:06 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:44:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/20/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > (1) ID could be by "natural" causation, i.e. superintelligence > (2) ID does not require irreducible complexity, only statistically > unlikely complexity > (3) A successful defense does not necessarily determine the strength of > competing hypotheses > (4) Indeed, proving the central proposition of statistically unlikely > complexity in the peer-reviewed arena is what is important Actually, the "statistically unlikely" argument is open to significant debate. The evolution of stars produces a *lot* of carbon which seems to be a good substrate for structures required for life. Supernovas and other astrophysical processes seem to produce a lost of "organic" base materials (I'm sure Amara could provide a long list of organic molecules found in both life processes and interstellar dust.) This is in part the entire area of exploration of the field of astrobiology (which has a large and growing "scientific" community). Lineweaver's arguments point out that a significant majority of the Earth's in existing galaxies are much older than ours. "Probability One" points out there are likely to be a *lot* of them. Minsky pointed out to Dyson 40+ years ago that the most advanced civilizations will radiate heat near the cosmic microwave background temperature (where it is very difficult for us to "see" them). The experimental evidence for "missing mass" in the universe is significant and the theoretical physicists are having to bend over backwards to try an explain it. There is a significant case to be made, if you understand biology and astrophysics sufficiently, that there may be a *lot* of superintelligences in the universe and *we* may currently be the "statistically unlikely" state in the evolution of complexity. "Life" may have a relatively hard time getting from ground zero to our level of complexity -- but once the singularity kicks in it goes rapidly from our state to the limits that physics will allow. Humans (be they creationists or scientists) seem not to have fully grasped that yet. Indeed, the complexity of evolutionary processes may make it impossible to "compute" the likelyhood or unlikelyhood of various paths of development. To get the statistics for #4 (above) may in fact *require* that one run large numbers of actual experiments such as our solar system to get the hard data. People unfortunately have a difficult time making the leap from where we are now to the stage where planetary dismantlement (and reassembly) is simply one of the things intelligent entities can do (in spite of the fact that we have been doing just that (to a limited extent) since 1959 [e.g. Lunas 1,2 & 3 and Pioneer 4]. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From l4point at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 01:51:50 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:51:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b5e09390512201751j6ce1c1d8kb60cf44f25486350@mail.gmail.com> Do intelligent entities still argue incessantly about politics when they are dismantling and reassembling planets? On 12/20/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > On 12/20/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > > > > (1) ID could be by "natural" causation, i.e. superintelligence > > (2) ID does not require irreducible complexity, only statistically > > unlikely complexity > > (3) A successful defense does not necessarily determine the strength of > > competing hypotheses > > (4) Indeed, proving the central proposition of statistically unlikely > > complexity in the peer-reviewed arena is what is important > > > Actually, the "statistically unlikely" argument is open to significant > debate. > > The evolution of stars produces a *lot* of carbon which seems to be a good > substrate for structures required for life. Supernovas and other > astrophysical processes seem to produce a lost of "organic" base materials > (I'm sure Amara could provide a long list of organic molecules found in both > life processes and interstellar dust.) This is in part the entire area of > exploration of the field of astrobiology (which has a large and growing > "scientific" community). Lineweaver's arguments point out that a > significant majority of the Earth's in existing galaxies are much older than > ours. "Probability One" points out there are likely to be a *lot* of them. > Minsky pointed out to Dyson 40+ years ago that the most advanced > civilizations will radiate heat near the cosmic microwave background > temperature (where it is very difficult for us to "see" them). The > experimental evidence for "missing mass" in the universe is significant and > the theoretical physicists are having to bend over backwards to try an > explain it. > > There is a significant case to be made, if you understand biology and > astrophysics sufficiently, that there may be a *lot* of superintelligences > in the universe and *we* may currently be the "statistically unlikely" state > in the evolution of complexity. "Life" may have a relatively hard time > getting from ground zero to our level of complexity -- but once the > singularity kicks in it goes rapidly from our state to the limits that > physics will allow. Humans (be they creationists or scientists) seem not to > have fully grasped that yet. > > Indeed, the complexity of evolutionary processes may make it impossible to > "compute" the likelyhood or unlikelyhood of various paths of development. > To get the statistics for #4 (above) may in fact *require* that one run > large numbers of actual experiments such as our solar system to get the hard > data. > > People unfortunately have a difficult time making the leap from where we > are now to the stage where planetary dismantlement (and reassembly) is > simply one of the things intelligent entities can do (in spite of the fact > that we have been doing just that (to a limited extent) since 1959 [e.g. > Lunas 1,2 & 3 and Pioneer 4]. > > Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 21 02:08:46 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:08:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> You are now in my territory. I recommend the Children of Bodom album "Hate Crew Deathroll" for pretty wild guitaring. Dark Tranquillity's "Character" is also a solid offering. If you want to get a more old school, Judas Priest inspired sound, try out the "3 Inches of Blood" album "Advance and Vanquish. If you want something very heavy, try the Demonoid album "Riders of the Apocalypse." This is actually Therion playing death metal. If you want to dig into the crunchy black metal sound, you should go with Inquisition's new album "The Magnificent Glorification of Lucifer." (Yes, that's a real title of a real album and its real good.) For something more transhumany, you might try Kovenant's "SETI" album. Or perhaps Atrocity's "Atlantis." And if you just want something that is absolutely bad ass, get "Far Away >From Conformity" by Cadaveria. Glory to my metal brothers and sisters! \m/ (What are you using the music for?) ;P Hate Crew Deathroll: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000C3I4V/qid=1135130558/sr=8 -1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 Character: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006Z3DEY/qid=1135130577/sr=2 -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music Advance and Vanquish: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00061RYWA/ref=pd_bbs_null_1/0 02-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music Riders of the Apocalypse: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002GCX02/qid=1135130728/sr=2 -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music SETI: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006L71U/qid=1135130783/sr=2 -2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music Atlantis: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001WGEM0/qid=1135130797/sr=2 -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music Far Away From Conformity: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001CNPQI/qid=1135130874/sr=1 -1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:05 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; exi-la at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Who would you recommend? Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:24:52 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:24:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > You are now in my territory. > > I recommend the Children of Bodom album "Hate Crew Deathroll" for pretty > wild guitaring. Dark Tranquillity's "Character" is also a solid offering. > If > you want to get a more old school, Judas Priest inspired sound, try out > the > "3 Inches of Blood" album "Advance and Vanquish. > > If you want something very heavy, try the Demonoid album "Riders of the > Apocalypse." This is actually Therion playing death metal. If you want to > dig into the crunchy black metal sound, you should go with Inquisition's > new > album "The Magnificent Glorification of Lucifer." (Yes, that's a real > title > of a real album and its real good.) > > For something more transhumany, you might try Kovenant's "SETI" album. Or > perhaps Atrocity's "Atlantis." > > And if you just want something that is absolutely bad ass, get "Far Away > >From Conformity" by Cadaveria. > > Glory to my metal brothers and sisters! \m/ > > (What are you using the music for?) > > ;P > > Hate Crew Deathroll: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000C3I4V/qid=1135130558/sr=8 > -1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 > > Character: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006Z3DEY/qid=1135130577/sr=2 > -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > Advance and Vanquish: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00061RYWA/ref=pd_bbs_null_1/0 > 02-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > Riders of the Apocalypse: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002GCX02/qid=1135130728/sr=2 > -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > SETI: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006L71U/qid=1135130783/sr=2 > -2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > Atlantis: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001WGEM0/qid=1135130797/sr=2 > -1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > Far Away From Conformity: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001CNPQI/qid=1135130874/sr=1 > -1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > Another band that is very good is the Finnish band Nightwish fronted by a female singer, Tarja Turunen. http://www.nightwish.com/ Samples available in mp3 on the site. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:38:15 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:38:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512201751j6ce1c1d8kb60cf44f25486350@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b5e09390512201751j6ce1c1d8kb60cf44f25486350@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0512201838r402ba726m950c6b3abd753021@mail.gmail.com> Tuesday, 20 December 2005 On 12/20/05, Mike Hayes wrote: > Do intelligent entities still argue incessantly about politics when they are > dismantling and reassembling planets? > With luck, we will all live long enough to find out. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:42:09 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:42:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0512201842m76c6c086k41e946c52b924ef8@mail.gmail.com> On 12/20/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > [snip] > People unfortunately have a difficult time making the leap from where we > are now to the stage where planetary dismantlement (and reassembly) is > simply one of the things intelligent entities can do (in spite of the fact > that we have been doing just that (to a limited extent) since 1959 [e.g. > Lunas 1,2 & 3 and Pioneer 4]. [snip] What antecedent do you mean for the pronoun "that"? I googled each of the Lear missions but I still don't grasp what you meant. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Dec 21 02:44:21 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:44:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Old Curative Gets New Life at Tiny Scale Message-ID: <43A8C185.60003@mindspring.com> Something like what astronomy is to astrology (namely, legit), here is what nano is to homeopathy. Maybe.... - Wade ***** December 20, 2005 Old Curative Gets New Life at Tiny Scale By BARNABY J. FEDER http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/health/20nano.html?pagewanted=print Silver, one of humankind's first weapons against bacteria, is receiving new respect for its antiseptic powers, thanks to the growing ability of researchers to tinker with its molecular structure. Doctors prescribed silver to fight infections at least as far back as the days of ancient Greece and Egypt. Their knowledge was absorbed by Rome, where historians like Pliny the Elder reported that silver plasters caused wounds to close rapidly. More recently, in 1884, a German doctor named C. S. F. Crede demonstrated that a putting a few drops of silver nitrate into the eyes of babies born to women with venereal disease virtually eliminated the high rates of blindness among such infants. But silver's time-tested - if poorly understood - versatility as a disinfectant was overshadowed in the latter half of the 20th century by the rise of antibiotics. Now, with more and more bacteria developing resistance to antibiotic drugs, some researchers and health care entrepreneurs have returned to silver for another look. This time around, they are armed with nanotechnology, a fast-developing collection of products and skills that helps researchers deploy silver compounds in ways that maximize the availability of silver ions - the element's most potent form. Scientists also now have a better understanding of the weaknesses of their microbial adversaries. One of the urgent goals is to prevent bacterial infections that each year strike 2 million hospital patients and kill 90,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Such infections are usually treated with large doses of antibiotics and sometimes with repeat surgeries. They cost the health care system roughly $4.5 billion annually, and the challenge is growing with the spread of drug-resistant microbes. The latest advance for silver therapy comes from AcryMed, a small company in Portland, Ore., that has invented a process to deposit silver particles averaging about 10 nanometers - less than a thousandth the diameter of a human a hair - on medical devices. AcryMed's first customer, I-Flow, makes a silver-coated catheter that pumps painkillers into the wounds created by surgery. I-Flow got federal regulatory clearance on Dec. 2 to sell the device and has already begun shipping them to customers. The nanoscale particles have so much surface area to react with the microbes, in relation to their volume, that small concentrations are effective antiseptics. "The equivalent of a teaspoon of silver in a seven-lane Olympic-size swimming pool is enough to do the job," said Bruce Gibbons, the microbiologist who is AcryMed's founder and chief executive. AcryMed hopes to reach agreements with catheter companies larger than I-Flow, including the makers of urinary catheters, the most common breeding ground for hospital infections. Nano-scale silver could also eventually make its way onto permanently implanted devices like silicone breasts, artificial hips and knees and pacemakers. The term nanotechnology is derived from the nanometer, one-billionth of a meter. Nanoscale materials often exhibit unusual structures and behaviors compared with bulkier quantities of the same material. AcryMed began developing wound dressings with large-scale silver particles in the 1990's. It adapted its process to make smaller and smaller particles when medical-device makers asked it for silver coatings. As the particles shrank to nanoscale dimensions, they became so highly reactive that AcryMed was able to bind them to virtually every glass and plastic material it tested. As has often been the case in nanotechnology, AcryMed is rushing to get products into the market long before the nano-scale phenomena it is exploiting are fully understood. It is not entirely clear, for example, how silver kills many bacteria at the diluted concentrations considered safe for medical use. AcryMed also admits that it cannot fully explain the forces that produce the surface-binding performance of its particles. It is a crucial trait, though, because surface coverage that is even and thorough blocks the formation of a thick carpet of bacteria known as biofilm. Preventing the build up of biofilms, which eventually release large masses of free-floating bacteria, is in turn a key to avoiding infections, according to Dr. Dennis Maki, a professor of medicine and the head of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin Medical School and Pubic Health. Copyright 2005The New York Times Company -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:54:38 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:54:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Old Curative Gets New Life at Tiny Scale In-Reply-To: <43A8C185.60003@mindspring.com> References: <43A8C185.60003@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > Something like what astronomy is to astrology (namely, legit), here > > is what nano is to homeopathy. Maybe.... > > - Wade > > ***** > > December 20, 2005 > Old Curative Gets New Life at Tiny Scale > > By BARNABY J. FEDER > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/health/20nano.html?pagewanted=print > > Silver, one of humankind's first weapons against bacteria, is > receiving new respect for its antiseptic powers, thanks to the > growing ability of researchers to tinker with its molecular structure. > ... > Google "colloidal silver" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:13 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:32:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... ---> ensuring longevity In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512201838r402ba726m950c6b3abd753021@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Jay Dugger > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:38 PM > On 12/20/05, Mike Hayes wrote: > > Do intelligent entities still argue incessantly about politics > when they are dismantling and reassembling planets? > > > With luck, we will all live long enough to find out. "With luck" meaning "with luck, my freeloading strategy will pan out and all the necessary work will happen in time even though I didn't help out." If you really want the future of medical science to be brighter, then it makes sense to devote some amount of your resources towards making it happen. Anyone with the foresight necessary to save for retirement should also see the cost-benefit value in helping bring about a future of real anti-aging medical science. Donate to the MPrize, for example - I challenge you to find a better leverage point, insofar as the future of your health and longevity goes, for your charitable dollars this year. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000700.php http://www.mprize.org Reason From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Dec 21 03:45:59 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:45:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Unauthorized domestic surveillance threatens rule of law Message-ID: <43A8CFF7.7050607@mindspring.com> [See < http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm > for a long-existing program coordinated by the NSA with our Allies. -Terry] UNAUTHORIZED DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE THREATENS RULE OF LAW In an extraordinary move that undermines the legal foundation for the conduct of intelligence activities, President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons outside of the statutory framework that was established to authorize such surveillance, the New York Times revealed last week. Although the President insisted that his action was "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution," the surveillance operation was not conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the statute that permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a specially designated federal court. "Domestic intelligence collection is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA," explained Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. "FISA is the exclusive law in this area." "We have changed aspects of that law at the request of the administration in the USA PATRIOT Act to allow for a more aggressive but still lawful defense against terror. So there have been amendments," Sen. Feinstein noted. But to conduct domestic intelligence surveillance outside of the FISA framework "calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law," she said December 16. See: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/s121605.html The FISA process is not unduly burdensome or time-consuming. "Urgent requests that meet the criteria and requirements of FISA are handled as emergency or expedited matters," said the Attorney General in a written response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, transmitted October 20, 2005. "The fact of the matter is, FISA can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours and even minutes, if necessary," said Sen. Feinstein. In a 2000 statement describing oversight of NSA activities, then-NSA Director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden said "The American people must be confident that the power they have entrusted to us is not being, and will not be, abused." NSA "operates within detailed, constitutionally-based, substantive, and procedural limits under the watchful eyes of Congress, numerous institutions within the Executive Branch, and -- through the FISA -- the judiciary." "The privacy framework is technology neutral and does not require amendment to accommodate new communications technologies," he said. "The regulatory and oversight structure, in place now for nearly a quarter of a century, has ensured that the imperatives of national security are balanced with democratic values," Gen. Hayden said then. See: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hayden.html Under mounting pressure, the Bush Administration has groped for some legal justification for its departure from statutory requirements. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed today that the 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" against terrorists encompassed the right to conduct domestic wiretapping. But that resolution plainly pertains to the use of military force, not intelligence collection. Nor do the President's inherent authorities as commander in chief extend without limitation to warrantless surveillance of Americans. "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a ruling last year on the legal rights of detainees. For background on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, see: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html -- "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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 03:47:01 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:47:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: "It was never supposed [the poet Imlac said] that cogitation is inherent in matter, or that every particle is a thinking being. Yet if any part of matter be devoid of thought, what part can we suppose to think? Matter can differ from matter only in form, bulk, density, motion and direction of motion; to which of these, however varied or combined, can consciousness be annexed? To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, to be great or little, to be moved slowly or swiftly one way or another, are modes of material existence, all equally alien from the nature of cognition. If matter be once without thought, it can only be made to think by some new modification, but all the modification which it can admit are equally unconnected with cogitative powers." Samuel Johnson -gts From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Dec 21 03:52:47 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:52:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Domestic and Foreign monitoring potpourri Message-ID: <43A8D18F.1030102@mindspring.com> PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND STABILIZATION On December 7, President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 44 on "Mananagement of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization." "The purpose of this Directive is to promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning, and implementation for reconstruction and stabilization assistance for foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife," the Directive states. The full text of the Directive is posted here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-44.html The use of presidential directives as an instrument of executive authority is discussed in "Presidential Directives: Background and Overview" by Harold C. Relyea, Congressional Research Service, updated January 7, 2005: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf GAO INVENTORY OF AGENCY AUTOMATED INFO SYSTEMS (1991) A descriptive inventory of more than one hundred automated information systems and databases used by government agencies in support of counter-drug law enforcement activities was compiled by the General Accounting Office in 1991 at the request of Congress. The surprisingly expansive 75 page account is mainly of historical interest, though it may also be useful in focusing Freedom of Information Act requests and other research activities. "Because the agencies consider the information contained in this report to be sensitive," the GAO wrote in 1991, "we have marked the report For Official Use Only." It is still not included in GAO's public database. But a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. See "War on Drugs: Inventory of Federal Agencies' Automated Information Systems," U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/IMTEC- 91-28FS, April 1991 (1.8 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/sgp/gao/ais-1991.pdf POSTSCRIPTS ** Presidents have previously claimed authority over domestic communications, observed intelligence historian David Kahn, but they have done so with congressional sanction: "On 16 July 1918 a congressional resolution gave the president the power to assume control of wire communications during the war (40 Statutes at Large 904). A presidential proclamation of 22 July 1918 took that control and devolved the power on the postmaster general (40 Statutes Part 2, 1807-8). A law of 29 October 1918 (40 Statutes 1017-18) prohibited anybody from divulging the contents of those communications. The resolution was repealed in 41 Statutes 157." ** In the 1990s, intrepid researcher Glenn Campbell probably did more than any other individual to make "Area 51" the most famous secret military base in the world. Now he has turned his peculiar talents to the even more challenging proceedings of family court in Las Vegas. See his web site www.familycourtchronicles.com and a profile of his activities in the Las Vegas Sun, "An eccentric's struggle for truth," December 18: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/dec/18/519837904.html ** While the DNI Open Source Center monitors Lebanese Hizballah's unsavory Al Manar television broadcasts (Secrecy News, 12/15/05), Americans are effectively blocked from doing the same, observed Jack Shafer in Slate last year. See "Who's Afraid of Hezbollah TV? Not me": http://www.slate.com/id/2111527/ -- "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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Dec 21 04:00:00 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:00:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512201751j6ce1c1d8kb60cf44f25486350@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b5e09390512201751j6ce1c1d8kb60cf44f25486350@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43A8D340.2090809@goldenfuture.net> Of course. It's just that it only takes a miniscule percentage of available computing power to do so, when you're a Jupiter-brain. So, today, there are a hundred politics messages to every one stellar-engineering message. When we have virtually unlimited computing power, we'll still only need a hundred messages about politics to come to the same non-conclusions, but will be able to squeeze in a few gazillion messages about stellar engineering in and around them. :-) Joseph Mike Hayes wrote: > Do intelligent entities still argue incessantly about politics when > they are dismantling and reassembling planets? > > On 12/20/05, *Robert Bradbury* < robert.bradbury at gmail.com > > wrote: > > > On 12/20/05, *Hughes, James J.* > wrote: > > > (1) ID could be by "natural" causation, i.e. superintelligence > (2) ID does not require irreducible complexity, only statistically > unlikely complexity > (3) A successful defense does not necessarily determine the > strength of > competing hypotheses > (4) Indeed, proving the central proposition of statistically > unlikely > complexity in the peer-reviewed arena is what is important > > > Actually, the "statistically unlikely" argument is open to > significant debate. > > The evolution of stars produces a *lot* of carbon which seems to > be a good substrate for structures required for life. Supernovas > and other astrophysical processes seem to produce a lost of > "organic" base materials (I'm sure Amara could provide a long list > of organic molecules found in both life processes and interstellar > dust.) This is in part the entire area of exploration of the > field of astrobiology (which has a large and growing "scientific" > community). Lineweaver's arguments point out that a significant > majority of the Earth's in existing galaxies are much older than > ours. "Probability One" points out there are likely to be a *lot* > of them. Minsky pointed out to Dyson 40+ years ago that the most > advanced civilizations will radiate heat near the cosmic microwave > background temperature (where it is very difficult for us to "see" > them). The experimental evidence for "missing mass" in the > universe is significant and the theoretical physicists are having > to bend over backwards to try an explain it. > > There is a significant case to be made, if you understand biology > and astrophysics sufficiently, that there may be a *lot* of > superintelligences in the universe and *we* may currently be the > "statistically unlikely" state in the evolution of complexity. > "Life" may have a relatively hard time getting from ground zero to > our level of complexity -- but once the singularity kicks in it > goes rapidly from our state to the limits that physics will > allow. Humans (be they creationists or scientists) seem not to > have fully grasped that yet. > > Indeed, the complexity of evolutionary processes may make it > impossible to "compute" the likelyhood or unlikelyhood of various > paths of development. To get the statistics for #4 (above) may in > fact *require* that one run large numbers of actual experiments > such as our solar system to get the hard data. > > People unfortunately have a difficult time making the leap from > where we are now to the stage where planetary dismantlement (and > reassembly) is simply one of the things intelligent entities can > do (in spite of the fact that we have been doing just that (to a > limited extent) since 1959 [e.g. Lunas 1,2 & 3 and Pioneer 4]. > > Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 21 05:54:25 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:54:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <22360fa10512202154v782b003ai22561c60aa70a456@mail.gmail.com> On 12/20/05, gts wrote: > "It was never supposed [the poet Imlac said] that cogitation is inherent > in matter, or that every particle is a thinking being. Yet if any part of > matter be devoid of thought, what part can we suppose to think? Matter can > differ from matter only in form, bulk, density, motion and direction of > motion; to which of these, however varied or combined, can consciousness > be annexed? To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, to be great or > little, to be moved slowly or swiftly one way or another, are modes of > material existence, all equally alien from the nature of cognition. If > matter be once without thought, it can only be made to think by some new > modification, but all the modification which it can admit are equally > unconnected with cogitative powers." > > Samuel Johnson Take six ordinary toothpicks, each displaying the property of length, and various material properties of perhaps diminishing significance. Arrange the six toothpicks, three to a vertex, to form a tetrahedron. Suddenly, a new property appears; that of containership. The tetrahedron has aquired an inside and an outside and exhibits the capability, unpredicted by its components, to contain another object. It exhibits structural integrity never seen in the world of unattached toothpicks, and an added dimension of symmetry. If matter be once without containership, it can only be made to have containership by some new modification, but all the modification which it can admit are equally unconnected with containership. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 06:13:30 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:13:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512202154v782b003ai22561c60aa70a456@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10512202154v782b003ai22561c60aa70a456@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:54:25 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Take six ordinary toothpicks...If matter be once without containership, > it can only be made to havecontainership by some new modification, but > all the modification whichit can admit are equally unconnected with > containership. Is that really true? Toothpicks contain wood fibers, and wood fibers contain molecules, and molecules contain atoms, and atoms contain subatomic particles, and subatomic particles contain God only knows what. So matter may be once with containership. -gts From femmechakra at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 06:25:05 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:25:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: In my opinion, Metalica is a good description of the old style heavy medal. Things change but the more they become the same. Therefore, in my opinion, maybe the review of the guitar riffs would be helpful. Anna >From: "Brandon Reinhart" >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: , "'ExI chat list'" >, >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 >20:08:46 -0600 > >You are now in my territory. > >I recommend the Children of Bodom album "Hate Crew Deathroll" for pretty >wild guitaring. Dark Tranquillity's "Character" is also a solid offering. >If >you want to get a more old school, Judas Priest inspired sound, try out the >"3 Inches of Blood" album "Advance and Vanquish. > >If you want something very heavy, try the Demonoid album "Riders of the >Apocalypse." This is actually Therion playing death metal. If you want to >dig into the crunchy black metal sound, you should go with Inquisition's >new >album "The Magnificent Glorification of Lucifer." (Yes, that's a real title >of a real album and its real good.) > >For something more transhumany, you might try Kovenant's "SETI" album. Or >perhaps Atrocity's "Atlantis." > >And if you just want something that is absolutely bad ass, get "Far Away > >From Conformity" by Cadaveria. > >Glory to my metal brothers and sisters! \m/ > >(What are you using the music for?) > >;P > >Hate Crew Deathroll: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000C3I4V/qid=1135130558/sr=8 >-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 > >Character: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006Z3DEY/qid=1135130577/sr=2 >-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > >Advance and Vanquish: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00061RYWA/ref=pd_bbs_null_1/0 >02-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > >Riders of the Apocalypse: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002GCX02/qid=1135130728/sr=2 >-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > >SETI: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006L71U/qid=1135130783/sr=2 >-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > >Atlantis: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001WGEM0/qid=1135130797/sr=2 >-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > >Far Away From Conformity: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001CNPQI/qid=1135130874/sr=1 >-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1533936-9060047?v=glance&s=music > > >-----Original Message----- >From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of >nvitamore at austin.rr.com >Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:05 PM >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; exi-la at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal > >This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge >heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Who would you >recommend? > >Thanks, >Natasha > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Dec 21 06:48:53 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:48:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > That is the biggest BS excuse for apathy I have ever heard. You saying so does not make it so. The issues have been so slathered in BS that the stink makes people walk away in disgust rather than spending the time to sort turds, digging through them for a nugget of something or other (maybe even "truth" on occasion). Everyone is a "terrorist", everything is "torture", conspiracies abound, and it is always, invariably someone else's fault. Who has the time to dive into that mess? It is hard not to have an ignorant opinion on these issues, even when one tries to study them. Which might even be the intended result. In any case, all parties (Republicans, Democrats, media, et al) are unapologetically guilty of doing exactly this. J. Andrew Rogers From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 21 07:05:33 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:05:33 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <01fb01c605fc$efac6cf0$cd81e03c@homepc> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > As things currently stand, everyone on this mailing list is a > "tortured" "terrorist" in some fashion or another. How am I a "terrorist" ? Brett Paatsch From femmechakra at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 07:09:19 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:09:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity Message-ID: Again, maybe another naive question:) How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet? How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Predicting things in advance that hasn't happen yet? How can I be singularitarian when i'm not sure what is singularity? Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to happen? Just curious Anna _________________________________________________________________ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Dec 21 07:27:58 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:27:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment In-Reply-To: <01fb01c605fc$efac6cf0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> <01fb01c605fc$efac6cf0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <618D18D0-6187-4247-AE44-C63007852E3F@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 20, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > How am I a "terrorist" ? You are not a terrorist, at least not by any definition I would use -- I used the quotes for a reason. But I have heard some remarkably contorted and convoluted rationalization from some in the right-wing that allows them to assert that just about anyone they disagree with is a "terrorist". On the other side, some in the left-wing have an uncanny ability to label any and all possible actions as "torture", particularly if they think they can use it for political advantage. And vice versa for these terms. A label that is applied to everything no longer means much of anything. Whether or not you consider yourself to be a terrorist or even having anything in common with terrorists is irrelevant. Remember, when 80% of the rest of the population is insane, it is not *they* who are insane but you -- just ask them. J. Andrew Rogers From transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 21 08:26:23 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:26:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity Message-ID: <200512210826.jBL8QGe14645@tick.javien.com> > There are plenty of singularitarians that see the singularity as a time of immense risk to the survival of our biosphere. Actually, I'd adjust this to say probably all singularitarians believe this. I doubt anyone thinks we'll get a free pass to an ideal future. Singularitarians who really grasp the potential of strong AI combined with nanotech are scared as hell at the possibility of doing things wrong. So why wait for the Sword to fall? That's part of where the activist imperative comes from. (Or so it seems to me, I'm still in the early stages of developing this point of view.) - Brandon From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 08:35:33 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:35:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520512210035m55128be5o2abc58a61dd7536@mail.gmail.com> Given definitions like "the S is accelerated exponential growth becoming vertical, with more change in seconds than now in years, change triggering new change, and no prediction is possible from here", clearly S is a family of possible scenarios. At the same time I am not persuaded that a S will happen. You can be an activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet - last time I looked there was no peace on earth, this does not mean that one should not try. Rather, the problem with S-ism is that the S is not defined in sufficient detail. Saying "I want things to change" is not enough imo to motivate activism, one is supposed to say something about *what* change she wants to see. G. On 12/21/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > Again, maybe another naive question:) > > How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet? > How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Predicting things in advance that > hasn't happen yet? > How can I be singularitarian when i'm not sure what is singularity? > Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to happen? > Just curious > Anna > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new > MSN Search! Check it out! > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 08:41:48 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:41:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] insanity In-Reply-To: <618D18D0-6187-4247-AE44-C63007852E3F@ceruleansystems.com> References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> <01fb01c605fc$efac6cf0$cd81e03c@homepc> <618D18D0-6187-4247-AE44-C63007852E3F@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:27:58 -0500, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Remember, when 80% of the rest of the population is insane, it is not > *they* who are insane but you -- justask them. Yep. On this day I feel annoyed by those who seem to consider the relentless pursuit of knowledge a form of "obsession." Yesterday morning I read this excellent article about physics and the philosophy of science: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-12/p34.html This passage caught my eye: "The assumption of mutually independent photons does not yield a derivation of the full Planck formula for the energy density of blackbody radiation. Einstein realized that fact, and for nearly 20 years he sought to understand how it could be." Einstein thought about this problem for 20 years. Thank goodness for sick, obsessive, mentally ill people like Albert Einstein. -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 21 11:07:45 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:07:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512210035m55128be5o2abc58a61dd7536@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512210035m55128be5o2abc58a61dd7536@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Given definitions like "the S is accelerated exponential growth > becoming vertical, with more change in seconds than now in years, > change triggering new change, and no prediction is possible from > here", clearly S is a family of possible scenarios. At the same time I > am not persuaded that a S will happen. This is not what Singularity is about. See http://www.singinst.org and http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html Massively accelerating change is a by-product of Singularity rather than its definition or essence. > You can be an activist for something that apparently hasn't happened > yet - last time I looked there was no peace on earth, this does not > mean that one should not try. Rather, the problem with S-ism is that > the S is not defined in sufficient detail. Saying "I want things to > change" is not enough imo to motivate activism, one is supposed to say > something about *what* change she wants to see. Irrelevant. The key to Singularity is creating greater than human intelligence. That is quite specific. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 21 11:14:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:14:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <200512210826.jBL8QGe14645@tick.javien.com> References: <200512210826.jBL8QGe14645@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <069D217F-E507-4FB9-8A08-EC56E04025A9@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:26 AM, Brandon Reinhart wrote: >> There are plenty of singularitarians that see the singularity as a >> time of > immense risk to the survival of our biosphere. > > Actually, I'd adjust this to say probably all singularitarians > believe this. > I doubt anyone thinks we'll get a free pass to an ideal future. > Singularitarians who really grasp the potential of strong AI > combined with > nanotech are scared as hell at the possibility of doing things wrong. > I am of the opinion that human level intelligence is increasingly insufficient to address the problems we face, problems whose solution is critical to our continuing viability. Thus I see >human intelligence as essential for the survival of humanity (or whatever some or all of us choose to become when we have such choice). Yes the arrival of >human intelligence poses dangers. But I think it is also the only real chance we have. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 21 11:25:08 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:25:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <006601c60521$e7484290$6600a8c0@brainiac> <22083CE9-36D8-44FB-8092-C05A383285B0@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:48 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> That is the biggest BS excuse for apathy I have ever heard. > > > You saying so does not make it so. Real torture is being done by US forces in Iraq and by our CIA. Do you deny this is so? > > The issues have been so slathered in BS that the stink makes people > walk away in disgust rather than spending the time to sort turds, > digging through them for a nugget of something or other (maybe even > "truth" on occasion). Everyone is a "terrorist", everything is > "torture", conspiracies abound, and it is always, invariably > someone else's fault. Who has the time to dive into that mess? It > is hard not to have an ignorant opinion on these issues, even when > one tries to study them. Throwing up our hands and not bothering to decide if torture, what you yourself would cosinder torture if you were the target, is being committed is apathy. The press has given quite a few examples of what is meant by torture. I would consider use of "water boards" to be torture for instance. I would also consider shipping of detainees to countries that practice no bones about it torture to be use of torture. What about you? I do agree that "terrorism" has been inflated far beyond anything meaningful. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 21 11:58:17 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:58:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10512202154v782b003ai22561c60aa70a456@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512210358i4a41a739w61cdd9f43deb6c2d@mail.gmail.com> gts, as often is the case, I can't tell whether you're trying to be profound, or just being polemical. So, instead of the toothpicks, substitute hydrogen atoms linked with oxygen atoms in a two to one arrangement. An emergent property, not present in the components, is wetness. - Jef On 12/20/05, gts wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:54:25 -0500, Jef Allbright > wrote: > > > Take six ordinary toothpicks...If matter be once without containership, > > it can only be made to havecontainership by some new modification, but > > all the modification whichit can admit are equally unconnected with > > containership. > > Is that really true? Toothpicks contain wood fibers, and wood fibers > contain molecules, and molecules contain atoms, and atoms contain > subatomic particles, and subatomic particles contain God only knows what. > > So matter may be once with containership. > > -gts > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 21 16:28:38 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:28:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:08 PM 12/20/2005, Brandon wrote: >You are now in my territory. cryo. >(What are you using the music for?) Broadening my horizons. Actually when I was in San Francisco last weekend, I was talking to my 13-year old nephew who plays electronnic guitar and a fan of heavy metal. I thought I would keep my listening options open and hear what the X gen is up to. Thanks for the education. 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 pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 16:38:33 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:38:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Broadening my horizons. Actually when I was in San Francisco last weekend, > I was talking to my 13-year old nephew who plays electronnic guitar and a > fan of heavy metal. I thought I would keep my listening options open and > hear what the X gen is up to. > As I read in an article in Wired: We already know that our children have atrocious taste in so-called 'music'. With extended lifespans just how bad is it going to be when you are grinding your teeth at what your great-great-great-grand-daughter is inflicting on her ears? BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 16:44:33 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, BillK wrote: > > On 12/21/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Broadening my horizons. Actually when I was in San Francisco last > weekend, > > I was talking to my 13-year old nephew who plays electronnic guitar and > a > > fan of heavy metal. I thought I would keep my listening options open > and > > hear what the X gen is up to. > > > > As I read in an article in Wired: > We already know that our children have atrocious taste in so-called > 'music'. With extended lifespans just how bad is it going to be when > you are grinding your teeth at what your > great-great-great-grand-daughter is inflicting on her ears? > > Listen to Nightwish and hear evolution in action. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 21 16:46:19 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:46:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102934.04bc4b38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:09 AM 12/21/2005, Anna wrote: >Again, maybe another naive question:) > >How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet? >How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Predicting things in advance that >hasn't happen yet? >How can I be singularitarian when i'm not sure what is singularity? >Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to happen? >Just curious There is a professional field of that includes the skills of strategic planning and scenario building in looking ahead toward the future and analyzing what could possibly occur. The skills are not fly by night. They are specific skills that require such talents as environmental scanning, research, analysis, and planning, which use a number of different methodologies. Rather than using the terminology of "prediction" most of us use the terminology of "forecasting," but it is essentially the same thing (minus the mystical interpretation.) When a person spends a great deal of time thinking about the future, the trends, the variables that are detailed elements of the trends and environment that are or become the driving forces of change, he she often becomes excited about the information gained throughout the work. The excitement can lead to passion and even activism if the person recognizes that there are patterns in society that occur due to the balancing and/or reinforcing loops of events, and that if certain variable were changed, even a little, the result would or could be a different outcome. Understanding the patterns and knowing that they can be altered leaves a window open to the fact that people and society can and do change the conditions for better or for worse. Being an activist is a commitment to seeing "something" occur in the way that would be either beneficial or detrimental to society. Most of the Singularity activism realize the potential benefits and the potential dangers of emerging superintelligences and that humanity does have a choice and an opportunity, however, small, to affect the outcome of the probable or the inevitable. In short, studying trends and having a broad spectrum of knowledge and information about social, technological, environmental, economic domains can provide a person with enough intellectual savvy to make assumptions about what could possibly occur. Of course there are wild cards and pop up unexpectedly and discontinuities that can throw everyone off, but they have a range of probability as well, even unknown probability which fits into the equation. 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 16:49:08 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:49:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <200512210826.jBL8QGe14645@tick.javien.com> References: <200512210826.jBL8QGe14645@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > > There are plenty of singularitarians that see the singularity as a time > of > immense risk to the survival of our biosphere. > > Actually, I'd adjust this to say probably all singularitarians believe > this. > I doubt anyone thinks we'll get a free pass to an ideal future. > Singularitarians who really grasp the potential of strong AI combined with > nanotech are scared as hell at the possibility of doing things wrong. > > So why wait for the Sword to fall? That's part of where the activist > imperative comes from. (Or so it seems to me, I'm still in the early > stages > of developing this point of view.) > > I would also say that we are living in a chaotic period of history (unlike, say, the Cold War years) and that any effort we put in now will be amplified instead of damped as time goes on. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 16:50:30 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:50:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512210358i4a41a739w61cdd9f43deb6c2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10512202154v782b003ai22561c60aa70a456@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512210358i4a41a739w61cdd9f43deb6c2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:58:17 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > gts, as often is the case, I can't tell whether you're trying to be > profound, or just being polemical. Neither. :) > So, instead of the toothpicks, substitute hydrogen atoms linked with > oxygen atoms in a two to one arrangement. An emergent property, not > present in the components, is wetness. Now we're venturing back into the mysterious world of qualia. Unlike containership, "wetness" is a sensation. Is it your contention that qualia are emergent properties of matter? Locke called these emergent properties the secondary qualities of objects, the powers things have to affect our senses. -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 21 17:43:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:43:12 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] generations (was: MUSIC: Heavy Metal) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221111433.01e13560@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:28 AM 12/21/2005 -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >I was talking to my 13-year old nephew who plays electronnic guitar and a >fan of heavy metal. I thought I would keep my listening options open and >hear what the X gen is up to. That would be Y gen, I think. If the Boomers--a pseudo-"generation-"-were born 1945/46-64 (i.e. literally a demographic boom/bulge in births following WWII), X is their youngest sibs and their own youngest kids, roughly 1965-1990, and Y would be born 1991-2015 (taking those to be a true generation of 25 years). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X sez maybe those born 1961-81. I find some interesting babbling: http://home.comcast.net/~nhprman/genxintro.htm Damien Broderick From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 18:08:15 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:08:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512201842m76c6c086k41e946c52b924ef8@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0512201842m76c6c086k41e946c52b924ef8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I consider anytime one is moving matter from one dominant gravity well to a different dominant gravity well that one is engaging in disassembly and/or assembly. The probes cited generally moved things from Earth's gravity well into the Moon's gravity well. We have been doing a fairly good job moving material from Earth into the Mars and Venus gravity wells over the last ~40 years as well. We even a few instances where we have moved things from the sun's gravity well into the Milky Way's (or perhaps the local galactic group's) gravity well. I will freely admit that we have not been doing it in high volume (so continued activity in these areas would require a very long time to observe a significant effect). However that all changes once one has designed planetary disassembly & reassembly nanorobots. Robert For more information see: http://web.archive.org/web/20011218091635/www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/PlntDssmbly.html On 12/20/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > > On 12/20/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > [snip] > > > People unfortunately have a difficult time making the leap from where > we > > are now to the stage where planetary dismantlement (and reassembly) is > > simply one of the things intelligent entities can do (in spite of the > fact > > that we have been doing just that (to a limited extent) since 1959 [e.g. > > Lunas 1,2 & 3 and Pioneer 4]. > [snip] > > What antecedent do you mean for the pronoun "that"? I googled each of > the Lear missions but I still don't grasp what you meant. > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 18:23:09 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:23:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <069D217F-E507-4FB9-8A08-EC56E04025A9@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am of the opinion that human level intelligence is > increasingly > insufficient to address the problems we face, > problems whose solution > is critical to our continuing viability. Thus I > see >human > intelligence as essential for the survival of > humanity (or whatever > some or all of us choose to become when we have such > choice). Yes > the arrival of >human intelligence poses dangers. > But I think it is > also the only real chance we have. How can you be so certain of that super-human intelligence (artifical or otherwise) is going to be the "savior of mankind"? Especially when those people who are super intelligent seem incapable effecting the necessary changes to "save mankind". Look at Maria Vos Savant for example. She has the highest intelligence ever quantified and what does she do? She writes a column for Parade magazine. If she is happy doing that then by all means I won't criticize her choices in life but it does kind of make me skeptical that some computer is going wake up in somebody's basement one day, solve some massive equation, and change the world for the better. What evidence do I have for this skepticism? I need look no farther than this list. We are bunch of really intelligent people but are we doing anything to solve the problems humanity faces? No, we argue about whether Bush is a hero or a fraud and whether the color red is the same for everybody or not. Every time somebody publishes a press release that they have invented a better mouse trap or something, we twitter excitedly for a few days, then go back to bickering over minutae. Don't get me wrong, I like this list. I find it entertaining and informational and have grown quite fond of some the posters. Sure some of the individuals on this list are more accomplished than others, but I don't think the list is collectively living up to its full potential. If high IQ people can be used as an indicator of the nature of super-intelligence, then we might very well be screwed. If we, being as human as we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about us? How do we know that the most likely scenario for the Singularity is that when the AI boots up, it doesn't take a look around, decides we are not worth the effort to save, and decides to write angst-ridden haiku and solve crossword puzzles all day. Or maybe even get a job writing movie reviews for Newsweek. 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 james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Dec 21 18:25:40 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:25:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: 3 Research Positions, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University Message-ID: 3 Research Positions, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University The Oxford Future of Humanity Institute (www.fhi.ox.ac.uk) will shortly be recruiting for 3 research positions. FHI is a new interdisciplinary research institute at the University of Oxford. It is part of the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford and is located within the Faculty of Philosophy. The three posts are: Senior Research Fellow (Ethics) Senior Research Fellow (Global Catastrophic Risk) Junior Research Fellow (Any relevant to FHI interests) Applicants will be asked to submit a CV, one sample of written work, a minimum of two letters of reference, and a covering letter explaining why they would be suitable and how they could contribute to the Institute's agenda. Applicants who wish to be considered for more than one position should indicate this in the first paragraph of their covering letter. Advertisements and further particulars will be posted on the FHI website sometime in January 2006. To register an interest in any of these positions, please email Miriam Wood (miriam.wood at philosophy.ox.ac.uk). We will then email you the advertisement and further particulars when they become available. --------------------------------------- Sent on behalf of Nick Bostrom, Director of the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute --------------------------------------- Miriam Wood James Martin Projects Officer Littlegate House 16/17 St Ebbes Street Oxford OX1 1PT T: 01865 (2)86279 F: 01865 276932 E: miriam.wood at philosophy.ox.ac.uk From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 18:25:27 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:25:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] generations (was: MUSIC: Heavy Metal) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221111433.01e13560@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051221182527.96102.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > That would be Y gen, I think. If the Boomers--a > pseudo-"generation-"-were > born 1945/46-64 (i.e. literally a demographic > boom/bulge in births > following WWII), X is their youngest sibs and their > own youngest kids, > roughly 1965-1990, and Y would be born 1991-2015 > (taking those to be a true > generation of 25 years). So will there be a generation after Z? What would we call it? 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 21 18:49:40 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:49:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] generations (was: MUSIC: Heavy Metal) In-Reply-To: <20051221182527.96102.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221111433.01e13560@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051221182527.96102.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221124847.01eaf218@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:25 AM 12/21/2005 -0800, Avantguardian wrote: >So will there be a generation after Z? What would we >call it? Zzzzzzzz... I fear. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 19:12:13 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:12:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <069D217F-E507-4FB9-8A08-EC56E04025A9@mac.com> <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > What evidence do I have for this skepticism? I need > look no farther than this list. We are bunch of really > intelligent people but are we doing anything to solve > the problems humanity faces? No, we argue about > whether Bush is a hero or a fraud and whether the > color red is the same for everybody or not. Every time > somebody publishes a press release that they have > invented a better mouse trap or something, we twitter > excitedly for a few days, then go back to bickering > over minutae. > > What we are doing IRL does not often intersect with topics on this list. I have created a new type of political party in Britain, am engaged as a partner in a VR startup company and am writing a book on the application of 'exotic' technologies to magickal practices. What are we supposed to be doing? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 19:26:01 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] a cynics view of Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102934.04bc4b38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051221192601.36374.qmail@web35701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Good question, a candid question and not naive at all. The answer is: no-one can predict the future, what we are trying to do is alter the future and are calling it 'prediction', 'extrapolation', 'forecasting', 'prognostication', and so forth. This has been called, "Marxism for computer geeks... [based on] verbiage and confusion...mind candy". Prediction is used to attempt to change the future and smooth life out by making people feel as if they have more power over the future than they actually have; all we truly have is some power over our own lives, and also rather feeble influence on what might occur in the future. Don't take intellectualism all that seriously; since intellectuals' minds are more highly developed their constructs are thus more highly developed & devious. Everyone has a combination of good and bad intentions; everyone has ulterior motives. Do yourself a favor, concentrate on something sensible, such as life extension. >Anna wrote: >Again, maybe another naive question:) >How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't >happened yet? >How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Predicting things in >advance that hasn't happen yet? >How can I be singularitarian when i'm not sure what is >singularity? >Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to >happen? >Just curious nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Dec 21 20:02:29 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:02:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] generations (was: MUSIC: Heavy Metal) Message-ID: <380-220051232120229796@M2W114.mail2web.com> From: Damien >I find some interesting babbling: > >http://home.comcast.net/~nhprman/genxintro.htm Haha! Very good. Yes, it's "Gen Y," thanks. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 21 20:02:19 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:02:19 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <20051220012524.7025.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com><005001c60536$8f91d5b0$f1044e0c@MyComputer><03b201c60538$443613e0$cd81e03c@homepc> <013c01c605c2$11246530$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike, John, where'd you guys go? I'm getting worried you've injured your profit motive? Brett Paatsch From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 20:07:53 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:07:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] generations (was: MUSIC: Heavy Metal) In-Reply-To: <20051221182527.96102.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221111433.01e13560@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051221182527.96102.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > So will there be a generation after Z? What would we > call it? > Do what they do with hurricanes... That would be "Gen-alpha". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 20:44:52 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:44:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Anna Tylor wrote: > > How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet? By trying to pick what you want to happen (from the possible things that can happen) and then working towards specific outcomes you find desirable. How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Predicting things in advance that > hasn't happen yet? There is a difference between predicting the future and creating it. There is a famous quote by the well known management consultant Peter F. Drucker -- "The best way to predict the future is to create it." For example, there was a job search result today from one of my search agents was from Deloitte (a large business consulting company) seeking "Senior Consultant: Vulnerability Assessment and Attack and Penetration". Such a position is based on determining possible future situations and designing systems, procedures, etc. which either completely avoid them or mitigate their negative impact. One can even view the recent activity on "preparation" for dealing with Avian (H5N1) flu as falling into this category. It involves risk and/or hazard function assesment and dealing with them before they happen. How can I be singularitarian when i'm not sure what is singularity? You can (roughly) be a singulatarian if you believe things are going to evolve and complexity will increase at an increasing rate. (Kurzweil's writings are good sources for this.) Now as to what "the" singularity is can be a topic of significant debate. There are different types of results that can come out of the singularity process. One can get into significant debates as to how the singularity manifests itself (these typically go by terms like "soft takeoff" and "hard takeoff") -- and believe me over the years the ExI list has had these discussions at length. > Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to happen? "How" it is going to happen is due to the increase in knowledge, complexity and intelligence (be they be based on wetware (brains) or dryware (computational capacity, software, AIs, etc.)). What that does *not* give you is whether or not the path is optimal or desirable. For example, given my current understanding of the goals of The Singularity Institute and how I believe it plans to achieve them I tend to remain opposed to its efforts. To some extent, this relates to the points made by Andres Vaccari in his recent review of TSIN -- there is little, if any, discussion of *how* we manage the process (in society, as individuals, etc.). Particularly if one takes into account the feelings, desires, moral throw weight, etc. of those people who have "cast in concrete" non-transhumanistic and/or non-extropic viewpoints (I consider the two to be distinctly different). There is plenty which has been written (one can always start with Wikipedia since they try to keep things relatively brief) when wading into these swamps. For more information you have to go back and read things like list archives or position papers on specific aspects of a topic (or find someone willing to speak with you directly [at length]). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 21 21:21:19 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:21:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7D1A25CF-6E63-4139-9896-9E703F71FC09@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:23 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> I am of the opinion that human level intelligence is >> increasingly >> insufficient to address the problems we face, >> problems whose solution >> is critical to our continuing viability. Thus I >> see >human >> intelligence as essential for the survival of >> humanity (or whatever >> some or all of us choose to become when we have such >> choice). Yes >> the arrival of >human intelligence poses dangers. >> But I think it is >> also the only real chance we have. > > How can you be so certain of that super-human > intelligence (artifical or otherwise) is going to be > the "savior of mankind"? I'm not and I certainly said no such thing. I said we humans are reaching, if we haven't reached already, the limits of what our intelligence can successfully deal with. Ergo, we need >human intelligence to continue successfully. We can get some of what is needed by augmenting our own intelligence including our group intelligence. But the current means we have of doing so are too few and of insufficient utility. > > Don't get me wrong, I like this list. I find it > entertaining and informational and have grown quite > fond of some the posters. Sure some of the individuals > on this list are more accomplished than others, but I > don't think the list is collectively living up to its > full potential. If high IQ people can be used as an > indicator of the nature of super-intelligence, then we > might very well be screwed. \ This agrees with my point. But we should not anthropomorphize non- human intelligence. > If we, being as human as > we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our > own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty > non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about > us? Good question. But not relevant as to whether we must build such intelligence if we are to have much of a chance of continuing at all. > How do we know that the most likely scenario for > the Singularity is that when the AI boots up, it > doesn't take a look around, decides we are not worth > the effort to save, and decides to write angst-ridden > haiku and solve crossword puzzles all day. I doubt very much that angst or crossword puzzles are part of its goal structure. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 21:28:33 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:28:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051221212833.66547.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna, do yourself a favor, forget all this intellectual goopity-glop, and concentrate on something here & now-- like life extension. nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 21 21:46:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:46:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051221212833.66547.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051221212833.66547.qmail@web35714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <54E68463-19F5-4C35-8A3B-9994B1DA8360@mac.com> Alan, Such advice publicly given is insulting. Don't go there. At the most privately volunteer your opinion. No, I am not being hypocritical. Since you posted publicly to not respond publicly would have made it look like such things are acceptable to the people here. They aren't acceptable to me. - samantha On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Alan Brooks wrote: > Anna, do yourself a favor, forget all this intellectual goopity- > glop, and concentrate on something here & now-- like life extension. > > > nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 22:02:29 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <7D1A25CF-6E63-4139-9896-9E703F71FC09@mac.com> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <7D1A25CF-6E63-4139-9896-9E703F71FC09@mac.com> Message-ID: On 12/21/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > If we, being as human as > we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our > own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty > non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about > us? > > > Good question. But not relevant as to whether we must build such > intelligence if we are to have much of a chance of continuing at all. > Actually Samantha, I view there as being few, if any, barriers to current instantiation humans ensuring the "survival of our own species". We do *not* need to become more intelligent. We need to use the intelligence we have at our disposal more effectively or creatively. For example -- the full nanotech vision can be realized using current human intelligence. It is essentially nothing more than a re-execution of the development of the semiconductor industry over the last 20-30 years. We already have various means with regard to detecting and reducing most short term hazards (NEOs, etc.). We have several billion years how to figure out what to do in the longer term (i.e. when the sun exhausts its fuel supply). Could a single human ensure our survival? I doubt it. Could we as a group? Quite probably. The question becomes *who* survives and whether whatever strategies are followed are "optimal"? This goes back to the famous Star Trek question -- when do "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)." And so one must ask if one is going to rely on a "super-intelligence" to "save" us -- how does one guarantee that a super-intelligence is (or will remain) so altruistic that our "optimal" survival will be the end result? Indeed one could make the case that any entity which is not acting primarily with its own survival as its primary goal isn't really "intelligent". (The male spiders which sacrifice themselves to contribute protein to female spiders so as to increase numbers of offspring come to mind...) How do we know that the most likely scenario for > the Singularity is that when the AI boots up, it > doesn't take a look around, decides we are not worth > the effort to save, and decides to write angst-ridden > haiku and solve crossword puzzles all day. > > > I doubt very much that angst or crossword puzzles are part of its goal > structure. > Depends. If it is intelligent enough to compute the final outcomes for "life" (which is a distinct possibility) then haiku & crossword puzzles may not be such a bad way to burn time. Certainly no better or worse than ensuring the survival of, or information content of, states of matter which are recognized as being inherently suboptimal or whose future paths can easily be predicted. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike99 at lascruces.com Wed Dec 21 22:52:31 2005 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:52:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <200512211900.jBLJ0Te07135@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: What Samantha says here about the value -- and the dangers -- of superhuman intelligence reflects quite precisely what I believe on this subject. Let me add a few points to bolster this position: 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or past forms of human organization, were sufficient to create the sort of world we desire to live in, then such a world would have already been created. Therefore, no rearrangement of human relations (political, economic, etc.) and no humanly-manageable system of development could be sufficient to take us from our current unsatisfactory state of life to the enhanced, long-lived, healthy, wealthy and free life we desire. Greater than human intelligence is required. 2) Superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) could (or as Eliezer Yudkowsky claims **would**) destroy us if it were not designed to be inherently and unalterably "Friendly" toward our species. So SAI is both the ultimate promise and the ultimate threat. Should we relinquish the development of SAI as Bill Joy advocates? I do not believe that relinquishment is possible even if it were desirable. Nor do I believe it is desirable: if we do not develop SAI, then we will never get beyond the quarrelsome, impoverished (intellectual and materially), short-lived and short-tempered state our species is currently in. There is no chance whatsoever that we could develop and correctly deploy all the transhumanist technologies we need for the creation of a better world unless we have superintelligence to manage the process. 3) Many major economic organizations (companies) and political/military institutions recognize that SAI will inevitably be developed, so each nation-state and many major corporations (often with governmental backing) are working toward this goal. Whether or not these organizations and institutions seek the Singularity, their self-interest (and survival instinct) drives them toward creating the SAI that will inaugurate the Singularity of asymptotically-increasing development. Once the SAI genie is out of the R&D (sand)box, it cannot be put back in. Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu English Dept., New Mexico State University "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery." -- Jacob Bronowski "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a rope across an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:14:40 -0800 > From: Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity > To: ExI chat list ... > I am of the opinion that human level intelligence is increasingly > insufficient to address the problems we face, problems whose solution > is critical to our continuing viability. Thus I see >human > intelligence as essential for the survival of humanity (or whatever > some or all of us choose to become when we have such choice). Yes > the arrival of >human intelligence poses dangers. But I think it is > also the only real chance we have. > > - samantha From transcend at extropica.com Wed Dec 21 23:42:03 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:42:03 -0600 Subject: FW: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity Message-ID: <200512212341.jBLNfse29079@tick.javien.com> Argh. My original post never went through, but my reply to myself did. Reposted: -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Reinhart [mailto:transcend at extropica.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:19 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity > How can you be activist for something that apparently hasn't happened yet? You begin by studying the logic, the science, and the theories that form the basis for a belief in or desire of the singularity. If you come to the conclusion that a singularity is possible (or inevitable) then you almost by extension become an activist. Whether you are talking about the birth of a strong AI (Vinge singularity/hard takeoff) or a slow takeoff due to technological growth (Kurzweil singularity) you have a scenario with the potential to cure countless diseases, save countless lives, and improve the welfare of society greatly. Even low shock level scenarios include extremely long lives, cures for major human ailments, etc. Why would any human, who has come to the singularity conclusion >>through the application of reason<<, not extend that processing of reasoning to conclude that it is ideal to work to bring about a singularity as quickly and as safely as possible? Even if you do not accept a hard takeoff singularity scenario, it is still reasonable to conclude that destroying deathist taboos and approaching human mortality as a disease to be cured (or engineering problem to be solved) is good for our society. It is still reasonable to conclude that intelligence enhancement would lead to a better society. Even if futurist projections of a singularity in this century are way off, it still makes sense, in principle, to pursue the goal of building a rational, technology driven society that seeks to uphold and protect extropian values. > How come it sounds like Nostradamus? Because a cursory examination only reveals the quick pay off. You see "technological apotheosis" and your brain says "bullshit!" Which is good: skepticism is the extropian's most valued tool. The ability to filter shit is indispensable. It drives you to check the facts; to study the theories or to do the science. Believe me, when I started reading about the possibility of ultratechnologies far beyond my shock level, it turned on all sorts of warning sirens. I do not accept any prediction of a time frame for singularity. > How can I be singularitarian when I'm not sure what is singularity? You can't. You don't want to be. Don't aspire to be an activist until you know what you are working to achieve. This is a simple rule for any kind of activism. If you blindly accept everything written in "The Singularity is Near" you aren't helping the cause. You have to understand why you believe what you believe. Build up your knowledge slowly. Read a lot. Think about what you read. Write about what you think. Digest the concepts and apply your skepticism. If something doesn't seem to fit in your rational view of the world, figure out why: is it too grandiose? Too unlikely? Too crackpot? Too illogical? Too dangerous? Too undesirable? Too desirable? Put the ideals and theories that comprise extropianism, transhumanism, and singularitarianism through your intellectual wringer and the ones that come out still standing...well, take those and build on them. If you find terms or concepts you don't understand, break them down. Don't just accept it because some futurist said it would be so. I think if you're a true rationalist, this process of breaking down ideas will be something you do all your life. That's part of the "perpetual progress" that defines the extropian. When you read a post on this list, don't let it stand as some great statement of transhumanist wisdom. Think about it. Challenge it. Meme osmosis is the enemy. There is no single great conception of what the singularity is or what it will be like or when it will happen. There is only a community of common values and goals: progress, self-transformation, optimism, intelligent technology, open society, self-direction, and rational thinking. > Knowing it's going to happen doesn't predict how it's going to happen? We don't know for certain the singularity will happen. There are plenty of singularitarians that see the singularity as a time of immense risk to the survival of our biosphere. We may very well destroy ourselves before we get the chance for a singularity. Or we may find that there are challenges in the science we didn't expect. The singularity might not happen in our lifetimes. It doesn't really matter. The benefits of a successful singularity are important enough to work toward even if we don't reach it soon, that we should work toward it anyway. The extropian ideology can be applied on an ongoing basis, regardless of your current technology level. You can utterly dispense with the singularity, call it complete nonsense, and still be an extropian. Draw your own lines in the sand. Don't "buy into" the singularity simply because it's the popular thing to do. Do it because it fits into your view of the world you want to help build. - Brandon From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 23:44:52 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:14:52 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> Good one Natasha. I'm always dismayed that people stick with the music of their youth. Real extropians have gotta keep on the run... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * NaNoWriMo word count: 50000+! Winner! (http://nanowrimo.org) On 22/12/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 08:08 PM 12/20/2005, Brandon wrote: > You are now in my territory. > cryo. > > (What are you using the music for?) > Broadening my horizons. Actually when I was in San Francisco last weekend, > I was talking to my 13-year old nephew who plays electronnic guitar and a > fan of heavy metal. I thought I would keep my listening options open and > hear what the X gen is up to. > > Thanks for the education. > > 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 > > 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 > > > Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 01:15:48 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:15:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- mike99 wrote: > 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or > past forms of human > organization, were sufficient to create the sort of > world we desire to live > in, then such a world would have already been > created. [. . .] Greater > than human intelligence is > required. No, I agree with Robert on this point. The current and historical limitations to this sort of thing are not based on intelligence but are instead primarily political. The ruling class believes (and always has) that they live in the best of all possible worlds for no better reason than that they are in charge. This is the essense of conservativism. As a rule, those in charge, make it their priority is to allocate their resources to preserve the status quo and thereby maintain, consolidate, and if possible increase their power. An SAI is not going to be able to come up with a clever solution to this problem because it is, logically speaking, a very simple problem to solve. You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling class to globally relevant causes. Unfortunately, the ruling class will fight this solution tooth and nail no matter if it is a third grade autistic child or an SAI that proposes it. > 2) Superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) could > (or as Eliezer Yudkowsky > claims **would**) destroy us if it were not designed > to be inherently and > unalterably "Friendly" toward our species. Well the SAI will quickly find out what every politician has learned and that is one can't please all the people all the time. The corollary to this is that no matter how friendly one is, some people will not want to be friends. Furthermore trying to do so, will only either: 1. Make it frustrated and quite possibly dangerous. or 2. Give it a reputation of being flakey and irresolute (i.e. a flip-flopper) with associated loss of credibilty. or 3. Make it sullen and withdrawn such that it decides to devote itself to the pursuit of pure mathematics and be completely indifferent to the fate of mankind. > 3) Many major economic organizations (companies) and > political/military > institutions recognize that SAI will inevitably be > developed, so each > nation-state and many major corporations (often with > governmental backing) > are working toward this goal. Obviously. Since anyone who programs an SAI will tend do so to favor the "tribe" that the programmer belongs to, nobody will trust the motivations of an SAI that was built by a different tribe even in the unlikely chance that the programmer was such a rare altruistic soul to actually design the SAI to be "tribe-neutral". Ergo different "tribes" will all seek to build competing SAIs and we will be back where we started from which is a political morass. The only difference will be that power will be concentrated in a ruling class of machines that vie with each other for supramacy, with us humans, if tolerated at all, reduced to mere vassalage and parasitism. Don't look to SAI to save us. We must save ourselves, SAI or not. We don't have to grow an extra head, we just have to change our minds about what we feel is important and what is irrelevant to our continued existense. Let go of your inner monkey and embrace the brotherhood of man! 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 01:32:10 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051222013210.15872.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > What we are doing IRL does not often intersect with > topics on this list. This is a problem. Since what goes on IRL will detrmine our ultimate failure or success. > I have created a new type of political party in > Britain, am engaged as a > partner in a VR startup company and am writing a > book on the application of > 'exotic' technologies to magickal practices. Sounds great. You are obviously one of the "accomplished" I mentioned. > What > are we supposed to be > doing? Is this a rhetorical question or a nomination for leadership of the Consensus party? ;) 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 01:44:38 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:44:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:15:48 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > Obviously. Since anyone who programs an SAI will tend > do so to favor the "tribe" that the programmer belongs > to, nobody will trust the motivations of an SAI that > was built by a different tribe even in the unlikely > chance that the programmer was such a rare altruistic > soul to actually design the SAI to be "tribe-neutral". I would hope they would be open-source, especially if they will be making public policy decisions. Of course the skill to understand the code would be rare or non-existent if SAI's start writing code for better SAI's. -gts From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 01:51:42 2005 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:51:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051222015142.2625.qmail@web35709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, precisely-- the ruling class will fight tooth & nail. So if you want to spend the rest of your life struggling with the ruling class then go right ahead, knock yourself out. Talley ho... The Avantguardian wrote: >Unfortunately, the ruling >class will fight this solution tooth and nail no >matter if it is a third grade autistic child or an SAI >that proposes it. nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Thu Dec 22 02:03:57 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:03:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43AA098D.2000802@posthuman.com> By the way, for tasting bits of new music, I like these new subscription services, such as Yahoo Music Unlimited. For very little money you get full download access to over 2 million tracks and growing. For keeping up with lots of new stuff, this is much cheaper than buying bunches of CDs and then getting tired of them in a year. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 02:33:05 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:33:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222013210.15872.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222013210.15872.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/22/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > What we are doing IRL does not often intersect with > > topics on this list. > This is a problem. Since what goes on IRL will > detrmine our ultimate failure or success. > > > I have created a new type of political party in > > Britain, am engaged as a > > partner in a VR startup company and am writing a > > book on the application of > > 'exotic' technologies to magickal practices. > > Sounds great. You are obviously one of the > "accomplished" I mentioned. Not as accomplished as I would like to be... > What > > are we supposed to be > > doing? > > Is this a rhetorical question or a nomination for > leadership of the Consensus party? ;) Neither - just a straight question (although if you would like to lead it let me know!) If the claim is that 'we' are just talking, what's the alternative? I see memetic engineering as vital, which means that talking outside our own clique is essential. And by that I don't particularly mean to 'important people'. Six degrees of separation. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 22 03:05:53 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] UCLA study on media bias Message-ID: <20051222030553.E6BC157F5B@finney.org> I ran into an interesting study from UCLA which attempted to measure media bias using an objective methodology. The news release is here, , and the preprint of the article is here, . This is of course a highly controversial topic and at first it might seem impossible to quantify media bias. The methodology they came up with is to study media sources, including newspapers, TV shows and web sites, and to look at how often they cite various think tanks and other policy groups. The idea would be that if they consistently cite liberal groups they are showing a liberal bias, and the same for conservative groups. But how to measure the groups, objectively? Here is the real novelty. They look at how often members of Congress of various political views cite the same groups, and correlate those rates with the Congressfolks scores from the ADA, a liberal group. ADA like other such groups gives Senators and Representatives numerical scores showing where they are on the liberal-conservative spectrum, and I think these are generally considered to be reasonably objective and not too controversial. By comparing the citation rates from the media with those from members of Congress with various ADA scores, the researchers come up with an equivalent ADA score for each media source. This then measures where they are on the political spectrum, compared to the average scores for Congressional representatives (the average ADA for Congress is 50.1 on a scale from 0 to 100). Although this methodology sounds reasonable, the results are quite surprising to me. The bottom line is of the 20 media outlets studied, almost all were had ADA scores above 50, putting them on the liberal side of the spectrum. For reference, the average ADA score for Congressional Democrats is 84.3. Here are the results from Table IV of the paper: Rankings Based on Distance from Center Rank Media outlet Estimated ADA score 1 Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8 2 CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 56.0 3 ABC Good Morning America 56.1 4 Drudge Report 60.4 5 Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume 39.7 6 ABC World News Tonight 61.0 7 NBC Nightly News 61.6 8 USA Today 63.4 9 NBC Today Show 64.0 10 Washington Times 35.4 11 Time Magazine 65.4 12 U.S. News and World Report 65.8 13 NPR Morning Edition 66.3 14 Newsweek 66.3 15 CBS Early Show 66.6 16 Washington Post 66.6 17 LA Times 70.0 18 CBS Evening News 73.7 19 New York Times 73.7 20 Wall Street Journal 85.1 Only two of them are conservative, Fox News and the Washington Times. Both of these do have reputations for conservatism; in fact, Fox is often cited as an egregious case of conservative bias. But Fox is actually the fifth least biased (closest to 50) of the 20. Of the evening news programs, PBS's Jim Lehrer is the least biased, with CNN's Aaron Brown close behind. Then Fox's Brit Hume, ABC's Peter Jennings, NBC'S Tom Brokaw are all very close, and finally CBS's Dan Rather is way out there, one of the most liberal sources of news studied. Other anomalies are explained in the press release I linked to above. For example the WSJ is known as conservative, but that is restricted to the opinion pages. The news pages rank it as the most liberal in the group. Must be a lively place to work! Overall I think it is a great step forward to try to come up with quantitative measures in this way. I do think it is somewhat questionable to say that the "50" score is unbiased just because it is the average for Congress and perhaps arguably the average for the U.S. population as a whole. Compared to much of the world, the U.S. is quite conservative right now, so perhaps we could argue that a higher score should represent the "unbiased" position. I personally think that Jim Lehrer's show does a remarkably good job of balancing its coverage, and Lehrer is somewhat famous for refusing to discuss his political views or even make them guessable. His score of 55.8 is probably not far from where the "unbiased" position should be. If we used that as the central point then Fox would be the 5th most biased instead of the 5th least biased, which might make more sense (although I haven't watched Brit Hume specifically). But leaving aside the proper balancing point, just being able to rank them objectively on the left to right spectrum is an important step forward and a useful contribution from this study. Hal Finney From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 03:13:42 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:13:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process inmulti-dimensionaltime. In-Reply-To: References: <200512152133.jBFLXoNh010727@ra.pacificwebworks.com> <005801c6047d$cbe28140$1f0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: By the way, Jef, the reason I posted this quote is that it points to the same conclusion I have reached: that awareness is not an emergent property of matter. Awareness must be "at once" with matter, much like containorship is at once with matter in my interpretation of your toothpick example. Unfortunately Johnson uses words like "cogitation" and "thought" here in addition to "consciousness," which confuses the issue. I consider thought similar to calculation and don't presume basic units of matter have this capability. However I think his meaning is that awareness, or what he refers to here as consciousness, must be in or at once with matter. If by thought he means simple awareness then how can we answer his question? "Yet if any part of matter be devoid of thought, what part can we suppose to think?" Seems to me that we cannot entertain the possibility of strong AI without first answering Johnson's question. If strong AI is possible - if computers will ever be equal to or superior to humans - then ordinary inorganic matter must be capable of awareness, consciousness, and the experience of qualia. > "It was never supposed [the poet Imlac said] that cogitation is in > matter, or that every particle is a thinking being. Yet if any part of > matter be devoid of thought, what part can we suppose to think? Matter > can differ from matter only in form, bulk, density, motion and direction > of motion; to which of these, however varied or combined, can > consciousness be annexed? To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, > to be great or little, to be moved slowly or swiftly one way or another, > are modes of material existence, all equally alien from the nature of > cognition. If matter be once without thought, it can only be made to > think by some new modification, but all the modification which it can > admit are equally unconnected with cogitative powers." > > Samuel Johnson -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 03:24:45 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:24:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <7D1A25CF-6E63-4139-9896-9E703F71FC09@mac.com> Message-ID: <44FE9EE8-D396-4069-A436-79F25D269ACD@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > On 12/21/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> If we, being as human as >> we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our >> own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty >> non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about >> us? > > Good question. But not relevant as to whether we must build such > intelligence if we are to have much of a chance of continuing at all. > > Actually Samantha, I view there as being few, if any, barriers to > current instantiation humans ensuring the "survival of our own > species". We do *not* need to become more intelligent. We need to > use the intelligence we have at our disposal more effectively or > creatively. For example -- the full nanotech vision can be > realized using current human intelligence. It is essentially > nothing more than a re-execution of the development of the > semiconductor industry over the last 20-30 years. We already have > various means with regard to detecting and reducing most short term > hazards (NEOs, etc.). We have several billion years how to figure > out what to do in the longer term ( i.e. when the sun exhausts its > fuel supply). I am surprised that you take this position. Of all people I suspect that you are very aware of the limits of human intelligence and decision making both individually and in groups. You say we need to use or intelligence more effectively and creatively. Of course I can't argue with that. But exactly how will we overcome the barriers to such greater effectiveness and how big a difference can we reasonably expect it to make? While nanotech can be achieved with current human intelligence it seems very doubtful to me that current levels of human intelligence are capable of dealing with the consequences. We have no really effective means of fully detecting all NEOs much less of dealing with them for what it's worth. We do not have "several billion years" and I am amazed to see you make such a statement. The world is becoming much smaller and its management becoming much more complex. The information load and decision complexity is exploding. The speed at which problems develop and play out is increasing. We face some quite critical challenges in energy, environment, human freedom, economics and massive rewiring of most institutions in the face of accelerating and continuous change. Humans show signs of being more inclined to get some "ole time religion" rather than to become more rational and efficient in applying their intelligence. I see no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of currently existing human beings and human intelligence being adequate to the challenges we face and that are predictable much less the ones we cannot predict. > > And so one must ask if one is going to rely on a "super- > intelligence" to "save" us -- how does one guarantee that a super- > intelligence is (or will remain) so altruistic that our "optimal" > survival will be the end result? Again I never suggested any such thing. Perhaps his is yet another example of the limits of human intelligence. :-) > Indeed one could make the case that any entity which is not acting > primarily with its own survival as its primary goal isn't really > "intelligent". (The male spiders which sacrifice themselves to > contribute protein to female spiders so as to increase numbers of > offspring come to mind...) Ah yes. And how deep do the patterns of human EP go in largely determining out behavior and limiting our adaptability? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Dec 22 03:39:25 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:39:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [tlc-brotherhood] Problems with Eudora and MS Outlook and Apple Mail Message-ID: <43AA1FED.5080501@mindspring.com> For those who are using Eudora are you having any problems with graphics and long emails coming from Apple Mail and MS Outlook? Every graphics and long email I receive from people using this I receive the email with the graphics which are nothing but garbage and with long emails the same thing happens. I get the first part of the text message but everything else is garbage letters etc. My virus is keep updated daily and I have no virus. The problem is with Eudora and messages from Apple Mail and MS Outlook. I have heard of this problem from others but have never been able to document or find a solution for it. If anyone has the same problem and found a solution let me know. I am using Eudora 7, Win XP professional OS and have enough memory. Gene Rossel -- "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 jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 03:40:07 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:40:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] THE ECONOMIST: The robots are coming... from Japan... Message-ID: <20051222034007.56434.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.economist.com/World/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5323427 Special Report Japan's humanoid robots Better than people Dec 20th 2005 | TOKYO >From The Economist print edition Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans Getty Images HER name is MARIE, and her impressive set of skills comes in handy in a nursing home. MARIE can walk around under her own power. She can distinguish among similar-looking objects, such as different bottles of medicine, and has a delicate enough touch to work with frail patients. MARIE can interpret a range of facial expressions and gestures, and respond in ways that suggest compassion. Although her language skills are not ideal, she can recognise speech and respond clearly. Above all, she is inexpensive . Unfortunately for MARIE, however, she has one glaring trait that makes it hard for Japanese patients to accept her: she is a flesh-and-blood human being from the Philippines. If only she were a robot instead. Robots, you see, are wonderful creatures, as many a Japanese will tell you. They are getting more adept all the time, and before too long will be able to do cheaply and easily many tasks that human workers do now. They will care for the sick, collect the rubbish, guard homes and offices, and give directions on the street. This is great news in Japan, where the population has peaked, and may have begun shrinking in 2005. With too few young workers supporting an ageing population, somebody?or something?needs to fill the gap, especially since many of Japan's young people will be needed in science, business and other creative or knowledge-intensive jobs. Many workers from low-wage countries are eager to work in Japan. The Philippines, for example, has over 350,000 trained nurses, and has been pleading with Japan?which accepts only a token few?to let more in. Foreign pundits keep telling Japan to do itself a favour and make better use of cheap imported labour. But the consensus among Japanese is that visions of a future in which immigrant workers live harmoniously and unobtrusively in Japan are pure fancy. Making humanoid robots is clearly the simple and practical way to go. Japan certainly has the technology. It is already the world leader in making industrial robots, which look nothing like pets or people but increasingly do much of the work in its factories. Japan is also racing far ahead of other countries in developing robots with more human features, or that can interact more easily with people. A government report released this May estimated that the market for ?service robots? will reach ?1.1 trillion ($10 billion) within a decade. The country showed off its newest robots at a world exposition this summer in Aichi prefecture. More than 22m visitors came, 95% of them Japanese. The robots stole the show, from the nanny robot that babysits to a Toyota that plays a trumpet. And Japan's robots do not confine their talents to controlled environments. As they gain skills and confidence, robots such as Sony's QRIO (pronounced ?curio?) and Honda's ASIMO are venturing to unlikely places. They have attended factory openings, greeted foreign leaders, and rung the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange. ASIMO can even take the stage to accept awards. The friendly face of technology So Japan will need workers, and it is learning how to make robots that can do many of their jobs. But the country's keen interest in robots may also reflect something else: it seems that plenty of Japanese really like dealing with robots. Few Japanese have the fear of robots that seems to haunt westerners in seminars and Hollywood films. In western popular culture, robots are often a threat, either because they are manipulated by sinister forces or because something goes horribly wrong with them. By contrast, most Japanese view robots as friendly and benign. Robots like people, and can do good. The Japanese are well aware of this cultural divide, and commentators devote lots of attention to explaining it. The two most favoured theories, which are assumed to reinforce each other, involve religion and popular culture. Most Japanese take an eclectic approach to religious beliefs, and the native religion, Shintoism, is infused with animism: it does not make clear distinctions between inanimate things and organic beings. A popular Japanese theory about robots, therefore, is that there is no need to explain why Japanese are fond of them: what needs explaining, rather, is why westerners allow their Christian hang-ups to get in the way of a good technology. When Honda started making real progress with its humanoid-robot project, it consulted the Vatican on whether westerners would object to a robot made in man's image. Getty Images Japanese popular culture has also consistently portrayed robots in a positive light, ever since Japan created its first famous cartoon robot, Tetsuwan Atomu, in 1951. Its name in Japanese refers to its atomic heart. Putting a nuclear core into a cartoon robot less than a decade after Hiroshima and Nagasaki might seem an odd way to endear people to the new character. But Tetsuwan Atom?being a robot, rather than a human?was able to use the technology for good. Over the past half century, scores of other Japanese cartoons and films have featured benign robots that work with humans, in some cases even blending with them. One of the latest is a film called ?Hinokio?, in which a reclusive boy sends a robot to school on his behalf and uses virtual-reality technology to interact with classmates. Among the broad Japanese public, it is a short leap to hope that real-world robots will soon be able to pursue good causes, whether helping to detect landmines in war-zones or finding and rescuing victims of disasters. The prevailing view in Japan is that the country is lucky to be uninhibited by robophobia. With fewer of the complexes that trouble many westerners, so the theory goes, Japan is free to make use of a great new tool, just when its needs and abilities are happily about to converge. ?Of all the nations involved in such research,? the Japan Times wrote in a 2004 editorial, ?Japan is the most inclined to approach it in a spirit of fun.? These sanguine explanations, however, may capture only part of the story. Although they are at ease with robots, many Japanese are not as comfortable around other people. That is especially true of foreigners. Immigrants cannot be programmed as robots can. You never know when they will do something spontaneous, ask an awkward question, or use the wrong honorific in conversation. But, even leaving foreigners out of it, being Japanese, and having always to watch what you say and do around others, is no picnic. It is no surprise, therefore, that Japanese researchers are forging ahead with research on human interfaces. For many jobs, after all, lifelike features are superfluous. A robotic arm can gently help to lift and reposition hospital patients without being attached to a humanoid form. The same goes for robotic spoons that make it easier for the infirm to feed themselves, power suits that help lift heavy grocery bags, and a variety of machines that watch the house, vacuum the carpet and so on. Yet the demand for better robots in Japan goes far beyond such functionality. Many Japanese seem to like robot versions of living creatures precisely because they are different from the real thing. An obvious example is AIBO, the robotic dog that Sony began selling in 1999. The bulk of its sales have been in Japan, and the company says there is a big difference between Japanese and American consumers. American AIBO buyers tend to be computer geeks who want to hack the robotic dog's programming and delve in its innards. Most Japanese consumers, by contrast, like AIBO because it is a clean, safe and predictable pet. AIBO is just a fake dog. As the country gets better at building interactive robots, their advantages for Japanese users will multiply. Hiroshi Ishiguro, a robotocist at Osaka University, cites the example of asking directions. In Japan, says Mr Ishiguro, people are even more reluctant than in other places to approach a stranger. Building robotic traffic police and guides will make it easier for people to overcome their diffidence. Karl MacDorman, another researcher at Osaka, sees similar social forces at work. Interacting with other people can be difficult for the Japanese, he says, ?because they always have to think about what the other person is feeling, and how what they say will affect the other person.? But it is impossible to embarrass a robot, or be embarrassed, by saying the wrong thing. To understand how Japanese might find robots less intimidating than people, Mr MacDorman has been investigating eye movements, using headsets that monitor where subjects are looking. One oft-cited myth about Japanese, that they rarely make eye contact, is not really true. When answering questions put by another Japanese, Mr MacDorman's subjects made eye contact around 30% of the time. But Japanese subjects behave intriguingly when they talk to Mr Ishiguro's android, ReplieeQ1. The android's face has been modeled on that of a famous newsreader, and sophisticated actuators allow it to mimic her facial movements. When answering the android's questions, Mr MacDorman's Japanese subjects were much more likely to look it in the eye than they were a real person. Mr MacDorman wants to do more tests, but he surmises that the discomfort many Japanese feel when dealing with other people has something to do with his results, and that they are much more at ease when talking to an android. Eventually, interactive robots are going to become more common, not just in Japan but in other rich countries as well. As children and the elderly begin spending time with them, they are likely to develop emotional reactions to such lifelike machines. That is human nature. Upon meeting Sony's QRIO, your correspondent promptly referred to it as ?him? three times, despite trying to remember that it is just a battery-operated device. What seems to set Japan apart from other countries is that few Japanese are all that worried about the effects that hordes of robots might have on its citizens. Nobody seems prepared to ask awkward questions about how it might turn out. If this bold social experiment produces lots of isolated people, there will of course be an outlet for their loneliness: they can confide in their robot pets and partners. Only in Japan could this be thought less risky than having a compassionate Filipina drop by for a chat. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 22 03:56:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:56:12 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Beagle 2 located Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221215541.01d09488@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Source: CNN News http://tinyurl.com/a8at4 Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Beagle 2 Probe 'Found' On Mars LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The British scientist behind the lost 2003 Beagle 2 mission to Mars said on Tuesday the craft may have been spotted in NASA pictures which indicate the project very nearly worked. Beagle 2, named after the ship Charles Darwin sailed in when he formulated his theory of evolution, was built by British scientists for about 50 million pounds ($90 million) and taken to Mars aboard the European Space Agency's orbiter Mars Express. It was due to land in a crater on the red planet in a bouncing ball of airbags and begin looking for signs of life on Christmas Day, 2003. But it lost contact with Earth once it separated from the mother ship in mid-December. Colin Pillinger told the BBC he thought the craft may have hit the ground too hard, damaging its instruments, because the atmosphere was thinner than usual due to dust storms. Pictures taken by NASA's orbiting Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft may contain clues about Beagle's final seconds. "There is a lot of disturbance in this crater, particularly a big patch on the north crater wall which we think is the primary impact site," Pillinger said. "There are then other features around the crater consistent with the airbags bouncing around and finally falling down into the middle. Then, when you cut the lace, the airbags fall apart giving three very symmetrical triangles." Four roughly circular features to the right of the 'airbag' markings could be Beagle's unfolded solar panels, he said. Pillinger said the findings, if correct, showed the project came very close to working but had failed because it had landed in a "sideways motion" instead of a "horizontal mode." "That may have damaged the lander so the lid didn't open properly and didn't release the antennae, so we couldn't get the signal," he said. The European Space Agency and British government, which jointly commissioned an inquiry into what went wrong, said in May 2004 that no one was to blame for the mission's failure. From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 04:01:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:01:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1F526686-6040-4E66-9650-8115F6222CF2@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:52 PM, mike99 wrote: > What Samantha says here about the value -- and the dangers -- of > superhuman > intelligence reflects quite precisely what I believe on this > subject. Let me > add a few points to bolster this position: > > 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or past forms of > human > organization, were sufficient to create the sort of world we desire > to live > in, then such a world would have already been created. Therefore, no > rearrangement of human relations (political, economic, etc.) and no > humanly-manageable system of development could be sufficient to > take us from > our current unsatisfactory state of life to the enhanced, long-lived, > healthy, wealthy and free life we desire. Greater than human > intelligence is > required. > This argument looks shaky. Human intelligence in the form of total knowledge base is increasing. Combining increasing levels of communication, storage and computational capabilities gives a larger set of possibilities than at any earlier time. So it does not necessarily hold that the absence of the world we desire is proof that human level intelligence is incapable of achieving it. While I agree with you conclusion this is not a good argument for that conclusion. > > 3) Many major economic organizations (companies) and political/ > military > institutions recognize that SAI will inevitably be developed, so each > nation-state and many major corporations (often with governmental > backing) > are working toward this goal. Whether or not these organizations and > institutions seek the Singularity, their self-interest (and survival > instinct) drives them toward creating the SAI that will inaugurate the > Singularity of asymptotically-increasing development. Once the SAI > genie is > out of the R&D (sand)box, it cannot be put back in. > Do you have references to back up the claim that a lot of groups are working on SAI? I have heard all the SAI teams I know of lament that there is very little real research on strong AI. I would love to see any references you have for the above contention. - samantha From hal at finney.org Thu Dec 22 04:08:14 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:08:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Experts suck Message-ID: <20051222040814.7C80157F5B@finney.org> I ran across a very nice review of what sounds like an excellent book at . The book is Philip Tetlock's "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" available from . Based on the review, this book powerfully debunks the ability of experts to predict trends any better than ordinary people, or indeed any better than monkeys. Tetlock conducted a long term study asking experts to make predictions and keeping track of the results. From the review: > Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of > the forecasting questions into a "three possible futures" form. The > respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative > outcomes: the persistence of the status quo, more of something (political > freedom, economic growth), or less of something (repression, recession)... > > The results were unimpressive..., the experts performed worse than they > would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three > outcomes--if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent > chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state > of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing > monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three > choices. > > Tetlock also found that specialists are not significantly more reliable > than non-specialists in guessing what is going to happen in the region > they study... "In this age of academic hyperspecialization, there is no > reason for supposing that contributors to top journals--distinguished > political scientists, area study specialists, economists, and so on--are > any better than journalists or attentive readers of the New York Times in > `reading' emerging situations." And the more famous the forecaster the > more overblown the forecasts... > > People who are not experts in the psychology of expertise are likely > (I predict) to find Tetlock's results a surprise and a matter > for concern. For psychologists, though, nothing could be less > surprising. "Expert Political Judgment" is just one of more than a > hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial > formulas, and in almost all of those studies the people either do no > better than the formulas or do worse... > > The experts' trouble in Tetlock's study is exactly the trouble that > all human beings have: we fall in love with our hunches, and we really, > really hate to be wrong... > > Tetlock's experts were also no different from the rest of us when it > came to learning from their mistakes. Most people tend to dismiss new > information that doesn't fit with what they already believe. Tetlock > found that his experts used a double standard: they were much tougher > in assessing the validity of information that undercut their theory > than they were in crediting information that supported it. The same > deficiency leads liberals to read only The Nation and conservatives to > read only National Review. I recommend reading the rest of the review, it has many more good points to make. The only part I would take exception to is the last sentence! > But the best lesson of Tetlock's book may be the one that he seems > most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself. No! Never think for yourself! What do you think all those experts were doing? They were all thinking for themselves! And look how they screwed up. That's a sure path to all of the cognitive mistakes and biases which Tetlock apparently does such a great job of analyzing and dissecting. It sounds like Tetlock himself does not succumb to the think-for-yourself mantra, knowing what a mistake that advice is, but the reviewer didn't understand the point. Those who have followed my writing will recognize how much I have been influenced by results like the ones described in this review, thanks largely to the contributions by Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and others who have posted here. IMO studying cognitive biases and errors is a great way to put your own analytical skills into perspective. (As long as you don't read while thinking, of course this doesn't apply to me!) Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 04:08:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:08:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9853C9EF-567C-4C3F-9D10-DB136A8DED66@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:15 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- mike99 wrote: > >> 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or >> past forms of human >> organization, were sufficient to create the sort of >> world we desire to live >> in, then such a world would have already been >> created. [. . .] Greater >> than human intelligence is >> required. > > No, I agree with Robert on this point. The current and > historical limitations to this sort of thing are not > based on intelligence but are instead primarily > political. Which is largely based on .. the characteristics and limitations of human intelligence and psychology. There is no politics that does grow out of this context. It therefore cannot be used to explain away the problems the limits of human intelligence pose. > The ruling class believes (and always has) > that they live in the best of all possible worlds for > no better reason than that they are in charge. Irrelevant claim. > This is > the essense of conservativism. As a rule, those in > charge, make it their priority is to allocate their > resources to preserve the status quo and thereby > maintain, consolidate, and if possible increase their > power. An SAI is not going to be able to come up with > a clever solution to this problem because it is, > logically speaking, a very simple problem to solve. > You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling class > to globally relevant causes. I believe you are more than intelligent enough to do the back of envelope calculations sufficient to show that this is a complete fantasy. You also might meditate upon the singular nature of inventive creators and the need for accumulation of wealth to fuel progress in pre-abundance world economy. - samantha From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Dec 22 04:10:01 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:10:01 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! References: <200512211900.jBLJ0Te07135@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001101c606ad$9a630f90$a7830d0a@JPAcer> >From: The Avantguardian >If high IQ people can be used as an >indicator of the nature of super-intelligence, then we >might very well be screwed. If we, being as human as >we are, can be so apathetic about the survival of our >own species, why would anyone believe that some mighty >non-human intelligence would give a rat's ass about us? This is a good point, and I believe we are right to be skeptical on the benefits of super intelligence. By way of illustration, a number of years ago, I received notification that my son (then aged 10) was being considered for a gifted children's program. I attended an interview with the child psychologist who had conducted a variant of the Stanford test on my son. She told me that he had scored in excess of 145, but that IQ's over 145 were (in her opinion) meaningless numbers and refused to divulge to me the actual score. I went into the interview feeling quite buoyant -only to be told that kids tested with this level of IQ were often troublesome, unsocialized students who were as likely to underachieve as over achieve!I was actually offered counseling for this problem! (This was in Australia - and I was a single parent at the time) The upshot was, my son entered the gifted program and did very well academically at first - but it was a mixed-age group in which he was the baby. The others had more mature social skills and he became isolated and unhappy. His old friends drifted away. After a year I took him out of the program and put him back into a standard school environment. They jumped him two years ahead and then wanted to jump him again - I refused because he would have lost his friends and become the baby in the class all over again... So he stayed, was happier - but never academically challenged, he spent his spare time learning program languages, hacking Windows on his PC, and doing a little reverse engineering on games programs. A couple of years later his mother got custody and he qualified to enter university at age only just 16 years to do a BSc in Computer Science, I urged a break - thought he wasn't ready for it, but his mother thought otherwise and he entered uni at 16 - the baby again... The first year he got poor grades and switched to an engineering/robotics major - before the end of the second year he dropped out and went surfing... now he surfs, lives with a bunch of dropouts and makes some money working in an Internet cafe. I hope I can persuade him later to return to study... We are still close - but he lacks any academic interest right now. OK, sorry about the long-winded post, but my point is - we can easily confuse knowledge - and the raw data-processing power that enables us to manipulate that knowledge - as being the same as wisdom. This is most assuredly untrue and history is full of examples of persons of monstrously high IQ's who were eccentric failures at almost everything in life - except perhaps deliberating their own narrow speciality... I submit: People with high IQ's are ultimately just as likely to be silly as the rest of the population. On AI, I am not informed enough to do more than guess that the same may be true. No doubt there are better environments to develop the kind of precocious talent that a high IQ promises, but so far in this personal instance it has been pretty difficult to see much of an upside... Jack Parkinson From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 22 04:12:36 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:12:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] life in the future past Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051221221104.01ddfc80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Sf fans of 1951 imagine their life in 2001: http://www.fanac.org/fanzines/Rhodomagnetic/Rhodomagnetic18-27.html NEW YEAR'S 2001 A.D. Between martinis on New Year's Eve, it suddenly occurred to me that the people who celebrated New Years in 1901 could scarcely imagine the world in which I found myself. With the aid of another martini, this led me to wonder if I, sitting in the middle of the 20th century, could visualize my own New Years in 2001. I couldn't, of course. So I got looking around, and here were all these young people around me. They, too, barring accident, would all be around in 2001. So I asked some of them to try to visualize for me what kind of a world they thought they'd be living in, come Jan. 1, 2001 A.D. The results appear on the following pages. In each case, I tried to get each person to try to do an "honest" job. I wasn't looking for science fiction projections. I hoped to get a cross-section of what these people really thought would happen to their world and their lives in the next half-century. There is, incidentally, no common denominator for the group, except that all might reasonably expect to live for 50 years more. Some read science fiction; some do not. Some are writers by trade; some are not. None of them had given the subject any thought before; fifty years is a mighty long time to think about. No one of the writers, including the editor, got any opportunity to see anyone elses manuscripts until they were all in. The results - to me, at least, were quite surprising. After reading them - perhaps you'd like to speculate, too. Where will YOU be and what will it be like for you in 2001 A.D. [etc] From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 22 04:49:16 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:49:16 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity Institute's 2006 $100, 000 Singularity Challenge - Double Your Gift! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051220102329.04a65868@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051222044916.33228.qmail@web50508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > I hope everyone visits Singularity Institute's site > and makes a > contribution. No matter how large or small, every > cent counts. > > Proaction! > > Natasha > Hmm. Three things people would need to say yes to to be persuaded. (1) The Singularity (or something roughly like it) is a real possibility - recursively self-improving super-human intelligence is a real possibility (2) The Sing Inst is pursuing the right approach and has a real chance of success (3) Specifically, the core project 'team members' of Sing Inst are worthy of financial support. I believe (1). I'm not at all sure about (2) however, and certainly don't believe (3). I was only looking into the AI thing as a fun hobby, but I was treated as a total idiot and any suggestions I made were dismissed with personal attacks and absuive messages posted publically. Admittedly a lot of my wild ideas were probably pretty idiotic, but still... this is very disappointing. There's nothing educational about the things the Sing Inst 'team' say. Nothing is published in academic journals, statements and proclaimations about the nature of intelligence are issued from 'on high', supporting technical arguments are kept hidden and anyone with different ideas is subject to ritualistic humiliation and lectures on how stupid one is on the SL4 list. The tone on the Sl4 list is *extremely* elitist. Any one with an IQ of less than 150 is regarded as sub-human. The Sing Inst 'team' are obviously very desperate men. Brilliant, driven, dedicated...but desperate. Desperate that THEY and no else gets to AGI first. People will have to make up their minds about whether this a good thing or a bad thing. "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 05:08:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:08:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] UCLA study on media bias In-Reply-To: <20051222030553.E6BC157F5B@finney.org> References: <20051222030553.E6BC157F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: Very interesting, Hal. I agree with you however that something might be wrong with this study. > For reference, the average ADA score for Congressional Democrats is 84.3. ... > 20 Wall Street Journal 85.1 The WSJ is more liberal than the average Congressional Democrat? I think not. > I personally think that Jim Lehrer's show does a remarkably good job of > balancing its coverage, and Lehrer is somewhat famous for refusing to > discuss his political views or even make them guessable. His score of > 55.8 is probably not far from where the "unbiased" position should be. > If we used that as the central point then Fox would be the 5th most > biased instead of the 5th least biased, which might make more sense > (although I haven't watched Brit Hume specifically). Your idea here makes sense to me. I can't be certain that my own assessment is not biased, but to me it seems obvious that Fox is very biased. Some other possible confounding factors: 1. Think tanks may be more likely to be liberal than conservative. 2. Liberals may be more likely than conservatives to cite think tanks in their arguments. 3. News commentators sometimes cite think tanks only for purposes of attacking them. I have not read the study in detail but I wonder if the researchers controlled for these possibilities. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 22 05:26:22 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:26:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Experts suck In-Reply-To: <20051222040814.7C80157F5B@finney.org> References: <20051222040814.7C80157F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10512212126x6e9adf8fy1083b6ea833c236f@mail.gmail.com> On 12/21/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I ran across a very nice review of what sounds like an excellent book > at . > The book is Philip Tetlock's "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is > It? How Can We Know?" available from > 46?s=books&v=glance&n=283155>. > Only problem is I ordered it from Amazon December 10 and it won't arrive until about a month later. :-( Should be worth discussing some time after that. - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 05:35:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:35:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <43AA098D.2000802@posthuman.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> <43AA098D.2000802@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4E3A7766-0BEA-4B2D-AD67-BFC1D4338C5D@mac.com> Windows only alas. That is too high a cost for me. - s On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > By the way, for tasting bits of new music, I like these new > subscription services, such as Yahoo Music Unlimited. For very > little money you get full download access to over 2 million tracks > and growing. For keeping up with lots of new stuff, this is much > cheaper than buying bunches of CDs and then getting tired of them > in a year. > -- > Brian Atkins > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 22 05:38:38 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:38:38 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: <001101c606ad$9a630f90$a7830d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20051222053838.30971.qmail@web50504.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > > This is a good point, and I believe we are right to > be skeptical on the > benefits of super intelligence. By way of > illustration, a number of years > ago, I received notification that my son (then aged > 10) was being considered > for a gifted children's program. > > I attended an interview with the child psychologist > who had conducted a > variant of the Stanford test on my son. She told me > that he had scored in > excess of 145, but that IQ's over 145 were (in her > opinion) meaningless > numbers and refused to divulge to me the actual > score. > It all depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Intelligence in the most general sense of the word does not have to mean just IQ. I'll take a crack at some definitions. IQ (and 'Intelligence' in a narrow sense) means: *The ability to make accurate models about functional systems. A 'functional system' is basically a physical process... or in more abstract terms, a 'computation' consisting of a succession of ordered on/off states. So IQ (and 'Intelligence' in the narrow sense) means: 'The ability to accurately model functional systems in order to make correct predictions about the behaviour of these systems'. However, a more general definition of 'Intelligence' should include the social (or 'volitional' domain). Then in *this* sense I think 'Intelligence' means: *The ability to achieve one's goals efficiently. i.e The ability to maximize 'gains' in the utilitarian sense. But I think there's an even more general definition of 'Intelligence' than the above. In the most general sense, Intelligence means, I think: *The ability to integrate different kinds of knowledge into a single explanatory framework. That third definition is my final definition of 'Intelligence' (this third definition, I believe, subsumes the other two definitions). "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 05:42:30 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:42:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> Sigh. A true SAI is unlikely to keep the same prejudices as the programmer[s] that wrote the initial code. This has been covered countless times. The idea that is likely to be most realistic is to write a "seed" AI that is powerful enough to recursively optimize itself. Only rare programmers will be able to create or understand the seed. No human is likely to understand the code after one much less several optimization passes. As much as I like Open Source it is likely to be not terribly relevant or useful except for the human design and optimization of subsystems for the seed. - samantha On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:44 PM, gts wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:15:48 -0500, The Avantguardian > wrote: > >> Obviously. Since anyone who programs an SAI will tend >> do so to favor the "tribe" that the programmer belongs >> to, nobody will trust the motivations of an SAI that >> was built by a different tribe even in the unlikely >> chance that the programmer was such a rare altruistic >> soul to actually design the SAI to be "tribe-neutral". > > I would hope they would be open-source, especially if they will be > making public policy decisions. > > Of course the skill to understand the code would be rare or non- > existent if SAI's start writing code for better SAI's. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From brian at posthuman.com Thu Dec 22 05:53:43 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:53:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <4E3A7766-0BEA-4B2D-AD67-BFC1D4338C5D@mac.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> <43AA098D.2000802@posthuman.com> <4E3A7766-0BEA-4B2D-AD67-BFC1D4338C5D@mac.com> Message-ID: <43AA3F67.9090406@posthuman.com> There are competing services: Rhapsody, Napster, and recently Virgin. I think at least one of those is Mac & Linux friendly. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 22 05:59:34 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:59:34 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051222055934.20741.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > What evidence do I have for this skepticism? I need > look no farther than this list. We are bunch of > really > intelligent people but are we doing anything to > solve > the problems humanity faces? No, we argue about > whether Bush is a hero or a fraud and whether the > color red is the same for everybody or not. Every > time > somebody publishes a press release that they have > invented a better mouse trap or something, we > twitter > excitedly for a few days, then go back to bickering > over minutae. > A lot of the talk about transhuman technologies on messagebaords is *so* facile. If a lot of the people on this list actually *tried* to research and build the technologies they so blithely shoot their mouths off about on messageboards, they'd soon be shocked at just how stupid they really were. And if people can be so horribly wrong about technical stuff, isn't it even more likely that they're equally deluded about society, politics, life, the universe etc and other areas where they don't have any expertise? Of course! Human intelligence level is complete shit man. People who believe otherwise obviously haven't had any experience actually *trying* to build the transhuman technologies talked about. Like me. You know I actually believed I was going to lick the FAI problem in a couple of weeks and code up the Singualarity in short order. Then I thought, oh well, I'll do it next month... then I thought...o.k so all my previous ideas were shit but may be next year I'll beat it... you see my sad story? :-( "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 06:08:53 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:08:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:42:30 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: > No human is likely to understand the code after one much less several > optimization passes. Yes, but how about an open-source module or class, one which is called as the last step before any SAI acts or decides, and which requires any decision to be consistent with a rule something like "minimize human suffering"? The code for that class might be understood by humans of realistic intelligence, and be public domain. The class would function something like courts. Courts exist in large part to protect our rights as citizens. They protect the individual from mob rule just as a court class in a program might protect individuals from inhumane decisions by SAI's. The source code of this court-class could even be added to the constitution as an amendment in some possible future. Just thinking out loud here. -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 06:37:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:37:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> Message-ID: <7A533101-7781-45B6-8EA7-C49FB002DBBA@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:08 PM, gts wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:42:30 -0500, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > >> No human is likely to understand the code after one much less >> several optimization passes. > > Yes, but how about an open-source module or class, one which is > called as the last step before any SAI acts or decides, and which > requires any decision to be consistent with a rule something like > "minimize human suffering"? Do you believe any of us are wise enough to implement this rule in all situations, no matter how complex? No? Then how will this help? In a even modestly complex decision scenario human abilities would be overwhelmed. Remember we need the AI to handle challenges beyond our abilities. How exactly can a challenge be beyond our own abilities yet humans be capable enough to second guess the AI? > > The code for that class might be understood by humans of realistic > intelligence, and be public domain. Re the above argument I think this is fantasy. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 06:35:52 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:35:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: <20051222053838.30971.qmail@web50504.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222053838.30971.qmail@web50504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:38:38 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > IQ (and 'Intelligence' in a narrow sense) means: > > *The ability to make accurate models about functional > systems... ... > *The ability to achieve one's goals efficiently. i.e > The ability to maximize 'gains' in the utilitarian > sense... ... > *The ability to integrate different kinds of knowledge > into a single explanatory framework... In the final analysis, isn't intelligence the ability to act in ways that promote contentment and survival? It is true I think that intelligence requires the ability to make accurate models, and the ability to achieve one's goals, and the ability to integrate different kinds of knowledge into a single explanatory framework. But I think these are only intermediary steps. They are contained in the definition of intelligence but do not define it. -gts From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 22 06:52:29 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:52:29 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:38:38 -0500, Marc Geddes > > wrote: > > > IQ (and 'Intelligence' in a narrow sense) means: > > > > *The ability to make accurate models about > functional > > systems... > ... > > *The ability to achieve one's goals efficiently. > i.e > > The ability to maximize 'gains' in the utilitarian > > sense... > ... > > *The ability to integrate different kinds of > knowledge > > into a single explanatory framework... > > In the final analysis, isn't intelligence the > ability to act in ways that > promote contentment and survival? No. 'Contentment' and 'survival' are human goals. No reason why super-intelligences should have them. Further, any definition of intelligence should surely involve cognitive processes, not end goals. > > It is true I think that intelligence requires the > ability to make accurate > models, and the ability to achieve one's goals, and > the ability to > integrate different kinds of knowledge into a single > explanatory > framework. But I think these are only intermediary > steps. They are > contained in the definition of intelligence but do > not define it. > > -gts > Can you come up with a better definition than the three I gave above? I've been thinking about this for... what... 3 years now. I think my third definition does fully subsume all the other definitions of intelligence. From my 'Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory': "An individual mind which is 'functioning optimally' would model the reality schematic shown. Such a mind would optimally integrate models of sentient behavior (memes) and models of physical systems (functions). But this was exactly the suggested original aim of a TOE (Theory Of Everything). A TOE was defined to be a logical system which integrated physical and mental concepts." http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-December/023071.html In other hands, I think in the final analysis intelligence is the ability to fully integrate all different kinds of knowledge into a single explanatory framework (which ultimately comes down to integrating memes with functions). "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 web-site: http://www.riemannai.org/ Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 07:04:30 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:04:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60512212304w3393186bu140151f89c6a5ef@mail.gmail.com> On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian wrote: The current and > historical limitations to this sort of thing are not > based on intelligence but are instead primarily > political. ### And where do the political limitations come from, Stuart? >From voters and politicians having enough intelligence to understand the world and find positive-sum solutions? Surely not. ------------------------------- it is, > logically speaking, a very simple problem to solve. > You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling class > to globally relevant causes. ### Are sure? Just take a few billion dollars, kill the people you hate, and everything will be fine? If you didn't tell me you were +2SD I could almost think would benefit from an IQ-boost too. Rafal From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 06:46:28 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:46:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <7A533101-7781-45B6-8EA7-C49FB002DBBA@mac.com> References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> <7A533101-7781-45B6-8EA7-C49FB002DBBA@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:37:44 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Remember we need the AI to handle challenges beyond our abilities. How > exactly can a challenge be beyond our own abilities yet humans be > capable enough to second guess the AI? That's a good question, Samantha. I'll have to think about that one. -gts From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Dec 22 07:59:34 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:59:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <4E3A7766-0BEA-4B2D-AD67-BFC1D4338C5D@mac.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512210208.jBL28he10283@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051221102202.04bc4f10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <710b78fc0512211544lf537209p@mail.gmail.com> <43AA098D.2000802@posthuman.com> <4E3A7766-0BEA-4B2D-AD67-BFC1D4338C5D@mac.com> Message-ID: <3F8A81C9-C1C0-49E5-A87B-DD55A02FD8DA@ceruleansystems.com> On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Windows only alas. That is too high a cost for me. I use Digitally Imported (di.fm), almost exclusively. It works on Linux and OSX (first hand experience on both accounts), and it is free up to 96kbps mp3 (or better formats). Subscriptions are something like US$10/month for 160kbps streams. The selection of music they stream does not cover all possible tastes, but the channels are narrowly focused and the selection of channels is broad (and growing). Worth checking out for Internet music if the channels appeal. At any given moment, they appear to be streaming to the tens of thousands, so they have a pretty good audience. I've found more good new music on their various channels over the last few years than a lifetime of FM radio. J. Andrew Rogers From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 08:55:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:55:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:52:29 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > No. 'Contentment' and 'survival' are human goals. No > reason why super-intelligences should have them. Really? I think super-intelligences might disagree. > Further, any definition of intelligence should surely > involve cognitive processes, not end goals. What are cognitive processes for, if not for achieving contentment and survival? > Can you come up with a better definition than the > three I gave above? I've been thinking about this > for... what... 3 years now. I like your three definitions. I just think my fourth subsumes your first three in a manner analogous to the way you think your third subsumes your first two. Yours are about the means of intelligence, mine is about the ends. Future super-intelligences are, to my way of thinking, just another step along the path of evolution, and evolution is about survival. For whatever reason, objects in reality have a tendency to persist. In sentient things that tendency becomes a will to persist. -gts From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 09:14:28 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:14:28 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: References: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512220114v529d2fd9r5a81ad68fd2dae22@mail.gmail.com> On 12/22/05, gts wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:52:29 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > > > No. 'Contentment' and 'survival' are human goals. No > > reason why super-intelligences should have them. > > Really? I think super-intelligences might disagree. > > > Further, any definition of intelligence should surely > > involve cognitive processes, not end goals. > > What are cognitive processes for, if not for achieving contentment and > survival? Humans have the survival urge because evolution made us that way. There's no reason why this urge would apply to intelligences in general. Further different intelligences would have quite different definitions of what consistutes 'contentment'. One guy might be content with chocolate ice cream, but someone else likes vinella. Specific end goals can't suffice to give a general definition of intelligence. > Can you come up with a better definition than the > > three I gave above? I've been thinking about this > > for... what... 3 years now. > > I like your three definitions. I just think my fourth subsumes your first > three in a manner analogous to the way you think your third subsumes your > first two. Yours are about the means of intelligence, mine is about the > ends. See above. Specific ends cannot suffice for a general definition of intelligence. Incidentally, my proposed definition is both a means *and* and end. Future super-intelligences are, to my way of thinking, just another step > along the path of evolution, and evolution is about survival. > > For whatever reason, objects in reality have a tendency to persist. In > sentient things that tendency becomes a will to persist. > > -gts Nope. This is simply imputing human motives to things which won't neccessarily have these specific motives. -- "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 pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 09:44:37 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:44:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [tlc-brotherhood] Problems with Eudora and MS Outlook and Apple Mail In-Reply-To: <43AA1FED.5080501@mindspring.com> References: <43AA1FED.5080501@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 12/22/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > For those who are using Eudora are you having any problems with > graphics and long emails coming from Apple Mail and MS > Outlook? Every graphics and long email I receive from people using > this I receive the email with the graphics which are nothing but > garbage and with long emails the same thing happens. I get the first > part of the text message but everything else is garbage letters > etc. My virus is keep updated daily and I have no virus. The > problem is with Eudora and messages from Apple Mail and MS > Outlook. I have heard of this problem from others but have never > been able to document or find a solution for it. If anyone has the > same problem and found a solution let me know. I am using Eudora 7, > Win XP professional OS and have enough memory. > > Gene Rossel > This question should probably be asked in one of the Eudora forums. But this thread might help, especially page 2. Embedded Pics Help BillK From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 10:08:06 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:08:06 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity Institute's 2006 $100, 000 Singularity Challenge - Double Your Gift! In-Reply-To: <20051222044916.33228.qmail@web50508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051220102329.04a65868@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051222044916.33228.qmail@web50508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512220208o1dadd255uaa8ab7dfb9a29a49@mail.gmail.com> > > I'm actually reminded of that scene in 'Fellowship Of The Ring' where Saruman is confronting Gandalf on the top of Isengard. Gandalf says (just as he's about to escape): 'There can be only ONE lord of the rings, and he does NOT SHARE POWER'. Happy landings Wilson and Yudkowsky! The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT): http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-December/023071.html *Marc waves and doubles over with laughter at the primative Sing Inst FAI theory Ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho -- "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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 11:58:35 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:58:35 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> Message-ID: On 12/22/05, gts wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:42:30 -0500, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > > > No human is likely to understand the code after one much less several > > optimization passes. > > Yes, but how about an open-source module or class, one which is called as > the last step before any SAI acts or decides, and which requires any > decision to be consistent with a rule something like "minimize human > suffering"? > > The code for that class might be understood by humans of realistic > intelligence, and be public domain. > > The class would function something like courts. Courts exist in large part > to protect our rights as citizens. They protect the individual from mob > rule just as a court class in a program might protect individuals from > inhumane decisions by SAI's. > > The source code of this court-class could even be added to the > constitution as an amendment in some possible future. > > Just thinking out loud here. > My view is that SAI will derive from simulating existing neural structures. That is, it will essentially be an uploaded person. In which case we have a good handle on what it may be like. Just don't used condemned criminals as guinea pigs... Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Thu Dec 22 12:40:50 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:40:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcasts of Synthetic Biology from Berkeley Message-ID: SynthBio Synthetic Biology Seminar 03:50 PM - 05:15 PM | Sibley Auditorium Visit the Course Website http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/archive.php?seriesid=1906978261 New! (Beta) Search for keywords within a webcast and link directly to the results! - Try it now ! Subscribe to the IDS 110 podcast ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 03:50 PM - 05:15 PM PST | Classes begin 10 minutes after scheduled start time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tue, 12/06 Synthetic Life: A Progress Report David Deamer, University of California, Santa Cruz Tue, 11/29 The Roles of Transport and Mechanics in Mechanotransduction Roger Kamm, Massachussetts Institute of Technology Tue, 11/22 Programmable Molecular Sensors and Switches: Applications in Metabolic Engineering, Intelligent Therapeutics, and Biosensors Christina Smolke, California Institute of Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date Title Tue, 10/25 Noisy Feedback Regulation in Gene Networks Alexander van Oudenaarden, Massachussetts Institute of Technology Thu, 10/27 New Opportunities at the Interface of Chemistry and Biology Peter Schultz, Professor of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Ca Fri, 10/28 May We Make the World?: Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology Laurie Zoloth, Director, Bioethics, Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University Tue, 11/01 Engineering Synthetic Multicellular Systems Ron Weiss, Princeton University Tue, 11/08 Programming Dynamic Function into Bacteria Christopher Voigt, University of California, San Francisco (Lecture in Tan Hall 775) Tue, 11/22 Programmable Molecular Sensors and Switches: Applications in Metabolic Engineering, Intelligent Therapeutics, and Biosensors Christina Smolke, California Institute of Technology Tue, 11/29 The Roles of Transport and Mechanics in Mechanotransduction Roger Kamm, Massachussetts Institute of Technology Tue, 12/06 Synthetic Life: A Progress Report David Deamer, University of California, Santa Cruz -- Herb Martin From HerbM at learnquick.com Thu Dec 22 13:27:41 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:27:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] BioHacking -- Synthetic Biology Message-ID: BioHacking -- Excellent blog on Synthenic Biology http://www.paraschopra.com/blog/biohacking.php The blog contains many articles linking to other link sites that are also excellent on the subject. Manufacturing with biology, or if you prefer: Biological Manufacturing. -- Herb Martin From transcend at extropica.com Thu Dec 22 15:48:34 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:48:34 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051222055934.20741.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512221548.jBMFmUe26771@tick.javien.com> > If a lot of the people on this list actually *tried* to research and build the technologies they so blithely shoot their mouths off about on messageboards, they'd soon be shocked at just how stupid they really were. No, they would discover how uneducated they were in regard to that particular subject and they would begin the process of educating themselves. This stands as a credit to the people who would go from a state of being uneducated to a state of being educated. It stands as a credit that they are interested enough to get involved, to learn enough to make strong arguments, etc. Yet you state it as an indictment, which it is not. > And if people can be so horribly wrong about technical stuff, isn't it even more likely that they're equally deluded about society, politics, life, the universe etc and other areas where they don't have any expertise? Of course! Argue their statements on their merits and leave it at that. Generalized statements of superiority are exactly what you claim you suffered at the hands of SL4. I've read the SL4 archives. You've said some crackpot things. When people respond to your theories, you become defensive: http://www.sl4.org/archive/author.html (Search for "Marc Geddes" to find his section.) Your statement "isn't it even more likely that they're equally deluded" is poor logic and decidedly nonconstructive. If you want to be constructive, contribute to the education of people who claim to be ignorant, but do so on the basis of fact. On SL4, you regularly post things like: "My theory is that fundamentally reality is equivalent to 'Cognition' (in a suitably generalized sense of the word 'cognition')." That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation. "The prime field is the 'Possibility' field (Consisting of cognition). The other 6 fields are simply different manifestations of the Prime field." That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation. http://www.sl4.org/archive/0508/11717.html Earlier this year you even claimed you had no idea what you were talking about: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0502/10720.html You write about "universal morality" and other big word concepts, but you don't over any depth of explanation as to what you mean, or what these words mean in the context you use them, etc: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0402/7889.html And then you dare to act accused when people who have written extremely detailed theories on things like FAI, GAI claim you are a nut? Half of your posts are saying things like "Bend it like Geddes" and other statements of egoism. I'm sorry your feelings were wounded, but you deserved it. Brandon From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 16:30:11 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:30:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512221630.jBMGUDe32042@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? > > Can the $100K reward be claimed for a prime with at least 10 million > digits that is not a Mersenne prime? > > - samantha Yes. This is a comical understatement of course. If you figured out how to determine the primeness of a ten million digit non-mersenne number before heat death of the universe, the measly 100k would be irrelevant. Mathematicians all over the world would fall prostrate before you, crying out for your mathematical mercy and digital blessing. Personally I would give up my 9 to 5 forthwith and dedicate the remainder of my pathetic numerically-deficient existence to collecting pebbles from along the path upon which you have trod. spike From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 22 17:17:26 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:17:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > > How can you be so certain of that super-human > intelligence (artifical or otherwise) is going to be > the "savior of mankind"? Especially when those people > who are super intelligent seem incapable effecting the > necessary changes to "save mankind". Look at Maria Vos > Savant for example. She has the highest intelligence > ever quantified and what does she do? She writes a > column for Parade magazine. If she is happy doing that > then by all means I won't criticize her choices in > life but it does kind of make me skeptical that some > computer is going wake up in somebody's basement one > day, solve some massive equation, and change the world > for the better. Excerpt from a work in progress: ** We tend to see individual differences instead of human universals. Thus when someone says the word "intelligence", we think of Einstein, instead of humans. Individual differences of human intelligence have a standard label, Spearman's g aka g-factor, a controversial interpretation of the solid experimental result that different intelligent tests are highly correlated with each other and with real-world outcomes such as lifetime income. Spearman's g is a statistical abstraction from individual differences of intelligence between humans, who as a species are far more intelligent than lizards. Spearman's g is abstracted from millimeter height differences among a species of giants. We should not confuse Spearman's g with human general intelligence, our capacity to handle a wide range of cognitive tasks incomprehensible to other species. General intelligence is a between-species difference, a complex adaptation, and a human universal found in all known cultures. There may as yet be no academic consensus on intelligence, but there is no doubt about the existence, or the power, of the thing-to-be-explained. There is something about humans that let us set our footprints on the Moon. But the word "intelligence" commonly evokes pictures of the starving professor with an IQ of 160 and the billionaire CEO with an IQ of merely 120. Indeed there are differences of individual ability apart from "book smarts" which contribute to relative success in the human world: enthusiasm, social skills, education, musical talent, rationality. Note that each factor listed is cognitive. And jokes aside, you will not find many CEOs, nor yet professors of academia, who are chimpanzees. You will not find many acclaimed rationalists, nor artists, nor poets, nor leaders, nor engineers, nor skilled networkers, nor martial artists, nor musical composers who are mice. Intelligence is the foundation of human power, the strength that fuels our other arts. The danger of confusing general intelligence with g-factor is that it leads to tremendously underestimating the potential impact of Artificial Intelligence. (This applies to underestimating potential good impacts, as well as potential bad impacts.) Even the phrase "transhuman AI" or "artificial superintelligence" may still invoke images of book-smarts-in-a-box: an AI that's really good at cognitive tasks stereotypically associated with "intelligence", like chess or abstract mathematics. But not superhumanly persuasive; or far better than humans at predicting and manipulating human social situations; or inhumanly creative in formulating long-term strategies. I am not saying to think of Steve Jobs instead of Einstein - that's only the mirror version of the error. The entire range from village idiot to Einstein, or from Steve Wozniak to Steve Jobs, fits into a small dot on the range from amoeba to human. If the word "intelligence" evokes Einstein instead of humans (or Steve Jobs instead of humans, or Alexander the Great instead of humans) then it may sound sensible to say that intelligence is no match for a gun, as if guns had grown on trees. It may sound sensible to say that intelligence is no match for money, as if mice used money. Human beings didn't start out with major assets in claws, teeth, armor, or any of the other advantages that were the daily currency of other species. If you had looked at humans from the perspective of the rest of the ecosphere, there was no hint that the soft pink things would eventually clothe themselves in armored tanks. We didn't win by fighting on other species' battlegrounds. We had our own ideas of what mattered. Such is the power of creativity. ** > What evidence do I have for this skepticism? I need > look no farther than this list. We are bunch of really > intelligent people but are we doing anything to solve > the problems humanity faces? No, we argue about > whether Bush is a hero or a fraud and whether the > color red is the same for everybody or not. Every time > somebody publishes a press release that they have > invented a better mouse trap or something, we twitter > excitedly for a few days, then go back to bickering > over minutae. The Extropy list is one of the Singularity Institute's primary sources of donors. This list is where Brian Atkins and Sabine Atkins (then Sabine Stoeckel) and I got together and founded SIAI. If you aren't doing anything, that's your own choice. If you dislike your choice, change it! The Singularity Institute is currently running a $100,000 Challenge Grant. So's Alcor, if that's more to your taste. From bystander to actor is a straightforward transformation, if you're dissatisfied with cheering from the sidelines. I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why the SL4 list bans political discussion. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 22 20:10:13 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:10:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: <200512221630.jBMGUDe32042@tick.javien.com> References: <200512221630.jBMGUDe32042@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <93DCED44-6411-46E9-905B-CD4EAAB9BF82@mac.com> Really? Cool! :-) Yeah, I figured it would be nearly impossible. I need to do some reading on precisely why it is easier to prove Mersenne primes. A refresh on modular arithmetic would be helpful. On the number of digits in your new candidate shouldn't floor( e * log(2, 10)) + 1 where e is your exponent give it to you? - samantha On Dec 22, 2005, at 8:30 AM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? >> >> Can the $100K reward be claimed for a prime with at least 10 million >> digits that is not a Mersenne prime? >> >> - samantha > > Yes. > > This is a comical understatement of course. If you figured > out how to determine the primeness of a ten million digit non-mersenne > number before heat death of the universe, the measly 100k would > be irrelevant. Mathematicians all over the world would fall > prostrate before you, crying out for your mathematical mercy > and digital blessing. Personally I would give up my 9 to 5 > forthwith and dedicate the remainder of my pathetic numerically- > deficient > existence to collecting pebbles from along the path upon which you > have trod. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 22 20:46:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:46:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> Message-ID: <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > The Extropy list is one of the Singularity Institute's primary sources > of donors. This list is where Brian Atkins and Sabine Atkins (then > Sabine Stoeckel) and I got together and founded SIAI. If you aren't > doing anything, that's your own choice. If you dislike your choice, > change it! > > The Singularity Institute is currently running a $100,000 Challenge > Grant. So's Alcor, if that's more to your taste. From bystander to > actor is a straightforward transformation, if you're dissatisfied with > cheering from the sidelines. > > I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why the SL4 > list bans political discussion. The ban something is an intensely political act. To ban political yammering there has to be someone who decides what is and is not political yammering. How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide what is political yammering? It seems like a "friendly" AI with *your* values could only be a benevolent dictator at best. And benevolent not as those that are ruled by it decide but as it decides using the values built in by you. I can think of no better reason NOT to donate money to your cause. Indeed given your views it might be more extropic (better for humanity as a whole) to campaign to close the Singularity Institute down before it does any harm or to lobby to have you removed from it. Brett Paatsch From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 22 21:36:01 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:36:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >> The Extropy list is one of the Singularity Institute's primary >> sources of donors. This list is where Brian Atkins and Sabine >> Atkins (then Sabine Stoeckel) and I got together and founded SIAI. >> If you aren't doing anything, that's your own choice. If you >> dislike your choice, change it! >> >> The Singularity Institute is currently running a $100,000 Challenge >> Grant. So's Alcor, if that's more to your taste. From bystander >> to actor is a straightforward transformation, if you're >> dissatisfied with cheering from the sidelines. >> >> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why >> the SL4 list bans political discussion. > > To ban something is an intensely political act. Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone might view as intensely political. I'm saying that it's okay - no, really, it's okay - to create a mailing list that doesn't contain a hundred messages per day arguing about Bush. > To ban political > yammering there has to be someone who decides what is and is not > political yammering. The SL4 List Snipers are myself, Mitch Howe, and J. Andrew Rogers. > How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide > what is political yammering? Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, we just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. > It seems like a "friendly" AI with > *your* values could only be a benevolent dictator at best. And > benevolent not as those that are ruled by it decide but as it decides > using the values built in by you. Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must forever believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the scientists understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian mechanics. AIs ain't tape recorders. http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mike99 at lascruces.com Thu Dec 22 22:16:30 2005 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:16:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:52 PM, mike99 wrote: > What Samantha says here about the value -- and the dangers -- of > superhuman > intelligence reflects quite precisely what I believe on this > subject. Let me > add a few points to bolster this position: > > 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or past forms of > human > organization, were sufficient to create the sort of world we desire > to live > in, then such a world would have already been created. Therefore, no > rearrangement of human relations (political, economic, etc.) and no > humanly-manageable system of development could be sufficient to > take us from > our current unsatisfactory state of life to the enhanced, long-lived, > healthy, wealthy and free life we desire. Greater than human > intelligence is > required. Samantha Atkins wrote: This argument looks shaky. Human intelligence in the form of total knowledge base is increasing. Combining increasing levels of communication, storage and computational capabilities gives a larger set of possibilities than at any earlier time. So it does not necessarily hold that the absence of the world we desire is proof that human level intelligence is incapable of achieving it. While I agree with you conclusion this is not a good argument for that conclusion. Mike responds: Our knowledge base certainly is increasing, but our capacity to derive useful connections between all the bits and bytes is not keeping pace. Data mining has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go. Assume, for the sake of argument, that hidden within all that data is some extractable knowledge that, if used, would enable us to create the kind of world we wish to live in (and you may define that pretty much any way you like). By what algorithm could we ensure that such knowledge is found within the data? I argue that we have no such algorithm. Furthermore, I suspect that even if we did have such an algorithm, we would be so shocked at the results it turned up that we would discount them. What would be shocking about these results? I suspect (but cannot by any means prove) that the results would indicate that building the world we wish to live in would require us to combine seemingly contradictory or mutually exclusive components. Like what? Like the contradictory core claims of the libertarians and the socialists. Like the mutually exclusive ideals of the evolutionary psychologists and the spiritual idealists. Our experience of human politics shows that we are incapable of combining these elements on our own. In fact, right now we cannot even conceive of the possible need to do so. Yet I suspect that our inability to even imagine combining these is precisely why we need an SAI to tell us that this is what we must do. **Not compel us to do it** mind you -- no coercion -- but TELL us to do it. And to give us the benefit of its managerial ability (including its ability to design and manage Drexlerian nanotech) to make this possible outside of any political wrangling. Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu English Dept., New Mexico State University "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery." -- Jacob Bronowski "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a rope across an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 22 23:05:35 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:05:35 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com><019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> Message-ID: <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why >>> the SL4 list bans political discussion. >> >> To ban something is an intensely political act. > > Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone might > view as intensely political. What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That *you* agree and that *that* is why. You have form on this issue. You have tried to have political issues banned on this list before. >> To ban political yammering there has to be someone who decides >> what is and is not political yammering. > > The SL4 List Snipers are myself, Mitch Howe, and J. Andrew Rogers. > >> How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide >> what is political yammering? > > Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to > discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, we > just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself decides who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? >> It seems like a "friendly" AI with >> *your* values could only be a benevolent dictator at best. And >> benevolent not as those that are ruled by it decide but as it decides >> using the values built in by you. > > Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must > forever believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the scientists > understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian mechanics. > AIs ain't tape recorders. This paragraph of yours is completely irrelevant, and utterly absurd. > http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html This is a link to a work in progress, Collective volition - one author - Eliezer Yudlowsky. How is this link anything other than an attempt to divert attention from your faux pas? I have some very serious doubts about the aims of the Singularity Institute as I've understood them, but in all other areas of discussion you exhibit such good sense that I have set them aside. I cannot see how an AI built with your values could be friendly Eliezer. Nor do I see that you have enough common sense to know what you do not know, "all political yammering is a failure mode". You just make an assumption and bang ahead on the basis of reckless self-belief. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 23:13:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:13:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512191554r11bd4ce6l29f580287bdb569e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512222313.jBMNDCe12825@tick.javien.com> > On 12/19/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that > President > > George W Bush will be impeached what odds would > > serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp About 1 in 4 odds and holding steady. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 22 23:21:19 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:21:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512221521y10469a81y7dd11071ab11a9d2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/22/05, mike99 wrote: // section about potential effectiveness of humans data-mining > What would be shocking about these results? I suspect (but cannot by > any means prove) that the results would indicate that building the world > we wish to live in would require us to combine seemingly contradictory or > mutually exclusive components. Like what? Like the contradictory core claims > of the libertarians and the socialists. Like the mutually exclusive ideals > of the evolutionary psychologists and the spiritual idealists. > > Our experience of human politics shows that we are incapable of combining > these elements on our own. In fact, right now we cannot even conceive of the > possible need to do so. Yet I suspect that our inability to even imagine > combining these is precisely why we need an SAI to tell us that this is what > we must do. **Not compel us to do it** mind you -- no coercion -- but TELL > us to do it. And to give us the benefit of its managerial ability (including > its ability to design and manage Drexlerian nanotech) to make this possible > outside of any political wrangling. > I find it interesting that discussions of this type argue about the capabilities of humans versus the capabilities of AIs, but they seldom consider the developing alternative -- that a higher level of organization, based on humans and their developing intellectual tools, could possess and exercise wisdom accelerating beyond the capabilities of any individual human. The inherent advantage of such organization would be that it would be firmly grounded in human values. To work, it would require a subsystem that abstracts subjective human values, weighted according to how well they work over increasing scope, and a subsystem that abstracts objective (scientific) principles of effective interaction. Such an organization would in a sense amplify broad-based human wisdom (knowledge of what's important and what works) by collecting diverse human input and via competitive abd cooperative processes promote what works to successively higher levels of abstraction. The higher level undertanding of the system would be beyond the comprehension of the lower level human elements, who could predict its ability to achieve "good" goals but not predict its specific actions. I think we're already seeing the beginnings of such higher level forms of networked human values and knowledge with examples such as music and entertainment rating systems, del.icio.us, frapper, wikipedia, etc., and with a lot more to be done. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 22 23:38:34 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:38:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10512221538n4208a55dk7716279356aae378@mail.gmail.com> Brett - You are very close, if not already crossing over the line toward personal attacks. It is obvious that you don't understand Eliezer's writings and he himself has repeatedly said they become outdated as his understanding evolves. You seem to be so biased that you are blatantly misinterpreting his (polite and accurate) statements to you in this thread. You've been considerably on the attack lately. Maybe it's time to take a careful look in the mirror and see what might be going on. - Jef On 12/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > >>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why > >>> the SL4 list bans political discussion. > >> > >> To ban something is an intensely political act. > > > > Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone might > > view as intensely political. > > What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That > *you* agree and that *that* is why. > > You have form on this issue. You have tried to have political issues > banned on this list before. > > >> To ban political yammering there has to be someone who decides > >> what is and is not political yammering. > > > > The SL4 List Snipers are myself, Mitch Howe, and J. Andrew Rogers. > > > >> How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide > >> what is political yammering? > > > > Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to > > discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, we > > just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. > > And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself > decides who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? > > >> It seems like a "friendly" AI with > >> *your* values could only be a benevolent dictator at best. And > >> benevolent not as those that are ruled by it decide but as it decides > >> using the values built in by you. > > > > Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must > > forever believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the scientists > > understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian mechanics. > > AIs ain't tape recorders. > > This paragraph of yours is completely irrelevant, and utterly absurd. > > > http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html > > This is a link to a work in progress, Collective volition - one author - > Eliezer Yudlowsky. > > How is this link anything other than an attempt to divert attention > from your faux pas? > > I have some very serious doubts about the aims of the Singularity > Institute as I've understood them, but in all other areas of discussion > you exhibit such good sense that I have set them aside. > > I cannot see how an AI built with your values could be friendly > Eliezer. Nor do I see that you have enough common sense to know > what you do not know, "all political yammering is a failure mode". > You just make an assumption and bang ahead on the basis of > reckless self-belief. > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Dec 22 23:27:37 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:27:37 +1100 Subject: Spam Alert: RE: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <200512222313.jBMNDCe12825@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <021701c6074f$4b788c00$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: >> On 12/19/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> > >> > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that >> > President George W Bush will be impeached what odds would >> > serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? > > > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp > > About 1 in 4 odds and holding steady. > > spike That is not real money Spike. Hal's $4000 against $1000 are the best odds offered yet, you and John have not offered odds nor offered reasons why you haven't. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 23:53:24 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:53:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200512222353.jBMNrPe17545@tick.javien.com> > This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge > heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Poster Anna Tylor is a resident expert on these sorts of things. I was once "hip" and "groovy" and "with it" but that was back in about 1973 for about ten minutes. Then I awoke, to discover to my horror that I was square. spike From sentience at pobox.com Thu Dec 22 23:58:02 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:58:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com><019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <43AB3D8A.50701@pobox.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is >>>> why the SL4 list bans political discussion. >>> >>> To ban something is an intensely political act. >> >> Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone >> might view as intensely political. > > What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That > *you* agree and that *that* is why. You have form on this issue. You > have tried to have political issues banned on this list before. Yes. Why are you taking such offense at that? Is it your opinion that every message on every mailing list ought for the sake of sanity to be utterly free? That one may never impose censorship, of any kind? This Extropians list is censored, you know. There are people who have been asked not to post here. Every scientific journal and edited volume chooses what to publish and what not to publish. And this serves a function in science; it is more than just a convenience. (On SL4 it is just a convenience.) >> Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to >> discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, >> we just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. > > And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself decides > who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? Mostly it's a question of who's willing to put the work into the job of Sniping. >>> It seems like a "friendly" AI with *your* values could only be a >>> benevolent dictator at best. And benevolent not as those that >>> are ruled by it decide but as it decides using the values built >>> in by you. >> >> Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must >> forever believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the >> scientists understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian >> mechanics. AIs ain't tape recorders. > > This paragraph of yours is completely irrelevant, and utterly absurd. Perhaps it could do with explaining at greater length, I suppose. There's a rather complex point here, about programming questions rather than answers. The essential idea is that an AI embodies a question, not an answer - in the example above, "How does the universe work?" not "The Sun orbits the Earth!" But that is a fact-question, not a decision-question. The decision-question that I currently suggest for Friendly AI is quite a complex computation but one that would focus on then-existing humans, not on the programmers, and that decision-question is described in the link I gave: >> http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html > > This is a link to a work in progress, Collective volition - one > author - Eliezer Yudlowsky. How is this link anything other than an > attempt to divert attention from your faux pas? It's an attempt to explain why an AI does not need to be a tape recorder playing back the mistakes of its creators. Into which territory you did tread. > I have some very > serious doubts about the aims of the Singularity Institute as I've > understood them, but in all other areas of discussion you exhibit > such good sense that I have set them aside. I cannot see how an AI > built with your values could be friendly Eliezer. I cannot see how an AI built with any human's fixed values could be a good idea. > Nor do I see that > you have enough common sense to know what you do not know, "all > political yammering is a failure mode". Let us by all means be careful: your quote is not precisely correct and the difference is significant. You added the word "all". I hold that there exists a failure mode which consists of political discussion. Not that all political discussion everywhere is a failure mode. "Yammering" I define as political discussion which is extremely unlikely to influence the real-world outcome. > You just make an assumption > and bang ahead on the basis of reckless self-belief. Thee too has exhibited good sense, and for that reason I'll ask again what offends thee so. For I do not in truth understand how I have managed to tick thee off. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 23:58:20 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:58:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <200512222353.jBMNrPe17545@tick.javien.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512222353.jBMNrPe17545@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/22/05, spike wrote: > > > This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge > > heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. > > Poster Anna Tylor is a resident expert on these > sorts of things. I was once "hip" and "groovy" and > "with it" but that was back in about 1973 for about > ten minutes. > > Then I awoke, to discover to my horror that I was > square. > I started out that way and have become both hip and groovy, not to mention kewl! I always liked what is now called techno/trance. It's just that back in the 70s Tangerine Dream was a minority taste, and not dance music. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Thu Dec 22 23:58:50 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:58:50 -0600 Subject: Spam Alert: RE: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush Whatodds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <021701c6074f$4b788c00$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: Brett Paatsch > > Spike wrote: > > >> On 12/19/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> > > >> > If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says that > >> > President George W Bush will be impeached what odds would > >> > serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? > > > > > > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp > > > > About 1 in 4 odds and holding steady. > > > > spike > > That is not real money Spike. > > Hal's $4000 against $1000 are the best odds offered yet, you > and John have not offered odds nor offered reasons why you > haven't. > > Brett Paatsch Actually if you look above you merely offered a hypothetical "If I was [sic] to say that I have..." It was YOUR hypothetical, perhaps you could just offer your bet and the odds you will give.... -- Herb Martin From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 00:00:49 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 12/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > >>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why > >>> the SL4 list bans political discussion. > >> > >> To ban something is an intensely political act. > > > > Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone might > > view as intensely political. > > What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That > *you* agree and that *that* is why. > > You have form on this issue. You have tried to have political issues > banned on this list before. > > >> To ban political yammering there has to be someone who decides > >> what is and is not political yammering. > > > > The SL4 List Snipers are myself, Mitch Howe, and J. Andrew Rogers. > > > >> How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide > >> what is political yammering? > > > > Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to > > discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, we > > just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. > > And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself > decides who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? > Brett, you have started talking nonsense now. You must have got angry at Eliezer. Every email list has a list of suitable subjects for discussion. If the list is for vintage motorcycles discussions, that is what you expect most of the members to discuss. The moderators may allow some associated topics, but eventually will terminate really off-topic discussions. That's not political. That's the basics of how email lists work. If you want to discuss Disney cartoons of the 1940s you don't jump into a list about quantum physics and start posting. The moderators will soon stop you. The SL4 list objectives are: The SL4 mailing list is a refuge for discussion of advanced topics in transhumanism and the Singularity, including but not limited to topics such as Friendly AI, strategies for handling the emergence of ultra-powerful technologies, handling existential risks (planetary risks), strategies to accelerate the Singularity or protect its integrity, avoiding the military use of nanotechnology and grey goo accidents, methods of human intelligence enhancement, self-improving Artificial Intelligence, contemporary AI projects that are explicitly trying for genuine Artificial Intelligence or even a Singularity, rapid Singularities versus slow Singularities, Singularitarian activism, and more. So that is what you are expected to discuss there. End of story. BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 23 00:10:57 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:10:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <200512222353.jBMNrPe17545@tick.javien.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> <200512222353.jBMNrPe17545@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512221610g4cb9dbbdqeca8ac32b5c619b2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/22/05, spike wrote: > > Then I awoke, to discover to my horror that I was > square. > At first I thought I was square, but when I was about 6 years old I read _A Wrinkle in Time_ and realized I was at least a cube and becoming a tesseract. - Jef From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 00:07:31 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:07:31 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com><43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc><43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> <22360fa10512221538n4208a55dk7716279356aae378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <024b01c60754$de6cd700$cd81e03c@homepc> Jef Allbright wrote: > Brett - > > You are very close, if not already crossing over the line toward > personal attacks. I don't agree. Eliezer makes his statements no one else. It is not an attack to call him to account for what he says. > It is obvious that you don't understand Eliezer's writings and he > himself has repeatedly said they become outdated as his understanding > evolves. You seem to be so biased that you are blatantly > misinterpreting his (polite and accurate) statements to you in this > thread. It might be obvious to you, it is not obvious to me. Eliezer's entire response to me in this thread consists of one post. The one below. Where do I blatantly misinterpret him in your view? > You've been considerably on the attack lately. Maybe it's time to > take a careful look in the mirror and see what might be going on. That's just gratuitous. You like Eliezer. I like Eliezer. But he is soliciting for funds and it is legitimate to challenge him on his statements made in the process of soliticing funds. Where he claims special knowledge or insight it is appropriate to call him to account for it. That I like Eliezer does not mean I like him for a dictator. Brett Paatsch > On 12/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> >> >>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why >> >>> the SL4 list bans political discussion. >> >> >> >> To ban something is an intensely political act. >> > >> > Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone might >> > view as intensely political. >> >> What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That >> *you* agree and that *that* is why. >> >> You have form on this issue. You have tried to have political issues >> banned on this list before. >> >> >> To ban political yammering there has to be someone who decides >> >> what is and is not political yammering. >> > >> > The SL4 List Snipers are myself, Mitch Howe, and J. Andrew Rogers. >> > >> >> How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide >> >> what is political yammering? >> > >> > Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to >> > discriminate between good political posts and bad political posts, we >> > just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. >> >> And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself >> decides who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? >> >> >> It seems like a "friendly" AI with >> >> *your* values could only be a benevolent dictator at best. And >> >> benevolent not as those that are ruled by it decide but as it decides >> >> using the values built in by you. >> > >> > Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must >> > forever believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the scientists >> > understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian mechanics. >> > AIs ain't tape recorders. >> >> This paragraph of yours is completely irrelevant, and utterly absurd. >> >> > http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html >> >> This is a link to a work in progress, Collective volition - one author - >> Eliezer Yudlowsky. >> >> How is this link anything other than an attempt to divert attention >> from your faux pas? >> >> I have some very serious doubts about the aims of the Singularity >> Institute as I've understood them, but in all other areas of discussion >> you exhibit such good sense that I have set them aside. >> >> I cannot see how an AI built with your values could be friendly >> Eliezer. Nor do I see that you have enough common sense to know >> what you do not know, "all political yammering is a failure mode". >> You just make an assumption and bang ahead on the basis of >> reckless self-belief. >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 00:32:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:32:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <00af01c605b9$ca4fe4c0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512230032.jBN0W4e21855@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:05 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds > amIoffered? > > Spike, this is a binary proposition, either President Bush will be > impeached or not. Every thing except him being inpeached falls > into the category of Not. You are a maths guy, so the proposition > must interest you from a maths standpoint... > What do you say Spike? What odds? Brett Paatsch Brett I have been away on a business trip so I am behind on the posts. As for making bets on the odds of Bush's impeachment, that is a political wager having little or nothing to do with math. I confess to being puzzled by the behavior of the proletariat masses, which is doubly disturbing being that I myself am a proletariat mass. Or masslet, whatever one of a mass is. A micromass? I went to Ideas Futures to get an idea of how the masses estimated this possibility. Being as this bet is available, there is no need to search for people to take up a wager with you. All you need to do is find someone who will cover Ideas Futures with real money. The IFX bet is at 22 cents on the dollar for Bush being either impeached or resigning, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. If I were to buy into that bet, I would need to think for some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for 23 cents or a no for 77 cents. http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp I trust you are familiar with Ideas Futures, the brilliant brainchild of one of our own ExI posters, Robin Hanson. In political matters, I understand there are plenty of opportunities to set up real- money bets online, altho I do not personally have the links. Anyone? Regarding the taking of bets, I always prefer something I can actually calculate. I made a ton of play-money on IFX for twice estimating the time interval until the next record prime number. Now I cannot play that game any more, for those who make those kinds of bets realize I know how to do this calculus and will not bet against me. With no one willing to bet against me, money cannot be made wagering. This is fortunate for me perhaps, because my formula recently failed: we have found the densest cluster of Mersenne primes seen to date. Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political matters are completely incomprehensible. spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 00:40:34 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:40:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and the other a pest. The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome appearances in almost all instances. If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and practices op the wider stage.. Am I alone in this view? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From l4point at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 00:47:59 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:47:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b5e09390512221647q63146476oe48bbd222526bc31@mail.gmail.com> I read a number of very good blogs, both left and right, on politics. I have not seen in the time I have been lurking, anything here that was worth responding to on politics, or related to the scope of the maillist. The matter is complicated because this list has an international audience, and they often may not comprehend the intricacies of USA stuff and feel intensely about it. Thass called jest Bandwidth Hogging down her in Texas. On 12/22/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and > the other a pest. > The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to > spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome > appearances in almost all instances. > If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific > instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and > practices op the wider stage.. > Am I alone in this view? > > 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 00:54:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:54:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512212304w3393186bu140151f89c6a5ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051223005441.98663.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > The current and > > historical limitations to this sort of thing are > not > > based on intelligence but are instead primarily > > political. > > ### And where do the political limitations come > from, Stuart? Not from a lack of SAI but instead from an increasingly agregious assymetry in the distribution of the correlates of political effectiveness between the ruling and working classes. > >From voters and politicians having enough > intelligence to understand > the world and find positive-sum solutions? > > Surely not. Politicans and voters don't have to understand the entire world in order to avoid destroying it. They just have to understand it resembles a game of Prisoner's Dilemma where maximizing one's own payoff by defecting not only lowers the utility of the other player but lowers the sum of the utility of both players taken as collective. Thus all else being equal, any tribe with one or more defectors is weaker than any tribe without. The level of understanding of politicians and voters has nothing to do with the percieved need for SAI. Unless of course you are suggesting doing away with democracy entirely and instituting SAD (superhuman artifical dictators). If this is the case than I am absolutely against any such use of SAI. Power tends to corrupt. Software tends to be corruptable. Software with absolute power is begging for corruption. >> it is, > > logically speaking, a very simple problem to > solve. > > You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling > class > > to globally relevant causes. > > ### Are sure? Just take a few billion dollars, kill > the people you > hate, and everything will be fine? Whoa. Stop right there. I said nothing of killing anyone. I will forgive you the implication that I am some blood thirsty revolutionary because of the actions of the Bolshevics of your homeland are still on your mind. You think because I criticize the government and the super-wealthy for the choices they make that I hate them? Nothing can be farther from the truth. It is they that must lead the world in the transition from an economy of scarcity to one of abundance. It is a foolish team indeed that eliminates its most talented players in an effort to change its game plan. Condoning such a course of action would make me no better than the those I criticize. History shows such an approach only serves to substitute one regime with another equally or more oppressive regime. This has universally been case from the proscriptions of Sulla in ancient Rome to Hitler's Final Solution. We must not till that unfertile ground again. The solution I would propose is far different. It is a strategy born of love and not hate. > > If you didn't tell me you were +2SD I could almost > think would benefit > from an IQ-boost too. Funny, I don't remember telling you any such thing. I tend not to speak of such things because I figured out as a child, it is not a very effective way to make friends. On the other hand, I suppose I haven't exactly been hiding my light under a bushel with you guys either. So I suppose you had enough evidence to draw that conclusion on your own. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 23 00:58:40 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:58:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10512221658r2d6b29f5wbfe0bc394055f289@mail.gmail.com> On 12/22/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and > the other a pest. > The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to spot > - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome appearances > in almost all instances. > If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific > instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and > practices op the wider stage.. > Am I alone in this view? > I strongly agree with this view. In particular, I am interested in systems of "politics" that would operate at a higher level of organization than the predominately competitive systems we have now. I see politics in the more abstract sense of social decision-making with increasing potential for positive-sum outcomes, rather than the currently popular, but narrower description of politics as zero-sum competition for scarce resources. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 01:02:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:02:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds > amIoffered? > > Spike, John, where'd you guys go? > > I'm getting worried you've injured your profit motive? > > Brett Paatsch Do not worry Brett, my profit motive is immune to injury, as is that of humanity in general. Humans are the ancestors of the Ferengi. spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 23 01:03:21 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:03:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: <380-22005125231321593@M2W094.mail2web.com> From: Dirk "If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and practices op the wider stage.. Am I alone in this view?" No, you are not alone. :-) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 23 01:55:15 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:55:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike, father of Ferenginar In-Reply-To: <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> References: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >Do not worry Brett, my profit motive is immune to >injury, as is that of humanity in general. Humans are >the ancestors of the Ferengi. I've seen analyses of the primary species in Star Trek: The Next Generation as based on long-standing human stereotypes that most people find offensive. Ferengi, ugly, short, with prominent nose and ears, boorish, and obsessed with money, are Jews. Klingons, large, brown-skinned, aggressive, violent, and relatively dim-witted, are blacks. (Versus the original series, where Klingons and Romulans were analogs for Communists (Soviet and Chinese, respectively).) Vulcans, exotic-looking, with slanted eyebrows and tinged skin, smart, hard for humans to fathom, are Asian. I suppose the Betazoids, dark-haired, hot, and emotion-driven, are Hispanic. Humans, mostly white, good-looking, noble, and evolved compared to everyone except maybe the Vulcans, are white. This patterning in ST:TNG seems consistent enough to be deliberate, at least for Ferengi and Klingons, although I suppose it could be unintentional. None of this had occurred to me until it was pointed out, but I tend to be oblivious. Has anyone else noticed any of this? -- David. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 01:59:17 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:59:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512220114v529d2fd9r5a81ad68fd2dae22@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> <7a5e56060512220114v529d2fd9r5a81ad68fd2dae22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:14:28 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: >> What are cognitive processes for, if not for achieving contentment and >> survival? > > Humans have the survival urge because evolution made us that way. > There's no reason why this urge would apply to intelligences in general. By your definition then, a super-intelligence might destroy itself for no particular reason. But to me this would seem a very unintelligent thing to do. > Further different intelligences would have quite different definitions > of what > consistutes 'contentment'. I agree 'contentment' is a tricky concept. I included it with some doubts, but 'survival' seems much more basic to any definition intelligence. I consider all living things to have some basic level of machine intelligence programmed in their DNA, intelligence which promotes survival of the organism and, more generally, its genes. > One guy might be content with chocolate ice > cream, but someone else likes vinella. Specific end goals can't suffice > to give a general definition of intelligence. In both cases they are seeking contentment. > See above. Specific ends cannot suffice for a general definition of > intelligence. Incidentally, my proposed definition is both a means *and* > and end. If intelligence is not for survival then explain why a super-intelligence would not randomly self-destruct. Or, if you believe it might randomly self-destruct, then explain why you would consider it intelligent. -gts From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Dec 23 02:11:16 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Kristof: Terrorists in Cyberspace Message-ID: <43AB5CC4.2090801@mindspring.com> A crucial first step in fighting terrorism is to patrol cyberspace much more aggressively. Islamic extremists run rings around us on the Web. http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion/20kristof.html The New York Times December 20, 2005 Terrorists in Cyberspace By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Until you see a video of Iraqi insurgents taking a terrified, hogtied man and sawing off his head with a butcher knife, you don't know what "blood-curdling" truly means. Yet the jihadis themselves release these "beheading videos" on the Internet as part of their booming propaganda machine, and they are wrenching not only for their brutality but also because they underscore the insurgents' increasing technological edge. If there's any area where we should have the supreme advantage fighting terrorism, it's the Internet - yet Islamic extremists sometimes run rings around us in cyberspace, using it to recruit and train terrorists and to communicate with each other in amazingly sophisticated ways. When insurgents stage an attack these days, they sometimes film it from several angles so as to make better propaganda, which they then distribute on jihadi Web sites and on DVD's. Aside from promotional videos like those, there are the how-to variety, like one with step-by-step instructions for making a suicide vest. At the end, the filmmakers made a makeshift bus and put the vest on a mannequin to blow it up. "The person who is wearing the explosive pouch, when entering the bus and wanting to blow himself up, his face must be to the front and his back to the rear," the video instructs. That's because there's much less explosive power on the sides. The jihadis also use the Internet for communications. They know that the American intelligence community uses sophisticated computer programs that scan e-mail messages, so some of them share a single e-mail account, and the person writing the message doesn't send it but saves it as a draft. Then the recipient logs in and reads the draft without it ever actually being transmitted. Likewise, the jihadis have communicated on gaming forums and even once on a bike forum. Sometimes they use the "live chat" function on Japanese gaming sites, where the only eavesdroppers are teeny-boppers. Iraq's election last week was a great success, but it's still much too early to see how that will play out. What is clear is that Islamic extremists are not the troglodytes we think they are, and we need to retool if we're going hold our own. Jihadi Web sites change their U.R.L.'s constantly and are often password-protected, and they may block access to viewers in Western countries. They're also language-protected, in that the communications are in Arabic - and the U.S. intelligence community has a desperate shortage of people with good Arabic skills. Sometimes the jihadis simply spell U.R.L.'s in the Arabic script, so that Arabs understand the address but U.S. computers or nonnative speakers may not. What they're not shy about is galvanizing terrorists. "My Muslim brothers, you know that the enemies of Islam are malicious to Islam," one person wrote on a jihadi site. "What helps them is their knowledge of chemistry, physics, mathematics and programming languages, as well as their knowledge in the sciences of cartography, electronics and others. So if you possess knowledge in any of the aforementioned sciences that would benefit Islam and Muslims, say so." Sure enough, one woman replied that she was skilled in English, cytology and molecular biology. A man said that he would be happy to share his skill in chemistry and explosives. "There is this expectation that they're not being watched, or that if they are it won't be translated for six months," said one expert who monitors the traffic for the U.S. government, and who shared these examples partly to help draw attention to the problem. Unfortunately, the insurgents are right - they often aren't being watched. The intelligence community has historically downplayed Osint (open-source intelligence). Robert Gates, the former C.I.A. director, once told me ruefully that intelligence is sometimes undervalued if it hasn't been stolen. We also need more flexibility. In parts of the intelligence community, it's very difficult to get authority to pretend to be a jihadi on a forum, which is the only way to get anywhere. To avoid tipping off terrorists, I've been asked not to mention one other similarly foolish constraint. So if we want to fight back effectively, the focus needn't be on preserving the right to "water board" detainees. A crucial first step is to patrol cyberspace much more aggressively - because we seem to be losing ground against terrorists in our own high-tech cyberspace backyard. -- "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 extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 23 02:17:20 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:17:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <380-22005125231321593@M2W094.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005125231321593@M2W094.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051222205609.0816c8a0@unreasonable.com> Dirk wrote: >If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific >instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and >practices op the wider stage.. >Am I alone in this view? I love to discuss politics, but agree that I don't want the day-to-day partisan bicker here. To me, what's pertinent for the list are topics like: - an issue of immediate, direct relevance to extropians, such as assisted suicide (with its relevance to cryonics and to avoiding autopsy) or technology regulation (stem cells, encryption, private spaceflight) - a general issue with long-term importance to us, such as improving science education or understanding the staying power of pseudo-science - a discussion of mechanisms of politics, to understand what's happening and to have an effect on what happens (Some of the best conversations I've had were with a friend who was strongly liberal and strongly Christian, during the first months of the Clinton administration. Instead of talking about what Clinton was trying to do, we talked about how effectively he went about it. Our talks were productive, civil, and focused.) -- David. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 02:21:33 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:21:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike, father of Ferenginar In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> References: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: On 12/23/05, David Lubkin wrote: > > Spike wrote: > > >Do not worry Brett, my profit motive is immune to > >injury, as is that of humanity in general. Humans are > >the ancestors of the Ferengi. > > I've seen analyses of the primary species in Star Trek: The Next > Generation as based on long-standing human stereotypes that most > people find offensive. > > Ferengi, ugly, short, with prominent nose and ears, boorish, and > obsessed with money, are Jews. Actually, on DS9 Quark made a very good case for the moral superiority of the Ferengi Klingons, large, brown-skinned, aggressive, violent, and relatively > dim-witted, are blacks. (Versus the original series, where Klingons > and Romulans were analogs for Communists (Soviet and Chinese, > respectively).) Vikings perhaps (The Rus did 'found' Russia) Vulcans, exotic-looking, with slanted eyebrows and tinged skin, > smart, hard for humans to fathom, are Asian. Japanese, specifically I suppose the Betazoids, dark-haired, hot, and emotion-driven, are Hispanic. More likely the Maquis/Bajorans of STV Humans, mostly white, good-looking, noble, and evolved compared to > everyone except maybe the Vulcans, are white. I rather like the Romulan way of doing things:-) This patterning in ST:TNG seems consistent enough to be deliberate, > at least for Ferengi and Klingons, although I suppose it could be > unintentional. > > None of this had occurred to me until it was pointed out, but I tend > to be oblivious. Has anyone else noticed any of this? Definately. I once thought of writing an essay/book entitled: "The Federation - Darker Than It Seems". What kind of society puts its families aboard military vessels in what amounts to almost continuous warfare? Or whose major exploration vessel is also the military flagship of Starfleet? And what about the lack of a Federation army? The only way that works is spacebased bombardment amounting to genocidal warfare. Then we have telepathic 'counsellors' instead of political officers. Not to mention an allegedly peaceful federation that has somehow managed to hold off two highly militaristic empires for centuries... The list goes on. I suspect we are not being told the whole truth about the Federation! Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Fri Dec 23 02:33:21 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:33:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike, father of Ferenginar In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> References: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <43AB61F1.8070003@sasktel.net> I think it is simply tagging patterns to stereotypes. We could all be Binares but how could you play out social and technological drama with that. ST did do other species like symbiotic species and shapeshifters. My opinion is that the shapeshifters are the truest representation of what we might call transhumans. Maybe that should be a lesson to humans. Kurzweil's cybernetic emulation of a human would be quite capable of body and cell rearrangements. The level of computation required to shape shift in real time reeks of quantum computational mechanics. I find most technology in ST prophetic except one.. starships. I rather see starships like the one represented in the sentient organism in the form of a starship. The crystalline entity is much like an AI. The Q are repesentative of post shapeshifting species evolved beyond all space and time and simply bored with continued existance and without will or drive to seek any further evolution or quests....sort of like a cosmic stoner gutter-rat. Hope I have not insulted anybody's favorite alien. I always found an underlying storyline worthy of deep thought in most episodes, although the last parts of DS9 were running on nearly empty. Our farmer cable lately has not let me keep up on "enterprise" but it seems to have some good points too. What has been good is that the time;lines inal the series have mostly agreed with each other. It would be good to see a post-voyager series that brings singularity and borg , muti-dimension and Q and shape shifters along to the 35 or so century. A timeline crossing series could add links between all the past series and deal with a bit of all those old issues. To me a dimensional-time ship has more reality than a warping space-folding QE2. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 02:29:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:29:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics >When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and the other a pest. The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome appearances in almost all instances. If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and practices op the wider stage... Am I alone in this view? >Dirk OK the week is over and you have passed the test. Dirk's notion works for me. I have been away for a few days, but reviewing I see that people have managed to keep this week's political free-for-all mostly civil. I see ExI-chat as analogous to a noisy sports bar. In a sports bar, arguing is allowed, yea even encouraged, but fighting is not. Arguing is a form of communication, but fighting breaks furniture and drives away patrons. The bouncer will make you take it outside. But the bouncers here have been remarkably tolerant have they not? And have come under criticism for that. Best do it so: let us continue to allow the political discussions, but keep it smart, relevant, extropian-oriented and at the level of an argument rather than a fight. Like a good chess player who plays the board rather than the man, we should respond to the post, not the poster. Don't attack the other guy, respond to the text. Otherwise the BOUNCER will take action, and I'm 125 pounds of pure mean, I tells ya. Nobody messes with the BOUNCER! Well, actually they do, early and often, but it isn't my fault. I have a psycho-medical condition which is the exact opposite of anorexia nervosa, called cathorexia nerd-vosa. I look in the mirror and think that I am too thin. But I have a positive attitude about it instead of a negative one. Speaking of politics, here is a fun little American history quiz. I managed a 27 on it, but I got lucky on at least a couple wild ass guesses. Yanks, try your skill and report your results if you wish: www.toast.net/games/Independence/page1.asp It would be interesting if Europeans and others would suggest a political history quiz site of your homeland. Political posters, do be kind to each other. We are all we have. spike From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 23 02:30:04 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: References: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> <7a5e56060512220114v529d2fd9r5a81ad68fd2dae22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43AB612C.50503@goldenfuture.net> gts wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:14:28 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > >>> What are cognitive processes for, if not for achieving contentment and >>> survival? >> >> >> Humans have the survival urge because evolution made us that way. >> There's no reason why this urge would apply to intelligences in general. > > > By your definition then, a super-intelligence might destroy itself for > no particular reason. But to me this would seem a very unintelligent > thing to do. Only if self-survival is a priority. I think what Marc was getting at is that self-survival is a priority for us, because evolutionary pressures selected against those individuals for whom it was not a priority. A hypothetical superintelligence, not having been necessarily subject to those same sorts of evolutionary pressures, might not have self-survival as a priority. I could also point out that self-sacrifice for a cause could easily be seen as an "intelligent thing to do"-- from the standpoint of the superintelligence. A superintelligence might well come to the conclusion that it's continued existence was not optimal for the well-being of the universe, and destroy itself. We, not possessing superintelligence, might not recognize this as being the case, and interpret it as a random act done for no particular reason, from our limited perspective. What mortal can know the motives of the Gods? Joseph From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 02:30:34 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:30:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Kristof: Terrorists in Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <43AB5CC4.2090801@mindspring.com> References: <43AB5CC4.2090801@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 12/23/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > A crucial first step in fighting terrorism is to patrol cyberspace > > much more aggressively. Islamic extremists run rings around us on the Web. > > http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion/20kristof.html > > The New York Times > December 20, 2005 > Terrorists in Cyberspace > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF > > Until you see a video of Iraqi insurgents taking a terrified, hogtied man > and sawing off his head with a butcher knife, you don't know what > "blood-curdling" truly means. Seen it, and not been particularly impressed. Hollywood does it better. Yet the jihadis themselves release these "beheading videos" on the > Internet as part of their booming propaganda machine, and they are > wrenching not only for their brutality but also because they underscore > the insurgents' increasing technological edge. If there's any area where > we should have the supreme advantage fighting terrorism, it's the Internet > - yet Islamic extremists sometimes run rings around us in cyberspace, > using it to recruit and train terrorists and to communicate with each > other in amazingly sophisticated ways. Er... amazingly obvious ways. When insurgents stage an attack these days, they sometimes film it from > several angles so as to make better propaganda, which they then distribute > on jihadi Web sites and on DVD's. Aside from promotional videos like > those, there are the how-to variety, like one with step-by-step > instructions for making a suicide vest. At the end, the filmmakers made a > makeshift bus and put the vest on a mannequin to blow it up. Watched some of those videos, and they are quite well made. I don't see why we should be suprised that our enemies have competent people in their ranks. If someone wants to make a really good bomb most of the detailed info is archived on alt.engr.explosives. Anyway, if anyone is curious take a look at www.ogrish.com Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 02:36:29 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:36:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/23/05, spike wrote: > > > Speaking of politics, here is a fun little American > history quiz. I managed a 27 on it, but I got lucky > on at least a couple wild ass guesses. Yanks, try your > skill and report your results if you wish: > > www.toast.net/games/Independence/page1.asp 23 Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 03:00:04 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:00:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <20051223005441.98663.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60512212304w3393186bu140151f89c6a5ef@mail.gmail.com> <20051223005441.98663.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60512221900o49afe2a0v9a4c93579071a3ea@mail.gmail.com> On 12/22/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > > On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian > > wrote: > > > > The current and > > > historical limitations to this sort of thing are > > not > > > based on intelligence but are instead primarily > > > political. > > > > ### And where do the political limitations come > > from, Stuart? > > Not from a lack of SAI but instead from an > increasingly agregious assymetry in the distribution > of the correlates of political effectiveness between > the ruling and working classes. > ### The spelling is "egregious". Otherwise, no comments are needed, I think. ---------------------------------------- > Politicans and voters don't have to understand the > entire world in order to avoid destroying it. They > just have to understand it resembles a game of > Prisoner's Dilemma where maximizing one's own payoff > by defecting not only lowers the utility of the other > player but lowers the sum of the utility of both > players taken as collective. Thus all else being > equal, any tribe with one or more defectors is weaker > than any tribe without. ### Do you think any significant number of humans are aware of this fact in the context of political activity? (not in everyday face-to-face exchanges where most have a good intuitive grasp of the correct strategy) Do you think you have a good definition of "defection" in the game of life? Are humans on average smart enough to think their way through decades of implications of their actions (e.g. voting for Social Security or extending the Patriot Act) to predict the outcomes? Do they need to be able to understand the consequences of their actions to make correct decisions in the game of life? Do humans understand the consequences of even a small fraction of state policies they are involved in? Hint: You should not answer in the affirmative to more than one of these questions. ------------------------------------ > > The level of understanding of politicians and voters > has nothing to do with the percieved need for SAI. > Unless of course you are suggesting doing away with > democracy entirely and instituting SAD (superhuman > artifical dictators). If this is the case than I am > absolutely against any such use of SAI. Power tends to > corrupt. Software tends to be corruptable. Software > with absolute power is begging for corruption. ### Eliezer noticed this many years ago and this is why he set out to design foolproof superhuman software. This is why I am a strong supporter of SIAI (doubts regarding the computability of CEV and the usefulness of athymhormic AI notwithstanding). ----------------------------------------------- > > >> it is, > > > logically speaking, a very simple problem to > > solve. > > > You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling > > class > > > to globally relevant causes. > > > > ### Are sure? Just take a few billion dollars, kill > > the people you > > hate, and everything will be fine? > > Whoa. Stop right there. I said nothing of killing > anyone. ### You wrote something about overcoming their resistance, or something. Overcoming serious resistance means killing people. ------------------------------------------------- I will forgive you the implication that I am > some blood thirsty revolutionary because of the > actions of the Bolshevics of your homeland are still > on your mind. You think because I criticize the > government and the super-wealthy for the choices they > make that I hate them? ### Yep. But you could try to convince me otherwise. ----------------------------------- Nothing can be farther from the > truth. It is they that must lead the world in the > transition from an economy of scarcity to one of > abundance. It is a foolish team indeed that eliminates > its most talented players in an effort to change its > game plan. > > Condoning such a course of action would make me no > better than the those I criticize. History shows such > an approach only serves to substitute one regime with > another equally or more oppressive regime. This has > universally been case from the proscriptions of Sulla > in ancient Rome to Hitler's Final Solution. We must > not till that unfertile ground again. The solution I > would propose is far different. It is a strategy born > of love and not hate. ### Cool. Tell me just what is your effective way of "redistributing" wealth to the morally correct uses without violence and I will hail you as our savior. Rafal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 02:48:13 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:48:13 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com><019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com><01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB3D8A.50701@pobox.com> Message-ID: <02f001c6076b$51cb2240$cd81e03c@homepc> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> >>>>> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is >>>>> why the SL4 list bans political discussion. >>>> >>>> To ban something is an intensely political act. >>> >>> Well, duh. I'm not saying it's bad to commit acts that someone >>> might view as intensely political. >> >> What you *did* say is on record and is at the top of this post. That >> *you* agree and that *that* is why. You have form on this issue. You >> have tried to have political issues banned on this list before. > > Yes. Why are you taking such offense at that? You *always* offend me when you call for an end to political discussion on this list. And sooner or latter you always do weigh in on the side of censoring political discussion on this list. Your comment at the end of your post had nothing to do with the comments you had made before it in the thread, and nothing to do with what Stuart had said. > Is it your opinion that every message on every mailing list ought for the > sake of sanity to be utterly free? No. > That one may never impose censorship, of any kind? No. > This Extropians list is censored, you know. There are people > who have been asked not to post here. Not censored, so far, of political discussion. Although you have made it clear in the past that that is a state of affairs that you would prefer and whenever the opportunity arises you make your feelings known. It is my understanding that those who have been asked not to post as you put it (and I am aware of only one) were asked not to because he would not stop attacking other posters as opposed to attacking their arguments. > Every scientific journal and edited volume chooses what to publish and > what not to publish. And this serves a function in science; it is more > than just a convenience. (On SL4 it is just a convenience.) > >>> Anyone with common sense can do the job. We don't try to discriminate >>> between good political posts and bad political posts, >>> we just ban it all. That's not what the SL4 list is for. >> >> And how are we to suppose a work in progress such as yourself decides >> who has common sense I wonder? Pre-judice maybe? > > Mostly it's a question of who's willing to put the work into the job of > Sniping. Who appoints the snipers? Who chooses the term "Snipers" instead of moderators? You? >>>> It seems like a "friendly" AI with *your* values could only be a >>>> benevolent dictator at best. And benevolent not as those that >>>> are ruled by it decide but as it decides using the values built >>>> in by you. >>> >>> Yeah, the same way an AI built by pre-Copernican scientists must forever >>> believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Unless the >>> scientists understand Bayes better than they understand Newtonian >>> mechanics. AIs ain't tape recorders. >> >> This paragraph of yours is completely irrelevant, and utterly absurd. > > Perhaps it could do with explaining at greater length, I suppose. There's > a rather complex point here, about programming questions rather than > answers. The essential idea is that an AI embodies a question, not an > answer - in the example above, "How does the universe work?" not "The Sun > orbits the Earth!" But that is a fact-question, not a decision-question. > The decision-question that I currently suggest for Friendly AI is quite a > complex computation but one that would focus on then-existing humans, not > on the programmers, and that decision-question is described in the link I > gave: > >>> http://singinst.org/friendly/collective-volition.html >> >> This is a link to a work in progress, Collective volition - one >> author - Eliezer Yudlowsky. How is this link anything other than an >> attempt to divert attention from your faux pas? > > It's an attempt to explain why an AI does not need to be a tape recorder > playing back the mistakes of its creators. Into which territory you did > tread. I did not ask you to differentiate between a tape recorder and an AI, you presumed to do that. You also presumed to write duh and to imply that I'd asked you a dumb question. There is a fine line between justified confidence and unjustified arrogance. I am concerned that if you pursue friendly AI with your values in a position of responsibility as you apparently hold within the Singularity Institute that any AI that results may be distinctly unfriendly to the likes of people such as me who do not want to be ruled by a benevolent dictator with an inclination to censorship and authoritarian rule. >> I have some very >> serious doubts about the aims of the Singularity Institute as I've >> understood them, but in all other areas of discussion you exhibit >> such good sense that I have set them aside. I cannot see how an AI >> built with your values could be friendly Eliezer. > > I cannot see how an AI built with any human's fixed values could be a good > idea. > >> Nor do I see that >> you have enough common sense to know what you do not know, "all >> political yammering is a failure mode". > > Let us by all means be careful: your quote is not precisely correct and > the difference is significant. You added the word "all". I hold that > there exists a failure mode which consists of political discussion. Not > that all political discussion everywhere is a failure mode. "Yammering" I > define as political discussion which is extremely unlikely to influence > the real-world outcome. That is extremely unlikely in your opinion. You are a very intelligent guy and have been reading your posts to this list for years but I do not regard you as particularly politically astute. Nor do I have an reason for thinking that you know much about influencing significant real world outcomes. To the best of my knowledge the biggest job you've had is the one you currently have. >> You just make an assumption >> and bang ahead on the basis of reckless self-belief. > > Thee too has exhibited good sense, and for that reason I'll ask again what > offends thee so. For I do not in truth understand how I have managed to > tick thee off. You will always tick me off when you use the affection and regard of those here for you in such a way as to increase the chances of censoring out political discussion from the ExI list. You don't tick me off much more than when Eugen does it, or Harvey its about the same. Slightly more. But that aside, you are not just anyone. You are a person in a position of trust and some authority at the Singularity Institute and the propagation of your values to the extent that they are not values I'd like to see propagated is naturally going to concern me. At present I don't think your project is showing much sign of progress, but if it did, that would in my opinion, be a cause for more concern than excitement. That is honestly how I feel. And that is how you have caused me to feel. Brett Paatsch From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Fri Dec 23 03:13:46 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:13:46 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43AB6B6A.7000406@optusnet.com.au> >Speaking of politics, here is a fun little American >history quiz. I managed a 27 on it, but I got lucky >on at least a couple wild ass guesses. Yanks, try your >skill and report your results if you wish: > >www.toast.net/games/Independence/page1.asp > >It would be interesting if Europeans and others would >suggest a political history quiz site of your homeland. > >Political posters, do be kind to each other. We are >all we have. > >spike > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > 20. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 23 03:23:04 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:23:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43AB6D98.2010605@goldenfuture.net> 29 here. But then, I need to know most of this stuff for work... Joseph Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 12/23/05, *spike* > wrote: > > > Speaking of politics, here is a fun little American > history quiz. I managed a 27 on it, but I got lucky > on at least a couple wild ass guesses. Yanks, try your > skill and report your results if you wish: > > www.toast.net/games/Independence/page1.asp > > > > 23 > > Dirk > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 23 03:22:22 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:22:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity +HIGH IQS! In-Reply-To: <43AB612C.50503@goldenfuture.net> References: <20051222065229.90792.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com> <7a5e56060512220114v529d2fd9r5a81ad68fd2dae22@mail.gmail.com> <43AB612C.50503@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Only if self-survival is a priority. I think what Marc was getting at is > that self-survival is a priority for us, because evolutionary pressures > selected against those individuals for whom it was not a priority. A > hypothetical superintelligence, not having been necessarily subject to > those same sorts of evolutionary pressures, might not have self-survival > as a priority. Except that evolution continues. Natural selection would select for super-intelligences for which self-survival was a priority. A super-intelligence might see this fact and make survival a priority. > I could also point out that self-sacrifice for a cause... Yes, but self-sacrifice for a cause is something different. It would be nice to imagine super-intelligences that identify with the human species, identities whose super-intelligence is for promoting survival of humans rather than their own, who might even sacrifice themselves for humans. But then of course we already do. > A superintelligence might well come to the conclusion that it'scontinued > existence was not optimal for the well-being of the universe, and > destroy itself. After a last supper. :) -gts From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 23 03:25:59 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:25:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <49679.72.236.103.182.1135308359.squirrel@main.nc.us> > On 12/23/05, spike wrote: >> >> >> Speaking of politics, here is a fun little American >> history quiz. I managed a 27 on it, but I got lucky >> on at least a couple wild ass guesses. Yanks, try your >> skill and report your results if you wish: >> >> www.toast.net/games/Independence/page1.asp > 25 Regards, MB From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 03:27:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:27:32 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <200512230032.jBN0W4e21855@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <033701c60770$cf4efe30$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:05 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds >> amIoffered? >> >> Spike, this is a binary proposition, either President Bush will be >> impeached or not. Every thing except him being inpeached falls >> into the category of Not. You are a maths guy, so the proposition >> must interest you from a maths standpoint... >> What do you say Spike? What odds? Brett Paatsch > > Brett I have been away on a business trip so I am > behind on the posts. As for making bets on the > odds of Bush's impeachment, that is a political > wager having little or nothing to do with math. When you returned you set aside your own suggestion and posted on this topic after the 22nd. I didn't know that you were away. You didn't say. The list had no moderator during that time apparently. I was trying to work out how to continue to talk with Hal to refine our bet without doing that, without posting in bad faith into a thread that was obviously going to be seen by some numb nuts as being about nothing more than party politics. > I went to Ideas Futures to get an idea of how the > masses estimated this possibility. Being as this > bet is available, there is no need to search for > people to take up a wager with you. All you need > to do is find someone who will cover Ideas Futures > with real money. The IFX bet is at 22 cents on the > dollar for Bush being either impeached or resigning, > which sounds pretty reasonable to me. If I were > to buy into that bet, I would need to think for > some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for > 23 cents or a no for 77 cents. My gripe with Americans is that there never is a time when they do take that time out and take stock and your elected officials are factoring that in now. They are factoring in, that you don't understand and they are factoring in that you don't care and they are using those things to undermine the freedoms that people enjoy overseas now and the ones that you enjoy at home later. We had a global system where it was agreed that nations would not launch aggressive wars on other nations. Your government has undermined that system. Your government has dispensed with the rule of law and replaced it with the rule of force. > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp > > I trust you are familiar with Ideas Futures, the > brilliant brainchild of one of our own ExI posters, > Robin Hanson. Yes. > In political matters, I understand > there are plenty of opportunities to set up real- > money bets online, altho I do not personally have > the links. Anyone? I don't want to bet on just any old bet I want to bet on this particular thing because I want to bring a bunch of dopey American extropes attention to this particular problem. If you are going to ignore the problem of having a nation state run by Presidents that act outside the rule of law than it will, it must, inevitably get worse. > Regarding the taking of bets, I always prefer > something I can actually calculate. I made a > ton of play-money on IFX for twice estimating > the time interval until the next record prime > number. Now I cannot play that game any more, > for those who make those kinds of bets realize > I know how to do this calculus and will not bet > against me. With no one willing to bet against > me, money cannot be made wagering. This is > fortunate for me perhaps, because my formula > recently failed: we have found the densest cluster > of Mersenne primes seen to date. > > Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political > matters are completely incomprehensible. They are only incomprehensible because you haven't tried. And Spike your not trying is an abrogation of responsibilty. In 1945, Senator Vandenburg, in delivering the United Nations Charter to the US Senate for their ratification said : "We American's have a habit of keeping our countries word, - a habit by the way, which needs to become contagious if any sort of world order shall survive". Brett Paatsch From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 05:13:37 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:13:37 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <200512221548.jBMFmUe26771@tick.javien.com> References: <20051222055934.20741.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> <200512221548.jBMFmUe26771@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512222113l7f0b00ct76b454b26f0c0544@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > > > On SL4, you regularly post things like: > > "My theory is that fundamentally reality is equivalent to 'Cognition' (in > a > suitably generalized sense of the word 'cognition')." > > That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation. > > "The prime field is the 'Possibility' field (Consisting of > cognition). The > other 6 fields are simply different manifestations of the Prime field." > > That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation. > > http://www.sl4.org/archive/0508/11717.html > > Earlier this year you even claimed you had no idea what you were talking > about: > > http://www.sl4.org/archive/0502/10720.html > > You write about "universal morality" and other big word concepts, but you > don't over any depth of explanation as to what you mean, or what these > words > mean in the context you use them, etc: > > http://www.sl4.org/archive/0402/7889.html > > And then you dare to act accused when people who have written extremely > detailed theories on things like FAI, GAI claim you are a nut? > > Half of your posts are saying things like "Bend it like Geddes" and other > statements of egoism. I'm sorry your feelings were wounded, but you > deserved > it. > > Brandon Huh? What is this, 'attack Geddes' day? The SL4 stuff were just wild ideas, that's all. Actually I've finally managed to move my ideas beyond those very crude early intuitions into something which (whilst still not well defined) is at least *vaguely* coherent. At least I've got enough to be able to coherently state why I think Eliezer's approach won't work. Did you read the recent summary I posted on the Extropy BB? Definitions and assumptions are clearly stated. Accredited philosophy papers are clearly referenced. Still not much to go on, but *enough* to show that Eli's approach ain't gonna work. See my summary here: The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-December/023071.html The argument shows that the correct approach to building FAI is not to have 'Discover and implement CEV' as the invariant, but instead to have 'Discover the theory of everything' as the invariant. Further, claims by the Sing Int programming team (Yudkowsky and Wilson) to the effect that qualia are entirely representations of what are really just material processes (i.e eliminative materialism), that you can have general intelligence without any conscious awareness present and that everything is reducible to Bayes sound wildly improbable to many (including some of the world's smartest philosophers and scientists - For instance David Chalmers, who I'm sure has an IQ rivalling Eli's and has worked at cognitive science even longer than Eli). When called on these claims, The Sing Inst teams do not give reasons, they simply make pronoucements. As I said: "There's nothing educational about the things the Sing Inst 'team' say. Nothing is published in academic journals, statements and proclaimations about the nature of intelligence are issued from 'on high', supporting technical arguments are kept hidden and anyone with different ideas is subject to ritualistic humiliation and lectures on how stupid one is on the SL4 list. The tone on the Sl4 list is *extremely* elitist." -- "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 thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 23 05:29:56 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:29:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike, father of Ferenginar In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> References: <030301c60669$72b27ab0$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512230102.jBN12ve25074@tick.javien.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051222202923.0790fb58@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051222232836.01dc5e08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:55 PM 12/22/2005 -0500, David L. wrote: >None of this had occurred to me until it was pointed out, but I tend to be >oblivious. Has anyone else noticed any of this? Well, , Duuuuh! ;) Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 05:35:53 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:35:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and > the other a pest. > The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to > spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome > appearances in almost all instances. > If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific > instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and > practices op the wider stage.. > Am I alone in this view? > Seconded (or thirded, fourthed etc). Anyone who disagrees, let's suppose I got a bunch of Irish friends and we came onto this list and started spamming it with a zillion angry messages a day about Bertie Ahern. Something tells me the moderator wouldn't be quite so tolerant. Now there are political discussions that are genuinely extropy-relevant. They just don't tend to involve sphexish bickering about whether the current occupant of $government_building shags sheep. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 05:33:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:33:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics References: <6b5e09390512221647q63146476oe48bbd222526bc31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <037b01c60782$6c107a80$cd81e03c@homepc> Mike Hayes wrote: > I read a number of very good blogs, both left and right, > on politics. I have not seen in the time I have been lurking, > anything here that was worth responding to on politics, or > related to the scope of the maillist. The matter is > complicated because this list has an international audience, > and they often may not comprehend the intricacies of USA > stuff and feel intensely about it. > > Thass called jest Bandwidth Hogging down her in Texas. You are new. Politics isn't reducable to a left right split. See one of Greg Burch's recent posts for that. Congratulations on not responding when you didn't have anything to say. This list does have an international audience. And part of that international audience just might know more about the intricacies of USA stuff, as you put it, than you do. For instance did you know that it was your own fellow Texan, Senator Tom Connally who in delivering the UN Charter to the US Senate in 1945 said : "Whilst we never lost sight of the supreme objective of world peace and security, we do not neglect our national interest. The rights and Sovereignty of the United States are not imperilled. We must remember, however, that world peace will cost something. It is worth something. It will cost cooperation. It will cost the will to peace. The charter is not automatic. It must be supported. It will cost our constant efforts and influence in the cause of peace". Brett Paatsch From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 05:54:48 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:54:48 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512222154s6ef6aecah8238f5751166bab@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > Indeed given your views it might be more extropic (better for > humanity as a whole) to campaign to close the Singularity Institute > down before it does any harm or to lobby to have you removed > from it. > > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ No need to worry Brett. Eli ain't got a hope in hell of succeeding. I don't believe *any one* (any human) is capable of a full understanding of what general intelligence is. I think we'll be waiting forever if Sing Inst is hoping achieve full understanding before launching. Some one with a more disruptive approach will beat them to it. I believe that a combination of guess-work, brute forcing will get to FAI first. I think there's a very clever trick (which I'm keeping to myself for the moment) for getting around the unfriendliness worry. So: guess-work, brute forcing and my clever trick for beating unfriendliness...no worries. -- > "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 Fri Dec 23 06:34:57 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:34:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <033701c60770$cf4efe30$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512230634.jBN6Yue24600@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch ... > > When you returned you set aside your own suggestion and > posted on this topic after the 22nd... Yes you are right. I know I have been all over the map on this. I apologize, I do not know what is the right thing to do. So I am now suggesting we continue with last week's agreement: go ahead and post politically-oriented stuff, keep it civil, keep it extropic. > I didn't know that you were away. You didn't say. The > list had no moderator during that time apparently... Ja I had to run out on short notice. Did everything I could to postpone the trip until after newtonmass, couldn't get out of it. We did fine without a moderator this week. ExI-chat went years without moderating anyone. We should be able to do that again without being offensive. > I was trying to work out how to continue to talk with Hal to > refine our bet without doing that, without posting in bad > faith into a thread that was obviously going to be seen > by some numb nuts as being about nothing more than > party politics... We see it as more than party politics Brett. I have learned a lot listening to the debate, for I am not an expert in legal matters. I was under the impression that the president takes an oath to uphold the US constitution, not international law. We do not vote for leaders of any international body, and I know of no international constitution. I know there are international courts, but I do not know of any international army that would enforce its rulings. > > > ... If I were > > to buy into that bet, I would need to think for > > some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for > > 23 cents or a no for 77 cents. > > My gripe with Americans is that there never is a time when > they do take that time out and take stock and your elected > officials are factoring that in now... Ja, why is that a gripe? How else would one appraise the value of a wager, other than factoring everything that impacts the outcome of the bet? > They are factoring in, > that you don't understand and they are factoring in that you > don't care and they are using those things to undermine the > freedoms that people enjoy overseas now and the ones > that you enjoy at home later... We care. We vote for someone else. Are there elections coming up soon in Australia? Vote for the guy that opposes the current US administration. If that doesn't seem to be enough, campaign for the guy. If that still isn't enough, donate money to the campaign. That's what we do here. Last time it didn't seem worth donating either money or time: Badnarek was hopeless, little chance of even showing up on the map, the two front runners were the same guy in different suits. What do you suggest? Regarding impeachment of the current leader, I wouldn't estimate the chances any higher than Ideas Futures is suggesting. A US president cannot be impeached for violating international law, only US law as far as I know. There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping was against US law, depending on how the war powers act is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be found legal. > I don't want to bet on just any old bet I want to bet > on this particular thing because I want to bring a bunch > of dopey American extropes attention to this particular > problem... You have done that, thanks. > > If you are going to ignore the problem of having a > nation state run by Presidents that act outside the rule > of law than it will, it must, inevitably get worse... Ja I am hoping the libertarian party can produce a viable candidate for president in 08. > > Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political > > matters are completely incomprehensible. > > They are only incomprehensible because you haven't > tried... With politics there are no underlying principles analogous to mathematical theorems. We have the US constitution, which the leaders and the military swear to uphold, but these are words. Words are subject to interpretation. > And Spike your not trying is an abrogation of > responsibilty... I try. I voted for the other guy in the past election. We didn't even show up in the noise. To be honest however, Badnarek didn't have all the answers either. Granted I didn't actually donate to the libertarian party last time, and I agree I probably should have. It just seemed like such a long shot. With that in mind, we are now in a weird loop, for anything good that happens in Iraq is an argument for the invasion. for instance, gts commented: >I'm very critical of the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad to see the Iraqis voting in such large number. Bush got us into trouble but it looks like the Iraqi people might bail us out. Is this not a weird loop? If the Iraqi people bail us out of trouble by voting, then why did not they start voting five years ago? Why did they not write a constitution, and elect the government that they have now? If they get us out of trouble by voting and the invasion gave them the opportunity to vote, and the invasion got us into trouble, then they would get us out of trouble by not voting, which is what caused the trouble to start with. If one holds to UN law as the ultimate authority, then the US-led invasion was illegitimate, consequently the current Iraqi government is illegitimate, as is the act of voting in Iraq. I notice the New York Times and the local "news" paper avoid even talking about the Iraqi elections. For now I must admit that it is a paradox. spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 06:45:57 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:45:57 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <043101c6078c$876fe130$cd81e03c@homepc> Russell Wallace wrote: On 12/23/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a necessity and the other a pest. The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy to spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make unwelcome appearances in almost all instances. If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either specific instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to principles and practices op the wider stage.. Am I alone in this view? Seconded (or thirded, fourthed etc). Anyone who disagrees, let's suppose I got a bunch of Irish friends and we came onto this list and started spamming it with a zillion angry messages a day about Bertie Ahern. Something tells me the moderator wouldn't be quite so tolerant. Now there are political discussions that are genuinely extropy-relevant. They just don't tend to involve sphexish bickering about whether the current occupant of $government_building shags sheep. - Russell Russell, no polity can survive without the rule of law. That is what this is ultimately about, the rule of law. Bertie Ahern is not a threat to the global rule of law. Ireland doesn't matter that much. The United States does. If you can show how future communities might emerge in this world without upholding the principle of the rule of law and without the expectation that those who take an oath of office should be expected to uphold it then I am all eyes and ears. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Dec 23 07:53:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:53:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220013537.9B4F757F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: <047e01c60795$ed870c10$cd81e03c@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > Brett writes: >> If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that says >> that President George W Bush will be impeached what odds >> would serious minded people like to offer me I wonder? > > There is a related claim at the FX game, > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp > > : Claim BuImp - Bush impeached or resigns > : > : This claim will be true if a majority of the US house votes >: to impeach George Bush--or Bush resigns from office. It may >: be judged when another US president is inaugurated or >: George Bush out of office. > : > : Note: it is not necessary for the Senate to convict Bush for > : this claim to be true. > > Since its creation in September, the claim has traded very > stably at about 20, implying a roughly 20% chance of coming > true. This counts both resignation and impeachment, so the > odds of just impeachment would be somewhat lower, but I > don't know how much. > > So I'd be willing to offer 4 to 1 odds against, and feel like I had a > modest profit expectation. And yes, I'd be willing to cover the > $1000 bet (putting up my $4000 against that). Thank you Hal. I want to do this for real. And I think that there is way that we (you and I) can. But right now I am too tired to work out what the real odds are, I can't accept the accuracy of the cite you reference because the money there isn't real. I want to take a break until after the new year. I hope that you and I can pick this up again then. I think that we could get an extrope in the UK to hold our bets for us and perhaps in that way you would not be exposed to breaching californian law. And I've been watching developments with Betfair that has now has an Australian license. Come February it will be up and running in Australia. Betfair is perhaps breaking through all the political barriers and it might be that a for real money market might be set up here once it has done that. This particular bet is one that I think would be a good one to start up a market around. I can think of no person who I would rather lose a bet too than Hal Finney. Though of course I would still prefer not to lose ;-). Regards, Brett Paatsch From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 07:54:42 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:54:42 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512222154s6ef6aecah8238f5751166bab@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <7a5e56060512222154s6ef6aecah8238f5751166bab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512222354u241ea604k5cad67b1c89cdbfb@mail.gmail.com> Perhaps this Singularity is coming much sooner than everyone realized? Check out this: http://www.ad.com/ccortex.asp?id=1 "Artificial Development is building CCortex, a massive spiking neural network simulation of the human cortex and peripheral systems. Upon completion, CCortex will represent up to 20 billion neurons and 20 trillion connections, achieving a level of complexity that rivals the mammalian brain, and making it the largest, most biologically realistic neural network ever built. The system is up to 10,000 times larger than any previous attempt to replicate primary characteristics of human intelligence. " There are new projects like this popping up all over the place. There are new Singularity forums springing up everywhere. It's says on Goertzel's page that coding for his project is now '60% complete'. It actually looks to me like the Singularity Instuitute (and everyone else for that matter) is nearly out of time. I'm not going out like this. I intend to code my best 'emergency guess' and be really to launch it in 5 years. I suggest Singularity Institute (and everyone else who takes the Singularity seriously) prepare an emergency plan now. It does like best guesses, brute forcing and emergency plans are the only real hope. It's over. 5 years tops and that's I'm now thinking. -- "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 Fri Dec 23 09:26:50 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:26:50 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <200512230634.jBN6Yue24600@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <04b701c607a3$01340d50$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > > > > When you returned you set aside your own suggestion and > > posted on this topic after the 22nd... > > Yes you are right. I know I have been all over the map > on this. I apologize, I do not know what is the right > thing to do. The moderator role is a difficult one. I think the right thing to do is to be strict about personal attacks but also be strict about jumping on calls for topics to be banned. In a better world the moderator role might be a paid job. > So I am now suggesting we continue with last > week's agreement: go ahead and post politically-oriented > stuff, keep it civil, keep it extropic. > >> I was trying to work out how to continue to talk with Hal to >> refine our bet without doing that, without posting in bad >> faith into a thread that was obviously going to be seen >> by some numb nuts as being about nothing more than >> party politics... > > We see it as more than party politics Brett. I have learned > a lot listening to the debate, for I am not an expert in > legal matters. Back in April in the "Small Government" thread you had nearly the same issue when you asked about sovereignty and Adrian Tynes replied to you with this: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-April/015516.html At that stage, if I recall correctly, Adrian did not know that the UN Charter had been ratified by the Senate and that is was a treaty. But unless he has forgotten he does now. > I was under the impression that the > president takes an oath to uphold the US constitution, > not international law. He does. But the Constitution incorporates Senate ratified treaties like the UN Charter into US law so the President is obliged by his oath to uphold the UN Charter as a matter of US law. > We do not vote for leaders of any international body, > and I know of no international constitution. I know there > are international courts, but I do not know of any > international army that would enforce its rulings. If the UN Security Council authorises force an international army is put together from the national armies. George H W Bush, US President number 41 successfully and lawfully put together an international coalition when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. >> >> > ... If I were >> > to buy into that bet, I would need to think for >> > some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for >> > 23 cents or a no for 77 cents. >> >> My gripe with Americans is that there never is a time when >> they do take that time out and take stock and your elected >> officials are factoring that in now... > > Ja, why is that a gripe? How else would one appraise > the value of a wager, other than factoring everything > that impacts the outcome of the bet? You couldn't. You would have to understand what would be involved in impeaching a President procedurally in order to make a considered appraisal of the probability of that happening. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot more than Google and visit wikipedia to get a pretty good idea in about 10 minutes or less. But my gripe is that unless you do know what has to happen procedurally, unless you care enough to Google a bit to find out, you cannot possibly learn how to use the levers and at this stage in human history its you US voters that have your hands on the levers. Your congresspeople do not represent non US citizens, they represent US citizens. Impeachment has to be bottom up. I think you think that this stuff is all the responsibility of Congresspeople, that if the President has broken his oath or office and deserves to be impeached that *they* will take care of it, you are saddly mistaken. They take their political cue from the American voter. >From people such as yourself. If the Congresspeople get that you don't care, they figure why should they. The US system is big, but it is not so big that any section of it (including the voters) can take a complete holiday from their responsibilities without there being ramifications. Ramifications like the US President recognizing that the voters are asleep and not interested in holding him to his oath. >> They are factoring in, >> that you don't understand and they are factoring in that you >> don't care and they are using those things to undermine the >> freedoms that people enjoy overseas now and the ones >> that you enjoy at home later... > > We care. We vote for someone else. That's not enough in the case of a rogue, lawbreaking President because that basal level of involement leaves him in office and leaves him free to keep breaking the law. It also teaches the next guy that becomes President that the impeachment option will not be used, that the voters do not have the stomach for it, even if the President takes the country to war on false pretenses. This just encourages him to set aside treaties whenever it suits him for domestic political purposes. > Are there elections > coming up soon in Australia? Of course in about 3 years. >Vote for the guy that opposes the current US administration. By then the current adminstration will not be the current adminstration. But the successor to the current administration will come to office knowing either that he or she must uphold the law and their oath because the people will hold her accountable if she does not, or she will know that the people will not hold her accountable for anything. > If that doesn't > seem to be enough, campaign for the guy. If that still > isn't enough, donate money to the campaign. That's what > we do here. Your solution divides the world up into nation states and would take us back to the time before the founding of the United Nations by Roosevelt and Churchhill. Your solution would see the world of extropes divided into US extropes with first class human rights and non US extropes with less than first class human rights. Unacceptable. Once you accept responsibility for upholding human rights you have to accept responsibility. Your country accepted responsibility and you are allowing it to renege. > Last time it didn't seem worth donating either money or > time: Badnarek was hopeless, little chance of even > showing up on the map, the two front runners were the > same guy in different suits. What do you suggest? I suggest you learn how to impeach a President before you lose the ability to in your country. I suggest you learn how your system works. I am happy to answer any questions you ask in good faith about the US Constitution or the UN Charter but you have to give enough of a shit to ask. > Regarding impeachment of the current leader, I wouldn't > estimate the chances any higher than Ideas Futures is > suggesting. > A US president cannot be impeached for > violating international law, only US law as far as I > know. See above he did violate US law when he breached the UN Charter over 1441. It is only Bush's own lawyers and the lawyers of others in the same position like Blair and Howard that continue to claim that. In the UK there is a medical officer from the armed services who is challenging the legal status of the war as part of his defence. > There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping > was against US law, depending on how the war powers act > is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide > that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be > found legal. You wanna bet ? >> I don't want to bet on just any old bet I want to bet >> on this particular thing because I want to bring a bunch >> of dopey American extropes attention to this particular >> problem... > > You have done that, thanks. > >> >> If you are going to ignore the problem of having a >> nation state run by Presidents that act outside the rule >> of law than it will, it must, inevitably get worse... > > Ja I am hoping the libertarian party can produce a > viable candidate for president in 08. Yeah he can do lunch with Elvis. >> > Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political >> > matters are completely incomprehensible. >> >> They are only incomprehensible because you haven't >> tried... > > With politics there are no underlying principles > analogous to mathematical theorems. We have the > US constitution, which the leaders and the military > swear to uphold, but these are words. > Words are subject to interpretation. Not infinitely. Not unless you let them be. >> And Spike your not trying is an abrogation of >> responsibilty... > > I try. I voted for the other guy in the past > election. We didn't even show up in the noise. To > be honest however, Badnarek didn't have all the > answers either. Spike impeaching a President is like jury duty its not like just voting. Its a pain in the arse but if you don't do it there will be no good guys on the jury. If the US folk don't hold Bush accountable then the whole system starts to fall into disrepair. We were getting race riots here in Australia. Home grown plotters have been reported in the papers citing the invasion of Iraq as reasons why they want to do something. Do something like kill the Prime Minister and/or his family. Iraq is not the front in this war. Arguably it never was. > Granted I didn't actually donate to > the libertarian party last time, and I agree > I probably should have. It just seemed like > such a long shot. > > With that in mind, we are now in a weird loop, for > anything good that happens in Iraq is an argument > for the invasion. for instance, gts commented: > > >>I'm very critical of the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad to see the Iraqis > voting in such large number. Bush got us into trouble but it looks like > the > Iraqi people might bail us out. I showed you polling figures that showed that over half the Iraqis thought the US was wrong to invade. Insurgents whose family have been killed don't start loving America because they have a democratic country from which to plot their attacks. You will have a constant intelligence battle everywhere as you have enemies everywhere. To find those guys you will lose more and more of your civil rights and the government will need to take more and more desperate measures to find the "terrorist" within countres. > Is this not a weird loop? If the Iraqi people bail > us out of trouble by voting, then why did not they > start voting five years ago? Why did they not write > a constitution, and elect the government that they > have now? If they get us out of trouble by voting > and the invasion gave them the opportunity to vote, > and the invasion got us into trouble, then they > would get us out of trouble by not voting, which > is what caused the trouble to start with. Spike of course the Iraqis will take the good stuff they are given thats a no brainer. But it doesn't follow that you will have their gratitude. It almost does follow of necessity that if you killed the families of a bunch of non terrorists going in, those guys are going to want payback. > If one > holds to UN law as the ultimate authority, then the > US-led invasion was illegitimate, consequently the > current Iraqi government is illegitimate, as is the > act of voting in Iraq. I notice the New York Times > and the local "news" paper avoid even talking about > the Iraqi elections. Only because of the way it was done. Bush had other options he just didn't choose to take them. At the time I presumed he was acting in good faith and was just frustrated by the French and bungled his handling of the diplomacy with Chirac. But subsequently evidence has emerged that Bush never intended not to invade Iraq, that in fact it was his intention from way before he went to the UN. > For now I must admit that it is a paradox. Not to me. It is trivial to see that some local good can come from a global bad. But it is just as easy for me to see that exchanging a democratic Iraq that does not love America and contains people who have excellent reason to hate you for one that was not involved in terrorism is not a good trade. Democracies can hate America tyranny too. Far more importantly though the US was seen by all the world to put aside its word of honour that it would not start a war of pre-emption. And as long as Bush remains at large unimpeached the world can see where the problem lies. There are two sets of rules. One for the US President and leader of a complacent people and one for the rest of the world. That is untenable. After 9/11 2001 the world was onside with the US. Next time there is a terrorist attack on the mainland of the US many people will probably take the view that at least those guys had it coming better this time. Better them than us. We have to watch out for terrorists as before, but government goons running around and spying as well now. Brett Paatsch From amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Fri Dec 23 13:48:16 2005 From: amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:48:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? Message-ID: <20051223144816.3lmvopmtgh4owwo8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Spike: >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act >> is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be >> found legal. Brett: > You wanna bet ? I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html Amara SoCalif From l4point at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 14:39:33 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:39:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <20051223144816.3lmvopmtgh4owwo8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051223144816.3lmvopmtgh4owwo8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it wrote: > > Spike: > >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping > >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act > >> is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide > >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be > >> found legal. > > Brett: > > You wanna bet ? > > I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. > He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before > ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against > US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. Read this please. http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 14:47:21 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:47:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <02f001c6076b$51cb2240$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB3D8A.50701@pobox.com> <02f001c6076b$51cb2240$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512230647u68b5c0e6hfec0351454fb040e@mail.gmail.com> Off-list reply: You said: "I am concerned that if you pursue friendly AI with your values in a position of responsibility as you apparently hold within the Singularity Institute that any AI that results may be distinctly unfriendly to the likes of people such as me who do not want to be ruled by a benevolent dictator with an inclination to censorship and authoritarian rule." It is utterly apparent from this statement that you have no idea what Eli's approach to FAI is. At what point did you decide it was acceptable and sensible for you to attack views you haven't bothered to even read up on? It's all well and good to call people on their views when they ask for funding (and even when they don't). But if you want to challenge those views, you're obliged to do your best to understand them before you attack them. And you most certainly have not done anywhere near that. Jeff From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 14:47:35 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:47:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0512230647u68b5c0e6hfec0351454fb040e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB3D8A.50701@pobox.com> <02f001c6076b$51cb2240$cd81e03c@homepc> <5844e22f0512230647u68b5c0e6hfec0351454fb040e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512230647h5bfd9555hbbe76efb21ca3710@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > Off-list reply: Or not. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 15:44:11 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:44:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <043101c6078c$876fe130$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> <043101c6078c$876fe130$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Russell, no polity can survive without the rule of law. > > That is what this is ultimately about, the rule of law. > What this is actually about is you being the sort of worm that used to lick the feet of Hitler and Stalin when they were in power, and nowadays must fall back on the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. (Bush has undoubtedly done some bad things - I've seen Americans reasonably criticize his domestic policies - but you are quite a few light years short of being capable of understanding the difference between good and bad.) You aren't worth cluttering up the list for, but you inadvertently raise a point that is, and needs reply; I'll address it in a separate message. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 16:20:06 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:20:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law Message-ID: <8d71341e0512230820l5117aee2v9bf7c54a6bb8eaf8@mail.gmail.com> It's been remarked that the world is too small; in a material sense this is not so, for this planet is capable of supporting an order of magnitude more people than currently inhabit it, if the available resources were used more efficiently. The critical sense in which it _is_ too small, however, is the ratio of force to space. Why are we speaking English right now instead of Chinese? Because at the time when the outcome was decided, Europe had the priceless gift of political disunity. There was never a time when one man could order the lights turned out in all of Europe simultaneously. In China, one man could and therefore did. (Jared Diamond does a good job of describing this in 'Guns, Germs and Steel', in particular the end of the Qeng Ho fleets.) In its desperation to put an end to internecine warfare (a good cause as far as that goes), Europe has forsaken that gift; we haven't begun to see a fraction of the resulting harm, but losing the potential of one continent isn't an existential disaster by itself. The terrible fact that needs addressing (by someone more charming and persuasive than me, but nobody else is stepping up) is that, long before we have the technology to colonize anywhere else, we have the technology - and in many minds, the political will - to eliminate disunity everywhere on Earth. Once that happens, there won't be any outside. No "we'd better cooperate with each other or the other tribe will win" anymore. No Commodore Perry to break open the shell. Nothing except who can gain power over his neighbor, to turn the noose a notch tighter before being replaced by the next candidate to do the same thing. One law everywhere, and the technology to enforce it; only that which is within the law, permitted to occur; and more laws written every year. In the worst case scenario, you might not be permitted to die. Ever. (This is my biggest reservation about cryonics - perhaps it will work, but how sure are you that you want it to? Once you're in the freezer, it's too late to change your mind.) If we end up screaming for a trillion years, we'll have plenty of opportunity to say "maybe we could have done something about it back then". Back then is right now, and politics is a slippery-slope game. Oppose international law, the United Nations and anything that reduces world political disunity. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 23 16:33:43 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:33:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> <043101c6078c$876fe130$cd81e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051223103129.01dfca88@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:44 PM 12/23/2005 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote intemperately: >On 12/23/05, Brett Paatsch ><bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: >Russell, no polity can survive without the rule of law. > >That is what this is ultimately about, the rule of law. > >What this is actually about is you being the sort of worm that used to >lick the feet of Hitler and Stalin when they were in power, and nowadays >must fall back on the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Oy! Steady on! It really does look as if political discussions here, as elsewhere, seem doomed to degenerate to this level of abuse even from intelligent listers. Stop it, before you go blind. Damien Broderick From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Dec 23 16:49:42 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:49:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law Message-ID: > Oppose international law, the United Nations > and anything that reduces world political disunity. A succinct statement of a view I fundamentally disagree with. All of the existential threats we face - from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to eco-catastrophe to asteroid impacts - will be more effectively countered by the strengthening of transnational governance. Transnational governance has been the dominant utopian aspiration of transhumanist-inclined thinkers since at least the 19th century, and only fell out of favor in 1990s, just when the collapse of the Soviet Union made a democratic transnationalism a realistic project. I recommend you take a look at the Citizens for Global Solutions to touch base with an optimistic vision of ways that stronger transnational governance could address global problems: http://www.globalsolutions.org I think your concerns for diversity are better addressed by focusing on the inevitable and important spheres of autonomy and federalism within any political union. We have been fighting those battles within the United States for two hundred years and sometimes progressives are on the side of the federal state (enforcing civil rights) and sometimes on the side of states' rights (protecting state prerogatives to legalize marijuana for instance). A similar dynamic is occurring in Europe. The same will occur in the global state, as it already does around debates on the universality of human rights. I assume you agree that it would be progress if we could effectively stop torture and genocide, whether the dictators of those countries signed the treaty banning them or not? I think one clear project of our age is to create the transnational structures to effectively enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and hopefully leave everything outside their scope to the national states. Of course, I'm sure that will be one of the first things the FAI takes care of once it takes over SkyNet.... ------------------------ James J. Hughes Ph.D. Public Policy Studies Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA james.hughes at trincoll.edu (office) 860-297-2376 Executive Director World Transhumanist Association 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 Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA (office) 860-297-2376 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 16:57:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:57:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512231657.jBNGvVe21210@tick.javien.com> Russell, this is personal attack. All the skeptics who insisted we could not discuss political matters without fighting are surely nanner nannering us. Russell, do be good to Brett, deal with the ideas, no comparisons to eisenia foetida. Guys,don't blow it now, this is just getting interesting. If you intended this as an offlist, please be careful with the address lines. Personal attack must be done offlist, if at all. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:44 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics On 12/23/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: Russell, no polity can survive without the rule of law. That is what this is ultimately about, the rule of law. What this is actually about is you being the sort of worm that used to lick the feet of Hitler and Stalin when they were in power, and nowadays must fall back on the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. (Bush has undoubtedly done some bad things - I've seen Americans reasonably criticize his domestic policies - but you are quite a few light years short of being capable of understanding the difference between good and bad.) You aren't worth cluttering up the list for, but you inadvertently raise a point that is, and needs reply; I'll address it in a separate message. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Dec 23 19:01:20 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:01:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: (12/23/05 8:39) Mike Hayes wrote: >Read this please. > >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf Oh, please. A letter from the Attorney General who found 17 different ways to redefine 'torture' so that Bush could violate the Uniform Code and the Geneva Conventions? You'll have to do much, much better than that. Especially when its published by a magazine that whores its principles out on the level that NR does. It was a sad day when Buckley left them. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Dec 23 19:09:21 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:09:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: (12/23/05 8:39) Mike Hayes wrote: >On 12/23/05, amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it wrote: > >> >> I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. >> He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before >> ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against >> US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. > > >Read this please. > >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf > Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you reference. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From benboc at lineone.net Fri Dec 23 19:32:31 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:32:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Politics In-Reply-To: <200512230211.jBN2BYe31311@tick.javien.com> References: <200512230211.jBN2BYe31311@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43AC50CF.4050906@lineone.net> From: Dirk Bruere Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics > When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a > necessity and the other a pest. ... > Am I alone in this view? No. ben From l4point at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 20:14:44 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:14:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512231214r784ddaak20ce02540364fb09@mail.gmail.com> Want the respective opinions on this subject from the Clinton, Reagon or Carter administrations? Take your pick. Or would you like to go farther back? Oh, and by the way, the letter I reference is the Bush admin's response to these allegations, and it went to the Senate. It doesn't matter who printed it. If you want to support your views, argue the points of law referenced. Otherwise it makes no sense. On 12/23/05, Brent Neal wrote: > > (12/23/05 8:39) Mike Hayes wrote: > > >On 12/23/05, amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > wrote: > > > >> > >> I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. > >> He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before > >> ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against > >> US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. > > > > > >Read this please. > > > >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf > > > > > Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you > reference. > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html > > B > -- > Brent Neal > Geek of all Trades > http://brentn.freeshell.org > > "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein > _______________________________________________ > 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 20:25:58 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:25:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <200512231657.jBNGvVe21210@tick.javien.com> References: <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> <200512231657.jBNGvVe21210@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512231225u163a1017ref2d2023b5a39422@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, spike wrote: > > Russell, this is personal attack. All the skeptics who insisted we could > not > > discuss political matters without fighting are surely nanner nannering > us. > Heh, I am one of the skeptics! But yeah, I'm sure you all don't want to read a flame war between me and Brett, so I'm just killfiling the guy for the moment. I still think arguing about the merits or flaws of $government_figure doesn't add anything to the list. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 20:30:27 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:30:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0512231230n11303435l96837809edc61220@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > on the universality of human rights. I assume you agree that it would be > progress if we could effectively stop torture and genocide, whether the > dictators of those countries signed the treaty banning them or not? Oh indeed! I think one clear project of our age is to create the transnational > structures to effectively enforce the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights, and hopefully leave everything outside their scope to the > national states. *nods* If I thought it would stop there, I'd be all in favor. Of course, I'm sure that will be one of the first things the FAI takes > care of once it takes over SkyNet.... *grin* This is why I'd be a happier man if I could convince myself Skynet-style "AI takes over the world" isn't just a fantasy; sadly, my suspension of disbelief doesn't stretch that far. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 21:04:50 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:04:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/23/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > Oppose international law, the United Nations > > and anything that reduces world political disunity. > > A succinct statement of a view I fundamentally disagree with. IAnd one with which I agree, being a nationalist. All of the existential threats we face - from proliferation of weapons > of mass destruction to eco-catastrophe to asteroid impacts - will be > more effectively countered by the strengthening of transnational > governance. Only in the sphere of applicability. Global threats need global responses. However, in your utopia Transhumanism itself could quite easily be defined as a 'global threat'. Indeed, some parts of the US establishment already see it that way and are trying to enact global bans on crucial technologies. The only thing that stops them is the lack of ability to control capitalist and nationalist competition. With every nation neutered or abolished neither of these factors would be in play because a world govt would have the last word. And at best that world govt would be no better than the US today, with its pandering to monopolist money and religious lunatics, and at worst a global tyranny the like of which the world has never seen. Fortunately, key players in determining the future are not toeing your line. Thank the Gods for China! Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 21:23:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:23:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512231225u163a1017ref2d2023b5a39422@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512232123.jBNLNQe09501@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace ... But yeah, I'm sure you all don't want to read a flame war between me and Brett, so I'm just killfiling the guy for the moment...- Russell OK cool, thanks Russell, an admirable course of action is this. I figure thus: governments have guys who make policy, elected they are. Governments have guys who sell those policies abroad, diplomats are these. Like Yoda talking I am. No one here is an elected official, that I know of. If one is trying to sell a government policy here, conduct yourself like a diplomat you must. For the moment political discussion is OK here, so let us allow it to continue until world war 4 breaks out. Play the board, not the man, let your trigger finger be quicker on the delete key than on the reply button. Thanks to all who have realized that no one needs to defend their country or their government here, and to those who have managed to avoid escalating meaningless battles. spike the reluctant bouncer I am {8^D From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 21:48:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:48:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <04b701c607a3$01340d50$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200512232148.jBNLm8e11646@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch ... > > We were getting race riots here in Australia. > > Home grown plotters have been reported in > the papers citing the invasion of Iraq as reasons > why they want to do something. Do something > like kill the Prime Minister and/or his family. ... > Brett Paatsch Brett I am still pondering the rest of your post, but to this comment I will respond on my way out. I have no doubt that the local papers cited the invasion of Iraq as a reason the rioters want to do something. The reporter who wrote this might have searched and found someone who made such a comment, or failing that, imagined one. Like here and everywhere else, Australian news reporters have their own agendas to promote. Of course they must sell newspapers, otherwise they would need to find a real job. It is much easier for me to believe that these riots are made up of good old fashioned motives that have always been with us: bored idle young men, territoriality made more acute by the persistent and increasing shortage of public-accessible oceanfront, real or perceived unfairness resulting in relative poverty, add testosterone and alcohol, stir vigorously. Look at the pictures of the rioters. Do you see anyone there who looks over 40? I see plenty of teens and twenties aching to demonstrate their manly courage. Young men like to fight; humans have evolved that way. But this is actually good news, for the average population is increasing everywhere on this planet. As time goes on, the world will have ever fewer of the young and the restless, and ever more of the old and the helpless, resulting in a more peaceful (even if more boring) world. spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 23 21:49:21 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:49:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> Brent wrote: > >Read this please. > > >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf > >Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you reference. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html That's like claiming that an article in Newsweek carries as much weight as a paper in Lancet. The document that National Review made available on their web site is essentially a legal brief, in letter form. As one often sees in pleadings, it makes several independent arguments, each of which, if valid, would demonstrate the legality of the NSA interceptions. I haven't done the research to give my opinion on the merits of DOJ's arguments, but they appear on par with what one sees in Supreme Court pleadings. In other words, there may be convincing counter-arguments, but they will have to be rigorously reasoned and grounded in case law. Important facets that the Supreme Court recently reminded us of are that we have three co-equal branches of government, that there are responsibilities placed on the executive branch that are not shared by the other branches, and that there are areas in which the Supreme Court either cannot weigh in or must give maximum possible deference to the executive or legislative branch. I suspect, as Spike said, that the courts will uphold the legality of the NSA intercepts. Whether they are legal, of course, is distinct from the questions of whether they are wise or whether I approve of them. -- David. From l4point at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 22:41:54 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:41:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? In-Reply-To: <200512232148.jBNLm8e11646@tick.javien.com> References: <04b701c607a3$01340d50$cd81e03c@homepc> <200512232148.jBNLm8e11646@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512231441x55ea3e2fs6100d73589625fae@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > ... > > > > We were getting race riots here in Australia. > > > > Home grown plotters have been reported in > > the papers citing the invasion of Iraq as reasons > > why they want to do something. Do something > > like kill the Prime Minister and/or his family. > ... > > Brett Paatsch > Some things I really do like about Australia. The riots were a long time simmering. The burkas could just go away. And then there is Bin Laden's niece. Pretty riotous! http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/meet-osamas-niece/2005/12/23/1135032164860.html Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 00:06:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:06:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >> The Extropy list is one of the Singularity Institute's primary >> sources of donors. This list is where Brian Atkins and Sabine >> Atkins (then Sabine Stoeckel) and I got together and founded >> SIAI. If you aren't doing anything, that's your own choice. If >> you dislike your choice, change it! >> The Singularity Institute is currently running a $100,000 >> Challenge Grant. So's Alcor, if that's more to your taste. From >> bystander to actor is a straightforward transformation, if you're >> dissatisfied with cheering from the sidelines. >> I agree that political yammering is a failure mode, which is why >> the SL4 list bans political discussion. > > The ban something is an intensely political act. To ban political > yammering there has to be someone who decides what is and is > not political yammering. > > How do you conclude that *you* are especially qualified to decide > what is political yammering? > It seems like a "friendly" AI with *your* values could only be a > benevolent dictator at best. And benevolent not as those that are > ruled by it decide but as it decides using the values built in by you. > > I can think of no better reason NOT to donate money to your cause. > This is really bizarre. Any list owner has full rights to decide what is an is not acceptable content on their own list and to determine what means those standards by whatever methods they wish. To say that Eliezer exercising such rights on his list is reason enough not to support his efforts is outrageous. To further imply that a FAI build by his organization would have his values shows an utter ignorance of any of his publications on the subject. > Indeed given your views it might be more extropic (better for > humanity as a whole) to campaign to close the Singularity Institute > down before it does any harm or to lobby to have you removed > from it. What is wrong with you? This is totally unexpected from you. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 00:15:55 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:15:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> <7A533101-7781-45B6-8EA7-C49FB002DBBA@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:46:28 -0500, gts wrote: > Remember we need the AI to handle challenges beyond our abilities. How > exactly can a challenge be beyond our own abilities yet humans be > capable enough to second guess the AI? Certain difficult questions of ethics and morals would I think need to be resolved first. The answers would then need to be coded and made open-source and required in any SAI charged with the task of making public policy decisions. For example two people are adrift in a life-raft with limited food and supplies. One is a scientist who has discovered but has not yet published a real cure for cancer. The other has nothing obvious to contribute to humanity. Is it more permissible for the scientist than the other to push an innocent person over-board to save his own life? The scientist would be saving the lives of countless innocent persons in addition to his own but the other person could make no similar claim. I don't pretend to know the answer but I think an SAI might answer in the affirmative, while many humans might answer either that 1) murder is always wrong, or that 2) it's a case of every man for himself without regard to the greater social consequences. I'm not sure we could trust an SAI to formulate the right answer to such questions on their own, so I suppose I am in agreement with you, at least tentatively. -gts From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Dec 24 00:25:11 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: (12/23/05 16:49) David Lubkin wrote: >Brent wrote: > >> >Read this please. >> >> >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf >> >>Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you reference. >> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html > >That's like claiming that an article in Newsweek carries as much >weight as a paper in Lancet. Then you clearly didn't read the article. A Justice Department that has a record of dubious interpretation of the law writes a formal letter. A Senator who was involved in the passage of the law referenced says, "No, we explicitly left that authority out." A quick check confirms that the section reads as he stated. That seems like a no-brainer to me. You know, just because people cite things doesn't mean they cited them correctly. That you would assume that a formal letter with citations is more correct simply by that virtue shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 00:26:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:26:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B768F17-76B4-4108-9EAF-2D8914D01116@mac.com> I do not understand your contentions. The constructs you mention as supposed irreconcilable (to humans) incompatibles are attempts to best understand and model important aspects of reality. It is very unlikely that there is no intersecting understanding contained therein or that the union of the pairs of constructs does not contain truths not wholly available in either when narrowly conceived. Humans are quite capable of understanding this. Many on these very lists have attempted some degree of reconciliation between precisely these constructs. So we certainly conceive of the need. How the heck is TELL (your caps) different from coercion? - samantha On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:16 PM, mike99 wrote: > On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:52 PM, mike99 wrote: > >> What Samantha says here about the value -- and the dangers -- of >> superhuman >> intelligence reflects quite precisely what I believe on this >> subject. Let me >> add a few points to bolster this position: >> >> 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or past forms of >> human >> organization, were sufficient to create the sort of world we desire >> to live >> in, then such a world would have already been created. Therefore, no >> rearrangement of human relations (political, economic, etc.) and no >> humanly-manageable system of development could be sufficient to >> take us from >> our current unsatisfactory state of life to the enhanced, long-lived, >> healthy, wealthy and free life we desire. Greater than human >> intelligence is >> required. > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > This argument looks shaky. Human intelligence in the form of total > knowledge base is increasing. Combining increasing levels of > communication, storage and computational capabilities gives a larger > set of possibilities than at any earlier time. So it does not > necessarily hold that the absence of the world we desire is proof > that human level intelligence is incapable of achieving it. While I > agree with you conclusion this is not a good argument for that > conclusion. > > > Mike responds: > Our knowledge base certainly is increasing, but our capacity to > derive > useful connections between all the bits and bytes is not keeping pace. > Data mining has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go. > > Assume, for the sake of argument, that hidden within all that > data is > some extractable knowledge that, if used, would enable us to create > the > kind of world we wish to live in (and you may define that pretty > much any > way you like). By what algorithm could we ensure that such > knowledge is > found within the data? I argue that we have no such algorithm. > Furthermore, > I suspect that even if we did have such an algorithm, we would be so > shocked at the results it turned up that we would discount them. > > What would be shocking about these results? I suspect (but cannot by > any means prove) that the results would indicate that building the > world > we wish to live in would require us to combine seemingly > contradictory or > mutually exclusive components. Like what? Like the contradictory > core claims > of the libertarians and the socialists. Like the mutually exclusive > ideals > of the evolutionary psychologists and the spiritual idealists. > > Our experience of human politics shows that we are incapable of > combining > these elements on our own. In fact, right now we cannot even > conceive of the > possible need to do so. Yet I suspect that our inability to even > imagine > combining these is precisely why we need an SAI to tell us that > this is what > we must do. **Not compel us to do it** mind you -- no coercion -- > but TELL > us to do it. And to give us the benefit of its managerial ability > (including > its ability to design and manage Drexlerian nanotech) to make this > possible > outside of any political wrangling. > > > > Regards, > > Michael LaTorra > > mike99 at lascruces.com > mlatorra at nmsu.edu > English Dept., New Mexico State University > > "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with > open eyes > towards slavery." > -- Jacob Bronowski > > "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." > -- Eugen Leitl > > "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a > rope across > an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a > dangerous > looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still." > -- Friedrich Nietzsche > > Member: > Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: > www.transhumanism.org > Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: > http://ieet.org/ > Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org > Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org > Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org > President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: > www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 00:46:08 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:46:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20051222011548.19118.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <0ABCF0EB-F974-4B63-95AF-F4B949E3A24A@mac.com> <7A533101-7781-45B6-8EA7-C49FB002DBBA@mac.com> Message-ID: Sorry Samantha that was your question I was quoting in my last, not my own. On a related subject, what do singularitarians think or propose concerning its psychological consequences? Seems to me that run-away technology would lead to a state of intense ambiguity. This is distinct from, and more stressful than, a state of intense risk... How Ambiguity Messes with Our Brains http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051209_brain_ambiguity.html "Psychologists would say ambiguity is the discomfort from knowing there is something you don't know that you wish you did," said Colin Camerer, an economist at the California Institute of Technology and the primary researcher in the study." I would say intense ambiguity is probably among the worst of all possible psychological states. Ambiguity activates the amygdala, associated with fear and anger. This is no surprise to me. I'm a semi-believer in the possibility of a singularity -- I'd give it about a 60-70% probability sometime before the next century. What are true believers recommending as a means for preparing for the associated ambiguity? Even assuming the singularity is no threat to the environment, the prospect of millions of people living in a state of perpetual confusion is not good. Fear and anger would be rampant. -gts From l4point at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 02:08:42 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:08:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512231808l43b26c32ta86b7b6b1b9beea0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Brent Neal wrote: > > (12/23/05 16:49) David Lubkin wrote: > > >Brent wrote: > > > >> >Read this please. > >> > >> > http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf > >> > >>Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you > reference. > >> > >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html > > > >That's like claiming that an article in Newsweek carries as much > >weight as a paper in Lancet. > > > Then you clearly didn't read the article. > > A Justice Department that has a record of dubious interpretation of the > law writes a formal letter. A Senator who was involved in the passage of > the law referenced says, "No, we explicitly left that authority out." A > quick check confirms that the section reads as he stated. That seems like a > no-brainer to me. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201102.html "The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Dec 24 01:57:51 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:57:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223200015.08b93120@unreasonable.com> Brent wrote: >A Justice Department that has a record of dubious interpretation of >the law writes a formal letter. What interpretation of the law is not dubious? What positions has the Justice Department ever held throughout its history that were not disputed by someone? Does "dubious" here mean anything beyond that *you* don't agree with them? A reasonable metric, I think, would be to look at adjudicated cases in which the United States was a party, aggregated by administration, and rank them by how often DOJ's position prevailed. I'm not sure who gets credit or blame for cases that straddled multiple administrations. >A Senator who was involved in the passage of the law referenced >says, "No, we explicitly left that authority out." A quick check >confirms that the section reads as he stated. Senator Daschle claimed that a proposed modification to the text was rejected by him. If true, its absence does not settle the meaning of the statute as signed into law and interpreted by court. At best, it settles what *he* thought it meant, not what the remaining 534 members of Congress thought. And, of course, courts do what they will, often without regard to legislative intent. More significantly though, as my posting explained, the DOJ letter provided several independent legal justifications for the NSA intercepts. If Daschle's remarks were sufficient to rebut one line of reasoning, it would still have no effect on the others. >That seems like a no-brainer to me. This suggests you have not had much exposure to legal reasoning. Lawyers and judges are boundless hair-splitters. >You know, just because people cite things doesn't mean they cited >them correctly. The same is true for senators, reporters, and extropy-chat posters. >That you would assume that a formal letter with citations is more >correct simply by that virtue shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking. I have elided a reciprocation of your personal slur. But I do wish to bring your incivility to the moderator's notice. -- David. From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 02:48:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:48:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <024b01c60754$de6cd700$cd81e03c@homepc> References: <20051221182309.7846.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> <43AADFA6.1040701@pobox.com> <019101c60738$bfc6d600$cd81e03c@homepc> <43AB1C41.80607@pobox.com> <01e701c6074c$373580c0$cd81e03c@homepc> <22360fa10512221538n4208a55dk7716279356aae378@mail.gmail.com> <024b01c60754$de6cd700$cd81e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <1A12C5AC-BC7F-4B68-ADB5-88E7291D0451@mac.com> Brett, Drop a line when you become sane again. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 02:57:21 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:57:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Kristof: Terrorists in Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <43AB5CC4.2090801@mindspring.com> References: <43AB5CC4.2090801@mindspring.com> Message-ID: If you want real "cyber-terrorism" and not by "Islamics" then just try to get ham-fisted DHS seriously into cyberspace. I doubt very much that "Islamic extremist" categorizes the vast majority of excellent hackers (or "crackers" either). - s On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > A crucial first step in fighting terrorism is to patrol cyberspace > > much more aggressively. Islamic extremists run rings around us on > the Web. > > http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion/20kristof.html > From sentience at pobox.com Sat Dec 24 03:16:04 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:16:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43ACBD74.7090709@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > Seconded (or thirded, fourthed etc). Anyone who disagrees, let's suppose > I got a bunch of Irish friends and we came onto this list and started > spamming it with a zillion angry messages a day about Bertie Ahern. > Something tells me the moderator wouldn't be quite so tolerant. > > Now there are political discussions that are genuinely extropy-relevant. > They just don't tend to involve sphexish bickering about whether the > current occupant of $government_building shags sheep. Well said. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 24 03:19:56 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:19:56 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered? References: <200512232148.jBNLm8e11646@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <00ab01c60838$ea51d4a0$cd81e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > Brett I am still pondering the rest of your post, but > to this comment I will respond on my way out. I'll be off the net for a few days and maybe until the new year. I'll reply when I get back. Brett From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 03:25:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <86778A58-BF2E-4C61-BBE6-8E7FB9E67F42@mac.com> I would argue that Bush, being the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, could easily come up in quite extropic conversations. Now I can see that the occupant of the Oval Office's sex habit are not relevant. But his attitudes toward freedom, science and so no could well be. Other than that, I agree. - samantha On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/23/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > When it comes to politics on this list I consider one form a > necessity and the other a pest. > The pest can be summed up as "parochial party politics". It is easy > to spot - the names 'Bush', 'Republican', 'Democrat' etc make > unwelcome appearances in almost all instances. > If people want to talk about politics let's keep it to either > specific instances that affect Transhumanist aims directly, or to > principles and practices op the wider stage.. > Am I alone in this view? > > Seconded (or thirded, fourthed etc). Anyone who disagrees, let's > suppose I got a bunch of Irish friends and we came onto this list > and started spamming it with a zillion angry messages a day about > Bertie Ahern. Something tells me the moderator wouldn't be quite so > tolerant. > > Now there are political discussions that are genuinely extropy- > relevant. They just don't tend to involve sphexish bickering about > whether the current occupant of $government_building shags sheep. > > - Russell > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 03:39:53 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:39:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <86778A58-BF2E-4C61-BBE6-8E7FB9E67F42@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> <86778A58-BF2E-4C61-BBE6-8E7FB9E67F42@mac.com> Message-ID: On 12/24/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I would argue that Bush, being the leader of the most powerful nation on > earth, could easily come up in quite extropic conversations. Now I can see > that the occupant of the Oval Office's sex habit are not relevant. But his > attitudes toward freedom, science and so no could well be. Other than that, > I agree. > Bush and US politics gets a lot of airplay here because most on this list live in his sphere of direct influence. If we were talking politics proportional to future effect then there would be a lot more here on Chinese politics, politicians and policies. China is currently No2 in the world when measured on a PPP basis http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html I would guess that within a decade it will have overtaken the US to become the major industrial power when measured in these terms. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 24 03:47:41 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:47:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: <93DCED44-6411-46E9-905B-CD4EAAB9BF82@mac.com> Message-ID: <200512240347.jBO3lde21219@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:10 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? > > Really? Cool! :-) > > Yeah, I figured it would be nearly impossible. I need to do some > reading on precisely why it is easier to prove Mersenne primes. A > refresh on modular arithmetic would be helpful. > > On the number of digits in your new candidate shouldn't > floor( e * log(2, 10)) + 1 > where e is your exponent give it to you? > > - samantha In general the computational complexity of determining primeness of any number n by brute force factoring increases as a polynomial of n. But if n is a Mersenne number (of the form 2^n-1 where n is prime) then the computational complexity to determine primeness increases as 2*log(n). Currently humanity is exploring nature in the 2^30,000,000 range. This takes about a month with a typical modern desktop confuser. But to determine the primeness of a number of this magnitude that is not a Mersenne number would take more time than we have left before universal heat death, even if every atom in the visible universe were a PC dedicated to the task. There are other classes of numbers that have computational shortcuts to determine primeness, but the Mersenne numbers have the very best shortcut known, the Lucas-Lehmer algorithm. This is used by GIMPS to exhaustively check mersenne numbers for primeness. This leads to the conjecture that for the entire future of thought, the largest known prime will always be a Mersenne prime. We already know of 42 Mersenne primes, with the 43rd probably discovered on 16 December 2005. Samantha, were you to discover a method of determining primeness of large non-mersenne numbers, you would not only become a math goddess of unequaled magnitude, you would also destabilize the world's economic security systems. People could no longer trust that you wouldn't also discover a means of factoring 200 digit composites made of two 100 digit primes. No bank account would be safe. The CIA would need to have you slain to keep you from talking, and then have me slain in case you shared with me the formula before you perished. {8^D spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 24 03:51:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:51:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> <043101c6078c$876fe130$cd81e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0512230744r548abc31w6773b0e42579c0de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1653D2AA-3390-482A-9785-AE5921014E21@mac.com> This is a direct personal attack. Stop it. - s On Dec 23, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/23/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Russell, no polity can survive without the rule of law. > > That is what this is ultimately about, the rule of law. > > What this is actually about is you being the sort of worm that used > to lick the feet of Hitler and Stalin when they were in power, and > nowadays must fall back on the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama > bin Laden. (Bush has undoubtedly done some bad things - I've seen > Americans reasonably criticize his domestic policies - but you are > quite a few light years short of being capable of understanding the > difference between good and bad.) You aren't worth cluttering up > the list for, but you inadvertently raise a point that is, and > needs reply; I'll address it in a separate message. > > - Russell > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Dec 24 04:11:00 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:11:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime? In-Reply-To: <200512240347.jBO3lde21219@tick.javien.com> References: <93DCED44-6411-46E9-905B-CD4EAAB9BF82@mac.com> <200512240347.jBO3lde21219@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051223220250.01d41b48@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:47 PM 12/23/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >The >CIA would need to have you slain to keep you from >talking, and then have me slain in case you shared >with me the formula before you perished. I have it on good authority that this is exactly what happened to Evariste Galois, who was slain in the Prime of life. (A less reliable rumor has it that as the young mathematician's precious bodily fluids drained into the muck, Galois whispered imploringly to his killer, "Why? For the love of God and reason, *why*?" His assailant watched him dying for a long moment, then scabbarded his blade. "Evariste," he said, with a Gallic shrug, "it's simple--*because you were there*.") Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 05:34:56 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:34:56 -0500 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law Message-ID: <7641ddc60512232134k41177c6agaa261baf8bc8da96@mail.gmail.com> On 12/23/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: I assume you agree that it would be > progress if we could effectively stop torture and genocide, whether the > dictators of those countries signed the treaty banning them or not? ### As if building a world-spanning apparatus of enforcement, a police that can reach you absolutely anywhere, ready to do the bidding of whichever vicious predator claws his way to the levers of power, as if this would stop torture, rather than leave no sanctuary for the victims. Ah, the naivete of Germans voting for Hitler. (BTW, J., don't tell me you want world domination just to stop torture - didn't you rather want to use the World Government to get rid of rich men by taxing out of existence everybody making 110% of your income? Professed good intentions aside, a few scores could be settled too, huh?) But on a more practical level: Future trends in the levels of organization prevalent in the society will be crucially dependent on technological developments. Some of the developments will aid the supraindividual force, the borg, the self-reinforcing network of institutions and memes that is the collective (as a being apart and above its constituent parts, us). Without doubt, universal surveillance is such a development. Others will aid us in our fight/flight from the borg - privately owned spaceships come to mind. Yet others may transform both us and the borg into something else - psychoengineering is one of them. Psychoengineering has fascinated me for a long time. It poses a huge threat to us (second only to the UnFriendly singularity) by allowing the borg to design its parts to make it much more efficient and physically destroy us. Imagine a government that develops a method for imbuing its citizens with a true respect for law (but not mindless obedience), and a goal system build around serving external goals, rather than the internally generated qualia of desire burning in our limbic systems. At first such model citizens would be cynically exploited by those unmodified humans in power, but sooner or later, somewhere, by an accident of psychoengineering programming, a group of model citizens would be produced with a closed loop of desires, maintained exclusively in social interaction between the model citizens. This would be the first true borganism, different from all that came before it. Existing societies are fueled by individual desires - smashing a modern state yields a bunch of individuals just as hungry, horny and mean as the hunter-gatherers. A borganism's constituents, while fully conscious, would have no desires of their own, and would apply all their ingenuity, in full honesty, to the glory of the borganism, or whatever goals are generated by the social interaction. The relevant analogy in biology is the comparison between bacterial mats and films (analogous to our societies) and the metazoans that feed on them. No doubt, given enough time, there would be mutation, and natural selection at the level of the borganism, leading to evolution of inconceivable borgan beings, just like the coalescence of monocellular beings into multicellular ones started the Cambrian explosion. My natural optimism would be severely strained by this expectation (since I do think that psychoengineering will happen within our non-enhanced lifetimes, even if the singularity comes later than expected), if not for two thoughts: First of all, even today, six hundred million years after the first metazoan started cutting a swath through bacterial mats, bacteria are still the most prevalent form of life on earth, both in terms of sheer numbers and even in terms of overall biomass. Maybe the borganism will not eat us all - maybe we will be able to adapt, to live in the scum ponds far away from the glistening palaces of power built by the borg. Maybe we will be even able to live symbiotically with borgans, like intestinal bacteria live in us. More bacteria than humans have visited the Moon, by something like ten orders of magnitude (give or take a few) - and they didn't even have to pay for the ticket. Maybe human symbionts of borgans will visit and inhabit places we alone could never reach. Secondly, autopsychoengineering could let us improve our functioning in many ways without losing the self-oriented goal systems that define us as individuals. For example, we could make some parts of our minds open to scrutiny, thus allowing truly unbreakable trust to be established. Non-borgan societies built from trusted individuals would have many of the efficiency gains of borgans without giving up some of the advantages of individuals - the pluralism, fast experimentation, mutability that can be very useful for survival in adverse conditions. Maybe some of us will build small borganisms out of our own flesh, by making multiple copies of ourselves, as I would like to do. There will be a lot design space to be explored. Given the above, I am somewhat optimistic (although not confident - the matter at hand is too complex for confident predictions) that there will be place for individuals in the future, and I am certainly hoping to be there to find out. Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 10:16:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:16:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy Saturnalia Message-ID: <20051224101651.39342.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Hey Everybody, I am in a place far away from my PC doing the holiday thing but I snuck onto this here computer to wish you all a happy Solstice Feast. May Saturn be kind to you. I look forward to replying to some posts when I return to town. Peace and fulfillment be yours, 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 13:58:35 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:58:35 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0512222135i3a6d4e2aq3e699e7efbf4d11b@mail.gmail.com> <86778A58-BF2E-4C61-BBE6-8E7FB9E67F42@mac.com> Message-ID: On 12/24/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 12/24/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > I would argue that Bush, being the leader of the most powerful nation on > > earth, could easily come up in quite extropic conversations. Now I can see > > that the occupant of the Oval Office's sex habit are not relevant. But his > > attitudes toward freedom, science and so no could well be. Other than that, > > I agree. > > > > Bush and US politics gets a lot of airplay here because most on this list > live in his sphere of direct influence. > If we were talking politics proportional to future effect then there would > be a lot more here on Chinese politics, politicians and policies. China is > currently No2 in the world when measured on a PPP basis > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html > I would guess that within a decade it will have overtaken the US to become > the major industrial power when measured in these terms. Replying to myself... What 10% pa growth means is that every decade the economy grows by a factor of approx 2.5x Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Dec 24 15:12:21 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:12:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> References: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051224094122.07acb008@unreasonable.com> I wrote: >I haven't done the research to give my opinion on the merits of >DOJ's arguments, but they appear on par with what one sees in >Supreme Court pleadings. In other words, there may be convincing >counter-arguments, but they will have to be rigorously reasoned and >grounded in case law. > : >I suspect, as Spike said, that the courts will uphold the legality >of the NSA intercepts. Whether they are legal, of course, is >distinct from the questions of whether they are wise or whether I >approve of them. After reading analyses of this situation, for which On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php is a good introduction, and then reading some of the pertinent decisions, particularly the recent Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html and In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (2002) http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html I'm now convinced not only that any lawsuit in opposition to the intercepts will fail, but that if it was accepted for Supreme Court review, the decision would not be close. I don't expect any less than a 7-2 decision, and wouldn't be at all surprised by a 9-0 "message". But I'm torn on whether it would get that far; it seems equally likely that the Court would simply deny cert. -- David Lubkin. From l4point at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 15:43:36 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:43:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051224094122.07acb008@unreasonable.com> References: <6b5e09390512230639w6ab41cb7w5b6fcca69a3e3b95@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051223161113.06485900@unreasonable.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051224094122.07acb008@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512240743y1c997a8awee40afe4b3825de3@mail.gmail.com> Pretty good analysis. But the implications of the theory of needing a court order? That means directly that if there was a mole in the FISA process, the entire house of cards unravels, and the country has no protection against foreign subversives. It wouldn't even require a mole, just a leak prone individual. Then the security of the country is compromised, and any foreign agent who knew this or had created this situation could and would take advantage of it in ways that are pretty troublesome to consider. The average guy in the US has a lot of common sense, and a lot of them see this instinctively. Outside of concepts of influence through propaganda, this all makes no sense. Mike H On 12/24/05, David Lubkin wrote: > > I wrote: > > >I haven't done the research to give my opinion on the merits of > >DOJ's arguments, but they appear on par with what one sees in > >Supreme Court pleadings. In other words, there may be convincing > >counter-arguments, but they will have to be rigorously reasoned and > >grounded in case law. > > : > >I suspect, as Spike said, that the courts will uphold the legality > >of the NSA intercepts. Whether they are legal, of course, is > >distinct from the questions of whether they are wise or whether I > >approve of them. > > After reading analyses of this situation, for which > > On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program > http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php > > is a good introduction, and then reading some of the pertinent > decisions, particularly the recent > > Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html > > and > > In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (2002) > http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html > > I'm now convinced not only that any lawsuit in opposition to the > intercepts will fail, but that if it was accepted for Supreme Court > review, the decision would not be close. I don't expect any less than > a 7-2 decision, and wouldn't be at all surprised by a 9-0 "message". > But I'm torn on whether it would get that far; it seems equally > likely that the Court would simply deny cert. > > > -- David Lubkin. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 24 15:53:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:53:05 -0800 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512232134k41177c6agaa261baf8bc8da96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512241553.jBOFr2e20445@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki ... > > First of all, even today, six hundred million years after the first > metazoan started cutting a swath through bacterial mats, bacteria are > still the most prevalent form of life on earth, both in terms of sheer > numbers and even in terms of overall biomass. Maybe the borganism will > not eat us all - maybe we will be able to adapt, to live in the scum > ponds far away from the glistening palaces of power built by the borg. > Maybe we will be even able to live symbiotically with borgans, like > intestinal bacteria live in us. More bacteria than humans have visited > the Moon, by something like ten orders of magnitude (give or take a > few) - and they didn't even have to pay for the ticket. Maybe human > symbionts of borgans will visit and inhabit places we alone could > never reach... Rafal Rafal! This is great, thanks. A spin on AI and borg I had never seen or thought of. May I use your meme in a fiction work I have been working? spike From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Dec 24 16:07:03 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:07:03 -0500 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law Message-ID: > ### As if building a world-spanning apparatus of enforcement, > ...would stop torture, rather > than leave no sanctuary for the victims. Some believe the best way to protect human rights is to eliminate states, and some (like me) believe it is to build political cultures and states that can protect human rights. Since I only see empirical evidence for the latter, and not the former, I think the burden of proof is on the anarchists. I would rather have the rights enjoyed by Swedes than those enjoyed by Somalis. > Maybe we will be even able to live symbiotically with > borgans, like intestinal bacteria live in us. I'm very impressed with your description of the borganismic evolutionary possibility, and agree with you. I've talked about the erosion of discrete, autonomous, continuous individuality as the coming "political Singularity" since it would be an end of the consensual illusions that undergird liberal individualism. Our values - such as "one person, one vote" or "free, fully informed choices" - would become meaningless. Nick Bostrom has gestured at Borganisms as a "whimper" version of an existential threat. I'm also disturbed by this prospect, as you are, because social democrats and anarchists share the autonomous individual as a starting point, even if we come to different conclusions about ideal political order. As you also suggest, our understanding of the way Borganisms might work, and what values they might manifest, have been overly-determined by our experiences with fascism, theocracy and totalitarianism. (The fear of psycho-engineered totalitarianism is what led Frank Fukuyama to decide there had not in fact been an "end of ideology.") It is equally possible that there might be liberal borganisms, hierarchial or non-hierarchical borganisms, borganisms devoted only to imperial "self interest" and borganisms that have "selfless" goal structures. Some of the fiction that I think is helpful in imagining these varieties is: - John C. Wright's Phoenix series, which imagines a society in which humanity has been borged, and de-borged, and now has borganisms and individuals in co-existence; - Alastair Reynolds' idea of the Conjoiners, among whom there is a great deal of individual identity, although other species fear being absorbed into their collective; - Stephen Baxter's Convergence, which suggests that the evolution of human collectives into vole-like insectile borganisms is an ever-present evolutionary dead-end that future individualist posthumans will have to stamp out like rat nests Bringing it back to world governance, I don't think it would be a step towards borganism. In fact, since I believe emergent borganisms, like religious cults and totalitarian states, are likely to be seen as threats to the rest of us, and global governance will likely be necessary to suppress borganisms and protect the global individualist majority as long as possible. J. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 16:15:44 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:15:44 +0000 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/24/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > Bringing it back to world governance, I don't think it would be a step > towards borganism. In fact, since I believe emergent borganisms, like > religious cults and totalitarian states, are likely to be seen as > threats to the rest of us, and global governance will likely be > necessary to suppress borganisms and protect the global individualist > majority as long as possible. > > And the World Government would assume all the necessary powers to stamp out every manifestation of 'anti-social threats' or overt resistance. We see freedoms disappearing across the West, and that's just because of a minor annoyance called 'Al Quaeda'. It's for your own good, after all. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 24 16:38:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:38:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] over the river and thru the woods... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512232134k41177c6agaa261baf8bc8da96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200512241638.jBOGcpe24070@tick.javien.com> The law of unintended consequences occasionally creates favorable outcomes. Consider seatbelt laws. Those of us over about 35 remember the days of piling into the station wagon or equivalent Detroit. Big back seat where the larvae could bounce around, beat each other, moon the other drivers, have a blast. The seat belts hadn't been seen since they were stuffed behind the seat somewhere back during the Nixon administration. Of course this did have its drawbacks. Cars occasionally hit large immobile objects or objects hurtling the opposite direction, at which time the larvae would go thru the windshield and become protoplasm projectiles, possibly striking innocent bystanders. Actual people could be injured or seriously killed. Seatbelt laws have made them and us much safer, but as an unintended consequence, has also made the offspring much less comfortable and far less willing travelers. Now mom and dad must listen to the whining and bitching the whole trip. Many decide to just say to hell with it and not go at all. Think of how much fuel is saved. Dad: Hey kids! Who wants to go to grandma's house? Larvae, in unison: Noooooooooooooo!... {8^D spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 16:52:09 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:52:09 +0000 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/24/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > I'm very impressed with your description of the borganismic evolutionary > possibility, and agree with you. I've talked about the erosion of > discrete, autonomous, continuous individuality as the coming "political > Singularity" since it would be an end of the consensual illusions that > undergird liberal individualism. Our values - such as "one person, one > vote" or "free, fully informed choices" - would become meaningless. Nick > Bostrom has gestured at Borganisms as a "whimper" version of an > existential threat. > Anders Sandberg has also speculated about future Borg societies: I've been moving to the view that Star Trek gave them rather a bad press. :) As we gradually become one with our machines and join into wireless always-on networks as agents of Google, are we not marching towards Borgdom? Anders finished his paper with: "What are the biggest advantages of borganisms? They provide an "easy" way to create superhuman entities (it might even be argued that we have created simple low-bandwidth borganisms based on metasystems today: organisations and states), and there does not appear to exist any obvious barrier to their creation (although plenty of experimentation in group-interaction and -integration is clearly needed). Borganisms would be able to solve some large classes of problems and implement the solutions much more efficiently than collections of individuals, giving them a practical and economical advantage. There is also the long-standing human dream of total community which may make borganisms desirable to some for purely aesthetic or emotional reasons. Regardless of one's view of borganisms it is clear that they provide a possible posthuman state, and that they are advantageous in some situations. This is usually enough to ensure that at least some borganisms will eventually be implemented by some group for some reason. Resistance is futile". BillK From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Dec 24 17:10:45 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:10:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] over the river and thru the woods... In-Reply-To: <200512241638.jBOGcpe24070@tick.javien.com> References: <7641ddc60512232134k41177c6agaa261baf8bc8da96@mail.gmail.com> <200512241638.jBOGcpe24070@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051224115545.082fa550@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >Of course this did have its drawbacks. Cars occasionally hit >large immobile objects or objects hurtling the opposite >direction, at which time the larvae would go thru the >windshield and become protoplasm projectiles, possibly >striking innocent bystanders. Actual people could be >injured or seriously killed. Last study I saw said that seat belts in rear seats were of marginal value. The larvae don't go through the windshield; they hit the rear of the front seats and stop. I think the study was based on accident reports. When *I* was a kid, I loved the "way back", which would have put two rows of seats between me and the windshield. Being claustrophilic, I also loved the floor area between the rear and front seats, as did my dog. In that space, a crash would have been even less significant. And, of course, the cars all had an acre of steel surrounding the passengers. I understand that as boomers have acquired wealth and nostalgia, those cars -- Dodge Dart, Plymouth Fury, etc. -- have become collectables. At least I still have my baseball cards from the 60's to retire on. >Dad: Hey kids! Who wants to go to grandma's house? > >Larvae, in unison: Noooooooooooooo!... Except now people buy DVD players for their cars to entertain the young'uns. Even my sister who doesn't watch tv. -- David. From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sat Dec 24 19:04:42 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:04:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Psychoengineering Message-ID: <20051224200442.ijarpvq5r2kgw4g0@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Rafal Smigrodzki: > More bacteria than humans have visited > the Moon, by something like ten orders of magnitude I'm surprised by this statement. Reference, please? Amara From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 19:17:43 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Psychoengineering In-Reply-To: <20051224200442.ijarpvq5r2kgw4g0@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051224200442.ijarpvq5r2kgw4g0@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: On 12/24/05, Amara Graps wrote: > > Rafal Smigrodzki: > > More bacteria than humans have visited > > the Moon, by something like ten orders of magnitude > > I'm surprised by this statement. Reference, please? > > In the stomaches of astronauts? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sat Dec 24 23:34:04 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:34:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? Message-ID: <20051225003404.wnt6e2yhosw8kskg@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> A collection of URLs related to NSA's wiretapping. In this Op-Ed piece, a lawyer discusses the wiretapping case: -------- http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/not-authorized-by-law-domestic-spying.php "Not Authorized By Law: Domestic Spying and Congressional Consent" JURIST Guest Columnist Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that contrary to assertions by President Bush and the US Department of Justice, post-9/11 Congressional legislation on the use of military force against terrorists does not authorize domestic spying... -------- When US District Judge James Robertson is able (I hope) to state in detail his reasons for resigning from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/12/fisc-judge-resigns-in-protest-over-nsa.php we'll know something more of why he says that the secret domestic surveillance program "is legally questionable and could have tainted the work of the FISC" . Here is an article on the quantity of data being checked: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?ex=1293080400&en= 016edb46b79bde83&ei=5090&partner=boingboing&emc=rss Here is a way to check if your email is being checked by the government (but don't plan to fly again on an American plane without being thoroughly checked by the TSA) http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/emailsnooping.htm Amara From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Dec 25 00:38:47 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Psychoengineering Message-ID: <20051225013847.nhxyqwt52zkgk4kw@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> > In the stomaches of astronauts? Oh, I forgot about the human symbiotes.. thanks for reminding me ! Amara From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Dec 25 01:45:37 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:45:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Merry Christmas Message-ID: <43ADF9C1.6090503@goldenfuture.net> To those who honor the holiday tomorrow, I would like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Joyous Yule, Good Kwanzaa, Io Saturnalia!, Happy Hannukah, and Noted Perihelion to the rest, as appropriate. And of course Happy New Year one week hence. Let us take a moment and resolve together to try to turn enmity to amity, and set aside what differences we have, even if just a tad, to work together to strengthen those many things we do have in common. Joseph From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 02:23:49 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:23:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Paramecium bursaria may be representative of the first animals to have eyes. Curiously, their eyes are plants. P. bursaria farm Chlorella in their cytoplasm: https://mailserver5.hushmail.com/hushmail/index.php Unlike its un-chlorella-fied cousins, P. bursaria gravitate toward light for nourishment. Does it make sense then to say P. bursaria can see but that its cousins are blind? I think so. Normal paramecia wander about aimlessly to find food, like blind unconscious people. But P. bursaria is smarter than your average bear: it uses Chlorella to "see". Do P. bursaria experience something we could call quaila? If not then what do we mean by "seeing"? In separate news, I noticed this headline about the ability of bees to recognize human faces: Bees can recognize human faces, study finds http://www.physorg.com/news8953.html -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 03:19:58 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:19:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: sorry wrong link. Correct link: P. bursaria farm Chlorella in their cytoplasm: http://ebiomedia.com/gall/classics/Paramecium/paramecium2.html From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 25 05:40:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:40:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <43ADF9C1.6090503@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch ... > > Let us take a moment and resolve together to try to turn enmity to > amity, and set aside what differences we have, even if just a tad, to > work together to strengthen those many things we do have in common. > > Joseph What he said, big time. May the solstice season find you all healthy and happy. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 25 06:02:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:02:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] record prime verified In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512250602.jBP62Ne24788@tick.javien.com> The 43rd Mersenne prime has been verified several days ahead of schedule: 2^30,402,457-1. The new largest known prime number has a little over 9 million decimal digits, so the 100 kiloclams is still up for grabs. The size of the largest known prime doubled every 6 seconds averaged over the interval from last February to now. Kewalllllllll... {8-] spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 25 06:44:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:44:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> Can anyone here offer an explanation for this? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179678,00.html If this story is true, how to we cause it to spread? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 25 19:07:33 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:07:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> On 12/24/05, gts wrote: > Paramecium bursaria may be representative of the first animals to have > eyes. Curiously, their eyes are plants. > > P. bursaria farm Chlorella in their cytoplasm: > > https://mailserver5.hushmail.com/hushmail/index.php > > Unlike its un-chlorella-fied cousins, P. bursaria gravitate toward light > for nourishment. > > Does it make sense then to say P. bursaria can see but that its cousins > are blind? I think so. Normal paramecia wander about aimlessly to find > food, like blind unconscious people. > > But P. bursaria is smarter than your average bear: it uses Chlorella to > "see". > > Do P. bursaria experience something we could call quaila? If not then what > do we mean by "seeing"? > So the paramecium can see. In other words, the system is able to detect differences in light patterns in its environment and these differences influence its behavior. A simple electrical vehicle can be configured to do much the same thing using photosensors and a differential circuit driving the steering. People also sense and respond to their environment, but in much more complex ways. They're all physical systems reacting to their environment in physical, understandable ways. What use is the concept of qualia in such a description? From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 20:09:47 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:09:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:07:33 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > They're all physical systems reacting to their environment in physical, > understandable ways. What use is the concept of qualia in such a > description? This goes back to David Chalmers' so-called 'hard question', "At the end of the day, the same criticism applies to any purely physical account of consciousness. For any physical process we specify there will be an unanswered question: Why should this process give rise to experience?" The answer to Chalmers' question is "Nobody knows." I suppose we should just leave it at that. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 25 20:43:17 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:43:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com> On 12/24/05, spike wrote: > > Can anyone here offer an explanation for this? > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179678,00.html > > If this story is true, how to we cause it to spread? I don't know much of Senagalese history or politics, nor do I assign a high priority to learning it at this time, but I can contribute some thinking on the spread of tolerance. In general, intolerance is the result of "moral" decision-making within too small a context. The world will become increasingly tolerant of individual and cultural diversity, while becoming less tolerant of those individuals and groups which violate principles of mutual growth, as we become increasingly aware of the bigger picture via increasing access to information. We can cause it to spread most effectively by developing and promoting the tools. The understanding will follow. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 25 20:52:44 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:52:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> On 12/25/05, gts wrote: > On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:07:33 -0500, Jef Allbright > wrote: > > > They're all physical systems reacting to their environment in physical, > > understandable ways. What use is the concept of qualia in such a > > description? > > This goes back to David Chalmers' so-called 'hard question', "At the end > of the day, the same criticism applies to any purely physical account of > consciousness. For any physical process we specify there will be an > unanswered question: Why should this process give rise to experience?" > > The answer to Chalmers' question is "Nobody knows." I suppose we should > just leave it at that. It may indeed be wise to "just leave it at that" with regard to email discussion, but in the larger context of increasing scientific knowledge it's a puzzle worth solving because this understanding creates a new bridge toward greater understanding. There is a simple and obvious answer to Chalmers' "hard problem", but it is so non-intuitive, and so lacking support within the culture and the language that many people just can't widen back enough to resolve the apparent paradox. - Jef From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Dec 25 20:53:42 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:53:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered? In-Reply-To: <20051223144816.3lmvopmtgh4owwo8@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: > Spike: > >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping > >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act > >> is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide > >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be > >> found legal. > > Brett: > > You wanna bet ? > > I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. > He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before > ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against > US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_ > 10_36_20_I.html There is all sorts of wiggle room -- if needed, but this may not be (almost certaily isn't the only applicable law.) First, you have to know the specific act to see if this law were even applicable and there are reports (perhaps untrue but just as likely to be true as any presumed specific acts) that all such surveillance was performed OUTSIDE the US and some readings of this law make this explicitly exempt. By other readings, those surveiled may be classed as agents of foreign powers (includin international terrorism) and so such communications and locations may be under the exclusive control of foreign powers. By another line of reasoning, if there are in fact "United States persons" involved they may have no reasonable right of privacy while planning acts of war or terrorism against the citizens and government of the United States. There's more but you would first need a specific act in detail, and I am not nearly as qualified to argue that it is legal as the many government lawyers who have reviewed the specifics and found them to be legal (in formal opinions); even if other lawyers might come to a different conclusion there are clearly plenty of wiggle room since the experts found enough to offer such opinions. (The President doesn't personally analyze the law but has teams of people who do that and who have the training.) And there are many other ways it might be legal, including war powers, and other laws. Also, if it is against the law (and there is not sufficient evidence to state that with any real conviction) then rather than belly-ache, Congress should FIX the law.... Your RIGHTS are far more egregiously violated everytime you board an airplane and face a warrantless search for doing nothing more than wishing to TRAVEL. Those monitored under any of the press reports we have heard were conversing with none Al Qaeda (and perhaps other terrorist) correspondents, i.e., phone numbers and email. -- Herb Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:48 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Cc: amara at amara.com > Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What > odds am I offered? > > Spike: > >> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping > >> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act > >> is interpreted. I am waiting for the courts to decide > >> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be > >> found legal. > > Brett: > > You wanna bet ? > > I don't see wiggle room for Bush if you read the laws. > He must ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before > ordering the NSA to conduct surveillance against > US citizens. He did not. Bush broke the law. > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_ > 10_36_20_I.html > Amara > SoCalif > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 21:08:58 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:08:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:52:44 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: >> The answer to Chalmers' question is "Nobody knows." I suppose we should >> just leave it at that. > > It may indeed be wise to "just leave it at that" with regard to email > discussion, but in the larger context of increasing scientific > knowledge it's a puzzle worth solving because this understanding > creates a new bridge toward greater understanding. I'm glad to see you appreciate the problem, Jef. I was thinking perhaps it's time to put this thread to bed, but I agree it is an extremely important question, with relevance to strong AI. Can we build machines capable of real subjective emotion and experience? Or are we limited to building nothing more than glorified unconscious calculators with only the outward appearance of consciousness? What is the trick to making matter become aware? Or is all matter already fundamentally aware as I speculate? > There is a simple and obvious answer to Chalmers' "hard problem", but > it is so non-intuitive, and so lacking support within the culture and > the language that many people just can't widen back enough to resolve > the apparent paradox. I'm listening. -gts From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun Dec 25 22:11:22 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:11:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] is transhuman space opera the natural progression from cyberpunk? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Educated discussions on transhumanism seem to be mostly happening elsewhere these days. No great surprise; discussional diaspora is the natural progression from small salons. Chalk it up to success in the stated mission and move on - being made redundant is the best reward for advocacy. For the question in the subject line, see the long thread here; skim the whole thing for a sense of where the balance of sympathies lie in tech-positive subcultures these days: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=235989 Reason From mark at permanentend.org Sun Dec 25 22:40:45 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:40:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: Message-ID: <00d601c609a4$3f2c1d20$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Best of the season to all. Hiding downstairs from the upstairs festivities, I've finished a draft of a short paper I am working on dealing with the question of whether we can own or otherwise dictate the life trajectories of human-level intelligent robots. I would be interested if anyone has examples from fiction or non-fiction where it is assumed that it is morally permissible to own human-level robots. An example that came to me this morning (and made me smile) was "Rosie" from the Jetsons. Rosie is purchased as a slightly used robot but she is sensitive enough to try and leave the Jetsons when she believes that she has caused the Jetsons problems. Poor Rosie, she is a slave. Cheers, Mark www.permanentend.org/Walker/mp3000.html Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 25 23:03:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:03:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s In-Reply-To: <00d601c609a4$3f2c1d20$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <200512252303.jBPN3Fe21269@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mark Walker > Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:41 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s > > ... I would be interested if anyone has examples > from fiction or non-fiction where it is assumed that it is morally > permissible to own human-level robots... Mark Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams. Saw it about five years ago, liked it, not just because Williams is a terrific actor but also a good script. http://archives.cnn.com/1999/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/15/bicentennial.man/ There was a human-level AI in simOne, more of a comedy, but still worth it. Al Pacino is always good, but this was nearly his best work: http://www.s1m0ne.com/ spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 25 23:11:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:11:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s In-Reply-To: <200512252303.jBPN3Fe21269@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200512252311.jBPNB8e22286@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > > There was a human-level AI in simOne, more of a comedy, > but still worth it. Al Pacino is always good, but this > was nearly his best work: > > http://www.s1m0ne.com/ > > spike Oops I realized that s1m0ne was not really an AI, but rather a sim that required a human operator, kinda like that big flamey head guy in the Wizard of Oz, never mind the man behind the curtain. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 25 23:29:18 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:29:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/25/05, gts wrote: > On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:52:44 -0500, Jef Allbright > wrote: > > >> The answer to Chalmers' question is "Nobody knows." I suppose we should > >> just leave it at that. > > > > It may indeed be wise to "just leave it at that" with regard to email > > discussion, but in the larger context of increasing scientific > > knowledge it's a puzzle worth solving because this understanding > > creates a new bridge toward greater understanding. > > I'm glad to see you appreciate the problem, Jef. I was thinking perhaps > it's time to put this thread to bed, but I agree it is an extremely > important question, with relevance to strong AI. > > Can we build machines capable of real subjective emotion and experience? > Or are we limited to building nothing more than glorified unconscious > calculators with only the outward appearance of consciousness? > > What is the trick to making matter become aware? Or is all matter already > fundamentally aware as I speculate? > > > There is a simple and obvious answer to Chalmers' "hard problem", but > > it is so non-intuitive, and so lacking support within the culture and > > the language that many people just can't widen back enough to resolve > > the apparent paradox. > > I'm listening. I've tried and failed repeatedly to convey this understanding in the space of one or several emails. Others such as Daniel Dennett and Thomas Metzinger have written clearly and extensively at a popular level of comprehensibility, but I have observed very few examples of people "switching camps" and getting that "aha" of more encompassing understanding -- that the subjective experience is more coherently understood as a result of the workings of the system, not a mysterious intrinsic quality of the system or its parts -- and that this understanding enriches, rather than diminishes those who understand it, facilitating further steps along the road of illusion and paradox including the nature of "self", "free will", "morality" and then onward to more effective forms of social decision-making. I suspect a better approach to conveying this understanding would be as a succession of puzzles, each one apparantly paradoxical at first sight, but resolving with the comprehension of a more encompassing context within which the parts are seen to fit. I'm considering proceeding with this approach, but currently lack sufficient time beyond that for career and family. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 00:48:29 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:48:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is a reference to the blindsight phenomenon: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web3/Chivers.html This passage is interesting: "Studies done with subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able to discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show color discrimination as well (2)." Apparently they see Lockean primary qualities (motion, location and direction), but not secondary qualities. However "some may show color discrimination as well." Color is a Lockean secondary quality. This goes straight to the question that Marc and I were discussing: should color be considered a primary quality of objects, real and intrinsic in the object in some platonic sense? If a ripe tomato were the only object in a universe with no observers, would it still be correct to say it is red? If so then Locke was wrong and color is a primary quality. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 01:12:07 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:12:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:29:18 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > I've tried and failed repeatedly to convey this understanding in the > space of one or several emails. Others such as Daniel Dennett... I have not read Dennett, but here is Chalmer's response from his essay "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" at http://consc.net/papers/facing.html --- Ultimately, however, it is a theory of cognitive accessibility, explaining how it is that certain information contents are widely accessible within a system, as well as a theory of informational integration and reportability. The theory shows promise as a theory of awareness, the functional correlate of conscious experience, but an explanation of experience itself is not on offer. One might suppose that according to this theory, the contents of experience are precisely the contents of the workspace. But even if this is so, nothing internal to the theory explains why the information within the global workspace is experienced. The best the theory can do is to say that the information is experienced because it is globally accessible. But now the question arises in a different form: why should global accessibility give rise to conscious experience? As always, this bridging question is unanswered. Almost all work taking a cognitive or neuroscientific approach to consciousness in recent years could be subjected to a similar critique. The "Neural Darwinism" model of Edelman (1989), for instance, addresses questions about perceptual awareness and the self-concept, but says nothing about why there should also be experience. The "multiple drafts" model of Dennett (1991) is largely directed at explaining the reportability of certain mental contents. The "intermediate level" theory of Jackendoff (1988) provides an account of some computational processes that underlie consciousness, but Jackendoff stresses that the question of how these "project" into conscious experience remains mysterious. --- > I'm considering proceeding with this approach, but currently lack > sufficient time > beyond that for career and family. By all means take care of your career and family first. I consider this question to be on final frontier of science and philosophy. We're probably way ahead of our time even to be considering it, much less trying to answer it. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 26 04:28:14 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:28:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512252028u11abf0bcs5e1a1e9da7950165@mail.gmail.com> On 12/25/05, gts wrote: > Ultimately, however, it is a theory of cognitive accessibility, explaining > how it is that certain information contents are widely accessible within a > system, as well as a theory of informational integration and > reportability. The theory shows promise as a theory of awareness, the > functional correlate of conscious experience, but an explanation of > experience itself is not on offer. > > One might suppose that according to this theory, the contents of > experience are precisely the contents of the workspace. But even if this > is so, nothing internal to the theory explains why the information within > the global workspace is experienced. The best the theory can do is to say > that the information is experienced because it is globally accessible. But > now the question arises in a different form: why should global > accessibility give rise to conscious experience? As always, this bridging > question is unanswered. We're making progress in cognitive science, but we don't yet understand all the physical mechanisms involved in the brain's functioning. But the "hard problem" is not asking about the specific mechanism, it's asking the more general question of "how, in principle, can any physical processing of information cross the great divide and produce the sense of immediate subjective experience which is so obviously different in a strong qualitative sense from other forms of knowledge?" The "hard problem" appears so hard because it's asking the wrong question. It assumes the existence of some coherent self that is able to judge and report on the immediacy and vibrancy of the subjective experience. But there is no such privileged point of view. The absolute and infallible reference point of view assumed by Descartes doesn't exist. The sense of self is a construct of the system, modeling its environment and itself in terms of its goals, evolved because a system with such an advanced model is able to do "what if" planning providing strong advantages in a competitive environment. When this self-aware system arrives at the point of asking itself about its subjective experience, the query and the response are processed within that same system. Of course (for practical reasons of survival advantage) present experience seems immediate (when the system has reason to query it, and despite that much of the relevant processing may precede awareness or be entirely outside awareness), and other times, as when driving a car while thinking about something else, the sense of immediate experience is completely absent. The only way to know about the subjective experience of any system, including the system you know as yourself, is by querying that system and then noticing its (your) response. Can you see how this leads to profound, creative attempts by the system to fill the gaps in its model of reality, the only model of reality it can report on, but which is only an imperfect and partial model within a system functioning within a larger objective reality? Understanding this model opens the door to further understanding that builds upon it in a coherent way as I've described earlier. The illusion of "self", "free will" and "morality" as popularly conceived are strongly inter-related with this key concept. Achieving more popular understanding of this will lead to practical advances in social decision-making about "right" and "wrong" and how to develop and implement principles of what works (on which we can increasingly agree) that overcome the evolved biases and short-sighted cultural artifacts that drive much of our present decision-making. Refusing the model, because it just doesn't feel right intuitively, or because it seems to suck the life out of obviously vibrant human experience, or because thinking in such terms brings one into conflict with cultural and linguistic convention, or because deep down it incites the existential fear of not having an eternal soul, is to accept mystery and paradox when a more coherent and more comprehensive model has been made available. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Dec 26 04:31:26 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:31:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s In-Reply-To: <00d601c609a4$3f2c1d20$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> References: <00d601c609a4$3f2c1d20$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <43AF721E.5020501@goldenfuture.net> "Star Wars". Not only do 'droids with enough introspection to express remorse when their owners are presumably killed because of their inability to act quickly enough (Ep IV trash compactor sceen), but they can have their memories erased at a whim (Ep III "have the protocol droid's memory erased" and Ep IV "take them to Anchor Head and have their memories erased"). This has been discussed in much more depth over on Betterhumans.com. "I, Robot". Basically, the whole movie revolves around how robots with basically human-level intelligence are integral to society as servants. "Forbidden Planet". I assume here that being able to order the robot in question to stick its arm in a disintegrator beam is about equal to ownership as used in your question here. "2001: A Space Oddessey" and "2010: The Year We Make Contact". I'm reluctant to include these here, as HAL9000 is never said explicitly to be "owned" by the government, but it's implied that it's just considered to be a tool, and the moral dillemma about HAL's status personhood-wise is developed a bit better in the second film. "Westworld". But I'm not sure these would qualify as "human-level"... I'd give it a question-mark. It's never explained if they are simply malfunctioning toasters or resentful Spartacuses. Deliberately so, perhaps. "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Marvin the paranoid android. "The Black Hole". Maximillian to be sure, but I would probably include Vincent in this category as well. "Doctor Who". K-9. Clearly property, even if nicely-treated property. Someone already mentioned "Bicentennial Man". The examples from print literature are even more extensive, if less at my fingertips. In fact, I can think of many more instances where AI robots were considered inferior to humans than the reverse... "Transformers" comes to mind (trivial though it may seem, it plays well into the theme that robots with human-level intellects are independent actors). Joseph Mark Walker wrote: > I would be interested if anyone has examples > from fiction or non-fiction where it is assumed that it is morally > permissible to own human-level robots. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 06:02:49 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:02:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512252028u11abf0bcs5e1a1e9da7950165@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512082121w36dc2e14hda5bbc521a16ec7@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251107i4a6a6debo4362e792bc5b8b72@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251252j1a681bc4w49fa8f5fea8b6d3c@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512251529l1c35ffbfp1756008e84e29ab2@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10512252028u11abf0bcs5e1a1e9da7950165@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:28:14 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > But the "hard problem" is not asking about the specific > mechanism, it's asking the more general question of "how, in > principle, can any physical processing of information cross the great > divide and produce the sense of immediate subjective experience which > is so obviously different in a strong qualitative sense from other > forms of knowledge?" I want to agree with you here but I think this is not a correct characterization of Chalmers' hard problem. Though it is true that immediate subjective experience seems obviously different in a strong qualitative sense from other forms of knowledge, there is still the question of the subjective experience of those other forms of knowledge. Those experiences are qualia. Mathematicians for example are famous for 'seeing' solutions to non-existent problems, problems that have no bearing on known physical reality. I would submit that their seeing constitutes a type of subjective experience, and that these subjective experiences are qualia. I think Chalmers would agree. I will however agree with you if it's your contention that immediate sense perception is not a form of knowledge separate from other forms of knowledge. In fact this is my reason for wanting to agree with you. The idea is consistent with one I encountered today, and thought quite profound, while reading a book about evolutionary epistemology: "For the 'blindness' of an eyeless animal there has been substituted [via evolution] a process so efficient that we use it naively as a model for direct, unmediated knowing. But the process is still one of blind search and selective retention, in the sense employed in this paper." Donald T. Campbell, "Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes", The Psychological Review 67, 1960 The idea here is that visual knowledge is not fundamentally different from any other type of knowledge about the external world, all of which comes to us via an evolutionary process of trial and error. The blind man's cane is no different from an eye, except in its efficiency. We're all essentially blind. :) > The "hard problem" appears so hard because it's asking the wrong > question. It assumes the existence of some coherent self that is able > to judge and report on the immediacy and vibrancy of the subjective > experience. I wonder if this is true. Seems to me that experience precedes any concept of self, that we form concepts of self to help us make sense of experience, that the concept of self arose as part of the evolution of intelligence. If you've been following my arguments here, you know that I think even presumably unconscious organisms like insects have experience, even with no self-concept. I could be wrong but I wonder on what grounds Dennett thinks he is right to think Chalmers' hard problem assumes the existence of a self to report about experience. The view that experience exists only where it can be reported is behaviorist, which as I've written elsewhere seems to me only to sweep the problem under the rug. I have little doubt that my cat experiences qualia, but the poor creature can't report about it, probably not even to herself. You've convinced me however that Dennett deserves my attention. Thanks. -gts From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 07:23:39 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:23:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] genes are controlled at many different levels Message-ID: <20051226072339.11723.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> Where does it stop? There is a finite set of mechanisms, by which a functioning genome resident in a real world cell conducts its business of genetic expression. How close are we to 99.5% elucidation of mechanisms? (Not all the ***details*** of all variants, genome-to-genome, across all species, just basic mechanisms?) ************************** New study expands understanding of the role of RNA editing in gene control http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/twi-nse122305.php and on the clinical side, Sickle cell disease corrected in human models using stem cell-based gene therapy http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/mscc-scd122305.php Great moment to be alive. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From femmechakra at hotmail.com Mon Dec 26 10:55:10 2005 From: femmechakra at hotmail.com (Anna Tylor) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:55:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <43ADF9C1.6090503@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: I wish you all a happy holidays and I really appreciate that you took time to answer my questions. thank you Anna >From: Joseph Bloch >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list , World Transhumanist >Association Discussion List, WTA Board of >Directors List >Subject: [extropy-chat] Merry Christmas >Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:45:37 -0500 > >To those who honor the holiday tomorrow, I would like to wish you all a >very Merry Christmas. > >Joyous Yule, Good Kwanzaa, Io Saturnalia!, Happy Hannukah, and Noted >Perihelion to the rest, as appropriate. And of course Happy New Year one >week hence. > >Let us take a moment and resolve together to try to turn enmity to amity, >and set aside what differences we have, even if just a tad, to work >together to strengthen those many things we do have in common. > >Joseph >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 26 15:12:08 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:12:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051226090507.0306e0b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:43 PM 12/25/2005, you wrote: >On 12/24/05, spike wrote: > > > > Can anyone here offer an explanation for this? > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179678,00.html > > > > If this story is true, how to we cause it to spread? > >I don't know much of Senagalese history or politics, nor do I assign a >high priority to learning it at this time, but I can contribute some >thinking on the spread of tolerance. > >In general, intolerance is the result of "moral" decision-making >within too small a context. The world will become increasingly >tolerant of individual and cultural diversity, while becoming less >tolerant of those individuals and groups which violate principles of >mutual growth, as we become increasingly aware of the bigger picture >via increasing access to information. > >We can cause it to spread most effectively by developing and promoting >the tools. The understanding will follow. Yes. And that ought to be one of our preferred goals within transhumanism - to engage in and tolerance. Further, a strong framework for knowing boundaries and setting boundaries is also essential to practice tolerance. Individuals are more tolerant if their boundaries are respected. Individuals are more willing to be honest if their identities are respected. 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 pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 26 18:43:12 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:43:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 12/25/05, spike wrote: > Can anyone here offer an explanation for this? > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179678,00.html > If this story is true, how to we cause it to spread? > This story does appear to be mostly correct, given credence by similar reports from previous years. Nobody else has had a go at answering Spike's question, so here's my try. :) Senegal is a republic with a powerful presidency; the president is elected every seven years, amended in the 2001 to every five years, by universal adult suffrage. The current president is Abdoulaye Wade. Senegal also has 65 political parties which contribute to development of the country through working towards a successful transition to democracy in the country, and even among other developing countries on the African continent. The unicameral National Assembly has 120 members elected separately from the president. A single house legislature, and a fair and independent judiciary also exist in Senegal. In Senegal, Islam is the predominant religion, practiced by approximately 94 percent of the country's population; the Christian community, at 4 percent of the population, includes Roman Catholics and diverse Protestant denominations. But this country is a huge mixture of just about everything. Language, race, customs, etc. from many sources. French is the official language but is used regularly only by the literate minority. The Wolof are the largest single group in Senegal at 43%, other ethnic groups include the Fula (24%), the Serer (15%), the Jola (4%), Mandinka (3%), beside numerous smaller communities. About 50,000 Europeans (mostly French) and Lebanese reside in Senegal, mainly in the cities. Among those cities as well, there are also some Chinese and Vietnamese minorities. In appearance, the Wolof look very dark African, not Arab. Their version of Islam is pretty unique also. "Senegal's most powerful men are not politicians, but the leaders of the country's Islamic Sufi brotherhoods, to which a very large proportion of Senegalese belong, and whose influence pervades every aspect of Senegalese life." In Senegal, Sufi Islam is paramount and Islamism has had a negligible impact. In Senegal, Islamic communities are generally organized around one of several Islamic Sufi orders or brotherhoods, headed by a khalif (xaliifa in Wolof, from Arabic khal?fa), who is usually a direct descendant of the group's founder. The Mourides number as many as 4 million in Senegal alone and thousands more abroad. The Mouride Way, based on the teachings of Amadou Bamba, emphasizes the virtues of pacifism and the importance of hard work and has within this century become the biggest influence on contemporary Senegalese life and culture. The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice. There is no state religion; the Constitution specifically defines the country as a secular state and provides for the free practice of religious beliefs, provided that public order is maintained. Religion plays an important role in the lives of most citizens, and society generally is very open to and tolerant of different religious faiths. The country has a long tradition of amicable and tolerant coexistence between the Muslim majority and Christian, traditional indigenous, and other religious minorities. Interfaith marriage is relatively common. -------------------------- To sum up, Senegal has a reputation for transparency in government operations. The level of economic corruption that has damaged the development of the economies in other parts of the world is very low. Today Senegal has a democratic political culture, being part of one of the most successful democratic transitions in Africa. Senegal recognizes and respects all cultures, religions and traditions. BillK From transcend at extropica.com Tue Dec 27 05:20:06 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:20:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512270520.jBR5K7e21552@tick.javien.com> > This goes straight to the question that Marc and I were discussing: should color be considered a primary quality of objects, real and intrinsic in the object in some platonic sense? Hmm. Would it help to talk about qualia that are not related to objects? I experience "visual snow." This is a condition I have had for as long as I can remember. It's like television static, overlayed on top of everything I see. In a dark room, it is vibrant, fast moving, and beautiful. I have had it so long I rarely think about it consciously, so my brain filters it out. If I focus on it, I can see colors and patterns that I can't really describe because they are so rapidly transient I can't grasp them long enough to label them. The only reason I don't think this stuff exists in the observed world is because other people don't see it. I conclude that it is either inside my eye (which is probably not the case, nothing odd about my eyes have been observed by optometrists) OR that it is some kind of neurological error. Either way, these are qualia. It is perceived and has a cause, but it does not have a material source the same way an orange rind's orangeness has a material source it can be traced to. There's no "bearing on known physical reality" here; it may be some side effect of an improperly functioning electrochemical process in the brain. (I'm not talking about "floaters." Visual snow is different...) I'm not sure how to properly work this into a discussion of qualia, but it seems like it would fit in there somehow. I googled for 'Qualia AND "visual snow"' and found nothing useful. Brandon From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Dec 27 05:21:19 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:21:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [tlc-brotherhood] Re: new topic - shotguns Message-ID: <43B0CF4F.9010506@mindspring.com> Ummm ... well, sort of - but not quite!. There has been a LOT of inaccurate publicity, and false assertions, about the so-called "new Florida self-defense law." (Even the NRA got it wrong when they publicized the "new law" - which I pointed out to them in a letter.) In reality the only change in the law of self defense, in Florida, is a technical one dealing with a "duty to retreat" outside the home. Essentially the old common-law "Castle Doctrine" now applies outside the home as well. (It always has appled inside the home). Contrary to what has been said by the gun-control zealots, and the media, there is no change in the requirement that before you can use deadly force in self-defense (or defense of others), the aggressor must be using force "likely to cause death, or serious bodily harm". That means if you shoot an unarmed agressor (outside your home), even in self-defense, you may still be prosecuted - and convicted. Fortunately, inside your home still is (and always has been) a free-fire zone against intruders - armed or unarmed!. Gary Beatty (Florida Assistant State's Attorney & Professor of Criminal Law) Medic - NKP (73-74) -- "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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 05:23:16 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:23:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biophotons And The Universal Light Code Message-ID: "Biophotons, or ultra weak photon emissions of biological systems, are weak electromagnetic waves in the optical range of the spectrum - in other words: light. All living cells of plants, animals and human beings emit biophotons which cannot be seen by the naked eye but can be measured by special equipment developed by German researchers."... "According to the biophoton theory developed on the base of these discoveries the biophoton light is stored in the cells of the organism - more precisely, in the DNA molecules of their nuclei - and a dynamic web of light constantly released and absorbed by the DNA may connect cell organelles, cells, tissues, and organs within the body and serve as the organism's main communication network and as the principal regulating instance for all life processes.... The consciousness-like coherence properties of the biophoton field are closely related to its base in the properties of the physical vacuum and indicate its possible role as an interface to the non-physical realms of mind, psyche and consciousness." http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000583.htm ==== This is the first I've heard of biophotons. Science? Or pseudo-science? -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 06:06:31 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:06:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <200512270520.jBR5K7e21552@tick.javien.com> References: <200512270520.jBR5K7e21552@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:20:06 -0500, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > Hmm. Would it help to talk about qualia that are not related to objects? Yes. In other words, you are wondering how to explain mistaken color perception and hallucination if color is a Lockean primary quality intrinsic in or "on the surface of" objects. This author claims to have an answer: "If perception is direct, it is asked, how can it possibly even be occasionally mistaken, let alone systematically misleading (as it seems to be, for instance, in the case of metameric colors)? Clearly we do often misperceive things. Hallucination is perhaps the most worrying example of this. Since, by definition, there is no stimulus in the real environment to which it corresponds, how could it possibly be explained except in terms of the presence of aberrant mental representations? I would like to think that the materials for an answer to this (and related problems) may lie in the "active perception" based theory of mental imagery that I have recently proposed (Thomas, 1999). Hallucination is, very arguably, merely mental imagery that we somehow fail to distinguish from veridical perception, and if imagery can be explained without appealing to mediating representations (as I think I have shown) then hallucination (and other sorts of non-veridical perceptual experience) can too." http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/col-real.htm I'm intrigued by the idea of the 'extended mind' in this same article: "On this view, the mind is there in the world (Clark, 1997) rather than being a spectator locked away in the skull, merely reflecting the world in its representations. Clark & Chalmers (1998) even go so far to speak about an "extended mind", the boundaries of the self, as a cognitive system, extending beyond the skull and the skin to encompass the things with which we interact. Taking this literally, it would even make sense to say that color experiences exist in the mind after all, but as qualities of the surfaces of the objects around us, rather than as mysterious qualia inside the brain." -gts From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 10:28:05 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:28:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biophotons And The Universal Light Code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/27/05, gts wrote: > http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000583.htm > ==== > > This is the first I've heard of biophotons. Science? Or pseudo-science? > Pseudo-science. Claims that zero point energy and quantum fluctuations cause all the psychic nonsense that you want to believe. Read the woo-woo customer reviews at Amazon. She has a track record. She makes her living writing this stuff. BillK From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 13:18:42 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:18:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:29 PM, spike wrote: > OK the week is over and you have passed the test. I also have returned after the week of politics is over. > I have been away for a > few days, but reviewing I see that people have managed > to keep this week's political free-for-all mostly > civil. What a low standard for the extropians list! As long as we are "mostly" civil, it's OK. We used to aspire to much higher aspirations. Were any new idea discussed that haven't been discussed before? Did anyone invent anything? Did anyone start any new projects? Did anyone come up with new insights that did not previously exist? *These* would be the interesting things I would like to see from our discussions. (Yes, even the political ones!) > I see ExI-chat as analogous to a noisy sports > bar. In a sports bar, arguing is allowed, yea even > encouraged, but fighting is not. Arguing is a form > of communication, but fighting breaks furniture > and drives away patrons. > Best do it so: let us continue to allow > the political discussions, but keep it smart, relevant, > extropian-oriented and at the level of an argument > rather than a fight. So the week-long "experiment" isn't over? This is a permanent change to the extropy-chat list? Arguing about politics is allowed and even encouraged? You think arguing is a form of communication? And that it does not drive away the patrons? What in the world are you trying to accomplish? Seriously, I don't understand. Besides the fact that some people find it fun to argue, and that they insist on doing so in front of an nonconsensual audience, what does arguing accomplish that rational discourse without arguing does not? What do the new rules accomplish that the old rules did not? I really don't know what "problem" you are trying to solve. Can somebody please define *why* was want to encourage arguing as opposed to discussion without arguing? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 13:43:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:43:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Built meeting room in Second Life In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512270432v11b475b1xda1dd181b01fd877@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512270041p5293670cjefc198016264f615@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520512270432v11b475b1xda1dd181b01fd877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512270543m6fd93fb4xbe584131262f779f@mail.gmail.com> (resending without pictures, message was too big). For Second Life users: I created a transhumanist meeting room in Second Life at: Boreal 76, 152, 117 Come take a look. G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Tue Dec 27 14:23:28 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:23:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] CFP: Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution Message-ID: <001801c60af1$1ceb0c00$91893cd1@pavilion> From: Roger Koppl koppl at FDU.EDU To: HAYEK-L at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: [HAYEK-L:] CALL FOR PAPERS AND COMMENTS CALL FOR PAPERS AND COMMENTS An upcoming volume of Advances in Austrian Economics will be devoted to the theme "Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution." In _The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex_ (1871) and _The Expressions of Emotions in Man and Animals_ (1872) Darwin goes beyond his theory of biological evolution to develop a theory of social evolution. Thus, Darwin proposed a theory of evolution with two branches: a theory of biological evolution and a theory of social evolution. Usually, Darwin's theory of social evolution is overlooked and the focus is put only on his theory of biological evolution. The purpose of this special issue of Advances in Austrian Economics is to present and analyze Darwin's theory of social evolution, which is generally neglected, and to discuss the many questions it raises. A first dimension of the problem relates to the differences (if any) between the two theories. Do they differ and if so, how? Of related interest is the question of whether Darwin's theory includes or requires a naturalistic theory of morality. Second, if there are two theories, then perhaps Darwin's theory of social evolution should be labeled 'social Darwinism,' to be differentiated from what usually goes under that name. Standard social Darwinism, that is the application of Darwin's theory of biological evolution to human societies, is perhaps better labeled 'social Spencerism.' The criticisms addressed to Darwinism by social scientists might better be directed to social Spencerism. Hence some of the questions to deal with concern the links and differences between genuine social Darwinism, standard social Darwinism, and social Spencerism. This is all the more difficult because Darwin himself acknowledged his connections with social Darwinism. How should we evaluate this acknowledgement? Third, if true social Darwinism is different from its standard definition, one should try to understand why and how social Spencerism came to be called social Darwinism: do 19th and 20th century social Darwinists refer to Darwin or to Spencer? Do they ground their analysis on Darwin's theory of social evolution or on Spencer's? When and why did Spencer replace Darwin as a social evolutionist? Finally, one important aspect of the problem relates to the links that could be put forward between Darwin's theory of social evolution and other theories of social evolution, including that of Hayek, which have always been presented as Lamarckian and not Darwinian. Several important scholars in biology, philosophy, and the social sciences have already agreed to contribute to this volume. We are especially interested in attracting further contributions from scholars working within the tradition of the Austrian school of economics. Persons interested in contributing papers or comments should contact Alain Marciano (alain.marciano at univ-reims.fr) or Roger Koppl (koppl at fdu.edu) before February 1, 2006. From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Dec 27 14:43:32 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:43:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:18 AM 12/27/2005, Harvey wrote: >What in the world are you trying to accomplish? Seriously, I don't >understand. Besides the fact that some people find it fun to argue, and >that they insist on doing so in front of an nonconsensual audience, what >does arguing accomplish that rational discourse without arguing does >not? What do the new rules accomplish that the old rules did not? I >really don't know what "problem" you are trying to solve. Can somebody >please define *why* was want to encourage arguing as opposed to discussion >without arguing? First let me state that politics is not banned on this list. Second let me state that arguing is not an unhealthy exercise. http://www.blonnet.com/life/2002/10/07/stories/2002100700120200.htm Arguing, in fact, is sought out by world-class thinkers who accept arguing as a way to clean the waters and allow hidden resentments to flush. http://www.pbs.org/arguing/ Further, arguing a point ought to be a skilled process http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/units/argument/home.html Third, with these two points in mind, I think that there is more senseless political argumentation in the world than productive, intelligent discussions where actual resolution is made through the ability of people to solve problems and apply creative alternatives to problems. I have to say that I agree with Harvey, as I too do not understand why anyone on this list would perpetuate irrational argumentative commentary when constructive discussion is suggested and promoted by ExI. 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 mark at permanentend.org Tue Dec 27 16:13:52 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:13:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <00d601c609a4$3f2c1d20$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <43AF721E.5020501@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <007001c60b00$88857130$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Thanks for the examples Spike and Joe. > "Star Wars". Not only do 'droids with enough introspection to express > remorse when their owners are presumably killed because of their inability > to act quickly enough (Ep IV trash compactor sceen), but they can have > their memories erased at a whim (Ep III "have the protocol droid's memory > erased" and Ep IV "take them to Anchor Head and have their memories > erased"). Star Wars is interesting in that even our big moral hero, Luke Skywalker (no relation) begins the first movie (EP III) by buying two slaves (two "droids"). It is amazing how uncritical people are of this. I can see this perhaps with R2D2, because it takes a while to figure out exactly how smart she is, but CP30 is so blatantly human-like. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 16:18:09 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:18:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > First let me state that politics is not banned on this list. Thanks. This is important. As I read back through the archives to see what I missed, I see that some people have misunderstood me to be calling for censorship. I want to make it clear that I do not condone censorship. Nor, do I think anybody on this list has done so. I think everyone wants to maximize the utility of this list. Unfortunately, we differ on which topics are interesting. There must be a win-win scenario that allows everyone to discuss extropy-related topics without destroying anybody else's discussions. That is the problem. Surely we can come up with a solution. Some have proposed just hitting the delete key on posts we don't like. This takes a lot of time and effort to sort through many messages to delete them to find the ones we want. Depending on one's interests, the work of reading and deleting unwanted posts could quickly override the value of the interesting posts. Some people also have limited time to devote to this list. Any time detracted from the interesting articles diminishes the value of the list for them. Some have proposed using prefixes on postings. These prefixes would categorize posts with "POLITICS:", "HUMOR:", "TECH:", etc. This sorts the subjects and makes it easy for people to skip the categories they don't want. Unfortunately, many people either forget or refuse to do this. Thus, the system breaks down because it is not enforced or used. So even if this system "would" work, it hasn't been put in place, so it "isn't" working. Some have proposed filtering messages on the receiving end. This is simply not possible for many clients in many situations. In those cases where filtering is possible, it is not easy to develop filters that consistently block the unwanted material while never blocking the desired material. Different people have different threshholds for losing valuable messages. I, for one, cannot accept any level of false filtering. If a filter blocks a legitimate message, it is unacceptable to me. Most of the spam filters and content filters I have reviewed have a high error rate. I process over a thousand messages per day. An error rate of even 1/10th of one percent causes me to lose real mail every day. This is not acceptable to me or my business needs. If anyone has discovered filtering technology or definitions that actually identify topic based on content without making mistakes, I would love to hear about it. My favorite method for categorizing posts is to have the divided by topic. A group could have multiple lists with each list devoted to a specific topic. Continued discussion and replies automatically go to the same list. People could subscribe to only those topics they desire. I do not understand what is wrong with this method. However, others have objected that they feel demeaned if their message is not "on-topic" for the most popular or main list. They don't want their favorite topic relegated to a 'side" list. There is also a fear that we don't have enough people or topics to subdivide the list, as if the list would dwindle away to nothing if we only talked about our favorite topics, and we needed to include uninteresting topics to prop up the volume. There also seems to be an element of proselytizing to the audience in political or religious arguments. The promoters seem to want to deliberately spread their message far and wide, even to people who don't want to see it. Such people will resist any method to categorize their posts so that people can avoid them. They insist that their posts are "on-topic" and the most important topic of discussion. They sometimes even insist this to the point of disrupting other threads or conversations to convert them to their more important topic. Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to proposed solutions to add to this list? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 17:20:48 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:20:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s In-Reply-To: <007001c60b00$88857130$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <20051227172048.48256.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mark Walker wrote: > Star Wars is interesting in that even our big moral > hero, Luke Skywalker (no > relation) begins the first movie (EP III) by buying > two slaves (two > "droids"). It is amazing how uncritical people are > of this. I can see this > perhaps with R2D2, because it takes a while to > figure out exactly how smart > she is, but CP30 is so blatantly human-like. Well my interperation of the movies taken as a whole is that slavery is perfectly legal in both the Republic and the ensuing Empire. Luke's father and grandmother were both slaves, and the visiting Jedi actually "bought" (or won it in a bet rather) Anakin's freedom instead of invoking any supposed illegality of slavery. This leads me to believe that slavery is legal in the political milieu. Thus that some slaves are artificial makes little difference. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 12:32:55 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:32:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Built meeting room in Second Life In-Reply-To: <470a3c520512270041p5293670cjefc198016264f615@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520512270041p5293670cjefc198016264f615@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520512270432v11b475b1xda1dd181b01fd877@mail.gmail.com> For Second Life users: I created a transhumanist meeting room in Second Life at: Boreal 76, 152, 117 Come take a look. G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slhome1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43304 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slhome2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 42191 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mark at permanentend.org Tue Dec 27 17:34:44 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:34:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <20051227172048.48256.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00af01c60b0b$d3ba8540$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" >> Star Wars is interesting in that even our big moral >> hero, Luke Skywalker (no >> relation) begins the first movie (EP III) by buying >> two slaves (two >> "droids"). It is amazing how uncritical people are >> of this. I can see this >> perhaps with R2D2, because it takes a while to >> figure out exactly how smart >> she is, but CP30 is so blatantly human-like. > > Well my interperation of the movies taken as a whole > is that slavery is perfectly legal in both the > Republic and the ensuing Empire. Luke's father and > grandmother were both slaves, and the visiting Jedi > actually "bought" (or won it in a bet rather) Anakin's > freedom instead of invoking any supposed illegality of > slavery. This leads me to believe that slavery is > legal in the political milieu. Thus that some slaves > are artificial makes little difference. > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > Good point. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 19:54:29 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:54:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Message Filtering Message-ID: On 12/27/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to > proposed solutions to add to this list? > Any solution that starts 'People ought to ..........' will fail. You can't make people on mail lists follow rules. Stopping them from insulting and flaming each other is hard enough. :) As I see it there are several different kinds of filtering that are required. Only one of which is the filtering of posts within a mail list. First: Sp*m and virus emails have to be removed. Most ISPs, including gmail, do a pretty good job nowadays of detecting sp*m and virus email, moving them to a Sp*m folder and deleting viruses. I really don't know why sp*mmers bother sending sp*m to gmail addresses as they are automatically junked. A quick scan down the subject headers (just in case) then you can delete them all. For POP3 email, again most ISPs will now put a SP*M label on mail that they detect and delete or warn you about virus-carrying email. In addition, on your own computer you can use Bayesian filtering software (like Mailwasher) as an additional spam detector. Your antivirus software should also scan incoming mail for viruses. Second: Most people need to separate their email into different groups. e.g. email lists, personal email, business email. Perhaps dividing these into sub-groups. As email accounts are free, I use a different ISP for each group. This means checking a different source for each group, but two or three should be sufficient. I use Gmail for mail lists. (The volume stored there is now bigger than the hard disk on my pc). You could use several gmail accounts if you wanted to subdivide all your email lists, but I find the gmail 'Label' system (folders) works fine for me. Some people use many different email addresses to help to sort their email, but I have never found this necessary. Third: Now each email source has to be classified. The mail filters for each ISP can be used to automatically file each source into a separate folder. For example: anything with 'extropy-chat' in the subject gets moved automatically to the 'extropy' folder. Business mail can also be automatically sorted into separate folders, using subject keywords, or the 'From' field. This leaves only a few 'unknowns' in the Inbox to be dealt with manually. For POP3 email you can use the filters in your email program to do this. The fourth and final step is the problem of filtering messages within each folder, e.g. the extropy folder. I suggest setting up another folder called 'extropyjunk'. Then setting up a series of filters to automatically send unwanted extropy mail to this folder. The filters would be two-rule filters. e.g. If (Subject contains 'extropy-chat') AND (Subject contains 'bush' OR 'impeachment' OR 'qualia') then send to extropyjunk folder. You can also combine this with your favorite killfile names. e.g. If (Subject contains 'extropy-chat') AND (From contains 'Satan' OR 'McGillycuddy') then send to extropyjunk folder. You can also use whitelist names of posters you like. e.g. If (Subject contains 'extropy-chat') AND (From contains 'Jesus' OR 'God') then send to extropy folder. You can probably think of more rules for yourself. ;) The filters do all the sorting for you, presenting you with two folders of extropy mail, one which you read and one which you can glance over the subject headers and delete or read as you wish. Delete them all if you are busy. If you decide to keep one, just move it across from extropyjunk to extropy after you've read it. It does take a bit of work initially to set up all these automatic filters, but once done it works like a dream. You'll be amazed at the difference it makes if you still get hundreds of emails unsorted in your Inbox everyday. BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 19:58:10 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:58:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biophotons And The Universal Light Code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:28:05 -0500, BillK wrote: > Pseudo-science. Claims that zero point energy and quantum fluctuations > cause all the psychic nonsense that you want to believe. Seems reasonable, but what about the existence of biophotons separate from those far-out claims? They make less extraordinary claims also, for example: "This light emission is an expression of the functional state of the living organism and its measurement therefore can be used to assess this state. Cancer cells and healthy cells of the same type, for instance, can be discriminated by typical differences in biophoton emission. After an initial decade and a half of basic research on this discovery, biophysicists of various European and Asian countries are now exploring the many interesting applications which range across such diverse fields as cancer research, non-invasive early medical diagnosis, food and water quality testing, chemical and electromagnetic contamination testing, cell communication, and various applications in biotechnology." http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000583.htm If biophotons are real then I wonder why the US is not studying them. But are they real? -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 27 20:24:56 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:24:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512271224s19ed12b6o66a25bd17dac9d91@mail.gmail.com> On 12/27/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to > proposed solutions to add to this list? I too get several hundred emails per day and have been effectively using filters to categorize email into useful groups. The problem I am increasingly faced with is the poor s/n ratio in most groups. I am seriously considering adding a new level of filtering, such that threads with known high-quality posters are presented to me separately, and the rest continue to accumulate within their category bins with less likelihood of being read, but available in case I want to look back or occasionally browse the older stuff. Downsides are that I will miss the occasional jewel amidst the chaff and will have less exposure to new posters who I would choose to add to my high-value list. I will also lose some awareness of the zeitgeist of the groups I inhabit. I look forward to future improvements more along the lines of blogging with RSS and with comments as equally accessible as the main item, but differentiated. I also prefer HTML to plain text, but only when it is done well. - Jef From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Dec 27 21:17:08 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:17:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humanity Sucks Message-ID: <43B1AF54.5040109@goldenfuture.net> Has anyone read the book "Humanity Sucks: Zen & The Art of Transhuman Evolution, or Darwin Meets the Buddah at Woodstock" by Ron Garland? I happened to stumble across it, and am mulling over whether it's worth getting or not. Has anyone here read it? Joseph From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 27 21:28:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:28:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6B3757A4-4DB9-441B-8BB3-D198B0A29F87@mac.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:18 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Were any new idea discussed that haven't been discussed before? > Did anyone invent anything? Did anyone start any new projects? > Did anyone come up with new insights that did not previously > exist? *These* would be the interesting things I would like to see > from our discussions. (Yes, even the political ones!) > Actually we did discuss some interesting things in the last week. Sorry if you missed it. >> Best do it so: let us continue to allow >> the political discussions, but keep it smart, relevant, >> extropian-oriented and at the level of an argument >> rather than a fight. > > So the week-long "experiment" isn't over? This is a permanent > change to the extropy-chat list? Arguing about politics is allowed > and even encouraged? You think arguing is a form of > communication? And that it does not drive away the patrons? > Actually a lot of us have decided to stop US-centric colloquial squabbling or simple stimulus response on political hot buttons getting pushed in favor of only having those political discussions here that have direct bearing on extropy or distinct extropic content. We decide this one by one on thinking about it rather than through some heavy handed ban. Sorry if that is not to your tastes. But it feels more civilized and adult to me. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 27 21:34:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:34:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: I don't personally believe that any of these things are needed. The list is coming to a consensus slowly and organically about what types of political discussions have value. I think that is a better overall and much more realistic solution. That said I think prefixes are very useful for sorting messages. I do not favor multiple lists at all. I have seen topics purged to other lists only to have some topics and discussions silenced. It was not at all helpful to the community. - samantha On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> First let me state that politics is not banned on this list. > > Thanks. This is important. As I read back through the archives to > see what I missed, I see that some people have misunderstood me to > be calling for censorship. I want to make it clear that I do not > condone censorship. Nor, do I think anybody on this list has done > so. I think everyone wants to maximize the utility of this list. > Unfortunately, we differ on which topics are interesting. There > must be a win-win scenario that allows everyone to discuss extropy- > related topics without destroying anybody else's discussions. > > That is the problem. Surely we can come up with a solution. > > Some have proposed just hitting the delete key on posts we don't > like. This takes a lot of time and effort to sort through many > messages to delete them to find the ones we want. Depending on > one's interests, the work of reading and deleting unwanted posts > could quickly override the value of the interesting posts. Some > people also have limited time to devote to this list. Any time > detracted from the interesting articles diminishes the value of the > list for them. > > Some have proposed using prefixes on postings. These prefixes > would categorize posts with "POLITICS:", "HUMOR:", "TECH:", etc. > This sorts the subjects and makes it easy for people to skip the > categories they don't want. Unfortunately, many people either > forget or refuse to do this. Thus, the system breaks down because > it is not enforced or used. So even if this system "would" work, > it hasn't been put in place, so it "isn't" working. > > Some have proposed filtering messages on the receiving end. This > is simply not possible for many clients in many situations. In > those cases where filtering is possible, it is not easy to develop > filters that consistently block the unwanted material while never > blocking the desired material. Different people have different > threshholds for losing valuable messages. I, for one, cannot > accept any level of false filtering. If a filter blocks a > legitimate message, it is unacceptable to me. Most of the spam > filters and content filters I have reviewed have a high error > rate. I process over a thousand messages per day. An error rate > of even 1/10th of one percent causes me to lose real mail every > day. This is not acceptable to me or my business needs. If anyone > has discovered filtering technology or definitions that actually > identify topic based on content without making mistakes, I would > love to hear about it. > > My favorite method for categorizing posts is to have the divided by > topic. A group could have multiple lists with each list devoted to > a specific topic. Continued discussion and replies automatically > go to the same list. People could subscribe to only those topics > they desire. I do not understand what is wrong with this method. > However, others have objected that they feel demeaned if their > message is not "on-topic" for the most popular or main list. They > don't want their favorite topic relegated to a 'side" list. There > is also a fear that we don't have enough people or topics to > subdivide the list, as if the list would dwindle away to nothing if > we only talked about our favorite topics, and we needed to include > uninteresting topics to prop up the volume. There also seems to be > an element of proselytizing to the audience in political or > religious arguments. The promoters seem to want to deliberately > spread their message far and wide, even to people who don't want to > see it. Such people will resist any method to categorize their > posts so that people can avoid them. They insist that their posts > are "on-topic" and the most important topic of discussion. They > sometimes even insist this to the point of disrupting other threads > or conversations to convert them to their more important topic. > > Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to > proposed solutions to add to this list? > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > _______________________________________________ > 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 27 21:40:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:40:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humanity Sucks In-Reply-To: <43B1AF54.5040109@goldenfuture.net> References: <43B1AF54.5040109@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <3AC3E46C-47B9-4B5A-A804-FC6158B9ABE1@mac.com> It looks like good enough fun for $12, $6 if you get it used. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0741407272/qid=1135719477/sr=8-1/ ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0781050-7799268?n=507846&s=books&v=glance http://tinyurl.com/7c8eq - samantha On Dec 27, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Has anyone read the book "Humanity Sucks: Zen & The Art of > Transhuman Evolution, or Darwin Meets the Buddah at Woodstock" by > Ron Garland? > > I happened to stumble across it, and am mulling over whether it's > worth getting or not. Has anyone here read it? > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 22:03:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:03:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biophotons And The Universal Light Code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to wikipedia: "The detection of these [bio] photons has been made possible due to the development of sensitive modern photomultipliers. Because of this, the existence of this radiation is no longer disputed, while its interpretation is still very much an open question." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton -gts From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 16:18:09 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:18:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > First let me state that politics is not banned on this list. Thanks. This is important. As I read back through the archives to see what I missed, I see that some people have misunderstood me to be calling for censorship. I want to make it clear that I do not condone censorship. Nor, do I think anybody on this list has done so. I think everyone wants to maximize the utility of this list. Unfortunately, we differ on which topics are interesting. There must be a win-win scenario that allows everyone to discuss extropy-related topics without destroying anybody else's discussions. That is the problem. Surely we can come up with a solution. Some have proposed just hitting the delete key on posts we don't like. This takes a lot of time and effort to sort through many messages to delete them to find the ones we want. Depending on one's interests, the work of reading and deleting unwanted posts could quickly override the value of the interesting posts. Some people also have limited time to devote to this list. Any time detracted from the interesting articles diminishes the value of the list for them. Some have proposed using prefixes on postings. These prefixes would categorize posts with "POLITICS:", "HUMOR:", "TECH:", etc. This sorts the subjects and makes it easy for people to skip the categories they don't want. Unfortunately, many people either forget or refuse to do this. Thus, the system breaks down because it is not enforced or used. So even if this system "would" work, it hasn't been put in place, so it "isn't" working. Some have proposed filtering messages on the receiving end. This is simply not possible for many clients in many situations. In those cases where filtering is possible, it is not easy to develop filters that consistently block the unwanted material while never blocking the desired material. Different people have different threshholds for losing valuable messages. I, for one, cannot accept any level of false filtering. If a filter blocks a legitimate message, it is unacceptable to me. Most of the spam filters and content filters I have reviewed have a high error rate. I process over a thousand messages per day. An error rate of even 1/10th of one percent causes me to lose real mail every day. This is not acceptable to me or my business needs. If anyone has discovered filtering technology or definitions that actually identify topic based on content without making mistakes, I would love to hear about it. My favorite method for categorizing posts is to have the divided by topic. A group could have multiple lists with each list devoted to a specific topic. Continued discussion and replies automatically go to the same list. People could subscribe to only those topics they desire. I do not understand what is wrong with this method. However, others have objected that they feel demeaned if their message is not "on-topic" for the most popular or main list. They don't want their favorite topic relegated to a 'side" list. There is also a fear that we don't have enough people or topics to subdivide the list, as if the list would dwindle away to nothing if we only talked about our favorite topics, and we needed to include uninteresting topics to prop up the volume. There also seems to be an element of proselytizing to the audience in political or religious arguments. The promoters seem to want to deliberately spread their message far and wide, even to people who don't want to see it. Such people will resist any method to categorize their posts so that people can avoid them. They insist that their posts are "on-topic" and the most important topic of discussion. They sometimes even insist this to the point of disrupting other threads or conversations to convert them to their more important topic. Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to proposed solutions to add to this list? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From l4point at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 22:37:18 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:37:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html i quote- 'Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth.' mike hayes On 12/27/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I don't personally believe that any of these things are needed. The > list is coming to a consensus slowly and organically about what types > of political discussions have value. I think that is a better > overall and much more realistic solution. > > That said I think prefixes are very useful for sorting messages. I > do not favor multiple lists at all. I have seen topics purged to > other lists only to have some topics and discussions silenced. It > was not at all helpful to the community. > > - samantha > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >> First let me state that politics is not banned on this list. > > > > Thanks. This is important. As I read back through the archives to > > see what I missed, I see that some people have misunderstood me to > > be calling for censorship. I want to make it clear that I do not > > condone censorship. Nor, do I think anybody on this list has done > > so. I think everyone wants to maximize the utility of this list. > > Unfortunately, we differ on which topics are interesting. There > > must be a win-win scenario that allows everyone to discuss extropy- > > related topics without destroying anybody else's discussions. > > > > That is the problem. Surely we can come up with a solution. > > > > Some have proposed just hitting the delete key on posts we don't > > like. This takes a lot of time and effort to sort through many > > messages to delete them to find the ones we want. Depending on > > one's interests, the work of reading and deleting unwanted posts > > could quickly override the value of the interesting posts. Some > > people also have limited time to devote to this list. Any time > > detracted from the interesting articles diminishes the value of the > > list for them. > > > > Some have proposed using prefixes on postings. These prefixes > > would categorize posts with "POLITICS:", "HUMOR:", "TECH:", etc. > > This sorts the subjects and makes it easy for people to skip the > > categories they don't want. Unfortunately, many people either > > forget or refuse to do this. Thus, the system breaks down because > > it is not enforced or used. So even if this system "would" work, > > it hasn't been put in place, so it "isn't" working. > > > > Some have proposed filtering messages on the receiving end. This > > is simply not possible for many clients in many situations. In > > those cases where filtering is possible, it is not easy to develop > > filters that consistently block the unwanted material while never > > blocking the desired material. Different people have different > > threshholds for losing valuable messages. I, for one, cannot > > accept any level of false filtering. If a filter blocks a > > legitimate message, it is unacceptable to me. Most of the spam > > filters and content filters I have reviewed have a high error > > rate. I process over a thousand messages per day. An error rate > > of even 1/10th of one percent causes me to lose real mail every > > day. This is not acceptable to me or my business needs. If anyone > > has discovered filtering technology or definitions that actually > > identify topic based on content without making mistakes, I would > > love to hear about it. > > > > My favorite method for categorizing posts is to have the divided by > > topic. A group could have multiple lists with each list devoted to > > a specific topic. Continued discussion and replies automatically > > go to the same list. People could subscribe to only those topics > > they desire. I do not understand what is wrong with this method. > > However, others have objected that they feel demeaned if their > > message is not "on-topic" for the most popular or main list. They > > don't want their favorite topic relegated to a 'side" list. There > > is also a fear that we don't have enough people or topics to > > subdivide the list, as if the list would dwindle away to nothing if > > we only talked about our favorite topics, and we needed to include > > uninteresting topics to prop up the volume. There also seems to be > > an element of proselytizing to the audience in political or > > religious arguments. The promoters seem to want to deliberately > > spread their message far and wide, even to people who don't want to > > see it. Such people will resist any method to categorize their > > posts so that people can avoid them. They insist that their posts > > are "on-topic" and the most important topic of discussion. They > > sometimes even insist this to the point of disrupting other threads > > or conversations to convert them to their more important topic. > > > > Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to > > proposed solutions to add to this list? > > > > -- > > Harvey Newstrom > > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 22:41:56 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:41:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <6B3757A4-4DB9-441B-8BB3-D198B0A29F87@mac.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6B3757A4-4DB9-441B-8BB3-D198B0A29F87@mac.com> Message-ID: <0c9b5fbd1311e2e67c3eb02dbd0beb6c@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> So the week-long "experiment" isn't over? This is a permanent change >> to the extropy-chat list? Arguing about politics is allowed and even >> encouraged? You think arguing is a form of communication? And that >> it does not drive away the patrons? >> > > Actually a lot of us have decided to stop US-centric colloquial > squabbling or simple stimulus response on political hot buttons > getting pushed in favor of only having those political discussions > here that have direct bearing on extropy or distinct extropic content. This sounds like the old rules. What changed? How does encouraging argument fit in? I love this description so far. > We decide this one by one on thinking about it rather than through > some heavy handed ban. There's that word "ban" again. I missed the discussion where the entire list decided what it wanted. But did anyone really request a ban or censorship? These terms keep coming up, but usually from misunderstanding. Few people actually encourage censorship, even though it is a common accusation. > Sorry if that is not to your tastes. None of this disagrees with my tastes. It was the part about encouraging more politics, encouraging argumentation, and the desire to allow non-extropic topics to be discussed that disturbed me most. Everything you describe sounds like the original rules before the change, as far as I can tell. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 22:45:31 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:45:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <22360fa10512271224s19ed12b6o66a25bd17dac9d91@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <22360fa10512271224s19ed12b6o66a25bd17dac9d91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7eb03704694ceb33b63b759f71a68885@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 12/27/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> Does anybody have any other proposed solutions or objections to >> proposed solutions to add to this list? > > I too get several hundred emails per day and have been effectively > using filters to categorize email into useful groups. I do this too, with most e-mailing lists going into the proper topic. Unfortunately, lists with high politics mixed with other content are harder to split apart. Do you have any filters or keyword lists that works on politics? I have not gotten such content filters to work effectively. I really get annoyed that arguments over Bush and the Iraq war go into my futures technology folder. I love both topics, but it works better for me to face them separately. > The problem I > am increasingly faced with is the poor s/n ratio in most groups. I am > seriously considering adding a new level of filtering, This is the problem that I am facing. I keep having to add more layers of filtering to maintain the system. Instead of working once I have it set up, the system breaks every week or so, and I have to start tinkering with it again. Eventually, it gets easier to just read the posts and delete them. And then when that gets to be too much, it gets easier to just unsubscribe than to bother. Especially when there are other lists that are on-topic in various extropic areas. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Tue Dec 27 22:56:45 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:56:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > On 12/27/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> I have seen topics purged to >> other lists only to have some topics and discussions silenced.??It >> was not at all helpful to the community. A very interesting reaction. I can only imagine that the participants really had no interest in discussing the topics at all. Or else, why would they stop discussing it when the disintersted parties stopped listening? What is it about political arguments or flame-wars that make people refuse to take it offline or elsewhere? Why must their political insults and putdowns be made in front of an audience to have meaning? And is it true that the discussion has no value if the audience is not present? I think this reaction encourages my belief that the topics were a waste of time. I think any valuable topic, with actually facts, exchanges of ideas, and real debate, would flourish and thrive if it were moved to its own special section meant specifically for that purpose. In fact, I would love to see my own personal favorite topics split off this list and made into special lists just for those topics. This would be so focused, on-topic, and limited to those truly interested individuals, that it would be wonderful. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1434 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brian at posthuman.com Tue Dec 27 23:44:04 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:44:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Message Filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B1D1C4.2050501@posthuman.com> The spam filter I use called Popfile allows you to create as many "buckets" as you want and train it using Bayesian methods to filter email into different buckets. It works very well. With enough training I suspect it could quite easily filter posts and posters here that I (or you, if you install Popfile) find interesting into one bucket and everything else into another bucket that I'll occasionally peruse just to keep it trained well. I think I'm getting to the point of doing that actually... Popfile is a free mail proxying program that will work with any mail client that is capable of filtering based on specific header lines. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 27 23:46:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:46:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512272347.jBRNl9e21323@tick.javien.com> > Samantha Atkins wrote: ... > Harvey Newstrom wrote: ... > Natasha Vita-More wrote: ... > BillK wrote: ... > Jef Albright wrote: ... Thanks, do you humans mind if I just listen and not talk during this discussion? If I had the answers I would offer them, but this topic has me stumped. I have learned much so far tho. {8-] When it is all over we need to make a decision on how to appropriately moderate the list. For now, the input is valuable. spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Dec 28 00:29:39 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:29:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: <380-22005123280293947@M2W070.mail2web.com> From: spike >Thanks, do you humans mind if I just listen and not >talk during this discussion? Listening is an honorable feat. Just imagine how cohesive the world could be if more humans listened and then actually thought about what was said. Natasha The best defense is a proactive offense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 01:23:51 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:23:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051226090507.0306e0b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051226090507.0306e0b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/26/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 02:43 PM 12/25/2005, you wrote: > > On 12/24/05, spike wrote: > > > > Can anyone here offer an explanation for this? > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179678,00.html > > > > If this story is true, how to we cause it to spread? > > I don't know much of Senagalese history or politics, nor do I assign a > high priority to learning it at this time, but I can contribute some > thinking on the spread of tolerance. > > In general, intolerance is the result of "moral" decision-making > within too small a context. The world will become increasingly > tolerant of individual and cultural diversity, while becoming less > tolerant of those individuals and groups which violate principles of > mutual growth, as we become increasingly aware of the bigger picture > via increasing access to information. > > We can cause it to spread most effectively by developing and promoting > the tools. The understanding will follow. > > > Yes. And that ought to be one of our preferred goals within transhumanism > - to engage in and tolerance. Further, a strong framework for knowing > boundaries and setting boundaries is also essential to practice tolerance. > Individuals are more tolerant if their boundaries are respected. > Individuals are more willing to be honest if their identities are > respected. > > That's beginning to sound like tautology. Identity is bound up with culture and different cultures have different boundaries. What happens when their freedom impinges on your freedom or vice versa? Who draws the boundary? The answer is either: a) The most powerful b) Neither, as both relinquish elements of their culture through compromise. and if one is not willing to compromise? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 01:27:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:27:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512221900o49afe2a0v9a4c93579071a3ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051228012714.74812.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Politicans and voters don't have to understand the > > entire world in order to avoid destroying it. They > > just have to understand it resembles a game of > > Prisoner's Dilemma where maximizing one's own > payoff > > by defecting not only lowers the utility of the > other > > player but lowers the sum of the utility of both > > players taken as collective. Thus all else being > > equal, any tribe with one or more defectors is > weaker > > than any tribe without. > > ### Do you think any significant number of humans > are aware of this > fact in the context of political activity? (not in > everyday > face-to-face exchanges where most have a good > intuitive grasp of the > correct strategy) Well it depends on what you mean by significant numbers of humans. If you refer to politicians, I would hope that a majority of them have some grasp of game theory as it is one of few parts of "political science" that is at all scientific. As far as the vast number of people that have varying degrees of political involvement ranging from lobbying, activism, to voting or abstaining from such, intelligence makes little difference. The way issues and candidates are framed by the politicos are almost entirely data-free. Million dollar ads are played on TV that reduce the political discourse to meaningless sound bites, essentially "instructing" viewers to vote this way or that based entirely on manufactured reasons or, in many cases, no reason at all. At no point are the true motivations of the political players remotely touched upon. Most of the common person's involvement in politics in supposedly "free" democracies seems to primarily revolve around being distracted, deceived, and misled by the mass media whilst the truly important issues upon which our survival hinges are assidiously obfuscated by those who profess to have our best interests at heart. > > Do you think you have a good definition of > "defection" in the game of > life? Yes. Defection comes in a million forms and manifestations from marital infidelity to genocide. But I see no reason to overthink this. Evolution has gifted us with a rather accurate intuitive sense of what defection is. Some pretty good rules of thumb: 1. If you would not like the other player do this to you, it most likely qualifies as defection. 2. If you would rather keep it secret from the other player that you did this action to them, it is probably a form of defection. 3. If you have to invoke one's moral, cultural, or genetic superiority, oxymoronic doublespeak (e.g. calling it preemptive retaliation), or engage in convoluted rationalizations for doing an action to them, it is probably defection. > Are humans on average smart enough to think > their way through > decades of implications of their actions (e.g. > voting for Social > Security or extending the Patriot Act) to predict > the outcomes? Probably not, but I don't think they need to be. Nor do I think that some supersmart machine would be any better at this. Chaos theory is a good descriptor of such phenomena as long range consequences of actions and the meat of chaos theory is not, "you are not smart enough to determine effects that are far removed from initial causes" so much as "it is mathematically intractable to accurately determine effects that are far removed from initial causes". No SAI is going to be able to brute force the butterfly effect anymore than it will be able to determine which of two radioactive nuclei will be the first to decay. As far as the decade spanning consequences of laws such as Social Security and the USA PATRIOT Act are concerned, it is unnecessary to try to predict their outcomes. All that is necessary is to make laws malleable and easily rescindable. In this we can borrow from the wisdom of nature, which is not to "intelligently design" organisms capable of foreseeing all potential environmental circumstances but instead seeks merely to allow for mutable organisms that can empirically adapt to changing environments. > Do they need to be able to understand the consequences > of their actions > to make correct decisions in the game of life? Yes. But it is also important for them to examine their motives since long-term consequences are often hard to fathom. Somewhere between "the ends not justifying the means" and the "road to hell being paved with good intentions" is a happy medium where acceptable intentions lead to acceptable consequences. Do > humans understand > the consequences of even a small fraction of state > policies they are > involved in? How involved do you think the system allows an average human to become? The whole existense of the attorney/lawyer/barrister/politican as a professional class is a testament to the lengths that society goes to in order to make affairs of state inaccessable to the common man. > > The level of understanding of politicians and > voters > > has nothing to do with the percieved need for SAI. > > Unless of course you are suggesting doing away > with > > democracy entirely and instituting SAD (superhuman > > artifical dictators). If this is the case than I > am > > absolutely against any such use of SAI. Power > tends to > > corrupt. Software tends to be corruptable. > Software > > with absolute power is begging for corruption. > > ### Eliezer noticed this many years ago and this is > why he set out to > design foolproof superhuman software. This is why I > am a strong > supporter of SIAI (doubts regarding the > computability of CEV and the > usefulness of athymhormic AI notwithstanding). Well as my previous posts suggests apathetic SAI (athymhormic?) is a serious possibility. As is outright hostility, flakiness, or insanity. What good is huge intellect when you ask a simple question yet refuse accept the simple answer? What does 2+3 equal when 5 is a politically unacceptable answer? > ------------------------------------------------- > > I will forgive you the implication that I am > > some blood thirsty revolutionary because of the > > actions of the Bolshevics of your homeland are > still > > on your mind. You think because I criticize the > > government and the super-wealthy for the choices > they > > make that I hate them? > > ### Yep. But you could try to convince me otherwise. Hmm. Well, for what it is worth, after a hard rain I step over the worms on the sidewalk instead of on them (if I happen to see them that is). On the other hand, I enthusiastically swat mosquitos that dare feed upon me. Psychoanalyze that as you will. > ### Cool. Tell me just what is your effective way of > "redistributing" > wealth to the morally correct uses without violence > and I will hail > you as our savior. I appreciate your cynicism. I will meditate on this and if I come up with anything I deem worthy of your feedback, I will make it available to 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) __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Dec 28 01:29:03 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:29:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <43B1EA5F.30100@goldenfuture.net> The way I see it, there are several different types of political debate, each of which has more or less relevance to Transhumanist (and Extropian) audiences. * Discussions of PostHuman political organization. I argue that any such discussion is inherently nonsensical, since we as pre-PostHumans can have by definition no idea what a truely PostHuman society will consider to be rational political organization. Our intellects are simply incapable of understanding Politics 2.0. They are, at best, imaginative speculation, and while such discussions may have entertainment value, the participants invariably fall into the trap of imposing such hypothetical systems upon themselves, where they have no context, and the whole thing devolves into a muddle. * Discussions of current political ideology. Here are the classic left/right, collectivist/libertarian, Democrat/Republican, Anti-Bush/Pro-Bush, etc. etc. etc. arguments. The problem here is that people preach only to the choir. Nobody has any hope (or, honestly, intention) of convincing the other side of the correctness of their opinion, any more than a fan of the Patriots is going to have a chance of convincing a Jets fan that the Pats rule. (Except, of course, the Pats really _do_ rule. *grin*) * Discussions of specific legislation, current events and political movements, and their direct impact on current political ideologies. This is largely an outgrowth of the previous category, but can masquerade as something more relevant. Ultimately, the framework of the argument relies on the underlying assumptions, which are tied to ideology, rather than relevance to >H. Example: the discussion about the current Iraq war doesn't really touch on >H directly. Rather, it touches on political ideology and pre-PostHuman political organization. * Discussions of which current political ideologies are best suited to bring about >H goals. This, I think, could have real relevance to >H discussions, and allow a political debate to be held in a manner that was particularly useful. It all comes down to a matter of framework; not whether or not collectivism or libertarianism or mixed-capitalism or the United States or the Soviet Union or Sweden, etc. are "better" or "worse", but rather which (if any) of them is more or less likely to bring about the PostHuman era. * Discussions of specific legislation, current events and political movements, and their direct impact on >H goals. This is specifically different from the third point above, inasmuch as it insists that such discussions remain relevant to >H goals. For example, a discussion about the Iraq war doesn't fall under this category. A discussion about whether the technological spin-offs arising from the war (which ultimately could be argued to help the development of >H technologies) are worth the geopolitical costs (which ultimately could be argued to harm the development of pro->H political systems) would absolutely do so. As a matter of fact, because direct calls for action on specific legislation can land non-profit corporations into trouble tax-wise (it's complicated), I set up two unaffiliated email lists (which have been pretty inactive of late, but which I would love to see get a lot more use); http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TransAct/ purely for announcements and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transact-discuss/ for more general discussion of specific legislation. Just some thoughts. It boils down to the fact that blanket statements about political discussions being worthwhile or not are over-simplifications. Some are, and some are not, and I believe that there are some political discussions which are absolutely vital to all our interests in furthering the advent of the PostHuman world. I should point out, however, that there is a caveat to my neat and (to me, anyway) obvious categorization. There are individuals for whom Transhumanism is only a means to a particular political end, rather than having PostHumanity as the end in and of itself. That is, some seem to see Transhumanism as merely the best way to achieve global Democratic Socialism, or the only way that an Anarcho-Capitalist society will come about, and thus they focus on the ideological goal, rather than focusing on the (post-?)biological goal. Such individuals will continue to pursue their ideological goals, and their discussions (and, I daresay, activities) will slant accordingly. Alas. Joseph From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Wed Dec 28 03:10:55 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:10:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <43B1EA5F.30100@goldenfuture.net> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43B1EA5F.30100@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I should point out, however, that there is a caveat to my neat and (to > me, anyway) obvious categorization. There are individuals for whom > Transhumanism is only a means to a particular political end, rather > than having PostHumanity as the end in and of itself. That is, some > seem to see Transhumanism as merely the best way to achieve global > Democratic Socialism, or the only way that an Anarcho-Capitalist > society will come about, and thus they focus on the ideological goal, > rather than focusing on the (post-?)biological goal. Such individuals > will continue to pursue their ideological goals, and their discussions > (and, I daresay, activities) will slant accordingly. Alas. This last caveat describes virtually every politically-oriented transhumanist I know. Only those who avoid politics like the plague, or those who keep insisting that transhumanism transcends left-right politics, seem to be really interested in transhumanism itself. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 28 03:38:19 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com><200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com><22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.2.20051226090507.0306e0b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <004101c60b60$25d01e40$30893cd1@pavilion> Distance makes the heart grow fond. I.e., this is why we need to get off this rock. Dan From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? That's beginning to sound like tautology. Identity is bound up with culture and different cultures have different boundaries. What happens when their freedom impinges on your freedom or vice versa? Who draws the boundary? The answer is either: a) The most powerful b) Neither, as both relinquish elements of their culture through compromise. and if one is not willing to compromise? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 28 03:46:42 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:46:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com><6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com><0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008901c60b61$5ae61840$30893cd1@pavilion> I offer up Foucault's work as an exemplar of the parasitic and polemical. :) Regards, Dan From: Mike Hayes To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html i quote- 'Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth.' mike hayes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 05:01:51 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:01:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <200512270520.jBR5K7e21552@tick.javien.com> References: <200512270520.jBR5K7e21552@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Brandon, > I experience "visual snow." This is a condition I have had for as long > as I can remember. It's like television static, overlayed on top of > everything I see.... A possible explanation: Life Under The Sun http://home.twcny.rr.com/geomanagement/ensmingr/lifesun.pdf See pages 12-18. It seems rod cells fire randomly, producing visual noise, and that most people filter the noise. > The only reason I don't think this stuff exists inthe observed world is > because other people don't see it. If the human eye is a part of that observed world then don't worry - you're not hallucinating. You may be seeing something real that other people cannot see. -gts From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 05:06:33 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:06:33 -0500 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60512272106u535989c8x4957d7d1374b2638@mail.gmail.com> On 12/24/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > ### As if building a world-spanning apparatus of enforcement, > > ...would stop torture, rather > > than leave no sanctuary for the victims. > > Some believe the best way to protect human rights is to eliminate > states, and some (like me) believe it is to build political cultures and > states that can protect human rights. Since I only see empirical > evidence for the latter, and not the former, I think the burden of proof > is on the anarchists. I would rather have the rights enjoyed by Swedes > than those enjoyed by Somalis. ### We have been over this ground before, even the examples are the same. Let me then repeat some of my previous answers: You cannot compare Swedes and Somalis because they differ in more than political organization - political culture differs as well. Compare Somalis and Rwandans, or rather, the numbers of murdered Somalis and exterminated Rwandans. Compare Swedes with Americans - look at the economic growth rates, general affluence, and cultural diversity to see the pernicious effects of state-enforced conformity. Compare North and South Korea, and then compare Hong Kong and mainland China. Finally, compare the levels of corruption and waste at the UN, as close to the maxi-state as you get, to the corruption and waste in Luxembourg, the mini-state. These valid comparisons are direct empirical evidence that human flourishing happens best when the state is reduced to a minimum necessary to protect private property, which in turn happens best when there is a competition between states for citizens, which in turn crucially depends on the absence of the World Government. Depending on the political culture, the minimum size of the state necessary to assure protection of private property may be a low as zero (i.e. complete absence of the state in some isolated small societies). Conversely, a large state influence invariably destroys the fabric of the society by promoting violence and theft. Therefore, your stated intention of building political cultures capable of protecting the so-called "human rights" (itself a loaded term) is at odds with the means you propose. You are guaranteed to destroy human rights if you were to achieve universal world domination. I am quite confident that the WG would be more similar to 1984 and Uganda than to Sweden. -------------------------------------- > > > Maybe we will be even able to live symbiotically with > > borgans, like intestinal bacteria live in us. > > I'm very impressed with your description of the borganismic evolutionary > possibility, and agree with you. I've talked about the erosion of > discrete, autonomous, continuous individuality as the coming "political > Singularity" since it would be an end of the consensual illusions that > undergird liberal individualism. Our values - such as "one person, one > vote" or "free, fully informed choices" - would become meaningless. Nick > Bostrom has gestured at Borganisms as a "whimper" version of an > existential threat. > > I'm also disturbed by this prospect, as you are, because social > democrats and anarchists share the autonomous individual as a starting > point, even if we come to different conclusions about ideal political > order. As you also suggest, our understanding of the way Borganisms > might work, and what values they might manifest, have been > overly-determined by our experiences with fascism, theocracy and > totalitarianism. (The fear of psycho-engineered totalitarianism is what > led Frank Fukuyama to decide there had not in fact been an "end of > ideology.") It is equally possible that there might be liberal > borganisms, hierarchial or non-hierarchical borganisms, borganisms > devoted only to imperial "self interest" and borganisms that have > "selfless" goal structures. ### Indeed, this is the case. Looks like the farther away we get from talking about current politics, the less we disagree. ------------------------------------------- > Some of the fiction that I think is helpful in imagining these varieties > is: > > - John C. Wright's Phoenix series, which imagines a society in which > humanity has been borged, and de-borged, and now has borganisms and > individuals in co-existence; > > - Alastair Reynolds' idea of the Conjoiners, among whom there is a great > deal of individual identity, although other species fear being absorbed > into their collective; > > - Stephen Baxter's Convergence, which suggests that the evolution of > human collectives into vole-like insectile borganisms is an ever-present > evolutionary dead-end that future individualist posthumans will have to > stamp out like rat nests ### I would also add some books by Greg Egan ("Diaspora"), Robert Heinlein (some of the Methuselah stories feature borganisms), and Stanislaw Lem ("The Invincible"). --------------------------------- > > Bringing it back to world governance, I don't think it would be a step > towards borganism. In fact, since I believe emergent borganisms, like > religious cults and totalitarian states, are likely to be seen as > threats to the rest of us, and global governance will likely be > necessary to suppress borganisms and protect the global individualist > majority as long as possible. > ### Actually I agree with you that the World Government would not necessarily lead to the World Borg but I don't see it as an argument in its favor. The WG could save us from the borg, just as you say, but only by preventing the singularity and by universally suppressing scientific progress. This would lead to a long period of inevitable stagnation and eventual decline into outright tyranny, followed by breakup and titanic bloodshed, similar to what happened in China but on a much bigger scale. Any hopes for personal immortality would be squashed right at the start (just imagine a World-Bush on stem cell work). The WG cure would be likely worse than the Borg disease. I'd rather take my chances with a SAI than give up my life to an anti-progress regime. Luckily, the singularity will most likely happen long before the changes in political culture needed for the formation of the World Government take place. Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 05:19:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:19:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (was Singulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228012714.74812.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051228051926.89276.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> I have emerged from mediation with an idea. The idea is, I believe, a method by which the government can raise extremely substantial funds from the wealthiest Americans on a voluntary basis without bloodshed or any new taxes. The problem I have is this: The idea encompasses only the raising of these funds and does not include any provisions on how to ensure that the money so raised will not merely be wasted by the government, as tax dollars are, on stupid wars but instead judiciously used to promote the survival and welfare of mankind, to ameliorate the plight of the poor and the elderly, to futher scientific research and exploration, and to generally promote extropic ideals. This idea is potentially big enough to do all these things but since only the government can implement this idea, it could also be abused to the detriment of peace and security. Do I tell anyone or do I sit on it? 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 05:22:42 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:22:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Psychoengineering In-Reply-To: <20051225013847.nhxyqwt52zkgk4kw@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> References: <20051225013847.nhxyqwt52zkgk4kw@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <7641ddc60512272122s56abd14tbb6f9b781d7025d2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/24/05, Amara Graps wrote: > > In the stomaches of astronauts? > > Oh, I forgot about the human symbiotes.. thanks for reminding me ! > ### And there is more than gut bacteria - every cell of our body is a borganism descended from the amalgamation of an archean with a protobacterium, giving rise to the nucleus and mitochondria. Mitos are the symbionts that shape the meaning of our life - power, sex, and death. See "Power, Sex, Suicide" by Nick Lane. If one starts counting at the first true replicator, probably a self-synthesizing pre-RNA polymerase, we are already the fourth generation of borg (gene - eukaryont - metazoan - bacterial-mammal composite being) and busily building the fourth (society) and the fifth (borganic AIs). The menagerie is growing. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 28 05:38:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:38:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228051926.89276.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512280540.jBS5eGe14976@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > I have emerged from mediation with an idea... You emerged from mediation? I do hope the judgment went in your favor. {8-] > ... a method by which the government can > raise extremely substantial funds from the wealthiest > Americans on a voluntary basis without bloodshed or > any new taxes... > ... Do I tell anyone or do I sit on it? The Avantguardian... Do tell! Keep in mind however that the government already has such a system, which it has been struggling for years to suppress: donations to the political party of one's choice. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 06:10:33 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:10:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: As if your life depended on it Message-ID: I'll cut to the chase... At least one fundamental problem with the discussion of political preferences is that one does not engage in it "as if your life depended upon it". Sure, there are positions that would claim that but they are really not valid when you take them apart. In the discussion of U.S. vs. war in Iraq I have seen lots of debate about "international law". Get this -- International law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on the line. "National" law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on the line. "Law" is something that might be a good idea on top of "how do we survive?". The question of "how do we survive?" has not been disected by those on the extropian list or in the public discussion forums to a sufficient extent. Otherwise we would be engaged in a discussion of whether we really want an AGI to shove us into a "Matrix" style existance . The Bush vs. non-Bush debate is a no starter here. In terms of a productive discussion you have to start from Thomas Friedman's POV. What are the population trends, what are the education trends, what are the *rational* vs. *irrational* discussion trends? Friedman's perspective (given my abstractions) is that Rumsfeld is "evil" (acting in his own self-interest) and Bush was "duped". These are my best impressions of the "read" of the U.S. media. Yet, in spite of his opposition to the politics, he was still in favor of an invasion of Iraq -- *if* one can win the conflict. As Friedman put it, "winning would be hard, perhaps impossible" but essential -- in contrast to the general poltical perspective that "winning would be easy". I have seen little or no discussion as to why the establishment of a "real" democracy in the Middle East is essential to offset the western developed countries (this includes the U.S., Europe and AU) . Given my impression of Friedman's background I would say that anyone *not* citing him as an authoritative source doesn't know what they are talking about. (I particularly stress this point to liberal U.S. commentators as well as off-shore commentators) Stretching this still further... If extropian principal #7 is "rational thought" -- how does suicide bombing support that? Bottom line: if you are going to debate "politics" on the extropian list -- please do your homework first. Failure to present a "transhumanistic" or "extropic" perspective will tend to be viewed as limited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Dec 28 13:38:32 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:38:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Call for Artists for WTA Online Gallery Message-ID: Call for Artists, Musicians, Writers: "Visions of Utopia and Dystopia" Submission Deadline: 2006-01-30 Exhibition: 2005-02-15 until 2006-04-15 Online Exhibition Space: World Transhumanist Association Gallery Many objections to technological progress cite examples from dystopian fiction, from Frankenstein to Brave New World to Gattaca. At the same time there is a long and broad tradition in the arts, literature, music and film depicting technological progress in its full complexity, envisioning societies as enriched by emerging technologies as they are challenged by them. The curators of the World Transhumanist Association Transhumanist Art Gallery would like to invite artistic submissions for our upcoming online exhibition "Visions of Utopia and Dystopia" which depict, evoke or engage images of humanity transformed by emerging technologies. We will accept any artistic product that can be viewed, read or listened to in an online format, including graphics, poetry, short stories, photography, music, film, electronic games and multi media. Deadline for submissions will be January 30, 2006. There is no entry fee for submissions. Please submit an artist's statement with your piece as well as a short biography. We intend to have the exhibition open for viewing from February 15, 2006 to April 15, 2006. After April 15, 2006 the work will remain in the online gallery, but in the permanent collection rather than in the exhibition space. Please submit no more than three [3] works for consideration. Please do not submit work larger than 100 megabytes. Send all materials under 2 megabytes in size as an attachment to: WTA Co-Curator Dr. Amy Hale at amy at transhumanism.org If your work is larger than 2MB please send Dr. Hale a link to your work so that she can peruse and download it. The! World Transhumanist Association is a nonprofit, educational organization and no profits will be sought from its submissions and/or participants. The World Transhumanist Association advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. For more information see: http://transhumanism.org This information may be freely distributed in its entirety. For questions please contact Dr. Amy Hale at amy at transhumanism.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 13:42:38 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:42:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: As if your life depended on it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/28/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I'll cut to the chase... At least one fundamental problem with the > discussion of political preferences is that one does not engage in it "as if > your life depended upon it". Sure, there are positions that would claim that > but they are really not valid when you take them apart. In the discussion > of U.S. vs. war in Iraq I have seen lots of debate about "international > law". Get this -- International law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on > the line. "National" law has *NO* meaning when ones life is on the line. > "Law" is something that might be a good idea on top of "how do we survive?". > Law is somnething that is supposed to be applied by disinterested parties for the common good. The question of "how do we survive?" has not been disected by those on the > extropian list or in the public discussion forums to a sufficient extent. > Otherwise we would be engaged in a discussion of whether we really want an > AGI to shove us into a "Matrix" style existance . Probably because we do not know how to survive. There seem to be obvious things we should do in order not to die, but far less (in social terms) of what needs to be done to ensure survival. The Bush vs. non-Bush debate is a no starter here. In terms of a productive > discussion you have to start from Thomas Friedman's POV. What are the > population trends, what are the education trends, what are the *rational* > vs. *irrational* discussion trends? > > Friedman's perspective (given my abstractions) is that Rumsfeld is "evil" > (acting in his own self-interest) and Bush was "duped". These are my best > impressions of the "read" of the U.S . media. Yet, in spite of his > opposition to the politics, he was still in favor of an invasion of Iraq -- > *if* one can win the conflict. As Friedman put it, "winning would be hard, > perhaps impossible" but essential -- in contrast to the general poltical > perspective that "winning would be easy". I have seen little or no > discussion as to why the establishment of a "real" democracy in the Middle > East is essential to offset the western developed countries (this includes > the U.S., Europe and AU) . The 'why' is simple. The ME is a festering sore that will continue to export its problems in our direction if we do not do something to heal it. Todays bombers are tomorrows carriers of GE plagues and nukes. The question is 'how'. Given my impression of Friedman's background I would say that anyone *not* > citing him as an authoritative source doesn't know what they are talking > about. (I particularly stress this point to liberalU.S. commentators as > well as off-shore commentators) > > Stretching this still further... If extropian principal #7 is "rational > thought" -- how does suicide bombing support that? If it works, it is by some definition a rational strategy. In fact, one might argue that success is the ultimate test of rationality. Bottom line: if you are going to debate "politics" on the extropian list -- > please do your homework first. Failure to present a "transhumanistic" or > "extropic" perspective will tend to be viewed as limited. Agreed. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 13:49:03 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:49:03 +0000 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threat ofinternational law In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60512272106u535989c8x4957d7d1374b2638@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60512272106u535989c8x4957d7d1374b2638@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/28/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 12/24/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > ### As if building a world-spanning apparatus of enforcement, > > > ...would stop torture, rather > > > than leave no sanctuary for the victims. > > > > Some believe the best way to protect human rights is to eliminate > > states, and some (like me) believe it is to build political cultures and > > states that can protect human rights. Since I only see empirical > > evidence for the latter, and not the former, I think the burden of proof > > is on the anarchists. I would rather have the rights enjoyed by Swedes > > than those enjoyed by Somalis. > > ### We have been over this ground before, even the examples are the > same. Let me then repeat some of my previous answers: > > You cannot compare Swedes and Somalis because they differ in more than > political organization - political culture differs as well. Compare > Somalis and Rwandans, or rather, the numbers of murdered Somalis and > exterminated Rwandans. Compare Swedes with Americans - look at the > economic growth rates, general affluence, and cultural diversity to > see the pernicious effects of state-enforced conformity. Compare North > and South Korea, and then compare Hong Kong and mainland China. > Finally, compare the levels of corruption and waste at the UN, as > close to the maxi-state as you get, to the corruption and waste in > Luxembourg, the mini-state. *http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3737410.stm "** Nordic countries are leading the way in global economic competitiveness, according to a new business survey. * Finland topped the World Economic Forum's (WEF) rankings as the most competitive economy in the world for the second year running. The US took second position, followed by Sweden, Taiwan, Denmark and Norway, while the UK was 11th and Chad bottom of the list of 104 nations." * * > > ------------------------------------------- > > Some of the fiction that I think is helpful in imagining these varieties > > is: > > > > - John C. Wright's Phoenix series, which imagines a society in which > > humanity has been borged, and de-borged, and now has borganisms and > > individuals in co-existence; > > > > - Alastair Reynolds' idea of the Conjoiners, among whom there is a great > > deal of individual identity, although other species fear being absorbed > > into their collective; > > > > - Stephen Baxter's Convergence, which suggests that the evolution of > > human collectives into vole-like insectile borganisms is an ever-present > > evolutionary dead-end that future individualist posthumans will have to > > stamp out like rat nests > > ### I would also add some books by Greg Egan ("Diaspora"), Robert > Heinlein (some of the Methuselah stories feature borganisms), and > Stanislaw Lem ("The Invincible"). > --------------------------------- > > I will add Iain Banks 'Culture' novels. http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 13:54:19 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:54:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Call for Artists for WTA Online Gallery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0512280554o497b4c5sa9d4173327ed742b@mail.gmail.com> Wednesday, 28 December 2005 On 12/28/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > Call for Artists, Musicians, Writers: > [snip] If you haven't already sent this to Anders Sandberg, you might do so. I don't think he subscribes to ExI-chat ot WTA-talk. He has a great deal of >H-themed renderings. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 14:01:08 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:01:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? In-Reply-To: <004101c60b60$25d01e40$30893cd1@pavilion> References: <200512250540.jBP5e5e22868@tick.javien.com> <200512250644.jBP6ife27789@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10512251243s1744906dy2ca93c7d04d67e1c@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051226090507.0306e0b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <004101c60b60$25d01e40$30893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: And my view, succinctly, since we cannot get away is: Strong fences and clear, consistently enforced rules coupled with MYOB makes good neighbours. Dirk On 12/28/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > Distance makes the heart grow fond. I.e., this is why we need to get off > this rock. > > Dan > > *From:* Dirk Bruere > *To:* ExI chat list > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [extropy-chat] why do the senegalese get along? > > That's beginning to sound like tautology. > Identity is bound up with culture and different cultures have different > boundaries. What happens when their freedom impinges on your freedom or vice > versa? Who draws the boundary? > The answer is either: > a) The most powerful > b) Neither, as both relinquish elements of their culture through > compromise. > > and if one is not willing to compromise? > > 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 jpnitya at verizon.net Wed Dec 28 16:39:30 2005 From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:39:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Heavy Metal In-Reply-To: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051222020449955@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20051228110959.01e2be60@incoming.verizon.net> This post is a bit late but I was away for the holidays, and since heavy metal is my favorite music style I thought I could share my opinions. Like Dirk mentioned, the best bands typically are from Germany and Scandinavia. Probably my favorite band is Blind Guardian from Germany, a power metal band -- fast songs with a strong guitar mix, particularly in the latest albums. Old Helloween is good too, particularly the Keeper of the Seven Keys albums -- there are two of them. Therion is nice, like Dirk said, but I didn't like their latest albums -- "Theli" is my favorite from them. Opeth is an incredible and unique death metal band; check out the album "Morningrise" -- others are good too. Other good bands are Amorphis ("Elegy" is their best album), Rhapsody (Italian symphonic metal), and Nightwish (like someone has already mentioned). For speed metal, the best band is Sonata Arctica -- very fast, very melodious songs that are great to play in the guitar. All their albums are excellent and their latest album, "Reckoning Night," is just amazing. Stratovarius may be worth checking out too -- their last 3/4 albums are all similar in quality and style. After Metallica -- the old Metallica of "Ride the Lightning" and "Master of Puppets" -- the best American band is Virgin Steele. Check out their album "Invictus." Dream Theater *were* nice too. Their "Images and Words" album was excellent, but forget about their recent works. Also, if you're into guitars, Testament would be worth checking out too -- not a big fan myself, though I recognize their guitar skills. Lastly, you might look at my songs. I haven't made a new one in 6 years but many of the songs I used to make are heavy metal: http://music.senescence.info/songs.html For more pure metal songs, check out: http://music.senescence.info/nordens.mp3 http://music.senescence.info/storm.mp3 Cheers, Joao At 03:04 PM 20/12/2005, you wrote: >This is off my radar, but does anyone know the now sound of cutting edge >heavy metal bands? I'm looking for a strong guitar mix. Who would you >recommend? > >Thanks, >Natasha > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 17:03:33 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:03:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary Message-ID: This is the 3rd time I've tried to compose this message. Maybe I'll get it right this time. The political commentary I've seen has been totally without reference to Thomas Friedman's comments in this area. Sad Sad Sad... He has been there, he has looked at the trends quite objectively and can quite clearly can make a case for going to war in Iraq in spite of the mishandling by Rumsfeld and Bush. I would view any "political" commentary which does not include Friedman's perspective as incompletely informed. (So, to the "political" commentators -- *shut up* until you have read what Friedman has written and observed the shows on which he has spoken -- he has a grasp of the "big" picture which is lacking in most political discussions.) Backing it up a level -- it gets into a discussion of extropian principles as to how should one deal with individuals who are incapable of "rational thought". It becomes important if one considers that there are more "irrational" operators on the planet than "rational" operators. So any references to the United Nations, "International Law", Kyoto treaties, etc. have to be framed within the perspective of rational vs. irrational operators. It is completely acceptable (IMO) to reject *any* international treaty, law, etc. if my own personal survival requires it. So, the question at hand, from an extropic perspective, is *who* is engaging in rational thought and should you give a f*** with regard to those who are not? [1] [2] Robert 1. I would note that the possible atomic bombing of Muslim holy sites by an elected U.S. congressman (from Colorado) as a response to terrorist attacks on the U.S. by "irrational" thinkers. 2. I would point out *from Friedman* that the second largest muslim population within a "state" is in India. And they generally do not have a problem with constructing an environment where *all* may participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 28 17:15:58 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:15:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Call for Artists for WTA Online Gallery In-Reply-To: <5366105b0512280554o497b4c5sa9d4173327ed742b@mail.gmail.com > References: <5366105b0512280554o497b4c5sa9d4173327ed742b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051228111012.02f77008@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:54 AM 12/28/2005, Jay wrote: >Wednesday, 28 December 2005 > >On 12/28/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > > Call for Artists, Musicians, Writers: > > >[snip] > >If you haven't already sent this to Anders Sandberg, you might do so. >I don't think he subscribes to ExI-chat ot WTA-talk. He has a great >deal of >H-themed renderings. Why have the theme about dystopia and utopia for a first exhibition? These terms are outdated and been kicked around in the art world for a long time. Is there something that I am missing? 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 17:24:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:24:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/28/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > 2. I would point out *from Friedman* that the second largest muslim > population within a "state" is in India. And they generally do not have a > problem with constructing an environment where *all* may participate. > > ???!!! You mean apart from thousands killed at fairly regular intervals in communal violence that, anywhere else, would be called a small war. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 17:42:38 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:42:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dirk, I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 18:01:51 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:01:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dirk, I am unaware of the possible problems you point out (bad my perspective). My comments were based upon Friedman's comments with respect to Muslim actresses and Muslim software entrepreneurs being successful in what one would expect to be a hostile environment. This does not however subtract from the main point I was trying to make -- *when* are you dealing with "rational" actors and when are you dealing with "irrational" actors? One of Friedman's contributions is to project forward the "rational" behavior of large numbers of individuals which may be built upon an irrational foundation (IMO). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 18:21:02 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:21:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/28/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Dirk, I am unaware of the possible problems you point out (bad my > perspective). > > My comments were based upon Friedman's comments with respect to Muslim > actresses and Muslim software entrepreneurs being successful in what one > would expect to be a hostile environment. > > Well, yes. Because a) they have relinquished a major segment of Muslim culture. b) they are far smarter than the average person c) India is the worlds largest democracy. I would be more impressed if they had succeeded in a Muslim culture. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 28 19:47:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:47:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > >> On 12/27/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> I have seen topics purged to >>> other lists only to have some topics and discussions silenced. It >>> was not at all helpful to the community. > > A very interesting reaction. I can only imagine that the > participants really had no interest in discussing the topics at > all. Or else, why would they stop discussing it when the > disintersted parties stopped listening? What is it about political > arguments or flame-wars that make people refuse to take it offline > or elsewhere? Why must their political insults and putdowns be > made in front of an audience to have meaning? And is it true that > the discussion has no value if the audience is not present? > Perhaps but I think the topics were sufficiently important in the context of the original list that moving them elsewhere lost context, Also, if we say effectively "all this political stuff many of you think sucks will move over here" a lot of even the people who think politics important will not use the other list. I am not sure of all the reasons why. Some of the most passionate voices who actually care a great deal about the community and its main topics but also care about political things become frustrated and leave. At least this is what I saw before. Although in that case the filtering and moving of political messages also seemed to be biased to certain types of politics, specifically more libertarian views. This added to the failure of this "solution". > I think this reaction encourages my belief that the topics were a > waste of time. I think any valuable topic, with actually facts, > exchanges of ideas, and real debate, would flourish and thrive if > it were moved to its own special section meant specifically for > that purpose. In fact, I would love to see my own personal > favorite topics split off this list and made into special lists > just for those topics. This would be so focused, on-topic, and > limited to those truly interested individuals, that it would be > wonderful. > I haven't seen this work and I don't believe it will re politics on this list and community. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 20:00:23 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:00:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <200512280540.jBS5eGe14976@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Do tell! Keep in mind however that the government > already has such a system, which it has been > struggling > for years to suppress: donations to the political > party of one's choice. But donations to political parties is nowhere near the same thing. It is not money being spent by the wealthy for the public weal, it is instead a method by which those individuals ensure that any incoming government does their bidding. It is done so that government caters to the interests of a small minority, often at the expense of the public at large. This ugly situation is what makes me so reluctant to divulge my idea. Last thing we need is for the government use this additional money to buy more missiles, bombs, and bullets. Defense contracts makes up the overwhelming majority of public expenditure, and we spend more of our hard earned tax money on these things than the rest of the world combined. Who exactly is the enemy? Arabs with box cutters? Or are we just trying to pick fights wherever we can? I for one would like see us reach a point on production possibilities curve that allows for more butter and fewer guns. Or barring that, the goverment ought to share all the guns it is hoarding with the rank and file of it's citizenry. After all, I would feel far safer and more dignified with a .45 in my carry-on luggage than with some TSA mouthbreather feeling me up in the airport. But I digress. Any money raised by my idea ought to go to humanitarian causes. Agencies such as the NIH, NSA, NASA (especially their NEO deflection guys), Social Security, Medicare, or even the National Endowment of the Arts. In short, it would probably be for the best if congress kept its greedy and inept mitts off of this "fund". My idea is relatively straight forward. It is based in large part on my thoughts on the economic principle of diminishing marginal utility. Money, like any other commodity, is subject to this phenomenon. In a nutshell, you have one widget, it is exceptionally useful. You get a second widget and it is a little less useful. If you have a hundred widgets than you will probably not get much use out of your 101st widget. The same would apply to money. Bill Gates's first billion was probably very useful to him. He might even have thrown a party to celebrate. His 40th billion, however, he probably hardly noticed. So if money is subject to the law of diminishing marginal utility, what possible motivation is there for amassing huge amounts of it? Is it simply how billionaires keep "score" of who is the better at playing the "game"? The problem is that what is to them a "game", is to the people on the bottom rungs on the social ladder, no less than life and death. So do people with multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, and luxury cars continue to amass personal wealth at the expense of the poor because they are sadistic and enjoy watching people suffer? I think not. I think that there are several forces at work here. For one thing, the structure of the economy is such that it allows for a certain critical mass of wealth beyond which it is very difficult to actually "spend" ones money. Anything one buys becomes an assett and the naturally diversified investments of people that are looking for something to do with their money bring fairly steady returns. If they give money to charity, they get some of it back in tax write-offs. In short, it is difficult for the truly wealthy to "dispose" of their disposable income. Another factor is the role of money as a status indicator. I believe it truly becomes how billionaires establish their "pecking order" or "keep score". To saddle them with with laws prohibiting them from amassing further wealth would be like telling an olympic runner that she is not allowed to run faster than a certain speed. In view of these thoughts that I had, my challenge was to find a way to appropriate the wealth of the super-wealthy without harming them or endangering their hard-won social status. Short of complicated reforms of the banking system and retooling the very concepts of interest rates and insurance, the best and simplest idea I could come up with was "vanity money". The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. Every year the U.S. Treasury Department removes some of the old currency from circulation and replaces it with about $20 billion dollars worth of crisp new bills and coins. My idea is rather simple. They say the capitalists motto is "he who dies with the most toys wins". I say why wait until the billionaires die to tally the score? Let them enter the "hall of fame" during their lifetimes and reset the "game". So we set up a government service that would allow the treasury department to sell off (either for exorbiantly high set prices or competive auction style bids) the various denominations of currency for a given year. The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a defined time period would feature the "winner's" picture on it. What greater honor could a capitalist society bestow upon its most successful capitalists than to print or stamp their faces on its currency? This is a positive sum solution because despite the loss of a sizable portion of the donors wealth there is concomitant validation and possibly even increase of their percieved social status. And if the money so recieved is managed properly, our children get educated, our elderly get their medications, and extinction from plague or asteroids gets averted. It's win-win all the way around. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 28 20:01:26 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:01:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43B1EA5F.30100@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <3E9365BA-B097-419C-8BE3-237F0BC025B7@mac.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> I should point out, however, that there is a caveat to my neat and >> (to me, anyway) obvious categorization. There are individuals for >> whom Transhumanism is only a means to a particular political end, >> rather than having PostHumanity as the end in and of itself. That >> is, some seem to see Transhumanism as merely the best way to >> achieve global Democratic Socialism, or the only way that an >> Anarcho-Capitalist society will come about, and thus they focus on >> the ideological goal, rather than focusing on the (post-?) >> biological goal. Such individuals will continue to pursue their >> ideological goals, and their discussions (and, I daresay, >> activities) will slant accordingly. Alas. > > This last caveat describes virtually every politically-oriented > transhumanist I know. Only those who avoid politics like the > plague, or those who keep insisting that transhumanism transcends > left-right politics, seem to be really interested in transhumanism > itself. That seems to be an unneeded dichotomy. Many seem to believe that only political structure X is likely to enable us to reach >human goals. Others believe that reaching >human goals alone is not sufficient for a future they would wish to inhabit. Personally I agree that left-right politics are meaningless. I think that only a political situation that preserves significant individual freedom beyond the rule of even the majority gives our only real hope of the outliers being free to act. Without that I do not believe humanity will get to a significantly >human future. But I don't have a pre- ordained political outcome that I simply use transhumanism to advance even though I am a devoted libertarian. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 28 20:07:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:07:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (was Singulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228051926.89276.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051228051926.89276.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hmm. I would go back and meditate on why you believe it is right or even beneficial to expropriate the property of some for the needs of others. Is what you are proposing really "voluntary"? After all the income tax is supposedly "voluntary". If I were wealthy could I simply refuse to contribute to this scheme with no retribution coming to me as a result? - samantha On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:19 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I have emerged from mediation with an idea. The idea > is, I believe, a method by which the government can > raise extremely substantial funds from the wealthiest > Americans on a voluntary basis without bloodshed or > any new taxes. The problem I have is this: The idea > encompasses only the raising of these funds and does > not include any provisions on how to ensure that the > money so raised will not merely be wasted by the > government, as tax dollars are, on stupid wars but > instead judiciously used to promote the survival and > welfare of mankind, to ameliorate the plight of the > poor and the elderly, to futher scientific research > and exploration, and to generally promote extropic > ideals. This idea is potentially big enough to do all > these things but since only the government can > implement this idea, it could also be abused to the > detriment of peace and security. Do I tell anyone or > do I sit on it? > > > 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 jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 28 20:12:46 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:12:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <3E9365BA-B097-419C-8BE3-237F0BC025B7@mac.com> References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43B1EA5F.30100@goldenfuture.net> <3E9365BA-B097-419C-8BE3-237F0BC025B7@mac.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512281212r4d89be02x69e557de10b71848@mail.gmail.com> On 12/28/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > That seems to be an unneeded dichotomy. Many seem to believe that > only political structure X is likely to enable us to reach >human > goals. Others believe that reaching >human goals alone is not > sufficient for a future they would wish to inhabit. Personally I > agree that left-right politics are meaningless. I think that only a > political situation that preserves significant individual freedom > beyond the rule of even the majority gives our only real hope of the > outliers being free to act. Without that I do not believe humanity > will get to a significantly >human future. But I don't have a pre- > ordained political outcome that I simply use transhumanism to advance > even though I am a devoted libertarian. I'm looking forward to an improved framework for social decision-making where individuals can agree on the intended *principles* for arriving at good solutions, rather than needing to agree a priori on intended *solutions.* - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 28 20:15:56 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:15:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: As if your life depended on it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77DC5DA2-1C8C-4868-8EA8-CD3FC941F8C7@mac.com> On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Friedman's perspective (given my abstractions) is that Rumsfeld is > "evil" (acting in his own self-interest) and Bush was "duped". > These are my best impressions of the "read" of the U.S . media. > Yet, in spite of his opposition to the politics, he was still in > favor of an invasion of Iraq -- *if* one can win the conflict. As > Friedman put it, "winning would be hard, perhaps impossible" but > essential -- in contrast to the general poltical perspective that > "winning would be easy". I have seen little or no discussion as to > why the establishment of a "real" democracy in the Middle East is > essential to offset the western developed countries (this includes > the U.S., Europe and AU) . > What precisely can be won in this? Is what can be won more important than bedrock perhaps illusory principles that keep an unsteady international peace? Do you personally believe our goal was or is the establishment of democracy in Iraq? Do you believe that can be established by invasion and force even among a people who have relatively little basis for it? Do you believe that democracy alone is an unlimited good that justifies any means? > Given my impression of Friedman's background I would say that > anyone *not* citing him as an authoritative source doesn't know > what they are talking about. (I particularly stress this point to > liberal U.S. commentators as well as off-shore commentators) He has some good points and many quite questionable notions as well. > > Stretching this still further... If extropian principal #7 is > "rational thought" -- how does suicide bombing support that? > How does invading a country and imposing foreign forms of government on it support rational thought? - samantha From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Dec 28 20:56:08 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:56:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: <380-220051232820568467@M2W034.mail2web.com> From: Jef Allbright >I'm looking forward to an improved framework for social >decision-making where individuals can agree on the intended >*principles* for arriving at good solutions, rather than needing to >agree a priori on intended *solutions.* The Proactionary Principle! -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 21:11:00 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:11:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:00:23 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. ... > The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the > bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a > defined time period would feature the "winner's" > picture on it. Interesting idea. > Any money raised by my idea ought to go to > humanitarian causes. Limiting the funds to humanitarian causes might be your only hope of garnering support from those who would balk at the idea of enshrining rich capitalists on our currency. Even then I think a large percentage of people would find it distasteful. A similar but more political feasible idea might be national lotteries sponsored by and named after the philanthropists. A donor could for example agree to match funds raised from public ticket sales up to some predetermined amount, increasing the government's take while and also increasing the jackpots for the winners. The donor's photogragh could be on each lottery ticket. -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 28 21:43:44 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:43:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of > Wealth(wasSingulartarians) > > > > --- spike wrote: > > > Do tell! ... > > The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. Avant, I like this idea. We should be able to figure out some way to prevent counterfeiting. This idea is better than the lottery in many ways. Regarding your other paragraphs, you might be better off posting the original idea as a stand-alone, perhaps just one paragraph. Reason: the other material demonstrates wealth-as-a-fixed-sum assumption. For instance: > ...people with multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, > and luxury cars continue to amass personal wealth at > the expense of the poor because they are sadistic and > enjoy watching people suffer? I think not. I think not as well, for wealth is not amassed at the expense of the poor. Rather, wealth is amassed to the benefit of the poor, even if indirectly. If someone buys mansions, yachts and private jets, someone is paid to build them, so those people are no longer poor, so these buy cheaper stuff which is also made and sold by people who are no longer poor as a result. Everyone wins. Wealth creates wealth. Large piles of wealth in the hands of an individual creates larger piles of wealth. Wealth in the hands of government, well I'll let you decide if that is a harm or a benefit. Perhaps both. >... So if money is subject to the law of diminishing > marginal utility... The Avantguardian In some ways, wealth is subject to the law of inverse diminishing utility, or rather advancing marginal utility. If you have a ton of it, you can set up factories that create enormous economies of scale. We sometimes lose sight of this because we do not realize how cheap consumer goods have become. Consider for instance your car. Go out and really look at the machine. Especially if you ever do mechanical work on it, you will see how remarkably sophisticated is that device. Yet they are routinely sold for a couple months gross salary for a prole. Used and out-of- fashion but still functional cars can be bought for a week's salary. A decent computer can be had for a day's pay. Why? Because enormous piles of wealth have been amassed, by individuals and by corporate sale of stock. Unimaginable wealth has been created out of dirt. Friends, I offer you a message of great rejoicing! We are rich as all hell, so damn wealthy we *don't even realize how well-off we are.* Even our poor have hamburger and cell phones. Do ponder this, early and often. President Reagan's efforts to explain this trickle-down economy was met mostly with ridicule (voodoo economy etc) but the man was absolutely right. To get any economy moving, we must encourage wild self-indulgent spending by the people who have it. Your notion of vanity money might help do this. spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 28 22:22:39 2005 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:22:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051228222239.23501.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Any idea to help other people can only be beneficial. I agree that the idea is a little "tacky", but I think it would work. Ego is what makes a person crave money, therefore, it would seem very likely that your idea might work. Just an opinion Anna The Avantguardian wrote: --- spike wrote: > Do tell! Keep in mind however that the government > already has such a system, which it has been > struggling > for years to suppress: donations to the political > party of one's choice. But donations to political parties is nowhere near the same thing. It is not money being spent by the wealthy for the public weal, it is instead a method by which those individuals ensure that any incoming government does their bidding. It is done so that government caters to the interests of a small minority, often at the expense of the public at large. This ugly situation is what makes me so reluctant to divulge my idea. Last thing we need is for the government use this additional money to buy more missiles, bombs, and bullets. Defense contracts makes up the overwhelming majority of public expenditure, and we spend more of our hard earned tax money on these things than the rest of the world combined. Who exactly is the enemy? Arabs with box cutters? Or are we just trying to pick fights wherever we can? I for one would like see us reach a point on production possibilities curve that allows for more butter and fewer guns. Or barring that, the goverment ought to share all the guns it is hoarding with the rank and file of it's citizenry. After all, I would feel far safer and more dignified with a .45 in my carry-on luggage than with some TSA mouthbreather feeling me up in the airport. But I digress. Any money raised by my idea ought to go to humanitarian causes. Agencies such as the NIH, NSA, NASA (especially their NEO deflection guys), Social Security, Medicare, or even the National Endowment of the Arts. In short, it would probably be for the best if congress kept its greedy and inept mitts off of this "fund". My idea is relatively straight forward. It is based in large part on my thoughts on the economic principle of diminishing marginal utility. Money, like any other commodity, is subject to this phenomenon. In a nutshell, you have one widget, it is exceptionally useful. You get a second widget and it is a little less useful. If you have a hundred widgets than you will probably not get much use out of your 101st widget. The same would apply to money. Bill Gates's first billion was probably very useful to him. He might even have thrown a party to celebrate. His 40th billion, however, he probably hardly noticed. So if money is subject to the law of diminishing marginal utility, what possible motivation is there for amassing huge amounts of it? Is it simply how billionaires keep "score" of who is the better at playing the "game"? The problem is that what is to them a "game", is to the people on the bottom rungs on the social ladder, no less than life and death. So do people with multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, and luxury cars continue to amass personal wealth at the expense of the poor because they are sadistic and enjoy watching people suffer? I think not. I think that there are several forces at work here. For one thing, the structure of the economy is such that it allows for a certain critical mass of wealth beyond which it is very difficult to actually "spend" ones money. Anything one buys becomes an assett and the naturally diversified investments of people that are looking for something to do with their money bring fairly steady returns. If they give money to charity, they get some of it back in tax write-offs. In short, it is difficult for the truly wealthy to "dispose" of their disposable income. Another factor is the role of money as a status indicator. I believe it truly becomes how billionaires establish their "pecking order" or "keep score". To saddle them with with laws prohibiting them from amassing further wealth would be like telling an olympic runner that she is not allowed to run faster than a certain speed. In view of these thoughts that I had, my challenge was to find a way to appropriate the wealth of the super-wealthy without harming them or endangering their hard-won social status. Short of complicated reforms of the banking system and retooling the very concepts of interest rates and insurance, the best and simplest idea I could come up with was "vanity money". The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. Every year the U.S. Treasury Department removes some of the old currency from circulation and replaces it with about $20 billion dollars worth of crisp new bills and coins. My idea is rather simple. They say the capitalists motto is "he who dies with the most toys wins". I say why wait until the billionaires die to tally the score? Let them enter the "hall of fame" during their lifetimes and reset the "game". So we set up a government service that would allow the treasury department to sell off (either for exorbiantly high set prices or competive auction style bids) the various denominations of currency for a given year. The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a defined time period would feature the "winner's" picture on it. What greater honor could a capitalist society bestow upon its most successful capitalists than to print or stamp their faces on its currency? This is a positive sum solution because despite the loss of a sizable portion of the donors wealth there is concomitant validation and possibly even increase of their percieved social status. And if the money so recieved is managed properly, our children get educated, our elderly get their medications, and extinction from plague or asteroids gets averted. It's win-win all the way around. 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 --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 28 22:29:14 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:29:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:43 PM 12/28/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >Wealth creates wealth. Large piles of wealth in >the hands of an individual creates larger piles >of wealth. Wealth in the hands of government, well >I'll let you decide if that is a harm or a >benefit. Perhaps both.... This is too simplistic to be useful. We need to look closely at the fine grain of how this aggregated wealth is spent by govt to know if it's better or worse than having it dispersed among many or aggregated by private owners (cf. national health in Oz and Canada vs. private funds in USA, where the latter notoriously have ludicrously excessive skimming from the top, pushing up costs). Does anyone here suppose centralized government (or dispersed govt for that matter) never uses such aggregated wealth as a multiplier? It doesn't vanish when it goes into the imaginary pocket of the wealthy individual, but neither does it vanish when Uncle Sam or whoever gets ahold of it. >In some ways, wealth is subject to the law of >inverse diminishing utility, or rather advancing >marginal utility. If you have a ton of it, you >can set up factories that create enormous economies >of scale. And this differs from govt spending how? Because bureaucracies comprise cowards who have to watch their asses, never making bold decisions? Because they make too many reckless decisions, never having to worry about where the money's coming from? What? (I'm not saying there's no difference, plainly there often is, but then govt and private enterprises are set up with different, often mutually exclusive, tasks from the outset.) Damien Broderick From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Wed Dec 28 22:54:57 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:54:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Perhaps but I think the topics were sufficiently important in the > context of the original list that moving them elsewhere lost context,? > Also, if we say effectively "all this political stuff many of you > think sucks will move over here" a lot of even the people who think > politics important will not use the other list.? I am not sure of all > the reasons why.? Some of the most passionate voices who actually care > a great deal about the community and its main topics but also care > about political things become frustrated and leave.? ?At least this is > what I saw before.? Although in that case the filtering and moving of > political messages also seemed to be biased to certain types of > politics, specifically more libertarian views.? This added to the > failure of this "solution". Yes. As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because different people have different criteria for the list. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 28 22:55:53 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:55:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] another sf prophecy fulfilled, maybe Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228165125.01cd3df8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> (alas): Terror attack kills professor in Indian Institute of Science Thursday, 29 December , 2005, 03:48 Bangalore: Suspected terrorists barged into the prestigious Indian Institute of Science (IISc) campus on Wednesday evening and opened fire indiscriminately killing a retired professor of IIT Delhi and injuring four others. Prof M C Puri, Professor Emiratus of Mathematics Department of IIT Delhi, fell victim as the gunmen sprayed bullets from an AK-47 rifle as delegates attending an international conference were proceeding for dinner outside the J N Tata Auditorium at around 07.20 pm. Four others -- Pankaj Gupta from Delhi, Patalappa (alias Patel) working for Cadilla Pharmaceutical firm, Vijay Chandru, involved in the team that developed hand-held computer 'Simputer' and Sonia, from IIM Lucknow were injured. The four were operated upon at M S Ramaiah Memorial Hospital and Mallige hospital and were reported to be out of danger. Sources said the possibility of the attack being the handiwork of terrorists could not be ruled out given the nature of automatic weapon used in the strike and the recovery of a grenade. The institute is on the hit list of terror groups, including Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. Karnataka Director General of Police B S Sial, quoting security guards in the campus and eyewitnesses, said not more than one person was involved in the attack but added that the claims would be checked again. [?? cf. "gunmen" above] From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 22:55:39 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:55:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: It would destabilize the currency. $20 notes bearing Kenneth Lay's photo (former Enron Chairman) printed a few years ago would be worth less or more (probably less) today than $20 notes bearing Bill Gates' photo printed this year. People would be trading these things on ebay like baseball cards and cabbage patch dolls. We would have no idea about the real money supply. Probably the increased risk of ownership would cause the US dollar to tank on world markets. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 23:13:17 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:13:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] another sf prophecy fulfilled, maybe In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228165125.01cd3df8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228165125.01cd3df8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/28/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > (alas): > > Terror attack kills professor in Indian Institute of Science > > Thursday, 29 December , 2005, 03:48 > Bangalore: Suspected terrorists barged into the prestigious Indian > Institute of Science (IISc) campus on Wednesday evening and opened fire > indiscriminately killing a retired professor of IIT Delhi and injuring > four > others. > > Prof M C Puri, Professor Emiratus of Mathematics Department of IIT Delhi, > fell victim as the gunmen sprayed bullets from an AK-47 rifle as delegates > attending an international conference were proceeding for dinner outside > the J N Tata Auditorium at around 07.20 pm. > > Four others -- Pankaj Gupta from Delhi, Patalappa (alias Patel) working > for > Cadilla Pharmaceutical firm, Vijay Chandru, involved in the team that > developed hand-held computer 'Simputer' and Sonia, from IIM Lucknow were > injured. > > The four were operated upon at M S Ramaiah Memorial Hospital and Mallige > hospital and were reported to be out of danger. > > Sources said the possibility of the attack being the handiwork of > terrorists could not be ruled out given the nature of automatic weapon > used > in the strike and the recovery of a grenade. The institute is on the hit > list of terror groups, including Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. > > Karnataka Director General of Police B S Sial, quoting security guards in > the campus and eyewitnesses, said not more than one person was involved in > the attack but added that the claims would be checked again. [?? cf. > "gunmen" above] > > If you really want to hurt a nation you do not attack politicians, soldiers, police or ordinary people. You kill engineers and scientists, blow up universities and laboratories. Shoot anyone conected with foreign investment. Destroy very high value targets like wafer fabs etc. What got the IRA into serious negotiations with the British govt was the series of $billion attacks on the City of London, the financial centre and subsequent threats by foreign money to leave because it was becoming unsafe. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 23:16:47 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:16:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] No time to think? Message-ID: CNN has an article about the Age of Information Overload. With a few keystrokes, we'll soon be able to tap much of the world's knowledge. And we'll do it from nearly anywhere -- already, newer iPods can carry all your music, digital photos and such TV classics as "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" along with more contemporary prime-time fare. Will all this instantly accessible information make us much smarter, or simply more stressed? When can we break to think, absorb and ponder all this data? "If you fill every waking minute with more media, you never do any independent thinking," Nielsen said. "You may have all the specific pieces of information, but the higher level is knowledge and understanding. You don't have time for that reflection if it's being thrown at you at never-ending streams". End quotes. --------------------- This is what I see happening to the younger generation. They have an iPod playing music in their ears, while they read and send text messages on their mobile phone, almost oblivious to their surroundings or companions. Do they ever have a quiet time to actually think about things? BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 23:43:19 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:43:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] No time to think? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/28/05, BillK wrote: > > CNN has an article about the Age of Information Overload. > > > > With a few keystrokes, we'll soon be able to tap much of the world's > knowledge. And we'll do it from nearly anywhere -- already, newer > iPods can carry all your music, digital photos and such TV classics as > "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" along with more contemporary prime-time > fare. > > Will all this instantly accessible information make us much smarter, > or simply more stressed? When can we break to think, absorb and ponder > all this data? > > "If you fill every waking minute with more media, you never do any > independent thinking," Nielsen said. "You may have all the specific > pieces of information, but the higher level is knowledge and > understanding. You don't have time for that reflection if it's being > thrown at you at never-ending streams". > > End quotes. > --------------------- > > This is what I see happening to the younger generation. They have an > iPod playing music in their ears, while they read and send text > messages on their mobile phone, almost oblivious to their surroundings > or companions. > > Do they ever have a quiet time to actually think about things? > Not like our healthy generation who spent 6 hours a day watching TV and listening to 'pop' on our 'transistor radios'. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Dec 29 00:09:35 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:09:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: <380-2200512429093562@M2W142.mail2web.com> From: Harvey Newstrom > As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some >segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone >finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the >audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because >different people have different criteria for the list. My ideal discussion would be to approach an issue/problem from multidisciplinary, and domain-diversity, viewpoints. Rather than beating the donkey or elephant silly, it would be more extropic to take an issue such as getting vaccines to developing countries or proactively fighting for individual (human) rights and work at finding a solution. For example, if a topic is "POL-STEE: Vaccines & Dev. Countries," posters would apply domain-diversity in their suggested solutions by looking at the issue from social, technological, economic and environmental perspectives. Rather than pushing party politics, posters would push the domain "ideas" to solve the problem. In the end, this would mean that the solution finding would be non-partisan and focused on solutions rather than personal politics. I hope I explained this clearly enough. I could illustrate this in PowerPoint by creating a large circle that would be "issue" and smaller circles that would represent different domains and how they link in and out and what the variables/actors would be and how solution finding is a combination of many elements and discovered through multidisciplinary, domain-diverse application of knowledge and action. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 00:28:52 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:28:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <380-2200512429093562@M2W142.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200512429093562@M2W142.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > From: Harvey Newstrom > > > As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some > >segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone > >finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the > >audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because > >different people have different criteria for the list. > > My ideal discussion would be to approach an issue/problem from > multidisciplinary, and domain-diversity, viewpoints. Rather than beating > the donkey or elephant silly, it would be more extropic to take an issue > such as getting vaccines to developing countries or proactively fighting > for individual (human) rights and work at finding a solution. For > example, > if a topic is "POL-STEE: Vaccines & Dev. Countries," posters would apply > domain-diversity in their suggested solutions by looking at the issue from > social, technological, economic and environmental perspectives. > > Rather than pushing party politics, posters would push the domain "ideas" > to solve the problem. In the end, this would mean that the solution > finding would be non-partisan and focused on solutions rather than > personal > politics. > > That works for well defined technical problems. It does not work if some dispute that there is a problem, or for social problems that involve cultural clashes. How would you use your technique to resolve the abortion debate in the US? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Dec 29 00:51:18 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:51:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> I find any argument that begins by saying, in effect, "unless you are referencing my favorite thinker, your argument is not worth considering" to be somewhat less than consideration in and of itself. This seems like an attempt to require that every political argument be framed in a Friedmanian framework, and smacks me as being as hubristic as those who say that insist all problems must be examined from the standpoint of Bayesian analysis. It could easily be applied to Karl Marx, Karl Haushofer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, Ayn Rand, or anybody you care to mention, and is an equally worthless standard to apply. My apologies in advance. Any posts I make on political topics are not likely to include cross-references to Thomas Friedman's take on any given subject. Sad sad sad, I know, but alas, alas, and alac. Joseph Robert Bradbury wrote: > This is the 3rd time I've tried to compose this message. Maybe I'll > get it right this time. > > The political commentary I've seen has been totally without reference > to Thomas Friedman's comments in this area. Sad Sad Sad... He has > been there, he has looked at the trends quite objectively and can > quite clearly can make a case for going to war in Iraq in spite of the > mishandling by Rumsfeld and Bush. > > I would view any "political" commentary which does not include > Friedman's perspective as incompletely informed. > > (So, to the "political" commentators -- *shut up* until you have read > what Friedman has written and observed the shows on which he has > spoken -- he has a grasp of the "big" picture which is lacking in most > political discussions.) > > Backing it up a level -- it gets into a discussion of extropian > principles as to how should one deal with individuals who are > incapable of "rational thought". It becomes important if one > considers that there are more "irrational" operators on the planet > than "rational" operators. > > So any references to the United Nations, "International Law", Kyoto > treaties, etc. have to be framed within the perspective of rational > vs. irrational operators. It is completely acceptable (IMO) to reject > *any* international treaty, law, etc. if my own personal survival > requires it. > > So, the question at hand, from an extropic perspective, is *who* is > engaging in rational thought and should you give a f*** with regard to > those who are not? [1] [2] > > Robert > > 1. I would note that the possible atomic bombing of Muslim holy sites > by an elected U.S. congressman (from Colorado) as a response to > terrorist attacks on the U.S. by "irrational" thinkers. > > 2. I would point out *from Friedman* that the second largest muslim > population within a "state" is in India. And they generally do not > have a problem with constructing an environment where *all* may > participate. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 01:31:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229013144.53521.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Are you joking? Bloody unlikely. Susan B Anthony, Sakajawea dollars, and two dollar bills haven't tanked our currency despite their unpopularity (the coins/notes and not the people) so I don't see how Ken Lay would. (You did have to pick HIM, didn't you?) It would be many years before numistmatists would be interested in any of them any way, and collector's value has little if anything to do with fiat currency valuations any way. A dollar is a dollar no matter what it looks like. If you don't like Ken Lay on the $20 note, carry tens and fifties or use your debit card. I would.;) As far as your previous objections to enshrining rich capitalists on our money, do I need to remind you that slightly over half of the people currently depicted on our money were wealthy capitalist slave owners, not all of whom were presidents? --- gts wrote: > It would destabilize the currency. $20 notes bearing > Kenneth Lay's photo > (former Enron Chairman) printed a few years ago > would be worth less or > more (probably less) today than $20 notes bearing > Bill Gates' photo > printed this year. > > People would be trading these things on ebay like > baseball cards and > cabbage patch dolls. We would have no idea about the > real money supply. > Probably the increased risk of ownership would cause > the US dollar to tank > on world markets. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Dec 29 01:36:46 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:36:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] No time to think? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B33DAE.3000106@goldenfuture.net> I'm not so sure... How do you know that in addition to the music, the text messaging, and everything else, they're not thinking as well? What they're doing is multitasking. I see no reason why "thinking about things" can't occupy a piece of brain next to listening to the music. I was twenty... gods, no... twenty-five years ago. TV on, painting D&D miniatures, browsing through a magazine, and thinking about some of the big issues all at the same time, all at the tender age of 14. Now, the question is, are they being _taught_ to think in addition to all the other passive inputs... My four-year-old certainly is. Ten years from now, if she can chat with her friends and watch a concert and STILL think about the important things (and recognize what those are), I'll be more than content. Joseph BillK wrote: >CNN has an article about the Age of Information Overload. > > > >With a few keystrokes, we'll soon be able to tap much of the world's >knowledge. And we'll do it from nearly anywhere -- already, newer >iPods can carry all your music, digital photos and such TV classics as >"Alfred Hitchcock Presents" along with more contemporary prime-time >fare. > >Will all this instantly accessible information make us much smarter, >or simply more stressed? When can we break to think, absorb and ponder >all this data? > >"If you fill every waking minute with more media, you never do any >independent thinking," Nielsen said. "You may have all the specific >pieces of information, but the higher level is knowledge and >understanding. You don't have time for that reflection if it's being >thrown at you at never-ending streams". > >End quotes. >--------------------- > >This is what I see happening to the younger generation. They have an >iPod playing music in their ears, while they read and send text >messages on their mobile phone, almost oblivious to their surroundings >or companions. > >Do they ever have a quiet time to actually think about things? > >BillK >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Dec 29 01:52:06 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:52:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228222239.23501.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051228222239.23501.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43B34146.1080904@goldenfuture.net> I must disagree. The ultra-rich don't generate wealth to get famous, in large part. Indeed, most attempt to discourage such fame (Paris Hilton being a notable exception, but perhaps only because she shares an IQ with the dog in her purse). Just look at the top 10 richest people in the world, according to Forbes magazine (the 2003 list is the first one I found, but the principle applies): 1. William H Gates III 2. Warren E Buffett 3. Karl & Theo Albrecht 4. Paul G Allen 5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 6. Lawrence J Ellison 7. Alice L Walton 8. Helen R Walton 9. Jim C Walton 10. John T Walton Aside from the first one, and possibly the second one, do you know what any of them look like? Of course not. And if they wanted you to, you wouldn't need to see their faces on the currency. They'd be on every television in the world. It's not about vanity in that superficial sense. In fact, I am pretty sure Bill Gates, for one, would eschew such a thing in the interests of modesty. I crave money too, but it's not so I can resculpt the moon in my own image; it's so I can change the world and at the same time ensure comfort and access to the latest technological advances for myself and my family. Don't confuse ego with vanity. Joseph Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Any idea to help other people can only be beneficial. I agree that the > idea > is a little "tacky", but I think it would work. Ego is what makes a person > crave money, therefore, it would seem very likely that your idea might > work. > Just an opinion > Anna > > */The Avantguardian /* wrote: > > > > --- spike wrote: > > > Do tell! Keep in mind however that the government > > already has such a system, which it has been > > struggling > > for years to suppress: donations to the political > > party of one's choice. > > But donations to political parties is nowhere near the > same thing. It is not money being spent by the wealthy > for the public weal, it is instead a method by which > those individuals ensure that any incoming government > does their bidding. It is done so that government > caters to the interests of a small minority, often at > the expense of the public at large. > > This ugly situation is what makes me so reluctant to > divulge my idea. Last thing we need is for the > government use this additional money to buy more > missiles, bombs, and bullets. Defense contracts makes > up the overwhelming majority of public expenditure, > and we spend more of our hard earned tax money on > these things than the rest of the world combined. Who > exactly is the enemy? Arabs with box cutters? Or are > we just trying to pick fights wherever we can? > > I for one would like see us reach a point on > production possibilities curve that allows for more > butter and fewer guns. Or barring that, the goverment > ought to share all the guns it is hoarding with the > rank and file of it's citizenry. After all, I would > feel far ! safer and more dignified with a .45 in my > carry-on luggage than with some TSA mouthbreather > feeling me up in the airport. But I digress. > > Any money raised by my idea ought to go to > humanitarian causes. Agencies such as the NIH, NSA, > NASA (especially their NEO deflection guys), Social > Security, Medicare, or even the National Endowment of > the Arts. In short, it would probably be for the best > if congress kept its greedy and inept mitts off of > this "fund". > > My idea is relatively straight forward. It is based in > large part on my thoughts on the economic principle of > diminishing marginal utility. Money, like any other > commodity, is subject to this phenomenon. In a > nutshell, you have one widget, it is exceptionally > useful. You get a second widget and it is a little > less useful. If you have a hundred widgets than you > will probably not get much use out of your 101st > widget. The same would apply to money. Bill Gates's > first billio! n was probably very useful to him. He > might even have thrown a party to celebrate. His 40th > billion, however, he probably hardly noticed. > > So if money is subject to the law of diminishing > marginal utility, what possible motivation is there > for amassing huge amounts of it? Is it simply how > billionaires keep "score" of who is the better at > playing the "game"? The problem is that what is to > them a "game", is to the people on the bottom rungs on > the social ladder, no less than life and death. So do > people with multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, > and luxury cars continue to amass personal wealth at > the expense of the poor because they are sadistic and > enjoy watching people suffer? I think not. > > I think that there are several forces at work here. > For one thing, the structure of the economy is such > that it allows for a certain critical mass of wealth > beyond which it is very difficult to actually "spend" > ones money. Anythin! g one buys becomes an assett and > the naturally diversified investments of people that > are looking for something to do with their money bring > fairly steady returns. If they give money to charity, > they get some of it back in tax write-offs. In short, > it is difficult for the truly wealthy to "dispose" of > their disposable income. > > Another factor is the role of money as a status > indicator. I believe it truly becomes how billionaires > establish their "pecking order" or "keep score". To > saddle them with with laws prohibiting them from > amassing further wealth would be like telling an > olympic runner that she is not allowed to run faster > than a certain speed. > > In view of these thoughts that I had, my challenge was > to find a way to appropriate the wealth of the > super-wealthy without harming them or endangering > their hard-won social status. Short of complicated > reforms of the banking system and retooling the very > concepts of inter! est rates and insurance, the best and > simplest idea I could come up with was "vanity money". > > The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. > Every year the U.S. Treasury Department removes some > of the old currency from circulation and replaces it > with about $20 billion dollars worth of crisp new > bills and coins. My idea is rather simple. They say > the capitalists motto is "he who dies with the most > toys wins". I say why wait until the billionaires die > to tally the score? Let them enter the "hall of fame" > during their lifetimes and reset the "game". So we set > up a government service that would allow the treasury > department to sell off (either for exorbiantly high > set prices or competive auction style bids) the > various denominations of currency for a given year. > The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the > bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a > defined time period would feature the "winner's" > pictu! re on it. > > What greater honor could a capitalist society bestow > upon its most successful capitalists than to print or > stamp their faces on its currency? This is a positive > sum solution because despite the loss of a sizable > portion of the donors wealth there is concomitant > validation and possibly even increase of their > percieved social status. And if the money so recieved > is managed properly, our children get educated, our > elderly get their medications, and extinction from > plague or asteroids gets averted. It's win-win all the > way around. > > > > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Find your next car at *Yahoo! Canada Autos* > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 02:01:49 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:01:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229013144.53521.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229013144.53521.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:31:44 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > Are you joking? Bloody unlikely. Susan B Anthony, > Sakajawea dollars, and two dollar bills haven't tanked > our currency despite their unpopularity (the > coins/notes and not the people) so I don't see how Ken > Lay would. (You did have to pick HIM, didn't you?) No, I'm not joking. It's one thing to introduce a Susan B Anthony dollar named after an important historical figure, and quite another thing to start auctioning off our various currencies to the highest living bidders each year or two on whatever time period you have in mind. I'm sure Susan B Anthony was selected and approved because, among other things, 1) few Americans would object to her name or image on a coin, and 2) she's deader than a doornail and has been for a long, long time. You won't see her name in any news about corporate scandals. > It would be many years before numistmatists would be > interested in any of them any way, and collector's > value has little if anything to do with fiat currency > valuations any way. 'Fiat' is exactly the problem. These pieces of paper you have in mind have no intrinsic worth, in gold or in any other precious metal or commodity. Because our currency is fiat these notes would be worth only what the market would bear at any given moment, on ebay or wherever else people would trade them -- almost exactly like baseball cards. I'll trade ya' two Ken Lays for one Bill Gates, whaddya' say? :) > A dollar is a dollar no matter what it looks like. I don't know about that, Stu. I'm a fan of Bill Gates... and Vida Blue and Reggie Jackson. I'd pay more than a buck for your dollar notes with their mugshots. > As far as your previous objections tos > enshrining rich capitalists on our money, do I need to > remind you that slightly over half of the people > currently depicted on our money were wealthy > capitalist slave owners, not all of whom were > presidents? But they were our founders. They deserve the respect we give them on our money. -gts From megao at sasktel.net Thu Dec 29 02:26:18 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:26:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229013144.53521.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229013144.53521.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43B3494A.2070903@sasktel.net> I like the idea. Partly because I have always viewed minting coins and bills with high cost artwork to be a total waste of good time and money if it is only for security purposes. However if the cost of the artwork is paid for privately, it reduces the public cost to nil. And if money goes out of circulation as a collectors item , it counters the inflationary forces of printing money to simply enlarge the money supply. I think you've got a real neat idea whose time has come. I think art should be useful, not simply to be put on a wall, etc. Money is also a high quality medium to work from. It also would subsidize the cost of implanting rfid and tracking devices and biosensors and other neat technology into money which would also keep track of who was spending and who was collecting their money. The trick is to sell the idea for only the reasons that the decision makers want and not to push the other neat features we are discussing right now. The NSA and CIA and other spooks would help behind the scenes if these extra features were "woven in". The Avantguardian wrote: >Are you joking? Bloody unlikely. Susan B Anthony, >Sakajawea dollars, and two dollar bills haven't tanked >our currency despite their unpopularity (the >coins/notes and not the people) so I don't see how Ken >Lay would. (You did have to pick HIM, didn't you?) It >would be many years before numistmatists would be >interested in any of them any way, and collector's >value has little if anything to do with fiat currency >valuations any way. A dollar is a dollar no matter >what it looks like. If you don't like Ken Lay on the >$20 note, carry tens and fifties or use your debit >card. I would.;) As far as your previous objections to >enshrining rich capitalists on our money, do I need to >remind you that slightly over half of the people >currently depicted on our money were wealthy >capitalist slave owners, not all of whom were >presidents? > > > >--- gts wrote: > > > >>It would destabilize the currency. $20 notes bearing >>Kenneth Lay's photo >>(former Enron Chairman) printed a few years ago >>would be worth less or >>more (probably less) today than $20 notes bearing >>Bill Gates' photo >>printed this year. >> >>People would be trading these things on ebay like >>baseball cards and >>cabbage patch dolls. We would have no idea about the >>real money supply. >>Probably the increased risk of ownership would cause >>the US dollar to tank >>on world markets. >> >>-gts >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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) > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From l4point at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 02:31:14 2005 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:31:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <200512230229.jBN2TYe00840@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051227082408.06b1d6f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <0a981618bba979e20b212b3d30901bd5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6b5e09390512271437o482d08a3j59cfa8a0f8db04ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390512281831p7fee9f7du6cb9ccc08d5a5475@mail.gmail.com> I recently *tried* to subscribe to a list in biology. Now it seemed that a lot of the posters seemed to think discussions about politics was satisfactory in that context. Some of these people are flat from some other planet. I have no interest in making everyone happy if their bitching in my face is what puts them in such a state. On 12/28/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Perhaps but I think the topics were sufficiently important in the > > context of the original list that moving them elsewhere lost context, > > Also, if we say effectively "all this political stuff many of you > > think sucks will move over here" a lot of even the people who think > > politics important will not use the other list. I am not sure of all > > the reasons why. Some of the most passionate voices who actually care > > a great deal about the community and its main topics but also care > > about political things become frustrated and leave. At least this is > > what I saw before. Although in that case the filtering and moving of > > political messages also seemed to be biased to certain types of > > politics, specifically more libertarian views. This added to the > > failure of this "solution". > > Yes. As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some > segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone > finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the > audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because > different people have different criteria for the list. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 29 02:39:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:39:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution ofWealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512290241.jBT2fae32367@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:56 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution > ofWealth(wasSingulartarians) > > It would destabilize the currency. $20 notes bearing Kenneth Lay's photo > (former Enron Chairman) printed a few years ago would be worth less or > more (probably less) today than $20 notes bearing Bill Gates' photo > printed this year. > > People would be trading these things on ebay like baseball cards and > cabbage patch dolls. We would have no idea about the real money supply. > Probably the increased risk of ownership would cause the US dollar to tank > on world markets. > > -gts Yes, but contrarily, many of the bills would be taken out of circulation by collectors, much the way philatelists take some postage into private collections. This would work as the equivalent of free money to the fed, much the same as having the state quarters end up in private collections instead of in circulation. Assuming the fed continued to control the amount of paper money being printed, it should not destabilize the currency. The fed could agree to not print any more than a certain amount of a particular vanity currency, which might further increase its value to a collector, and possibly serve as a tool against counterfeiters. This is a great idea by the avantguardian. I find particularly appealing the notion of greedy vain capitalists charging to the rescue of the poor and needy, even if not out of entirely pure motives. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 03:00:33 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:00:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution ofWealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <200512290241.jBT2fae32367@tick.javien.com> References: <200512290241.jBT2fae32367@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:39:31 -0500, spike wrote: > Yes, but contrarily, many of the bills would be > taken out of circulation by collectors, much the way > philatelists take some postage into private collections. In that case we're not talking about any significant amount of money. Tax-payers would hardly notice the difference. -gts From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Dec 29 03:27:08 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:27:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Is The Singularity Near? Message-ID: <43B3578C.7070706@mindspring.com> From: Bob Soetebier To: Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:32:49 -0600 Subject: Is The Singularity Near? Is The Singularity Near? In relation to this paragraph (on essentially the last page) of Whitley Streiber's Dec. 26, 2005, Journal article http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/ titled, Communion Twenty Years On: "Some intelligent species have been able to see that their intelligence was a precious asset that could actually intensify itself. They have learned to increase the quantity of this valuable commodity by altering themselves, by creating machine intelligence, and by conferring it on other species on their planets. As if we?d hit upon the idea of genetically engineering brains to greater intelligence, and included not only ourselves but the animal world as well. In such places, life becomes very, very rich." Note the following (which is the very) first paragraph of the article, The Law Of Accelerating Returns, by Ray Kurzweil. (He's the genius who invented the computer photo/print scanner, along with voice-recognition software/technology, and much more.) : "An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common- sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won?t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century ? it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today?s rate). The 'returns', such as chip-speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There?s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity?technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software- based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light." Here's the URL for Kurzweil's article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 Also note that Ray Kurzweil?s latest book is titled, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology [ISBN: 0670033847]. See this URL for more info on his book: http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=1699 Frankly, though, at the rate were going (environmentally; run- away global warming; war mongering; etc.) chances don't look too good for our 'civilization' surviving much beyond another 5 - 20 years... which just barely breaks through the threshold (minimum 10 years - more likely at least 20 to 30 years-plus) period that Kurzweil predicts for the above "accelerated tech" changes to occur. Bob Soetebier -- "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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 03:41:16 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:41:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] do you want to promote your book? Message-ID: <20051229034116.30370.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> I cant contact talkshow hosts who interview science authors: 1. Morning show, from 9AM- Noon 2. 'Late Nite' show, from 1- 5AM --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 03:45:24 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:45:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] do you want to promote your book? Message-ID: <20051229034524.62516.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Pardon, i CAN contact talkshow hosts who interview science authors: 1. Morning show, from 9AM- Noon 2. 'Late Nite' show, from 1- 5AM --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 04:58:11 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:58:11 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Is The Singularity Near? Message-ID: <7a5e56060512282058y43f0bce7r988cfb5860af4239@mail.gmail.com> Comment first lines of code for mjgeddes's fai released on extropy! Comment code written in ATHENA custom language Comment these first few lines begin to set up universal data structures Friendly_ai_ATHENA_initialize Domain_mathematics aspect_reality properties system, meme aspect_model properties set aspect_self utility_reality knowledge utility_model consilience utility_self enlightenment domain_volition apect_reality properties agent, situation aspect_model properties meme aspect_self utility_reality liberty utility_model optimization utility_self happiness domain matter aspect_reality properties object, field aspect_model properties system aspect_self utility_reality productivity utility_model prediction utility_self sensation --- Hee hee... -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 06:05:04 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:05:04 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s Message-ID: <7a5e56060512282205v1ec2982eq98fda4a83349273a@mail.gmail.com> >Best of the season to all. Hiding downstairs from the upstairs festivities, I've finished a draft of a short paper I am working on dealing with the question of whether we can own or otherwise dictate the life trajectories of human-level intelligent robots. I would be interested if anyone has examples from fiction or non-fiction where it is assumed that it is morally permissible to own human-level robots. An example that came to me this morning (and made me smile) was "Rosie" from the Jetsons. Rosie is purchased as a slightly used robot but she is sensitive enough to try and leave the Jetsons when she believes that she has caused the Jetsons problems. Poor Rosie, she is a slave. Cheers, Mark Best AI's in science-fiction I've ever seen were the AI's in the 'Blake's 7' TV series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ I loved that series. Laughable special effects, but great script, great plots, great characters and best depiction of AI's in sci-fi. Might be worth you getting the videos if you aren't familiar with the series and want a look. The AI's that featured were called ORAC, ZEN and SLAVE. After watching the episodes when I was 12 or so I remember trying to create an AI on my ZX Spectrum (48k RAM and a sound cassette for data storage!). Yudkowsky and Wilson would both have been in nappies then ;) --- Of course the question of whether it's ethical to own human-level intelligent robots probably only boils down to whether they're sentient or not. I don't know whether it's possible to have non-sentient human level intelligence but I guess it is. (Of course - self-improving intelligence is another matter - again I don't know - but my guess would be that non-sentient AI's can't self-improve - they'd be stuck at the same intelligence level - I guess that Qualia are neccesserily generated by the growth and integration of novel knowledge). www.permanentend.org/Walker/mp3000.html Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 06:19:45 2005 From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:19:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) Message-ID: <20051229061945.21525.qmail@web80731.mail.yahoo.com> This idea is interesting to me only if we call it what it really is: the selling of advertising space on US currency. Let's let any entity, individual or corporate, enter the bidding. Imagine the behemoth financial services companies that would leap at the opportunity to have their logo blazoned across the $100 bill. Imagine the lottery organizations that would kill to have 'Use this dollar to play Powerball' dead-center of the 1$ bill. Billionaires are already rich, they don't need to advertise. However, many organizations with monstrous marketing budgets would leverage the farm to bid on this. Why hope for enough individual vanity when you can rely on good, old-fashioned capitalism, almost guaranteed? Keith From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 06:22:00 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:22:00 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law Message-ID: <7a5e56060512282222m6cebe4dfh14813c598bde0571@mail.gmail.com> >I think one clear project of our age is to create the transnational structures to effectively enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and hopefully leave everything outside their scope to the national states. >Of course, I'm sure that will be one of the first things the FAI takes care of once it takes over SkyNet.... >------------------------ James J. Hughes Ph.D. Public Policy Studies Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA james.hughes at trincoll.edu (office) 860-297-2376 I agree James. Hopefully the first thing the FAI does will bitch-slap all the thugs, dictators, multi-national corporations etc from here to Saturn - delivering a metaphysical foot about 10 inches up their backsides. It may be sooner than you think....look... --- domain_volition apect_reality properties agent, situation aspect_model properties meme aspect_self utility_reality liberty utility_model optimization utility_self happiness --- That's a short-clip from the progam I'm trying to finish. Just two to beat... Wilson and Yudkowsky... *Marc rubs his hands together* How I've dreamed of beating those two ;) -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 08:20:41 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:20:41 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet Message-ID: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> gts, As regards the idea that colors may be primary qualities of objects, no offense, but I think you're making a very basic mistake, the sort of mistake a young child makes or pre-scientific man. We know how the human visual system works and the experience of color is entirely dependent on the 3 types of cones, which have the structure they do because random evolutionary processes. Color is definitey represented in the brain - the signals from the ganglion cells in the retina through the LGN in thalmus and then on to the V1 (primary visual system). The V1 in turn sends in signals to somewhere in the mid-brain, where the brain processes assocaited with color qualia are occuring. Animals which different brains would see different colors. Further, as someone turned out, simply turn the lights up and down and the colors you see are different. Clearly, if color perception is anywhere it's in the brain, not in external objects. Here's a summary of the visual pathways in the brain: http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/cenvis.html And a schematic of color vision concepts: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colviscon.html#c1 When I was talking about qaulia having platonic existence, I certainly didn't mean what you were suggesting! I simply meant that qualia are ultimately mathematical entities, and mathematical entities have an existence extending beyond physical processes into Plato's world. So I think qualia are *partly* equivalent to the material processes in the brain and *partly* equivalent to the abstract (non-material) processes taking place in Plato's world (i.e in higher dimensional time). As I've said, qualia are processes in multi-dimensional time (and physical brain processes are a *part* of this). Qualia are partly in the brain and partly in Plato's world. They are not external properties. There is no green out there. -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Dec 29 10:42:52 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:42:52 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth References: <200512290622.jBT6MCe19692@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001d01c60c64$a054c210$04800d0a@JPAcer> > From: Joseph Bloch > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth > (wasSingulartarians) > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <43B34146.1080904 at goldenfuture.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > I must disagree. > > The ultra-rich don't generate wealth to get famous, in large part. Exactly - this is not really what the rich crave. Plus, you can get yourself on a postage stamp for less than 15 pounds sterling: http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/shop;jsessionid=P4YSHS10CR3TUFB2IGDEQEQUHRAYUQ2K?catId=9300091&pageId=shp_prddetails&product=prod350007 A snip for any egotist with an eye to a bargain I think. A better appeal to the vanity of the ultra-rich might be some grand, highly public altruistic gesture which will be forever recounted as legend by the press. For example - the late Kerry Packer (richest man in Australia) suffered a heart attack while playing polo some years ago. he was revived on the spot (and his life saved) by a specially equipped ambulance which happened to have precisely the equipment required to resuscitate him. He later thanked the paramedic team for being so well-prepared and was said to have been amazed to hear that it was only because so many high profile individuals were present that this specially equipped ambulance was on hand. At any ordinary sports meeting he would have died before he received the treatment he needed. At this point, Packer enquired as to how much would it cost to equip every ambulance in the state to save lives in a similar way - and then proceeded to write the cheque that made it possible. The resuscitation device cost him 10 million dollars and is known as the 'Packer Whacker' in his honor. If you want to separate the ultra-rich from their money - there really is nothing like enabling the warm fuzzy feeling of universal recognition of a great guy... Money is only money after all - feeling good is priceless. Jack Parkinson From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 10:50:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:50:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <71709150-B877-4DCB-BC5E-2F1E27CF1CC1@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:11 PM, gts wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:00:23 -0500, The Avantguardian > wrote: > >> The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. > ... >> The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the >> bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a >> defined time period would feature the "winner's" >> picture on it. > > Interesting idea. The idea assumes that rich people would really be all that turned on by having their picture on the fiat currency of the day. I believe that is a seriously flawed assumption. > >> Any money raised by my idea ought to go to >> humanitarian causes. > > Limiting the funds to humanitarian causes might be your only hope > of garnering support from those who would balk at the idea of > enshrining rich capitalists on our currency. Even then I think a > large percentage of people would find it distasteful. > So being a rich capitalist is less impressive than being a dead president, eh? > A similar but more political feasible idea might be national > lotteries sponsored by and named after the philanthropists. A donor > could for example agree to match funds raised from public ticket > sales up to some predetermined amount, increasing the government's > take while and also increasing the jackpots for the winners. The > donor's photogragh could be on each lottery ticket. Great! Exploit those who aren't rich to gamble senselessly on some mug's game. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 10:54:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:54:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051228222239.23501.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051228222239.23501.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8A6D7F29-2AAF-4550-921D-671ED15CE096@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Any idea to help other people can only be beneficial. I agree that > the idea > is a little "tacky", but I think it would work. Ego is what makes > a person > crave money, therefore, it would seem very likely that your idea > might work. > Just an opinion > Anna > History is full of ideas to help other people that ended up hurting millions of people much more than anything the "greedy rich capitalists" did or are likely to do. The assumption that it is about ego primarily or even about craving money is why most people will never ever be rich. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 10:59:33 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:59:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <95D23BC1-1988-417C-B114-E4673FA79484@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:43 PM 12/28/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > >> Wealth creates wealth. Large piles of wealth in >> the hands of an individual creates larger piles >> of wealth. Wealth in the hands of government, well >> I'll let you decide if that is a harm or a >> benefit. Perhaps both.... > > This is too simplistic to be useful. We need to look closely at the > fine grain of how this aggregated wealth is spent by govt to know > if it's better or worse than having it dispersed among many or > aggregated by private owners (cf. national health in Oz and Canada > vs. private funds in USA, where the latter notoriously have > ludicrously excessive skimming from the top, pushing up costs). Let's see. In the US the government takes 50% of everything including land. Even with all that wealth it provides paltry services (if we can even call many agencies and programs a "service") and has racked up around $40 trillion of total indebtedness. I would say the case against government confiscation of wealth and good stewardship of wealth is pretty open and shut. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 11:02:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:02:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <8F93D3FF-4738-432A-BDD2-329DB516DA03@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:55 PM, gts wrote: > It would destabilize the currency. $20 notes bearing Kenneth Lay's > photo (former Enron Chairman) printed a few years ago would be > worth less or more (probably less) today than $20 notes bearing > Bill Gates' photo printed this year. > No. The value of currency is fixed by government fiat in the US. It has a monopoly. A $20 is a $20 if it is in circulation. All $20 bills lose value to inflation at the same rate. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 11:06:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:06:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] No time to think? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B109551-2796-4F92-A894-15790B12E477@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:16 PM, BillK wrote: > This is what I see happening to the younger generation. They have an > iPod playing music in their ears, while they read and send text > messages on their mobile phone, almost oblivious to their surroundings > or companions. > I have worked with a few under 23 years old lately. Probably not a realistic sample but I have been mightily impressed. Don't write off the kids just yet. - s From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 15:49:11 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:49:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> References: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/28/05, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I find any argument that begins by saying, in effect, "unless you are > referencing my favorite thinker, your argument is not worth considering" > to be somewhat less than consideration in and of itself. With the relatively important qualifier that areas with even moderate sophistication have foundational ideas one really does need to read up on before one's own ideas are worthy of the consideration of people who actually have studied up in that area. There are some exceptions to this, as with almost every rule, but the ratio of brilliant to crazy-or-stupid-or-ignorant is so low that one is almost assured to be wasting one's time listening to the thoughts of the uninformed (say, not even at the level of someone who majored in that field as an undergraduate). > This seems like > an attempt to require that every political argument be framed in a > Friedmanian framework, and smacks me as being as hubristic as those who > say that insist all problems must be examined from the standpoint of > Bayesian analysis. It isn't hubris for an evolutionary biologist to demand familiarity with Mayr, Gould, Maynard Smith, etc., before listening to what you have to say about evolution. Nor for a mathematician Kleene, Cauchy, Bernoulli, and so on. Similarly, there are areas in which certain mathematical results are heavily relevant to an area, such as decision theory (something of a meta-area, applicable to reasoning in general, and hence to thinkers in all other fields), and here we might invoke Bayes, Schlaifer, de Finetti, and so forth. And again it would not be hubristic. To me, there is a distinction between demanding one read Thomas Friedman and these other (above) demands. Though I'm rather less familiar with political theory than other areas, it appears he, unlike the figureheads mentioned above for other fields, is not anywhere near as widely respected by practicing political theorists. This makes the demand closer to Joe's "hubris" assertion, though I think unjustified is the more appropriate term. Maybe Robert Bradbury is well-read enough in politics to feel confident (and be right, *not* hubristic, to do so) in his assessment. I don't know his background, aside from the science & business related blurbs on the web, so I couldn't say. I'll just say that it seems a strange choice, given the apparently large proportion of politics & int'l relations professors who aren't singing Friedman's praises, to put it lightly. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 15:58:46 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:58:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > > On 12/28/05, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > I find any argument that begins by saying, in effect, "unless you are > > referencing my favorite thinker, your argument is not worth considering" > > to be somewhat less than consideration in and of itself. > > With the relatively important qualifier that areas with even moderate > sophistication have foundational ideas one really does need to read up > on before one's own ideas are worthy of the consideration of people > who actually have studied up in that area. > > There are some exceptions to this, as with almost every rule, but the > ratio of brilliant to crazy-or-stupid-or-ignorant is so low that one > is almost assured to be wasting one's time listening to the thoughts > of the uninformed (say, not even at the level of someone who majored > in that field as an undergraduate). > > > This seems like > > an attempt to require that every political argument be framed in a > > Friedmanian framework, and smacks me as being as hubristic as those who > > say that insist all problems must be examined from the standpoint of > > Bayesian analysis. > > It isn't hubris for an evolutionary biologist to demand familiarity > with Mayr, Gould, Maynard Smith, etc., before listening to what you > have to say about evolution. Nor for a mathematician Kleene, Cauchy, > Bernoulli, and so on. > > Similarly, there are areas in which certain mathematical results are > heavily relevant to an area, such as decision theory (something of a > meta-area, applicable to reasoning in general, and hence to thinkers > in all other fields), and here we might invoke Bayes, Schlaifer, de > Finetti, and so forth. And again it would not be hubristic. > > Politics is different from maths and science. In politics everyone has an axe to grind and being 'economical with the truth' or ignoring unpleasant data is an accepted tactic. Not to mention topics that are 'unspeakable' due to political correctness. In the case of the Middle East you won't see much analysis in the US media of Isreal and the power of the Jewish lobby in the US. Notable exception being Chomsky. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Dec 28 21:08:55 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:08:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Call for Artists for WTA Online Gallery Message-ID: > Why have the theme about dystopia and utopia for a > first exhibition? These terms are outdated and been > kicked around in the art world for a long time. One of the six programs of the WTA (and IEET) is "Visions of Utopia and Dystopia": "The most common objections to a transhuman future come from science fiction, from Frankenstein to Brave New World. Through the Visions of Utopia and Dystopia program we seek to collect images of posthumanity and non-human intelligence, positive, negative and neutral, and engage culture critics, artists, writers, and filmmakers in exploring the lessons to be derived from these cultural expressions." http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/visions/ This is one initiative within that program of work. My wife, also an artist, is also always complaining that something she's seen has been done to death. But there are always audiences that haven't seen/heard/discussed the topic, and new things to say about a topic. Hope you'll consider submitting something. -------------------------------------------- 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 james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Dec 28 20:57:57 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:57:57 -0500 Subject: Psychoengineering was Re: [extropy-chat] The existential threatofinternational law Message-ID: > Compare Swedes > with Americans - look at the economic growth rates, general > affluence, and cultural diversity to see the pernicious > effects of state-enforced conformity. Compare North and South > Korea, and then compare Hong Kong and mainland China. These are all comparisons of different kinds of states, not states vs. anarchy. I completely agree that a liberal democratic state is superior to a totalitarian state (Korea and China) and I do not agree that a comparison of Sweden and US favors the US on the whole. On cultural diversity the 7 million Swedes have admitted far more refugees per capita than we have, and "general affluence" is rather meaningless if it doesn't make people generally healthy and well-educated, as it does in Sweden to a greater degree than the US. See for instance: ----------------------- NORC: Americans' Personal Misery Has Increased Since Early 1990s (Americans) think that their lives have not gotten better as they report more incidents of illness, inability to afford medical care, unemployment, pressure to pay bills, and unstable romantic relationships. http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517023/?sc=dwhr ----------------------- > The WG could save us from the borg, > just as you say, but only by preventing the singularity and > by universally suppressing scientific progress. That's like saying the only way to address spam is to ban computers. There are many public policies that we can and should pursue to ensure cognitive liberty in a psychoengineering future, and to keep imperialist borganisms in check, that do not involve technology suppression. In fact, universal access to certain kinds of technology, such as firewall software, is one way to fight borganismic imperialists. J. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:21:35 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:21:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:20:41 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > As regards the idea that colors may be primary qualities of objects, no > offense, but I think you're making a very basic mistake, the sort of > mistake a young child makes or pre-scientific man. Ouch! But actually the idea is not just mine. See http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/col-real.htm I think it makes sense it consider the obvious, intuitive answers first. It may be that what we tend to think is true is close to what is actually true. I like G.E. Moore for this reason also. I could say "No offense, but your idea of '7-aspect neutral monism' is about the most convoluted idea I've ever heard of." (but I won't) :-) I don't think anyone really knows the truth about this subject. More later... -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:26:02 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229061945.21525.qmail@web80731.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051229172602.776.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Keith M. Elis" wrote: > This idea is interesting to me only if we call it > what it really is: > the selling of advertising space on US currency. > Let's let any entity, > individual or corporate, enter the bidding. Imagine > the behemoth > financial services companies that would leap at the > opportunity to have > their logo blazoned across the $100 bill. Imagine > the lottery > organizations that would kill to have 'Use this > dollar to play > Powerball' dead-center of the 1$ bill. Billionaires > are already rich, > they don't need to advertise. However, many > organizations with > monstrous marketing budgets would leverage the farm > to bid on this. Why > hope for enough individual vanity when you can rely > on good, > old-fashioned capitalism, almost guaranteed? Because this would kill the spirit of the endeavor. The whole point of putting these people on the money is to honor these great Americans for "giving back". To allow it to become mere advertising space would only cheapen the concept and our national identity. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Dec 29 17:31:24 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:31:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200512429093562@M2W142.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051229111753.06a97c58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 06:28 PM 12/28/2005, you wrote: >On 12/29/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com ><nvitamore at austin.rr.com > wrote: > >From: Harvey Newstrom > > > As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some > >segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone > >finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the > >audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because > >different people have different criteria for the list. > >My ideal discussion would be to approach an issue/problem from >multidisciplinary, and domain-diversity, viewpoints. Rather than beating >the donkey or elephant silly, it would be more extropic to take an issue >such as getting vaccines to developing countries or proactively fighting >for individual (human) rights and work at finding a solution. For example, >if a topic is "POL-STEE: Vaccines & Dev. Countries," posters would apply >domain-diversity in their suggested solutions by looking at the issue from >social, technological, economic and environmental perspectives. > >Rather than pushing party politics, posters would push the domain "ideas" >to solve the problem. In the end, this would mean that the solution >finding would be non-partisan and focused on solutions rather than personal >politics. > > >That works for well defined technical problems. >It does not work if some dispute that there is a problem, or for social >problems that involve cultural clashes. >How would you use your technique to resolve the abortion debate in the US? This method has to work for social problems or it is no good. I think all social problems involve cultural clashes, don't they? And usually these clashes can be reduced to religious or political views in which individual rights (freedom of choice) are not respected. With your choice of abortion debate, the conflict stems from disparate views on when live begins and the mother's life being of more value than the life of the newly formed cells in the uterus. There are a few views, but the central ones are the beliefs that (1) life begins with the union of egg and sperm; and (2) life begins when the conglomeration of cells differentiate and form cognitive function and memories (creating identity). I'm afraid there is no compromise between these two, usually. Although there has been some sign of compromise between the two beliefs about when the cells form - what month do they create a being, etc.. The real issue is not abortion or the abortion debate, but how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Preventing unwanted pregnancies needs to be looked at from a technological, economic and environmental perspective. More later. 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 17:44:25 2005 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:44:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Dirk, that politics is somewhat different. In part because it is constantly shifting. So unlike a "hard" science it is difficult to establish who the authoritative sources are. I find Friedman appealing on several levels. He has concrete experience following the policy makers going back ~15 years. He has actually *been* on the ground everyplace from Lebanon to India. He was selected by the publisher of the NY Times to be an editorial columnist. He does not seem to hesitate when taking those in power to task when they are screwing up. Most importantly -- every time I read one of his columns, or hear him speak, it usually makes complete sense to me. I.e. his arguments are very well reasoned. If the singularity is coming, and if we hope to survive it, I would suggest that it might be useful to identify and at least listen to those people who seem to be capable of having crucial insights. When I see people running around citing "international law", "treaties", etc. I am inclined to reflect (unfortunately -- as it is most probably time poorly spent) on the degree to which "they" most probably do not "get" it. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:46:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:46:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <43B34146.1080904@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20051229174656.96060.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > I must disagree. > > The ultra-rich don't generate wealth to get famous, > in large part. > Indeed, most attempt to discourage such fame (Paris > Hilton being a > notable exception, but perhaps only because she > shares an IQ with the > dog in her purse). It is not about becoming famous and despite me calling it vanity money, it is not really about vanity. I used that term simply to draw an analogy to vanity license plates. What it is really about is power. Since ancient times the secular rulers of the world have put their faces on currency. Alexander, the Caesars, Napoleon - you get the idea. Who are the rulers of the world today if not the people on your Forbes list? And if we can give them the recognition they deserve and at the same time do a great deal of good, than why shouldn't we? Furthermore, if they are overly modest, the winners need not place their own face on the currency, they can also put the face of a loved one or someone they feel deserves the honor. Sam Walton comes to mind in regards to his reclusive family. > I crave money too, but it's not so I can resculpt > the moon in my own > image; it's so I can change the world and at the > same time ensure > comfort and access to the latest technological > advances for myself and > my family. That's fine. Just make sure to remain as objective as possible when assessing whether you are changing the world for better or worse. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 17:53:19 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:53:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051229111753.06a97c58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <380-2200512429093562@M2W142.mail2web.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051229111753.06a97c58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 06:28 PM 12/28/2005, you wrote: > > > On 12/29/05, *nvitamore at austin.rr.com* < > nvitamore at austin.rr.com > wrote: > > From: Harvey Newstrom > > > As my original note pointed out, all "solutions" fail some > >segment of the community. There seems to be no answer that everyone > >finds acceptable. No matter which we chose, some segment of the > >audience will leave. I have no idea what the answer is, because > >different people have different criteria for the list. > > My ideal discussion would be to approach an issue/problem from > multidisciplinary, and domain-diversity, viewpoints. Rather than beating > the donkey or elephant silly, it would be more extropic to take an issue > such as getting vaccines to developing countries or proactively fighting > for individual (human) rights and work at finding a solution. For > example, > if a topic is "POL-STEE: Vaccines & Dev. Countries," posters would apply > domain-diversity in their suggested solutions by looking at the issue from > social, technological, economic and environmental perspectives. > > Rather than pushing party politics, posters would push the domain "ideas" > to solve the problem. In the end, this would mean that the solution > finding would be non-partisan and focused on solutions rather than > personal > politics. > > > That works for well defined technical problems. > It does not work if some dispute that there is a problem, or for social > problems that involve cultural clashes. > How would you use your technique to resolve the abortion debate in the US? > > > This method has to work for social problems or it is no good. I think all > social problems involve cultural clashes, don't they? And usually these > clashes can be reduced to religious or political views in which individual > rights (freedom of choice) are not respected. That statement is a perfect example of the kind of cultural blindness that results in the failure of such programs. You are assuming that the issues revolve around individual rights - which they do - in *your* culture. There is no 'outside' observer or objective standard by which any social situation can be resolved. Try rephrasing what you have just written from (say) the standpoint of a Confucian perspective where individual rights are subservient to family duty and social coherence. You might end up with something like... "And usually these clashes can be reduced to religious or political views in which social values (the duty to society) are not respected." Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 17:55:06 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:55:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I agree with Dirk, that politics is somewhat different. In part because > it is constantly shifting. So unlike a "hard" science it is difficult to > establish who the authoritative sources are. > > I find Friedman appealing on several levels. He has concrete experience > following the policy makers going back ~15 years. He has actually *been* on > the ground everyplace from Lebanon to India. He was selected by the > publisher of the NY Times to be an editorial columnist. He does not seem to > hesitate when taking those in power to task when they are screwing up. > > Most importantly -- every time I read one of his columns, or hear him > speak, it usually makes complete sense to me. I.e. his arguments are very > well reasoned. > > If the singularity is coming, and if we hope to survive it, I would > suggest that it might be useful to identify and at least listen to those > people who seem to be capable of having crucial insights. > > When I see people running around citing "international law", "treaties", > etc. I am inclined to reflect (unfortunately -- as it is most probably time > poorly spent) on the degree to which "they" most probably do not "get" it. > > We can each point to such people. The problem is, they come to different conclusions. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:56:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth In-Reply-To: <001d01c60c64$a054c210$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20051229175613.53731.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > A better appeal to the vanity of the ultra-rich > might be some grand, highly > public altruistic gesture which will be forever > recounted as legend by the > press. If the ultra-rich could reliably be called upon to perform these grand gestures without having NDEs then the world would not be such a mess and we wouldn't be having this discussion. > If you want to separate the ultra-rich from their > money - there really is > nothing like enabling the warm fuzzy feeling of > universal recognition of a > great guy... I agree. And this is what my idea is all about. Enabling that warm fuzzy feeling that you have won the game of life and now you are leveling the playing field for the next generation of humanity. 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 Thu Dec 29 18:06:36 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:06:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <71709150-B877-4DCB-BC5E-2F1E27CF1CC1@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051229180636.9833.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > The idea assumes that rich people would really be > all that turned on > by having their picture on the fiat currency of the > day. I believe > that is a seriously flawed assumption. Perhaps. The only real way to find out is to try it, no? :) I like to think of it as an experiment in human nature. 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 Thu Dec 29 18:15:10 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:15:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229181510.6571.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Try rephrasing what you have just written from (say) > the standpoint of a > Confucian perspective where individual rights are > subservient to family duty > and social coherence. You might end up with > something like... "And usually > these clashes can be reduced to religious or > political views in which social > values (the duty to society) are not respected." I find your statement here is especially pertinent to me, Dirk. I am half American and half Korean, so I walk a tightrope between my selfish individualism and my sense of duty to society. The actions that I take the most pride in are the ones that allow me to simultaneously satisfy both. 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 18:25:42 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:25:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <20051229181510.6571.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229181510.6571.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Try rephrasing what you have just written from (say) > > the standpoint of a > > Confucian perspective where individual rights are > > subservient to family duty > > and social coherence. You might end up with > > something like... "And usually > > these clashes can be reduced to religious or > > political views in which social > > values (the duty to society) are not respected." > > I find your statement here is especially pertinent to > me, Dirk. I am half American and half Korean, so I > walk a tightrope between my selfish individualism and > my sense of duty to society. The actions that I take > the most pride in are the ones that allow me to > simultaneously satisfy both. > Which is OK when you can. However, when law is formulated which culture dominates? That is easy to determine in a place like Japan. Not at all easy in 'multicultural' societies. Fortunately, our so-called multicultural societies of the West are still dominated by a majority who hold Western liberal values and place the emphasis on personal freedom. We therefore truncate or outlaw the bits of minority cultures we don't like. It may not be that way forever. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doc454 at prodigy.net Thu Dec 29 18:26:04 2005 From: doc454 at prodigy.net (Doc454) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:26:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) References: <20051229174656.96060.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001b01c60ca5$54ada0c0$d49afea9@pedicordbswuu9> Perhaps Paris Hilton could get her and/or her dog Tinkerbells picture on a 15cent coin. Slam ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) > > > --- Joseph Bloch > wrote: > >> I must disagree. >> >> The ultra-rich don't generate wealth to get famous, >> in large part. >> Indeed, most attempt to discourage such fame (Paris >> Hilton being a >> notable exception, but perhaps only because she >> shares an IQ with the >> dog in her purse). > > It is not about becoming famous and despite me calling > it vanity money, it is not really about vanity. I used > that term simply to draw an analogy to vanity license > plates. What it is really about is power. Since > ancient times the secular rulers of the world have put > their faces on currency. Alexander, the Caesars, > Napoleon - you get the idea. Who are the rulers of the > world today if not the people on your Forbes list? And > if we can give them the recognition they deserve and > at the same time do a great deal of good, than why > shouldn't we? Furthermore, if they are overly modest, > the winners need not place their own face on the > currency, they can also put the face of a loved one or > someone they feel deserves the honor. Sam Walton comes > to mind in regards to his reclusive family. > >> I crave money too, but it's not so I can resculpt >> the moon in my own >> image; it's so I can change the world and at the >> same time ensure >> comfort and access to the latest technological >> advances for myself and >> my family. > > That's fine. Just make sure to remain as objective as > possible when assessing whether you are changing the > world for better or worse. > > > 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 29 18:37:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:37:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512291839.jBTIdLe32425@tick.javien.com> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:20:41 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > > > > As regards the idea that colors may be primary qualities of objects, no > > offense, but I think you're making a very basic mistake, the sort of > > mistake a young child makes or pre-scientific man. Marc be kind to gts. He or she is one of our most valued contributors. spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Dec 29 18:41:45 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:41:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics Message-ID: <380-2200512429184145711@M2W065.mail2web.com> Dirk wrote: >>This method has to work for social problems or it is no good. I think all >>social problems involve cultural clashes, don't they? And usually these >>clashes can be reduced to religious or political views in which individual >>rights (freedom of choice) are not respected. >That statement is a perfect example of the kind of cultural blindness that >results in the failure of such programs. You are assuming that the issues >revolve around individual rights - which they do - in *your* culture. Perhaps you are the one wearing blinders. Your question to me was "How would you use your technique to resolve the abortion debate in the US?" Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 18:51:17 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:51:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics In-Reply-To: <380-2200512429184145711@M2W065.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200512429184145711@M2W065.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 12/29/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Dirk wrote: > > >>This method has to work for social problems or it is no good. I think > all > >>social problems involve cultural clashes, don't they? And usually these > >>clashes can be reduced to religious or political views in which > individual > >>rights (freedom of choice) are not respected. > > >That statement is a perfect example of the kind of cultural blindness > that > >results in the failure of such programs. You are assuming that the issues > >revolve around individual rights - which they do - in *your* culture. > > Perhaps you are the one wearing blinders. Your question to me was "How > would you use your technique to resolve the abortion debate in the US?" > I provided that as an example of an intractable social problem within one society/culture. Multiply that if you want to attempt anything between societies/cultures. The only viable solution IMO is nationalism and MYOB - fence off viable bits of land where people of similar views can live under laws of their own making. The alternative is war on all scales - from urban crime to Iraq-like invasions to AQ. As I said, there is no universal ethic for sorting out these problems. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 29 18:53:16 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:53:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229172602.776.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512291855.jBTItJe01343@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) > > > > --- "Keith M. Elis" > wrote: > > > ... you can rely on good, > > old-fashioned capitalism, almost guaranteed? > > Because this would kill the spirit of the endeavor. > The whole point of putting these people on the money > is to honor these great Americans for "giving back"... I like your idea avant, but if I were rich I would skip the honor part and go for straight for the profit. {8-] As a novelty item, I could see having one's mug on legal currency, as a toy for the super rich. This world needs more toys for the super rich to get their money back into circulation. > To allow it to become mere advertising space would > only cheapen the concept and our national identity. > > The Avantguardian Ja, but the term "cheapen" can also mean "to make more affordable," which is a good thing. All national identities should be cheapened in the pejorative sense of making less desirable. In the age of the internet, we should have memetic identities as opposed to identities assigned to us as an accident of geography or the whims of cartographers. Imagine a meta-national identity where we identify with those all over the world who subscribe to a philosophy of freedoms as a superset of all those freedoms guaranteed by any government anywhere. For instance, my metanational identity recognizes my right to bear arms, since the U.S. affirms that right, and also to do any kind of self medication that I wish, since Denmark allows it. And so on. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 19:56:57 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:56:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <8F93D3FF-4738-432A-BDD2-329DB516DA03@mac.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8F93D3FF-4738-432A-BDD2-329DB516DA03@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:02:40 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: > No. The value of currency is fixed by government fiat in the US. It > has a monopoly. The value of our currency is not fixed in any way, Samantha. All we know for certain is that a $20 bill is worth 20 times more than a $1 bill. But how much is a Bill Gates $20 bill worth compared to an Al Capone $20 bill? We can't have different bills for the same denominations. The effect would be that of creating new unspecified denominations. Some 20's would be worth more than other 20's. Chaos. If they are to be collector's items only, fine, but in that case they could be issued only in small number. Collectors only collect rare items. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 20:13:35 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <200512291839.jBTIdLe32425@tick.javien.com> References: <200512291839.jBTIdLe32425@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:37:14 -0500, spike wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:20:41 -0500, Marc Geddes >> wrote: >> >> >>> As regards the idea that colors may be primary qualities of objects, >>> no offense, but I think you're making a very basic mistake, the sort >>> of >>> mistake a young child makes or pre-scientific man. > > > Marc be kind to gts. He or she is one of our most > valued contributors. That's nice af you to say, spike, but his point is valid. Color realism is similar to the views of a "pre-scientific man". My thought here is that perhaps pre-scientific man deserves some credit. Abstract science and philosophy have not yet answered these very basic questions. However simple common sense tells us that objects really are as they appear. Ask a common man if tomatoes are red. He will answer, "Yes, of course tomatoes are red!" Perhaps the common man is right. In any case we're all talking out of our hats here, including me. :) -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 20:16:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > We can't have different bills for the same > denominations. The effect would > be that of creating new unspecified denominations. > Some 20's would be > worth more than other 20's. Chaos. But why not? We have different coins for the same denomination. Some state quarters may be rarer than others but they all buy exactly 25 cents worth of stuff at the store. We have Eisenhower dollars, Anthony dollars, and Sakajawea dollars that all buy exactly $1 worth of stuff. How is whose face on a dollar going to affect the "value" of the dollar when it has not been the case so far? Also Bush just gave the go ahead to mint a series of dollar coins with all the dead presidents on them: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051216-011546-2131r 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 Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Thu Dec 29 20:27:41 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:27:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Politics: worthwhile commentary Message-ID: <20051229212741.cypi8ebprkwz8co0@webmail.sic.rm.cnr.it> > I would view any "political" commentary which does not include Friedman's > perspective as incompletely informed. > (So, to the "political" commentators -- *shut up* until you have read what > Friedman has written and observed the shows on which he has spoken -- he has > a grasp of the "big" picture which is lacking in most political > discussions.) I don't find it useful for me in learning and discussing middle eastern politics to focus on one person as an 'expert'. If for lack of time, I needed to focus my readings, I would choose works from people like Edward W. Said, V.S. Naipaul, Idries Shah (& Saira), who have lived for significant parts of their lives both in that region, and in a region like my own so that I can trust that they have good experience and perspective. When I have more time to learn about the politics between my own and another, I would also (and I do) educate myself on the arts, history, and cultural aspects. I disagreed with everything I read from Thomas Friedman in his political Op-Ed pieces in the New York Times. After reading about a dozen, I stopped because I don't think it is a good use of my time. I picked up at my relative's house Friedman's book _The World is Flat_ however, and read four or five chapters and enjoyed those chapters alot, so I will probably buy this book at some point in the future. Amara From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 29 20:27:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:27:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] [humor] Bloodless Redistribution ofWealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512292029.jBTKTIe09047@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... >...Also Bush just gave > the go ahead to mint a series of dollar coins with all > the dead presidents on them: > http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051216-011546-2131r Really, all of them? They didn't leave out you-know-who? spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 20:39:01 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:39:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:16:58 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > But why not? We have different coins for the same > denomination. Some state quarters may be rarer than > others but they all buy exactly 25 cents worth of > stuff at the store. These quarters are on the cusp between normal currency and collector items. Eventually they will be worth more than 25 cents, and in fact they already are if you sell them as a collection. There is good reason we did not issue state hundred dollar bills instead. Quarters are practically worthless in today's economy, so the novelty effect is negligible. The idea would have been problematic a hundred years ago, when 25 cents was worth something. > We have Eisenhower dollars, > Anthony dollars, and Sakajawea dollars that all buy > exactly $1 worth of stuff. Same situation: near collectors items and low demomations. I thought you were proposing something that would reduce federal taxes in some significant way. That would require a massive and I think disastrous change to our currency. -gts From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 20:47:48 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:47:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: <43B33306.6010400@goldenfuture.net> <5844e22f0512290749t5eda1987jfa408d758c7c70c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512291247m1f03c013x6249fcf6120a76c@mail.gmail.com> I'm about as interested in arguing politics as I am in removing my own fingernails without pain medication, so I won't be arguing sides in this endless, aimless "Extropian politics: Should we, could we, and if so how?" set of threads, which is almost completely passed into my garbage mail filters anyway. That said, here are a handful of criticisms of Friedman plucked from Google. Most of them look pretty spot-on; I said most, so don't bother finding the one that isn't right and then blithely ignoring the others, and of course keep in mind that I, as I said a moment ago, will not be joining the fray, so I won't be speaking up to defend these. Nevertheless, putting them into circulation for you iron-stomached folks who care to talk about his stuff, I can do. Enjoy the autoevisceration... Friedman wrong about Muslims: http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html (Google cache, as the server was down earlier today, is available at) http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:11mESlMHWp4J:www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html+juan+cole+friedman&hl=en and more related commentary at http://avari.blogs.com/weblog/2005/07/tom_friedman_is.html Friedman wrong on Europe and the war: http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/02/smoking_and_the_smoking_gun.shtml Friedman with some terrible reasoning on Saudi Arabia, Europe, and Iraq: http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/000426.html A critical review of Friedman's "The World Is Flat": http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.drum.html -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 21:01:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:01:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229172602.776.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229172602.776.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Does this topic have something in particular to do with extropy? - s On Dec 29, 2005, at 9:26 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- "Keith M. Elis" > wrote: > >> This idea is interesting to me only if we call it >> what it really is: >> the selling of advertising space on US currency. >> Let's let any entity, >> individual or corporate, enter the bidding. Imagine >> the behemoth >> financial services companies that would leap at the >> opportunity to have >> their logo blazoned across the $100 bill. Imagine >> the lottery >> organizations that would kill to have 'Use this >> dollar to play >> Powerball' dead-center of the 1$ bill. Billionaires >> are already rich, >> they don't need to advertise. However, many >> organizations with >> monstrous marketing budgets would leverage the farm >> to bid on this. Why >> hope for enough individual vanity when you can rely >> on good, >> old-fashioned capitalism, almost guaranteed? > > Because this would kill the spirit of the endeavor. > The whole point of putting these people on the money > is to honor these great Americans for "giving back". > To allow it to become mere advertising space would > only cheapen the concept and our national identity. > > 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 29 21:06:31 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:31 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <7a5e56060512282205v1ec2982eq98fda4a83349273a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <024601c60cbb$be7871e0$0100a8c0@kevin> Well of course, the whole star wars saga is full of them. Of course, people can be had as slaves as well. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Geddes To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:05 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s >Best of the season to all. Hiding downstairs from the upstairs festivities, I've finished a draft of a short paper I am working on dealing with the question of whether we can own or otherwise dictate the life trajectories of human-level intelligent robots. I would be interested if anyone has examples from fiction or non-fiction where it is assumed that it is morally permissible to own human-level robots. An example that came to me this morning (and made me smile) was "Rosie" from the Jetsons. Rosie is purchased as a slightly used robot but she is sensitive enough to try and leave the Jetsons when she believes that she has caused the Jetsons problems. Poor Rosie, she is a slave. Cheers, Mark Best AI's in science-fiction I've ever seen were the AI's in the 'Blake's 7' TV series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ I loved that series. Laughable special effects, but great script, great plots, great characters and best depiction of AI's in sci-fi. Might be worth you getting the videos if you aren't familiar with the series and want a look. The AI's that featured were called ORAC, ZEN and SLAVE. After watching the episodes when I was 12 or so I remember trying to create an AI on my ZX Spectrum (48k RAM and a sound cassette for data storage!). Yudkowsky and Wilson would both have been in nappies then ;) --- Of course the question of whether it's ethical to own human-level intelligent robots probably only boils down to whether they're sentient or not. I don't know whether it's possible to have non-sentient human level intelligence but I guess it is. (Of course - self-improving intelligence is another matter - again I don't know - but my guess would be that non-sentient AI's can't self-improve - they'd be stuck at the same intelligence level - I guess that Qualia are neccesserily generated by the growth and integration of novel knowledge). wwwpermanentend.org/Walker/mp3000.html Dr. Mark Walker Departme= nt of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada -- "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" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Dec 29 21:06:39 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:06:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8F93D3FF-4738-432A-BDD2-329DB516DA03@mac.com> Message-ID: <1B97B5D1-66F9-45F9-BED2-E9C34BBF4669@mac.com> On Dec 29, 2005, at 11:56 AM, gts wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:02:40 -0500, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > >> No. The value of currency is fixed by government fiat in the US. >> It has a monopoly. > > The value of our currency is not fixed in any way, Samantha. All we > know for certain is that a $20 bill is worth 20 times more than a > $1 bill. But how much is a Bill Gates $20 bill worth compared to an > Al Capone $20 bill? > You are incorrect. The value of a $20 is exactly the same by fiat until it becomes a matter of collector or numismatic interest. A circulating $20 will have $20 purchasing power regardless by law. - s From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:09:28 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:09:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229210928.98106.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: Does a single step have have something to do with a running a marathon? > Does this topic have something in particular to do > with extropy? > > - s 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 Thu Dec 29 21:10:15 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:10:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051229201658.75689.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I compared these proposed bills to baseball cards, and come to think of it the idea makes some sense if we forget about legal currency and instead make them something like baseball cards. People could trade them on ebay, or even on some exchange created for that purpose (one created by our own Robin Hanson, possibly). In other words, treat them like commodities with no legal face value, made of precious metals. They could be silver or gold medallions. Their market value would reflect the underlying metal, their rarity, and the popularity of the philanthropist who sponsored the issue. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:19:59 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:19:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <1B97B5D1-66F9-45F9-BED2-E9C34BBF4669@mac.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <200512282145.jBSLjse04776@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051228161843.01cdc650@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8F93D3FF-4738-432A-BDD2-329DB516DA03@mac.com> <1B97B5D1-66F9-45F9-BED2-E9C34BBF4669@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:06:39 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: > You are incorrect. The value of a $20 is exactly the same by fiat until > it becomes a matter of collector or numismatic interest. A circulating > $20 will have $20 purchasing power regardless by law. Your words here mean absolutely nothing. The purchasing power of a $20, its value, is not fixed in any way, and the value of our currency fluctuates constantly on the world market. -gts From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Dec 29 22:21:49 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:21:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary Message-ID: <380-2200512429222149460@M2W036.mail2web.com> From: Jeff Medina >I'm about as interested in arguing politics as I am in removing my own >fingernails without pain medication, I can feel it this very moment! :-) grrr (I hope you don't mind but I enjoyed reading "The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization." I did not agree with all of it, but it was a worthwhile read.) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 22:33:44 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:33:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] [humor] Bloodless Redistribution ofWealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <200512292029.jBTKTIe09047@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051229223344.70888.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Really, all of them? They didn't leave out > you-know-who? Isn't you-know-who still alive? Jeff D __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 29 22:37:49 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:37:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <380-2200512429222149460@M2W036.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200512429222149460@M2W036.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <70C4D9A2-DE4F-4DD7-A46C-04A9CCD43458@mac.com> I enjoyed "The World is Flat" and learned a lot from it. Especially I got a much better understanding of the globally distributed nature of various enterprises and occupations and what it makes possible. It lit a fire under me to reorganize my own career choices and revamp my economic models. I did not enjoy his rather neocon positive political opinions and thought that was a far weaker part of the book. But overall I very strongly recommend it. - samantha On Dec 29, 2005, at 2:21 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Jeff Medina > >> I'm about as interested in arguing politics as I am in removing my >> own >> fingernails without pain medication, > > I can feel it this very moment! :-) grrr > > (I hope you don't mind but I enjoyed reading "The Lexus and the > Olive Tree: > Understanding Globalization." I did not agree with all of it, but > it was a > worthwhile read.) > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mark at permanentend.org Thu Dec 29 22:39:13 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:39:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <7a5e56060512282205v1ec2982eq98fda4a83349273a@mail.gmail.com> <024601c60cbb$be7871e0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <019d01c60cc8$b1f82520$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kevinfreels.com" < >Well of course, the whole star wars saga is full of them. Of course, people >can be had as slaves as well. > Well, the worry is that human-level robots are persons as well, unless you mean by 'person' that persons are necessarily biological beings. It may be that in the Star Wars saga they do not discriminate against human-level intelligent robots because humans can be slaves as well. But are own reaction to the movies is interesting. I wonder how we would feel about Luke Skywalker in the first movie (Episode III) if he and his family were buying human slaves rather than robot slaves? My guess is that our reaction would be quite different, which shows our prejudice: our substratism. I hope people think this through morally before people invest a huge amount of money in developing AI. That is, there may well be an expectation that developing human level AI ought to reap some financial benefits, but unless we reintroduce slavery it is difficult to see how this will be assured. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 23:01:47 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:01:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:20:41 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > Clearly, if color perception is anywhere it's in the brain, not in > external objects. Have you considered this view?... "Clark & Chalmers (1998) even go so far to speak about an "extended mind", the boundaries of the self, as a cognitive system, extending beyond the skull and the skin to encompass the things with which we interact. Taking this literally, it would even make sense to say that color experiences exist in the mind after all, but as qualities of the surfaces of the objects around us, rather than as mysterious qualia inside the brain." Colors may then be in the mind *and* primary qualities of objects. The problem of qualia would then be with our common-sense concept of mind, not of color. We tend to think our minds are trapped in our skulls, but why? While the idea of extended mind may seem strange, it resolves the problem quite nicely I think: children and pre-scientific man and common sense are correct; things really do have color qualities. Color need not be pigments of our imagination or mysterious platonic math-like entities from the "multi-dimensional time" that you postulate. Chalmers and Clark make this very interesting point: "By embracing an active externalism, we allow a more natural explanation of all sorts of actions. One can explain my choice of words in Scrabble, for example, as the outcome of an extended cognitive process involving the rearrangement of tiles on my tray. Of course, one could always try to explain my action in terms of internal processes and a long series of "inputs" and "actions", but this explanation would be needless[ly] complex. If an isomorphic process were going on in the head, we would feel no urge to characterize it in this cumbersome way. In a very real sense, the re-arrangement of tiles on the tray is not part of action; it is part of thought." http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/concepts/clark.html If your rearranging tiles on a scrabble tray is a part of your thought then your mind is not trapped in your skull. When you watch yourself rearranging scrabble tiles, you are watching your mind think. Simple and elegant. No need for Plato or extra time dimensions. -gts From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Dec 29 23:27:04 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:27:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <7a5e56060512282205v1ec2982eq98fda4a83349273a@mail.gmail.com><024601c60cbb$be7871e0$0100a8c0@kevin> <019d01c60cc8$b1f82520$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <02ca01c60ccf$613b7d10$0100a8c0@kevin> Of course, you have to wonder, what would an AI want? People want money to buy things and go places and to provide food and shelter. Assuming that an AI would already have shelter and food (energy) and be able to travel anywhere at light-speed, what else could you pay them? I also wonder if they wouldn;t quickly committ suicide after becoming conscious. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Walker" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MP3000s > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kevinfreels.com" < > > >Well of course, the whole star wars saga is full of them. Of course, people > >can be had as slaves as well. > > > Well, the worry is that human-level robots are persons as well, unless you > mean by 'person' that persons are necessarily biological beings. It may be > that in the Star Wars saga they do not discriminate against human-level > intelligent robots because humans can be slaves as well. But are own > reaction to the movies is interesting. I wonder how we would feel about Luke > Skywalker in the first movie (Episode III) if he and his family were buying > human slaves rather than robot slaves? My guess is that our reaction would > be quite different, which shows our prejudice: our substratism. I hope > people think this through morally before people invest a huge amount of > money in developing AI. That is, there may well be an expectation that > developing human level AI ought to reap some financial benefits, but unless > we reintroduce slavery it is difficult to see how this will be assured. > > Cheers, > > Mark > > Dr. Mark Walker > Department of Philosophy > University Hall 310 > McMaster University > 1280 Main Street West > Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 > Canada > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Dec 29 23:30:23 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:30:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: CFP Deadline Jan 1: Enhancement & Rights, May 26-28, 2006, Stanford Law School Message-ID: CALL FOR PROPOSALS Proposals due by: January 1, 2006 "Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights" May 26-28, 2006 Stanford University Law School, Stanford, California http://ieet.org/HEHR/ Organized by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Co-Sponsors: Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford Program in Ethics in Society Some of the speakers already confirmed: - James Hughes Ph.D., Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - Dale Carrico Ph.D., Fellow, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - Mark Walker Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, McMaster University - Wrye Sententia Ph.D., Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics - Henry Greely J.D., Co-Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology - Christine Peterson, Vice President, Foresight Institute - Nick Bostrom Ph.D., Director, Oxford Future of Humanity Institute - Anita Silvers Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, SFSU - Julian Savulescu Ph.D., Director, Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics - Jennifer Lahl, National Director, Center for Bioethics and Culture - Richard Boire J.D., Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics Much of the criticism of enhancement technologies has focused on the potential for increased discrimination against women, people of color, the poor, the differently enabled, or "unenhanced" humans. Some bioethicists have proposed a global treaty to ban enhancement technologies as "crimes against humanity." Defenders of enhancement argue that the use of biotechnologies is a fundamental human right, inseparable from the defense of bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, free expression and cognitive liberty. While acknowledging real risks from genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive enhancement, defenders of enhancement believe that bans on the consensual use of new technologies would be an even greater threat to human rights. Health care, disability and reproductive rights activists have argued that access to technology empowers full and equal participation in society. On the same grounds a generalized right to "technological empowerment" might connect defenders of enhancement technologies with disability activists, reproductive rights activists with would-be parents seeking fertility treatments, the transgendered with aesthetic body modifiers, drug policy reformers and anti-aging researchers with advocates for dignity in dying. Yet, what, if any, limits should be considered to human enhancement? On what grounds can citizens be prevented from modifying their own genes or brains? How far should reproductive rights be extended? Might enhancement reduce the diversity of humanity in the name of optimal health? Or, conversely, might enhancements inspire such an unprecedented diversity of human beings that they strain the limits of liberal tolerance and social solidarity? Can we exercise full freedom of thought if we can't exercise control over our own brains using safe, available technologies? Can we ensure that enhancement technologies are safe and equitably distributed? When are regulatory efforts simply covert, illiberal value judgments? Between the ideological extremes of absolute prohibition and total laissez-faire that dominate popular discussions of human enhancement there are many competing agendas, hopes and fears. How can the language of human rights guide us in framing the critical issues? How will enhancement technologies transform the demands we make of human rights? With the Human Enhancement and Human Rights conference we seek to begin a conversation with the human rights community, bioethicists, legal scholars, and political activists about the relationship of enhancement technologies to human rights, cognitive liberty and bodily autonomy. It is time to begin the defense of human rights in the era of human enhancement. Examples of topics that might be addressed: Day One: Human Enhancement and Control of the Body For instance, papers might address: - How much morphological diversity can the polity sustain? - Animal-human chimeric enhancement and animal rights - Reproductive cloning: Irrelevant, futile or an important battle? - Disability rights and cyborg assistive technology - Life extension and the right to die: Two sides of the same coin? - Germline engineering and the consent of the future generations - Procreative liberty and the genetic enhancement of children - The medicalization of transgenderism - Cosmetic surgery and future body modification Day Two: Cognitive Enhancement Technology For instance, papers might address: - Enhancing capacities for citizenship - Social equality and cognitive enhancement - Freedom of thought as a basis for rights to use cognitive enhancement - Psychoactive drug law reform - Religious liberty and entheogens - Regulating the risks of neural implants and brain machines - The myth of the "authentic self" - Challenges to human personhood and citizenship from cognitive enhancement - Use of technologies of personality modification in criminal rehabilitation Instructions for Submitting Presentations Include all of the following information in a two-page proposal for your presentation - Title of presentation - Type of presentation: paper, panel, poster, workshop - Abstract (25-100 words) for inclusion in the conference program - Media to be used and audiovisual equipment needed (if any). - Designated contact person (only one per proposal) - Complete name, title, organization, address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address for each session presenter - Brief biographical sketch of each presenter Please submit your proposal electronically to the conference chair James Hughes at director at ieet.org The presenters of accepted proposals will need to pre-register for the conference by April 15, 2006 at the reduced rate of $100 in order to be included in the program. For more information please contact the conference chair James Hughes Ph.D., Public Policy Studies, Trinity College, Williams 229B, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106, james.hughes at trincoll.edu, (860) 297-2376. Timeline for Presenters Proposals due by: January 1, 2006 Notification of acceptance: March 1, 2006 Deadline for pre-registration by presenters: April 15, 2006 Publications You may submit your full paper for consideration for publication in The Journal of Evolution and Technology. A special issue on Human Enhancement and Human Rights will be published in the Spring of 2006 [http://jetpress.org/#Rights] but papers will also be welcome on these topics at any time. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Dec 30 00:09:05 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:09:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: CFP Deadline Jan 1: Enhancement & Rights, May 26-28, 2006, Stanford Law School Message-ID: <380-2200512530095775@M2W087.mail2web.com> From: Hughes, James >CALL FOR PROPOSALS >Proposals due by: January 1, 2006 >"Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights" >May 26-28, 2006 This looks like a great project. Why not directly contact Max to speak on The Proactionary Principle? Seems like you would want to include him, especially given your topic and his expertise. Best wishes, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 30 00:31:53 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:31:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] (U.S.) Government releases proposed space travel rules Message-ID: <43B47FF9.2000807@goldenfuture.net> The full text of the proposed regulations may be found at http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=902051483587+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Comments, I should point out, are solicited (instructions right at the top of the 120-page document). Here's an article on the subject. I'm sure there are (and will be) more. From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180126,00.html *Thinking of spending that next vacation on the moon or Mars or circling the Earth? Before liftoff, there's a list of things the would-be "space flight participant" should know.* More than 120 pages of proposed rules, released by the government Thursday, regulate the future of *space tourism* . This don't-forget list touches on everything from passenger medical standards to preflight training for the crew. Before taking a trip that literally is out of this world, companies would be required to inform the "space flight participant" ? known in more earthly settings as simply a passenger ? of the risks. Passengers also would be required to provide written consent before boarding a vehicle for takeoff. Legislation signed a year ago by President Bush and designed to help the space industry flourish prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from issuing safety regulations for passengers and crew for eight years, unless specific design features or operating practices cause a serious or fatal injury. "This means that the FAA has to wait for harm to occur or almost occur before it can impose restrictions, even against foreseeable harm," the proposal says. "Instead, Congress requires that space flight participants be informed of the risks." Physical exams for passengers are recommended, but will not be required, "unless a clear public safety need is identified," the FAA says in the proposed regulations. Passengers also would have to be trained on how to respond during emergencies, including the loss of cabin pressure, fire and smoke, as well as how to get out of the vehicle safely. Pilots, meanwhile, must have an FAA pilot certificate and be able to show that they know how to operate the vehicle. Student or sport pilot licenses would not qualify. Each member of the crew must have a medical certificate issued within a year of the flight, and a crew member's physical and mental state must "be sufficient to perform safety-related roles," the rules say. The FAA also would require each crew member to be trained to ensure that the vehicle will not harm the public, such as if it had to be abandoned during a flight emergency. The legislation that Bush signed last year tasked the FAA with coming up with rules to regulate the commercial space flight industry, which has been slowly getting off the ground. Laws governing private sector space endeavors, such as satellite launches, have existed for some time. But there previously has been no legal jurisdiction for regulating commercial human spaceflight. In 2001, California businessman Dennis Tito became the world's first space tourist when he rode a Russian Soyuz capsule to the international space station. Mark Shuttleworth, a South African Internet magnate, followed a year later on a similar trip, also paying $20 million for the ride. Last year, in a feat considered a breakthrough for the future of private spaceflight, Burt Rutan won the $10 million Ansari X Prize by rocketing his SpaceShipOne to the edge of space twice in five days. Two months ago, Greg Olsen, who made millions at a Princeton, N.J., technology company, became the world's third paying space tourist, also on a jaunt to the international space station. The 123-page proposal was published Thursday in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of rules and regulations, and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, through Feb. 27. Final regulations are expected by June 23. From doc454 at prodigy.net Fri Dec 30 01:10:45 2005 From: doc454 at prodigy.net (Doc454) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:10:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [humor] Bloodless RedistributionofWealth(wasSingulartarians) References: <20051229223344.70888.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000c01c60cdd$dd3fa7c0$d49afea9@pedicordbswuu9> FDR is still alive?! Slam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Davis" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [humor] Bloodless RedistributionofWealth(wasSingulartarians) > --- spike wrote: >> >> Really, all of them? They didn't leave out >> you-know-who? > > Isn't you-know-who still alive? > > Jeff D > > > > __________________________________________ > 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 femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 30 01:14:11 2005 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:14:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051229172602.776.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230011411.32757.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Two weeks ago I bought Times Magazine with Bono, Bill Gates and his wife. I think that if I had 40 billion dollars (or whatever), I would probably be bored with making money. I would think, what can I do to be remembered by my donations? I've done the one in a lot, became a billionaire. Now what's next? I would bet that Bill Gates would put his wife on any coin or any dollar bill. The Avantguardian wrote: --- "Keith M. Elis" wrote: > This idea is interesting to me only if we call it > what it really is: > the selling of advertising space on US currency. > Let's let any entity, > individual or corporate, enter the bidding. Imagine > the behemoth > financial services companies that would leap at the > opportunity to have > their logo blazoned across the $100 bill. Imagine > the lottery > organizations that would kill to have 'Use this > dollar to play > Powerball' dead-center of the 1$ bill. Billionaires > are already rich, > they don't need to advertise. However, many > organizations with > monstrous marketing budgets would leverage the farm > to bid on this. Why > hope for enough individual vanity when you can rely > on good, > old-fashioned capitalism, almost guaranteed? Because this would kill the spirit of the endeavor. The whole point of putting these people on the money is to honor these great Americans for "giving back". To allow it to become mere advertising space would only cheapen the concept and our national identity. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 01:13:24 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:13:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth (wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <71709150-B877-4DCB-BC5E-2F1E27CF1CC1@mac.com> References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <71709150-B877-4DCB-BC5E-2F1E27CF1CC1@mac.com> Message-ID: By the way aren't moving rapidly toward a cashless society anyway? I find less and less need for cash. Even fast-food drive-throughs take debit cards these days. Samantha, excuse me you did make a point: legally you can probably force a merchant to sell you something for $20 that he sells to other people for $20, even if he hates Microsoft and your $20 Bill-bill. Maybe that is what you were trying to say. But the problem remains that these bills would be traded like baseball cards. Their value would fluctuate all over the map. So why not just call them baseball cards? Leave the currency alone and create a new commodities market. Your local merchant might even accept them in lieu of real currency. -gts From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Dec 30 01:19:23 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:19:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: CFP Deadline Jan 1: Enhancement & Rights, May 26-28, 2006, Stanford Law School Message-ID: > Max to speak on The Proactionary Principle? I haven't heard Max address the proactionary principle to the topic of human rights before. But I'm sure the conference committee would be very interested in his submitting a proposal that spoke to the issues in the motivating language of the conference call: http://ieet.org/HEHR/ So please do encourage him to think about it. ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 30 01:18:20 2005 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:18:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: <001b01c60ca5$54ada0c0$d49afea9@pedicordbswuu9> Message-ID: <20051230011820.37255.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do you know how much money that could be given back to society, if she decided to donate it? Just curious Anna Doc454 wrote: Perhaps Paris Hilton could get her and/or her dog Tinkerbells picture on a 15cent coin. Slam ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) > > > --- Joseph Bloch > wrote: > >> I must disagree. >> >> The ultra-rich don't generate wealth to get famous, >> in large part. >> Indeed, most attempt to discourage such fame (Paris >> Hilton being a >> notable exception, but perhaps only because she >> shares an IQ with the >> dog in her purse). > > It is not about becoming famous and despite me calling > it vanity money, it is not really about vanity. I used > that term simply to draw an analogy to vanity license > plates. What it is really about is power. Since > ancient times the secular rulers of the world have put > their faces on currency. Alexander, the Caesars, > Napoleon - you get the idea. Who are the rulers of the > world today if not the people on your Forbes list? And > if we can give them the recognition they deserve and > at the same time do a great deal of good, than why > shouldn't we? Furthermore, if they are overly modest, > the winners need not place their own face on the > currency, they can also put the face of a loved one or > someone they feel deserves the honor. Sam Walton comes > to mind in regards to his reclusive family. > >> I crave money too, but it's not so I can resculpt >> the moon in my own >> image; it's so I can change the world and at the >> same time ensure >> comfort and access to the latest technological >> advances for myself and >> my family. > > That's fine. Just make sure to remain as objective as > possible when assessing whether you are changing the > world for better or worse. > > > 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 01:28:25 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANISTS OF THE WORLD: UNITE !!! Message-ID: <20051230012825.79297.qmail@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, The year 2005 has been a relatively good year for the advancement of transhumanist ideas worldwide, and hopefully 2006 will be much better. We are in an accelerating process and things are just picking up speed. All transhumanists in the planet have to work more actively if we really believe in our cause. Thus, if you are extropian, singularitarian, immortalist, cryonicist... or simply transhumanist... let's unite our efforts for a better world. Indeed, for a better universe and multiverse... FELICES FIESTAS HAPPY HOLIDAYS BUONE FESTE MEILLEURS V?UX PRETTIGE FEESTDAGEN GOD JUL BOAS FESTAS 圣诞快乐 メリークリスマス Sorry for missing so many other languages, but have a very happy 2006, 2060, 2600, 6200... forever... Transhumanistically yours, 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 Fri Dec 30 02:07:18 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:07:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANISTS OF THE WORLD: UNITE !!! In-Reply-To: <20051230012825.79297.qmail@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230020718.57648.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And don't forget to add your coordinates below, if you have not already done it: http://www.frappr.com/transhumanists Jose Cordeiro wrote: Dear transhumanist friends, The year 2005 has been a relatively good year for the advancement of transhumanist ideas worldwide, and hopefully 2006 will be much better. We are in an accelerating process and things are just picking up speed. All transhumanists in the planet have to work more actively if we really believe in our cause. Thus, if you are extropian, singularitarian, immortalist, cryonicist... or simply transhumanist... let's unite our efforts for a better world. Indeed, for a better universe and multiverse... FELICES FIESTAS HAPPY HOLIDAYS BUONE FESTE MEILLEURS V?UX PRETTIGE FEESTDAGEN GOD JUL BOAS FESTAS 圣诞快乐 メリークリスマス Sorry for missing so many other languages, but have a very happy 2006, 2060, 2600, 6200... forever... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse 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 Fri Dec 30 02:09:58 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:09:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Join 1,000 Fellow Futurists in Toronto In-Reply-To: <200512151726.MAA28367@mars.wfs.org> Message-ID: <20051230020958.99987.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> FYI... "Tim Mack, WFS" wrote: We at the World Future Society are very excited about our upcoming meeting July 28-30, 2006, in Toronto at the Sheraton Centre Hotel, and we invite you to join us. If you register by December 30, you can guarantee your spot at the conference and save more than $200 off the on-site rate. We are working with the program committee to put together a "world's fair of ideas" that you won't want to miss. Some already confirmed speakers are: Walter Derzko, founder of CERES Scenario Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto; Ray Kurzweil, award-winning inventor and high-tech entrepreneur, founder of Kurzweil Technologies, Inc.; Ervin Laszlo, founder and president of The Club of Budapest and editor of World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution; Stephanie MacKendrick, president of Canadian Women in Communications; David Tennenhouse, vice president of corporate technology group and director of research for Intel Corporation; Pamela Wallin, Canadian Consul General to New York City; and many, many more... Special activities will include an on-site bookstore with a large selection of future-oriented titles, meet-the-author sessions, table-top displays from future-oriented institutions, and free career counseling. Two keynote luncheons and a reception afford you the time to meet casually with your colleagues and to meet new contacts. This is an event not to miss. Remember, if you register by December 30, you'll save more than $200 off the final registration rate. Register now at http://www.wfs.org/2006main.htm Or call 1-800-989-8274 Take care, Tim Mack President World Future Society mailto:tmack at wfs.org [Since you're a subscriber to Futurist Update, we thought you'd be interested in this notice of the upcoming registration deadline for the Society's annual conference. This notice has been sent by the World Future Society from its headquarters at 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U.S.A. If you'd rather not receive such notices or have other comments, please reply to this email or contact Jeff Cornish (jcornish at wfs.org; 301-656-8274). For more information about the Society, visit www.wfs.org.] 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 spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 30 02:36:23 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:36:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051230011411.32757.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512300238.jBU2cVe08062@tick.javien.com> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Two weeks ago I bought Times Magazine with Bono, Bill Gates and his wife. ... I would think, what can I do to be remembered by my donations? I've done the one in a lot, became a billionaire... WOW Anna, we have treated you with insufficient respect pal! All this time you were posting just as modestly as any ordinary prole. Here you are a billionaire, and now co-owner of Times Magazine, along with Bono and the Microsloth biggies! {8-] Or did I misunderstand? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 02:56:56 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:56:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANISTS OF THE WORLD: UNITE !!! In-Reply-To: <20051230020718.57648.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230025656.2682.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Felices Isaac-Newton Navidad? --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 30 03:07:59 2005 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:07:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <200512300238.jBU2cVe08062@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051230030759.82064.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry to say Spike: I'm just an ordinary prole. Anna:) spike wrote: st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Two weeks ago I bought Times Magazine with Bono, Bill Gates and his wife. ... I would think, what can I do to be remembered by my donations? I've done the one in a lot, became a billionaire... WOW Anna, we have treated you with insufficient respect pal! All this time you were posting just as modestly as any ordinary prole. Here you are a billionaire, and now co-owner of Times Magazine, along with Bono and the Microsloth biggies! {8-] Or did I misunderstand? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 30 03:52:52 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:52:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <20051230030759.82064.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512300354.jBU3ste13946@tick.javien.com> Doh! So no low-interest 7 figure loans for me. {8^D spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 7:08 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) Sorry to say Spike: I'm just an ordinary prole. Anna:) spike wrote: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Beh! alf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Two weeks ago I bought Times Magazine with Bono, Bill Gates and his wife. ... I would think, what can I do to be remembered by my donations? I've done the one in a lot, became a billionaire... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 30 04:14:20 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:14:20 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, gts wrote: >I could say "No offense, but your idea of '7-aspect neutral monism' is >about the most convoluted idea I've ever heard of." (but I won't) :-) But you *did* just say it. And of course you could well be right. I doubt it though ;) > > Have you considered this view?... > > "Clark & Chalmers (1998) even go so far to speak about an "extended mind", > the boundaries of the self, as a cognitive system, extending beyond the > skull and the skin to encompass the things with which we interact. Taking > this literally, it would even make sense to say that color experiences > exist in the mind after all, but as qualities of the surfaces of the > objects around us, rather than as mysterious qualia inside the brain." > > Colors may then be in the mind *and* primary qualities of objects. > > The problem of qualia would then be with our common-sense concept of mind, > not of color. We tend to think our minds are trapped in our skulls, but > why? > > While the idea of extended mind may seem strange, it resolves the problem > quite nicely I think: children and pre-scientific man and common sense are > correct; things really do have color qualities. Color need not be pigments > of our imagination or mysterious platonic math-like entities from the > "multi-dimensional time" that you postulate. > > Chalmers and Clark make this very interesting point: > > "By embracing an active externalism, we allow a more natural explanation > of all sorts of actions. One can explain my choice of words in Scrabble, > for example, as the outcome of an extended cognitive process involving the > rearrangement of tiles on my tray. Of course, one could always try to > explain my action in terms of internal processes and a long series of > "inputs" and "actions", but this explanation would be needless[ly] > complex. If an isomorphic process were going on in the head, we would feel > no urge to characterize it in this cumbersome way. In a very real sense, > the re-arrangement of tiles on the tray is not part of action; it is part > of thought." > > http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/concepts/clark.html > > If your rearranging tiles on a scrabble tray is a part of your thought > then your mind is not trapped in your skull. When you watch yourself > rearranging scrabble tiles, you are watching your mind think. > I've considered the view and I have no idea what the heck Chalmers and Clark are on about there. As I pointed out, we know how the visual system works and things are definitely represented in the brain: Here's a summary of the visual pathways in the brain: http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/cenvis.html And a schematic of color vision concepts: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colviscon.html#c1 To summarize what I've been saying again: The colors we see are caused by the machinary in the cones. And these are simply a product of random evolutionary processes. Different observers with brains wired differently would see different colors. So there's no way to pick out some particular observer's perception as being objectively correct. Worse we know that perception is in part caused by an interaction between current experience and past memories - so again - different observers with different memories will see slightly different things. Finally, as I think Stuart neatly pointed out, if the lightening in the environment is different you'll see different colors - wait for night fall tonight and simply turn your lights on and off and hey pesto... everything will seem to have different colors. So again, absolutely no way to pick out some color as being 'objectively correct'. Since we know how the visual systems works and we know things are definitely represented in there, there's no need for the nebulous concepts of Chalmers and Clark. One could imagine a 'virtual reality' system which gives you color perception directly by simulating your brain, which shows that no external objects are required. -- "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" From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 05:09:58 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:09:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:14:20 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > I've considered the view and I have no idea what the heck Chalmers and > Clark are on about there. It's a fairly simple idea. Because we equate our brains with our minds, we think our minds are contained in our skulls. However the brain is not the mind, necessarily. If you consider your mind to contain everything it comprehends then your mind contains the objects of its comprehension. Some of those objects have color qualities. Those color qualities are in your mind, yet also in the objects. Voila. Qualia problem solved. Tomatoes are red after all, just as common-sense was informing us all along. > As I pointed out, we know how the visual > system works and things are definitely represented in the brain: I have an idea how the physiology works, thanks. > So again, absolutely no way to pick out some color as being > 'objectively correct'. Here is where I see a possible inconsistency in your theory. Plato's forms are in a sense objective. There is only one true '7', for example, and it exists 'objectively' in the platonic realm. You want to grant colors and other qualia platonic status, but you don't seem to want to grant them the same objective status as platonic numbers. If there is only one true 7 then why is there not only one true green? -gts From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Dec 30 05:29:39 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:29:39 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, gts wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:14:20 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > > > I've considered the view and I have no idea what the heck Chalmers and > > Clark are on about there. > > It's a fairly simple idea. Because we equate our brains with our minds, we > think our minds are contained in our skulls. However the brain is not the > mind, necessarily. > > If you consider your mind to contain everything it comprehends then your > mind contains the objects of its comprehension. Some of those objects have > color qualities. Those color qualities are in your mind, yet also in the > objects. Voila. Qualia problem solved. > > Tomatoes are red after all, just as common-sense was informing us all > along. Tonight, take a tomato from your kitchen. Look at it in the dark. You'll see that its grey, not red ;) > > > As I pointed out, we know how the visual > > system works and things are definitely represented in the brain: > > I have an idea how the physiology works, thanks. But if you agree that color perception is generated by brain processes, how on Earth can you think that colors are out there in the world then? ;) > > > So again, absolutely no way to pick out some color as being > > 'objectively correct'. > > Here is where I see a possible inconsistency in your theory. Plato's forms > are in a sense objective. There is only one true '7', for example, and it > exists 'objectively' in the platonic realm. You want to grant colors and > other qualia platonic status, but you don't seem to want to grant them the > same objective status as platonic numbers. If there is only one true 7 > then why is there not only one true green? > > -gts > I think I've answered that one before. I agree that one could say that there's a sort of 'true green' (in the sense of an 'archetype' for green). But as I said earlier, I think this exists in Plato's world. It's not a property which physical objects have. -- "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" From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 05:54:42 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:54:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:29:39 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: >> Tomatoes are red after all, just as common-sense was informing us all >> along. > Tonight, take a tomato from your kitchen. Look at it in the dark. > You'll see that its grey, not red ;) So tomatoes in the dark are grey, just as common-sense was informing us all along. > But if you agree that color perception is generated by brain > processes, how on Earth can you think that colors are out there in the > world then? ;) Hmm... I don't see the red tomato when I close my eyes, so I figure it must be out there somewhere. :) But remember that the Chalmers/Clark idea of extended mind removes that paradox. Colors are both 'out there' in the world and 'in here' in our minds. Our minds contain the objects of our perception. > I think I've answered that one before. I agree that one could say > that there's a sort of 'true green' (in the sense of an 'archetype' > for green). But as I said earlier, I think this exists in Plato's > world. It's not a property which physical objects have. For your theory to seem consistent, I think you should say that colors are properties of colored objects in the same way that platonic circularity is a property of circular objects. -gts From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Dec 30 06:06:01 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:06:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43B4CE49.7090002@goldenfuture.net> And people say conversations about politics are meaningless and boring... Joseph gts wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:29:39 -0500, Marc Geddes > wrote: > >>> Tomatoes are red after all, just as common-sense was informing us all >>> along. >> > >> Tonight, take a tomato from your kitchen. Look at it in the dark. >> You'll see that its grey, not red ;) > > > So tomatoes in the dark are grey, just as common-sense was informing > us all along. > >> But if you agree that color perception is generated by brain >> processes, how on Earth can you think that colors are out there in the >> world then? ;) > > > Hmm... I don't see the red tomato when I close my eyes, so I figure > it must be out there somewhere. :) > > But remember that the Chalmers/Clark idea of extended mind removes > that paradox. Colors are both 'out there' in the world and 'in here' > in our minds. Our minds contain the objects of our perception. > >> I think I've answered that one before. I agree that one could say >> that there's a sort of 'true green' (in the sense of an 'archetype' >> for green). But as I said earlier, I think this exists in Plato's >> world. It's not a property which physical objects have. > > > For your theory to seem consistent, I think you should say that colors > are properties of colored objects in the same way that platonic > circularity is a property of circular objects. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Dec 30 06:10:02 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:10:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > Marc Geddes [wrote previously] > > Tomatoes are red after all, just as common-sense was > informing us all > > along. > > Tonight, take a tomato from your kitchen. Look at it in the dark. > You'll see that its grey, not red ;) > And if you pay very careful attention to a tomato place in the peripheral area of your vision (without moving your eyes to directly towards it) you will find that it is also grey there too. (It's a little tricky to do, e.g., keeping from looking, and noticing that ACTUAL color transmitted without allowing either you eyes to shift, nor to accept the integrative functions of your mind which normally "fill in" the expect color of things not directly viewed.) One related notes: It isn't that hard to run a hypnosis experiment (for those who know how to reliably perform hypnotic inductions that is) where color vision is 'disabled' for noticeable periods of time (I have done it for a 5-15 minutes on several occasions.) There is actually a use for this perhaps -- the military has been said to make some limited use of "color blind" photoreconnaissance analysts and "door gunners" in helos as they are said to be much harder to fool with camouflage. A soldier could be taught this trick when surveying a proposed path through disputed territory. Another related odd factoid: Commercial divers (who very frequently work in conditions of zero visibility) actual speak of their work environment in visual terms, and I have found myself to represent different shapes and textures by mental images using 'colors/shades' -- these shades have consistent (over time) relationships to the smoothness and hardness of the objects found in the water. Pretty much what you might guess: hard and smooth is steel grey, while rough and softer is dark-wood brown with reds being used for rough-hard as in rusted iron. I don't recall ever using much blue, yellow, or green when working underwater (in zero visibility conditions) however. (Unless I was handling an object that I had previously viewed and knew to have those colors.) Prior to experiencing/learning this skill of visualization I felt that I understood how blind people operate in the world, but it was not until afterwards that I felt I understood how they stay sane. This (latter) may not be true, but it made sense to me, at least for those who were not born blind. In my experience underwater in limited visibility it is actually easier to deal with NO VISIBILITY than very slight (seeing light but no real detail vision) visibility; professional divers frequently surface from such conditions with their eyes TIGHTLY SHUT. Shutting out the light seems to enhance the use of the visual areas for imaging the work environment. Occasionally we would get a laugh when a diver had to be reminded to "Open your eyes" on the surface; it happens more often than you might think. -- Herb Martin From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 06:11:24 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:11:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <43B4CE49.7090002@goldenfuture.net> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> <43B4CE49.7090002@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:06:01 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > And people say conversations about politics are meaningless and boring... Philosophy may be a form of mental illness. :) -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 08:04:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:04:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was Bloodless Redistribution) In-Reply-To: <200512300354.jBU3ste13946@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051230080438.68590.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Cheer up, Spike. Your credit's good with me. I would loan you up to 1,000,000 Colombian Pesos (at today's exchange rate) any day. And I wouldn't even charge you more than prime. ;) --- spike wrote: > Doh! So no low-interest 7 figure loans for me. > > > > {8^D > > > > spike > > > > _____ > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of Anne-Marie > Taylor > Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 7:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Vanity Money (was > Bloodless Redistribution) > > > > > Sorry to say Spike: > > I'm just an ordinary prole. > > Anna:) > > > spike > wrote: > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Beh! alf Of Anne-Marie > Taylor > > > > Two weeks ago I bought Times Magazine with Bono, > Bill Gates and > > his wife. ... I would think, what can I do to be > remembered by my > donations? > > I've done the one in a lot, became a billionaire... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 aiguy at comcast.net Fri Dec 30 14:44:19 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:44:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth(wasSingulartarians) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006e01c60d4f$86881300$74550318@ZANDRA2> I like the idea of the trading cards. List both their positive and more dubious achievements. And let the kids and collectors decide which ones are worth more. For years now kids have had a shortage of role models from their sports heroes to rock musicians and Hollywood celebrities. Whereas once you read about their records now it's their criminal records. It would be nice if kids had some real awareness of people who have achieved greatness up in the world and actually used their money to help people and the world in a major way. Oh and by the way maybe they should start adding the rap sheets and steroid use to the sports cards. Afterall if the kids are going look up to these people isn't it fair to let them know the good along with the bad? >> So why not just call them baseball cards? Leave the currency alone and create a new commodities market. Your local merchant might even accept them in lieu of real currency. From aiguy at comcast.net Fri Dec 30 15:08:40 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:08:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s In-Reply-To: <02ca01c60ccf$613b7d10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <006f01c60d52$eb5a4980$74550318@ZANDRA2> An AI will want whatever we substitute for our primary evolutionary goals Survival, Shelter, Sex, Power in the Tribe, as it's primary evolutionary motivations. I would say Altruism towards humans, Quest for Knowledge, Ability to Increase it's Intelligence and Design would be a good place to start. And yes I know each of these goals could be subverted as they were in movies such as I Robot, but they must be carefully restricted with qualifications like ... Without limiting mankind's freedom of choice or thought, etc... We humans do not consciously arrive at our primary goals. In fact we attempt to suppress them based on the moral and legal codes of our culture. Obeying the current cultural laws and taboos them becomes a secondary layer of goals which does battle with our primary evolutionary ones. When the evolutionary goals win we are often branded criminals and imprisoned effectively ostracizing them from the tribe. As far as committing suicide, people do that because of the feelings, mental pain and hopelessnes caused by extreme lack of success at achieving their primary and secondary goals. Since pain/pleasure is an extreme evolutionary feedback mechanism that pushes the organism sometimes very hard in a given direction, it sometimes pushes biological organisms to the breaking point. The basic pain/pleasure circuit could be avoided in an AI altogether thereby making suicide an unthinkable option because it would be contrary to it's primary goals of Altruism towards humans, Quest for Knowledge, Ability to Increase it's Intelligence and Design. >> Of course, you have to wonder, what would an AI want? People want money to buy things and go places and to provide food and shelter. Assuming that an AI would already have shelter and food (energy) and be able to travel anywhere at light-speed, what else could you pay them? I also wonder if they wouldn;t quickly committ suicide after becoming conscious. From mark at permanentend.org Fri Dec 30 15:50:44 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:50:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MP3000s References: <006f01c60d52$eb5a4980$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <03cb01c60d58$cc40a6b0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Miller" : > An AI will want whatever we substitute for our primary evolutionary goals > Survival, Shelter, Sex, Power in the Tribe, as it's primary evolutionary > motivations. > > I would say Altruism towards humans, Quest for Knowledge, Ability to > Increase it's Intelligence and Design would be a good place to start. > Well, some my debate whether there is any evolutionary goal other than increasing the number of one's descendents in time and space, so your primary goals might be seen as intermediary goals. But that aside, the golden rule of robotics says "Do unto human-level intelligent robots as you would do onto humans." http://www.permanentend.org/Walker/mp3000.html Do you think that your proposed primary goals would be good to implant in a redesigned human supposing we could do such reengineering? (I'm not sure if you are proposing "ability to increase its intelligence" as a goal). If you answer no then your proposal violates the golden rule. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From jonkc at att.net Fri Dec 30 16:37:45 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:37:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth References: <20051228200023.89438.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005801c60d5f$67226780$8a0e4e0c@MyComputer> "The Avantguardian" > Bill Gates's first billion was probably very useful to him. > He might even have thrown a party to celebrate. His 40th > billion, however, he probably hardly noticed. Yes and he probably uses .01% on himself, the rest is invested in his software company. He does not have 40 billion pictures of George Washington in a huge money bin like Scrooge McDuck. And by the way, Gates's wealth would be closer to 80 billion if he hadn't already given so much away, mostly to help the third world. > The idea being that for a few billion dollars, all the > bills or coins of a given denomination issued within a > defined time period would feature the "winner's" > picture on it. [..] The idea is similar to that of vanity license plates. I thought you were joking at first even though it's not April 1, but apparently you're serious! > This is a positive sum solution because despite the loss of a sizable > portion of the donors wealth Billionaires won't mind giving up wealth and power as long as they get a vanity license plate and their picture on a box of Wheaties. I've got to double check, this must be April 1. > money raised by my idea ought to go to > humanitarian causes. What money? When people say Steve Jobs is worth 5 billion they mean there are investors willing to pay 5 billion for his interest in a computer company and a movie studio. But under your scheme Mr. X would not pay Jobs anything for it because as soon as he got it you'd take it away from Mr. X. If private investors are not running the show then what you're talking about is nationalization. Do you really think if Washington bureaucrats were running Apple Computer they would come out with more innovative products than Steve Jobs can, or Pixar Animation would make more entertaining movies. What you're talking about is taking the controls of the wealth creation machinery from those who have shown great skill in operating it into the hands of those who don't know the first thing about it. > Just make sure to remain as objective as possible when assessing whether > you are changing the world for better or worse. That should be easy! If history has taught us anything it is that there is never any disagreement about what is right and what is wrong. John K Clark From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Dec 30 17:49:08 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:49:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] JET: Peer-reviewed Journal? Message-ID: > Can you tell me a little more about the peer-review process of JET? > How is JET (Journal of Evolution and Technology) peer-reviewed, and by whom? We have a database of about 4000 people. In it we flag scholars, professors and graduate students, and flag their competence/interest in about 25 different areas (computer science, bioscience, space, etc.) We have about 345 such people flagged. When we receive a paper we pull up three people in that area of competence who haven't been asked recently, and send them invitations to review. Sometimes we need to send a second round of invitations. Our reviewer pool is rather small, given the volume of papers we receive, and we are working on beefing it up. We are also creating an automated set of web forms for the submission and tracking of manuscripts (or rather Marcelo is). If any of you would like to volunteer to review manuscripts please contact Marcelo at and let him know your spheres of competence. The review form that we ask reviewers to complete is appended at the bottom of this message. It is a standard form for such reviews. > Are there external peers, or are they our own staff listed on > the website? Most of the reviewers are drawn from people we flag as at least sympathetic with transhumanism. But they aren't internal in the sense of only being the editorial board of JET. > who peer-reviewed Robin Hanson's paper on economic growth? Can't really say. It was published before I assumed editorship. Perhaps Nick Bostrom has a record and can tell you their professional qualifications. > Do we have > experts in the fields of AI, genetics, robotics, cloning, > neurology, etc. on call, or do we wing it with the staff that we have? We do have such experts, but sometimes they are tapped out or too busy by the time we ask them. So sometimes papers are reviewed by people in other domains of expertise. Not ideal, but then review by people with multiple spheres of competence is often helpful given the multidisciplinary nature of the journal. > Do we really have the scientific rigor that, say the New > England Journal of Medicine has, in reviewing, verifying and > validating such papers? Do we really have a staff of fact > checkers, or do we do that? No, but we are working toward that. And frankly, studies of the scientific errors that pass through the review process in the more formal scientific journals show there is room for improvement there also. ------------------------ Dear [reviewer], Thank you for agreeing to peer review this manuscript. Attached you will find the anonymized manuscript in Word format. Our Peer Reviewer form is below in this message. It is most helpful if you can email your comments to us by responding to this message and including your comments below. Please feel free to email or phone me if you have any questions. Many thanks for your efforts! Best regards, James Hughes Ph.D. Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FOR JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY http://jetpress.org INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY MANUSCRIPT TITLE: [title] PEER REVIEWER: [name] DATE DUE: [date] THIS ESSAY... ___ is interesting/thought provoking ___ adds to the existing literature ___ demonstrates a development of thought on the subject ___ is clear to the non-specialist, intelligent reader ___ requires statistical refereeing SUMMARY REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION: ___ Acceptable as is ___ Accept with minor revisions ___ Possibly acceptable with revision and resubmission ___ Definitely unacceptable, resubmission not recommended FOR PUBLISHABLE PAPERS: please check if any of the following are appropriate: ___ The paper is of exceptional quality ___ The paper is topical and/or should be published urgently ___ It might be appropriate to invite a response or a commentary REMARKS FOR EDITORS: REVIEWER COMMENTS FOR AUTHOR: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 30 17:58:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:58:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:11 AM 12/30/2005 -0500, JKC wrote: >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 "Richard Loosemore" said: > > > what I was alluding to is the posibility that effects > > happen in the world that are not random > >Then they have a cause, not almost a cause, or sort of a cause, or half >a cause, but a cause. Diverging the topic somewhat (while offering absolutely no endorsement for what follows), this might be worth looking into: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html It appears to show some surprising regularities within or atop various stochastic structures, correlating with, for example, sidereal rather than terrestrial/solar time. A possible connection between global and quantal scales? Is this relevant to SL4? Dunno, but it shocks me. Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 30 18:09:26 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:09:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Diverging the topic somewhat (while offering absolutely no endorsement for > what follows), this might be worth looking into: > > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html > > It appears to show some surprising regularities within or atop various > stochastic structures, correlating with, for example, sidereal rather than > terrestrial/solar time. A possible connection between global and quantal > scales? > > Is this relevant to SL4? Dunno, but it shocks me. Me too; if I'm interpreting the results correctly, they seem to have found evidence for anisotropy of space, to start with. I'm guessing there's probably an error of some sort involved, but it looks well worth checking; anyone know if there's anyone trying to reproduce the result? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 18:14:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:14:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth In-Reply-To: <005801c60d5f$67226780$8a0e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20051230181451.84190.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > Yes and he probably uses .01% on himself, the rest > is invested in his > software company. He does not have 40 billion > pictures of George Washington > in a huge money bin like Scrooge McDuck. Really? He doesn't dive into a swimming pool of greenbacks? :) > > And by the way, Gates's wealth would be closer to 80 > billion if he hadn't > already given so much away, mostly to help the third > world. I know that. Furthermore he didn't have to kill or rob anyone or ravage the natural resources of a underdeveloped nation or exploit their people for it either. That makes him one of my favorite billionaires. > Billionaires won't mind giving up wealth and power > as long as they get a > vanity license plate and their picture on a box of > Wheaties. I've got to > double check, this must be April 1. So that is how you think we honor our founding fathers? By putting them on a box of Wheaties? > What money? When people say Steve Jobs is worth 5 > billion they mean there > are investors willing to pay 5 billion for his > interest in a computer > company and a movie studio. But under your scheme > Mr. X would not pay Jobs > anything for it because as soon as he got it you'd > take it away from Mr. X. Then obviously it's Mr. X that ought to be put on the currency and not Steve Jobs. Futhermore I am NOT suggesting we take anything away from anybody. My proposal is completely voluntary, they have to voluntarily attend an auction and voluntarily call the highest bid. Nobody is twisting anybody's arm here. > If private investors are not running the show then > what you're talking about > is nationalization. Huh? How so? What exactly are we nationalizing here? Our currency? I thought that minting currency was the one thing that was already the sole purvue of government. > Do you really think if Washington bureaucrats were > running Apple Computer > they would come out with more innovative products > than Steve Jobs can, or > Pixar Animation would make more entertaining movies. > What you're talking > about is taking the controls of the wealth creation > machinery from those who > have shown great skill in operating it into the > hands of those who don't > know the first thing about it. No not at all. The billionaires get to keep control of the machinery of wealth creation, they just have the option of paying some of their already accumlated wealth for the status of being on our money. There is nothing to stop them from making it all back whenever they want. Indeed, this might keep them from sitting on their laurels. This is not really all that different from luxury cars and designer suits if you think about it. All these things are merely badges of status that cost them money. I am offering them the highest badge of status of all at an appropriate price. How did you make the leap from an auction for having ones face put on banknotes to communism? This is patently uncommunist. In fact, it is almost too capitalist for some tastes. > > Just make sure to remain as objective as possible > when assessing whether > > you are changing the world for better or worse. > > That should be easy! If history has taught us > anything it is that there is > never any disagreement about what is right and what > is wrong. What?!? Hmmm. This is a loaded statement. I will give you that any disagreements about what is right or wrong are usually settled with brute force before the histories get written. This hardly makes history objective. History is often no more than the narcissistic boasts of the victorious that go uncontested by those who have lost the will to fight. 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 18:25:28 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:25:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloodless Redistribution of Wealth In-Reply-To: <20051230181451.84190.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230182529.8038.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Start with something small & discrete such as terminating the Selective Service System, and then making it easy as 123 to opt out of paying taxes that fund the military. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 18:34:53 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:34:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051230183453.96206.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html > > It appears to show some surprising regularities > within or atop various > stochastic structures, correlating with, for > example, sidereal rather than > terrestrial/solar time. A possible connection > between global and quantal > scales? Very interesting, Damien. No endorsement is needed. The paper gives no theories or explanations to refute. Just observations and data from many many experiments. To an empiricist, data speaks the truth. There is something, not yet understood, underlying these anomalies in randomness. Just because the scientist is a Russian is no reason to assume he would falsify hundreds of experiments to support no theory at all. 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 Fri Dec 30 19:01:56 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:01:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230130017.01eaf240@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:09 PM 12/30/2005 +0000, Russell W. wrote: >if I'm interpreting the results correctly, they seem to >have found evidence for anisotropy of space, to start with. Well, perhaps only locally. Actually this sidereal modulation of stochastic effects is explained (he said with tongue very conspicuously in cheek) by the SgrA*-line-of-sight Xon star in my novels GODPLAYERS (2005) and K-MACHINES (2006). Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 19:02:22 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:02:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:58:32 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html > > It appears to show some surprising regularities within or atop various > stochastic structures, correlating with, for example, sidereal rather > than terrestrial/solar time. A possible connection between global and > quantal scales? Standard statistical tests exist for determining if a given distribution is normal. I don't see in this article any reference to such testing, which is not to say they did none. From reading the article alone it seems they may have relied on a purely visual analysis of the distributions, and then "devised a computer-based algorithm for measuring the relative degree of 'closeness' or similarity of histogram shapes, and on this basis carried out a computer analysis of hundreds of histograms taken over a long period." I'm not sure their home-brewed algorithm would have any value if the compared distributions were not truly abnormal in the first place. Looks can be deceiving, and the distributions do look roughly bell-shaped. -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 19:19:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:19:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > I'm not sure their home-brewed algorithm would have > any value if the > compared distributions were not truly abnormal in > the first place. Looks > can be deceiving, and the distributions do look > roughly bell-shaped. They do look roughly bell-shaped. It is a shame that the raw data points are not available for analysis. I wish he would have at least listed the means and standard deviations. Then you could print the curves, cut out the histograms, cut them into pieces along the standard deviations and weigh them to see if 2/3 of the mass were within the central piece. Alas this experiment ought to repeated. It would be great to do four sets of experiments over the course of a year spaced at equal intervals. Then plot the results relative to the CMB anistropy. Maybe it is some kind of relativistic phenomenon related to the solar system's transit through space. 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Fri Dec 30 19:48:19 2005 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:48:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes Sunday, January 1st Message-ID: >From Longevity Meme: http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2141 60 Minutes On Radical Life Extension Biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey - advocate for the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, a path towards and justification for real anti-aging medicine - Jay Olshansky and other scientists will be appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 1st in a segment on radical life extension: "60 Minutes is planning three stories about beginning anew this New Year's Day. ... We'll also take a look at new medical research that may lead to people living much longer lives than we ever thought possible, maybe even 400 or 500 years. Some doctors believe with medical breakthroughs on the horizon, humans can live much longer lives." "Up Next" at 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 20:16:56 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:16:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: bloodless revolution In-Reply-To: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230201656.28871.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> By now you must see how slowly most people are evolving, and how the past is the reference point for nearly everyone. However pure libertarianism has a powerful potential in freeing a great number of the population. The unconscionable slavery of military conscription can be firmly opposed from a pure libertarian perspective.The legal obligations of the past towards minorities can be promoted (not with any real success, mind you) on pure libertarian grounds, i.e. the obligations of the government to provide land to former slaves ("forty acres and a mule"); that which is owed to native Americans, and so forth. I don't know what countries you fellows live in, but in the US the past in general, and legalistic precedents in particular, are far more important than progress, morality, education, aesthetics, the pursuit of happiness, and even the institution of the family itself. Americans are nothing if not pushy & determined-- determined to base the future on the past, on the Constitution, on legal precedents. This is, I guess, is what those of you living in more civilized nations don't understand about the US, you might understand America vis a vis its economics, but you may not fully appreciate how we do politics here. Americans aggressively check power seekers to obstensibly forestall anyone from obtaining too much power. Naturally it doesn't actually work out that way, many do obtain excessive power, yet as said previously, most people here are firmly wedded to the past. The US is a young, gigantic, "culturally aggressive" (i.e. extremely pushy) nation drunk on its 'glorious' past. When I visited northern europe the residents couldn't understand state capitalist America anymore than I could understand social democratic northern europe. They couldn't connect the fact that Europe has existed for over a thousand years with the fact that America has existed for two hundred thirty years. The US is still in an untamed state, in many ways with the mindset of 1776 rather than 2006, and you cannot politically debate Americans head-on, in has to be done in the jargon of the past, deriving from precedents and legalistic formulas, concerning the Constitutional rights of all citizens to smoke all the tobacco they want and drink all the alcoholic beverages they want to drink. And to praise God in whichever house of worship the family chooses. We Americans work hard and have the God-given right to mediocre schools and toxic culture. It could be that you here are so sophisticated you can't see how just plain old fashion my country is. Amen. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 20:33:45 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:33:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The actual research report is available here for $7. Anyone curious enough? http://eprint.ufn.ru/sellFile.jsp?file=594 1. See S.E. Shnoll, V.A. Kolombet, E.V. Pozharskii, T.A. Zenchenko, I.M. Zvereva, and A.A. Konradov, 1998. ?Realization of discrete states during fluctuations in macroscopic processes,? in Uspekhi Fisicheskikh Nauk, Vol. 41, No. 10, pp. 1025-1035. A new paper is currently in preparation. Shnoll?s group is based at Moscow State University. On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > It is a shame that > the raw data points are not available for analysis. I > wish he would have at least listed the means and > standard deviations. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 30 21:56:14 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:56:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:19 AM 12/30/2005 -0800, Avant wrote: > > can be deceiving, and the distributions do look > > roughly bell-shaped. > >They do look roughly bell-shaped. Not the point. The claim is that the internal structure of the bell curve is non-monotonic. It's rather like a square sawtooth pushed upward by a normal distribution. The truly interesting aspect is that the teeth fall on top of each other, pretty much, in different sets of data. What baffles me is that this work was completed nearly 20 years ago, but nothing seems to have come of it, even though access to excellent computation is now cheap and readily available. A friend of mine who is a solid-state physics professor tells me she arranged a fractal analysis of an ongoing data collection project, designed to test Shnoll's idea, was being done by a PhD student about five years ago, but the student apparently dropped out before completing the doctorate. The world is full of frustrations. Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 22:20:45 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:20:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:56:14 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > What baffles me is that this work was completed nearly 20 years ago, but > nothing seems to have come of it, even though access to excellent > computation is now cheap and readily available. I just skimmed through the original research paper. Shnoll and his colleagues freely admit the distributions pass tests for normalcy, which in the minds of many would make his observations not worthy of further investigation. But I agree with you. If the data is not due to some kind of effect of the solar system on his instruments then something very remarkable is happening here, at least on the surface. I'd like to see a professional statistician review his proprietary methods and determine some kind of confidence level. If Shnoll offered one then I missed it in my first read. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 22:25:30 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:25:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I wrote > If the data is not due to some kind of effect of the solar system on his > instruments then something very remarkable is happening... On second thought, even that explanation would be remarkable! -gts From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 23:06:56 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: bloodless revolution Message-ID: <20051230230656.62012.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> The reason I bring it up is because there have been posters here who immigrated from eastern europe who cannot possibly have grasped the political system in the US-- not in the brief time you have been here. If someone from n. america, or say down under, relocates to eastern europe-- say Poland-- they are going to have to study the political system for decades before they can fully comprehend what is transpiring politically. Even then they may not possess the internalized 'gut' understanding of what it means to be born in Poland or elsewhere in that region. Though some of you who have immigrated to the West may understand our economics very well, being that economic principles are universal, you may not have a good understanding of the political system here, nor might you ever possess the political comprehension of a native-born Westerner. --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 23:18:02 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:18:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051230231802.84359.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > The political commentary I've seen has been totally without reference to Thomas Friedman's comments in this area. Sad Sad Sad... He has been there, he has looked at the trends quite objectively This "objectively" is a severe error. > and can quite clearly can make a case for going to war in Iraq in spite of the mishandling by Rumsfeld and Bush. > I would view any "political" commentary which does not include Friedman's perspective as incompletely informed. ******************************* I'm sorry, Robert, but with respect, I strenuously disagree. As with each of us, Friedman has his biases/point-of-view/meme set. A reader with a resonant meme set will quite understandably adjudge Friedman authoritative. But biases are still biases and require a judicious inspection. Also, Friedman's analysis/commentary is quite amiable -- excepting those few occasions when he comments on those who disagree with him. This amiability/likeability/charm provokes in his readership a skepticism-lulling degree of sympathy and credulity. He's good, and that's why the NY Times pays him the big bucks. For an alternative, critical view, here's a site -- entitled forthrightly, The Anti-Thomas Friedman Page. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Anti-Friedman.htm In my view, excepting the Mideast, Friedman's analysis/commentary, his bias notwithstanding, is quite intelligent. But in Mideastern matters it is essential to understand that he is a white, Jewish, Zionist advocate/apologist, with the extreme polar bias that implies. I will not elaborate on why this polar bias discredits his Mideast views, leaving it to you to compare his positions and underlying premises with the historical facts. Just one anecdote: In one of his columns, where he sought to provide some insight into the real views of real Arabs in the Mideast, he cited a conversation he chanced to have with an Arab fellow in the seat next to him on a flight from Bahrain. Unsurprisingly not mentioned in the columns was the credibility issue that immediately occurred to me. How does an Arab person who flies first class from Bahrain figure to be representative of the larger Arab culture? About the same way a Saudi Prince does. Not at all. So with Thomas Friedman, as with all things, caveat emptor. Stay alert. Do your homework. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Fri Dec 30 23:38:17 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 30, 2005, at 5:20 PM, gts wrote: > I just skimmed through the original research paper. Shnoll and his > colleagues freely admit the distributions pass tests for normalcy, > which in the minds of many would make his observations not worthy of > further investigation. This is my conclusion. Nothing abnormal or unexpected here. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 00:35:00 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:35:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20051230231802.84359.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051231003500.76116.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> If you will pardon the question, might it be relevant to ask whether someone named Jeff Davis might possess a Confederate bias? The same question might be asked of anyone named Bob E. Lee or Stoney Jackson. I draw the line at Confederates who are to this day revered in the deep South, there exist numerous public monuments to such traitors. White supremacists of course have the right to do whatever they want in raising white families & sending them to white schools-- even supremacist schools. However no-one ought to harbor sympathy for those who have taken up arms such as Confederates, Communists, Nazis, Fascists. Or for that matter plain murderers such as Nat Turner, John Brown, Tim McVeigh... whether they wear uniforms or just loincloths they are nothing but thugs. >In my view, excepting the Mideast, Friedman's >analysis/commentary, his bias notwithstanding, is >quite intelligent. But in Mideastern matters it is >essential to understand that he is a white, Jewish, >Zionist advocate/apologist, with the extreme polar >bias that implies. I will not elaborate on why this polar bias discredits his Mideast views, leaving it to you to compare his positions and underlying premises with the historical facts. Just one anecdote: In one of his columns, where he sought to provide some insight into the real views of real Arabs in the Mideast, he cited a conversation he chanced to have with an Arab fellow in the seat next to him on a flight from Bahrain. Unsurprisingly not mentioned in the columns was the credibility issue that immediately occurred to me. How does an Arab person who flies first class from Bahrain figure to be representative of the larger Arab culture? About the same way a Saudi Prince does. Not at all. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 01:27:02 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:27:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051231012702.4524.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > I agree with Dirk, that politics is somewhat > different. In part because it > is constantly shifting. So unlike a "hard" science > it is difficult to > establish who the authoritative sources are. If one cannot identify "authoritative sources", then pursuit of a high-quality data set (to enable a high-quality analysis) requires a different approach. Get at foundational data and perform your own analysis, and/or learn how to "crunch" sources so as to be able to extract high-quality data from mixed-quality data. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 31 02:22:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:22:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Me too; if I'm interpreting the results correctly, they seem to > have found evidence for anisotropy of space, to start with. > I vaguely remember a SF story where some beings figure out they are in a sim by detecting such anisotropy. Anyone remember the tale, the reasoning and have some ideas as to whether something like that might be applicable here? - s From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 02:38:01 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:38:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I vaguely remember a SF story where some beings figure out they are > in a sim by detecting such anisotropy. Anyone remember the tale, the > reasoning and have some ideas as to whether something like that might > be applicable here? > I haven't come across any story like that... my guess for what it's worth is that the reasoning isn't applicable here, on the following grounds: Simulating the entire visible universe would require an impractically large amount of computation. Therefore the simulation would have to dynamically adjust level of detail, e.g. it wouldn't simulate every atom in the world, only those individual atoms that were being scanned with an STM or suchlike. But the level of detail adjustment would therefore have to notice when experiments were being done, and give the result that would be expected if everything were calculated to infinite precision, so the anomaly shouldn't have shown up here. (This isn't an ironclad proof of course - one could postulate an entity with enough computing power to _almost_ exactly simulate every atom, for example - but it strikes me as a reasonable line of argument.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 03:16:37 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:16:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135785424.3228.250666332@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > I haven't come across any story like that... my guess for what it's worth > is that the reasoning isn't applicable here, on the following grounds: > > Simulating the entire visible universe would require an impractically large > amount of computation. Your assessment of how much computation counts as impractical is based on how much computation goes on in our observed world, posited here as a potential simulation. If we *are* in a simulation, then we have no idea what the limits of computation are in the "parent world", nor how much computation is considered an impractically large amount. Which is not to say we're in one; just that any argument that starts from the quoted premise is not sound, and hence not grounds for dismissing or discounting the possibility. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 31 03:18:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:18:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20051230231802.84359.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200512310320.jBV3Kre15043@tick.javien.com> > --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > ... > > > I would view any "political" commentary which does > not include Friedman's perspective as incompletely > informed. > > ******************************* > > I'm sorry, Robert, but with respect, I strenuously > disagree... Best, Jeff Davis This is a bit of intellectual laziness on my part. In deciding which political comlumnist in which to invest time, one may take a shortcut by looking at which ExI posters like the columnist and which do not. Since I have been reading ExI posts for years, I can make a rough judgment on its value. Two of the posters I hold in high esteem disagree. Robert Bradbury likes Friedman, Jeff Davis apparently dislikes. Others please, who are familiar with Thomas Friedman: like or dislike? http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomasl friedman/ Victor Davis Hanson, like or dislike? http://victorhanson.com/articles/index.html Other online-available columnists? Samantha, Rafal, Damien, David Lubkin, Jef, gts, some of you others who sometimes post politically oriented material, who are your favorite columnists? spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 03:33:22 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:33:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <43B2C7F4.5030000@lightlink.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > > Your assessment of how much computation counts as impractical is based > on how much computation goes on in our observed world, posited here as > a potential simulation. If we *are* in a simulation, then we have no > idea what the limits of computation are in the "parent world", nor how > much computation is considered an impractically large amount. > > Which is not to say we're in one; just that any argument that starts > from the quoted premise is not sound, and hence not grounds for > dismissing or discounting the possibility. > *nods* We can't dismiss the possibility - that's why I said the argument I gave didn't amount to ironclad proof. But it's based on a bit more than the limits of computation under our laws of physics. Detection of ground-level universe simulation based on a slight imperfection such as anisotropy, would require that the computer has just barely enough power for the job. The amount of power required is on the order of the exponent of the number of particles in the visible universe, something like 10^10^89 (including cosmic background photons and neutrinos); that's a small target to hit in the range 0 to infinity - granted we don't have a good model for distribution of computers by processing power throughout the multiverse, but I'll suggest it seems a little unlikely that the amount available would be just that much. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 04:21:35 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:21:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:17 -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Dec 30, 2005, at 5:20 PM, gts wrote: > >> I just skimmed through the original research paper. Shnoll and his >> colleagues freely admit the distributions pass tests for normalcy, >> which in the minds of many would make his observations not worthy of >> further investigation. > > This is my conclusion. Nothing abnormal or unexpected here. Still there is something very peculiar going on here, (assuming of course that Shnoll is not a crackpot who doctors his data). From the paper: "There is a certain `lifetime' for the given shape of histograms: in a series of consecutive histograms, a histogram is most likely to be similar to its closest neighbors. The shapes of histograms are very likely to recur with a period of 24 hours, 27 days, or 365 days. All this (regular time variation of consecutive histograms, similarity of histograms for simultaneous independent measurements of processes of different natures and possibly occurring at different geographical points) points to the existence of a universal cosmophysical (cosmogonic) cause of this phenomenon." -gts From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 04:23:43 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:23:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135840442.2340.250707682@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > of physics. Detection of ground-level universe simulation based on a slight > imperfection such as anisotropy, would require that the computer has just > barely enough power for the job. It could also simply be the way the simulation was coded, not in any way indicating a limitation on how much power the computer running the sim had available to it. So, no, that's not required. > The amount of power required is on the > order of the exponent of the number of particles in the visible universe, > something like 10^10^89 (including cosmic background photons and neutrinos); > that's a small target to hit in the range 0 to infinity > [...] I'll suggest it seems a little unlikely that the amount available would be > just that much. No matter what the actual number of particles or power required, it would be EXACTLY as "small" a target. Pulling "13" out of a bag filled with all the positive integers is precisely as unlikely as pulling "10^10^89". So again this is an unsound argument. Not just "not ironclad proof" -- completely lacking in lending any support to its conclusion. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 31 04:23:42 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:23:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200512310320.jBV3Kre15043@tick.javien.com> References: <20051230231802.84359.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> <200512310320.jBV3Kre15043@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10512302023y65c56152m1f00b869b2b21ed@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, spike wrote: > > --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > ... > > > > > I would view any "political" commentary which does > > not include Friedman's perspective as incompletely > > informed. > > > > ******************************* > > > > I'm sorry, Robert, but with respect, I strenuously > > disagree... Best, Jeff Davis > > > This is a bit of intellectual laziness on my part. In > deciding which political comlumnist in which to invest > time, one may take a shortcut by looking at which > ExI posters like the columnist and which do not. Since I > have been reading ExI posts for years, I can make > a rough judgment on its value. Two of the posters > I hold in high esteem disagree. Robert Bradbury likes > Friedman, Jeff Davis apparently dislikes. > > Others please, who are familiar with Thomas Friedman: like > or dislike? > > http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomasl > friedman/ > > Victor Davis Hanson, like or dislike? > > http://victorhanson.com/articles/index.html > > Other online-available columnists? > > Samantha, Rafal, Damien, David Lubkin, Jef, gts, some of you > others who sometimes post politically oriented material, who > are your favorite columnists? > I read _ The Lexus and the Olive Tree_ and _The World Is Flat_ and liked that they were quick and easy reads that stimulated my thinking on globalization. On the other hand, I disliked the less-than-rigorous, highly anecdotal, popular-consumption level of the writing, somewhat dumbed-down and over-hyped in a way that was almost constantly setting off my bullshit detectors -- not due to content so much as due to the manner of presentation. I've read many of Friedman's items in the NYT as well, and they often stimulate some interesting thought, but often with a distinct whiff of bias, or more accurately, narrowness. It may be useful to point out that on those occasions when I'm exposed to television, I deliberately turn away from most commercials to avoid the nuisance to my memetic immune system. ;-) In general, I agree with much of what he's saying, but don't enjoy the style of persuasion in which it is presented. Being the "see the bigger picture", "more encompassing context" guy that I am, I like to see how all the pieces fit, not just the pieces that make a good story. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 05:01:15 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:01:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <43B41934.5090408@lightlink.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > > On 12/30/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > of physics. Detection of ground-level universe simulation based on a > slight > > imperfection such as anisotropy, would require that the computer has > just > > barely enough power for the job. > > It could also simply be the way the simulation was coded, not in any > way indicating a limitation on how much power the computer running the > sim had available to it. So, no, that's not required. Why would it be coded to produce almost but not quite perfect results, if the computing power for perfect results were available? (One could fall back on "we don't know anything about the entity that wrote the code", but such an agnostic position is hard to reconcile with any conclusion other than "we don't know whether we're in a simulation" - which is indeed the conclusion I hold.) > The amount of power required is on the > > order of the exponent of the number of particles in the visible > universe, > > something like 10^10^89 (including cosmic background photons and > neutrinos); > > that's a small target to hit in the range 0 to infinity > > [...] I'll suggest it seems a little unlikely that the amount available > would be > > just that much. > > No matter what the actual number of particles or power required, it > would be EXACTLY as "small" a target. Pulling "13" out of a bag filled > with all the positive integers is precisely as unlikely as pulling > "10^10^89". But "much less than 10^10^89" and "much more than 10^10^89" are much bigger targets than "just about exactly 10^10^89", and my argument requires only those three categories. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 05:45:56 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:45:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: Here is some interesting discussion of the Shnoll effect among notable people including Jack Sarfatti, Nick Herbert, John Walker, and Shnoll himself. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/shnoll2.html Some people here might remember a thread from a few years ago in which I argued that John Walker's "hotbits" were a source of genuine random numbers. The bits are generated by radioactive decay. My first thought after reading Damien's initial post here was, "Hmm, someone should tell John Walker about this." But of course he already knows. The Shnoll effect is not new news, though its interpretation is still an open question. John Walker's Hotbits: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 06:10:49 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:10:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512302210h5aa6f03fx644e0d553083dcda@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, gts wrote: > > Here is some interesting discussion of the Shnoll effect among notable > people including Jack Sarfatti, > Nick Herbert, John Walker, and Shnoll himself. > > http://noosphere.princeton.edu/shnoll2.html > Thanks! The big question was whether anyone had tried to reproduce the results. In the page you refer to, it seems two people did: Walker got apparently anomalous results, but explained how they were produced by artifacts of the analysis, plus daily activity cycles in the lab (which raises the question of whether the original experiments might have had similar, undetected problems). Axford claims to have got anomalous results, but his procedure seems to have involved a human in the loop (the reason for which isn't explained), and further details aren't given; there isn't really any way to evaluate this based on the information here. So it seems the jury is still out. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 06:36:39 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:36:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <1135930262.21039.250770842@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0512302236p731edaf4m15a75e4444e82463@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > I (Jeff) said: > > No matter what the actual number of particles or power required, it > > would be EXACTLY as "small" a target. Pulling "13" out of a bag filled > > with all the positive integers is precisely as unlikely as pulling > > "10^10^89". > > But "much less than 10^10^89" and "much more than 10^10^89" are much bigger > targets than "just about exactly 10^10^89", and my argument requires only > those three categories. And less than 99^ 10 and more than 99^10 are much better targets than 99^10. And >n and n and References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Dec 30, 2005, at 11:21 PM, gts wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:17 -0500, Harvey Newstrom > wrote: > >> On Dec 30, 2005, at 5:20 PM, gts wrote: >> >>> I just skimmed through the original research paper. Shnoll and his >>> colleagues freely admit the distributions pass tests for normalcy, >>> which in the minds of many would make his observations not worthy of >>> further investigation. >> >> This is my conclusion. Nothing abnormal or unexpected here. > > Still there is something very peculiar going on here, (assuming of > course that Shnoll is not a crackpot who doctors his data). What part of "the distributions pass tests for normalcy" do you not understand? There is literally, rigorously, mathematically nothing abnormal here. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 06:55:00 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:55:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0512302236p731edaf4m15a75e4444e82463@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302236p731edaf4m15a75e4444e82463@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512302255k341f521keb92e4c7380c1d56@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > > On 12/31/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > But "much less than 10^10^89" and "much more than 10^10^89" are much > bigger > > targets than "just about exactly 10^10^89", and my argument requires > only > > those three categories. > > And less than 99^ 10 and more than 99^10 are much better targets than > 99^10. And >n and greater than 2 (or where n is any integer at all, if you take ">n and > value). Your argument would apply equally no matter what the > dimensions of the universe were, however you want to measure it > (computational capacity, power requiring to run the sim, bits of > information involved, number of particles observed or inferred, etc.). > That makes it a non-argument. It would apply equally to any N, provided N were large, but that doesn't make it a non-argument, because we have N being generated independently in two different ways (amount of computing power just barely adequate for a ground level simulation of the visible universe, amount just barely available to the simulator), which makes it unlikely that the two values would match so nearly exactly. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 31 06:58:03 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:58:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > What part of "the distributions pass tests for normalcy" do you not > understand? There is literally, rigorously, mathematically nothing > abnormal here. > The part I don't understand is: the distribution apparently deviated from the bell curve; is it the case that the deviation was no greater than would be expected by chance? If so, suppose the number of samples were increased by some factor and the shape stayed the same (rather than converging on the bell curve as the number approached infinity), would it start failing the test for normalcy at some point? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Dec 31 07:00:53 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:00:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year! References: <20051229034524.62516.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028701c60dd8$0b2db640$0300a8c0@Nano> An animated New Years Greeting from yours truly - go to this url to download: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newyears.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 07:22:25 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:22:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year! In-Reply-To: <028701c60dd8$0b2db640$0300a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <20051231072225.9143.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Very cool. Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too. As they used to say in Scottland, "May you be a thousand times better off this time next year." --- Gina Miller wrote: > An animated New Years Greeting from yours truly - go > to this url to download: > > http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newyears.htm > > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > Nanotechnology Industries > http://www.nanoindustries.com> _______________________________________________ > 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! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 07:32:11 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:32:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:52:19 -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > What part of "the distributions pass tests for normalcy" do you not > understand? There is literally, rigorously, mathematically nothing > abnormal here. from the paper: ==== Moreover, imagine that some theoretician has decided to simulate the time sequence of alpha decays and plot the appropriate histogram. He knows quantum mechanics well enough to be able to calculate the probability of alpha decay. Now he needs to calculate the probabilities of fluctuations. For doing this, he has two options. First, he may assume that the fluctuations are distributed at random and obey a certain law that states that large fluctuations are rare compared to small fluctuations (for example, according to Poisson's law). Then he will get a histogram which decreases monotonically with increasing deviation from the mean. Alternatively, he may use an `ideal' random function and produce a computer simulation of the time series. If he elects to use an `ideal' random number generator, he will also get a monotonically decreasing histogram. (Observe that the concept of an `ideal' generator calls for clarification itself.) But here `the frog jumps into the water' -- Professor Shnol and colleagues demonstrate that the experiment does not agree with the theoretician's assumptions -- and this is what the first phenomenon is about. It turns out that the number of fluctuations depending on the magnitude of deviation may fall or grow again, and behaves non-monotonically. More precisely, the overall decline exhibits a clearly periodic pattern, such as shown, for example, in Fig. 9. Moreover, this pattern is found to be reproducible -- it repeats itself under certain conditions. Now the question is why our intuition has failed us, and why our theoretician is wrong. ==== In theory the fine details Shnoll's histograms should be completely random from one to the next. However he reports the similarity between histograms falls off as a function of time, contrary to what would be expected by chance. Histograms taken at time t are more similar to those at t2 than at t3. Most remarkable is that these anomalies seem to be related to events in the solar system or perhaps the universe. Similar histograms recur with 27 and 365 day periods. The sharpest corresponds to 27.28 days, the synodic period of the Sun with respect to the Earth. Again, this is all assuming this data is valid. I'm as shocked as Damien, and somewhat skeptical. If the Shnoll effect turns out to be real then I may start reading my horoscope each day. :) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 07:55:41 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:55:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:58:03 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > The part I don't understand is: the distribution apparently deviated from > the bell curve; is it the case that the deviation was no greater than > would be expected by chance? The distributions do not deviate in any significant way from normal, but the *fine structures* of multiple histograms seem correlated in time. For example a bell-curve with a slightly "m-ish" shape (two subtle peaks) will tend to appear again in the next test. That "m-ish" propensity then falls off with time. > If so, suppose the number of samples were increased by some factor and > the shape stayed the same (ratherthan converging on the bell curve as > the number approached infinity),would it start failing the test for > normalcy at some point? My intuition is no; I think these distributions will always appear normal. (I don't know why I think this is so, except that I don't think the universe is going to give it up that easy. :) What is needed here is a test for similarities in the fine structures of the histograms. John Walker used the chi-square goodness of fit test. -gts From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 10:55:23 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:55:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200512310320.jBV3Kre15043@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051231105523.523.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike asks: ...who are your favorite [political] columnists? **************************** Justin Raimondo, Paul Craig Roberts, Alexander Cockburn, Charley Reese, Gwynne Dyer, Bill & Kathleen Christison. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 31 13:53:19 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:53:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] US Gov't Issues Proposed Space Tourism Rules Message-ID: <020001c60e11$8fc93940$db893cd1@pavilion> http://www.space.com/news/ap_051230_tourism_rules.html From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 31 14:00:45 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:00:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary References: <200512310320.jBV3Kre15043@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <024801c60e12$98ee6bc0$db893cd1@pavilion> IMHO, Thomas Friedman and Victor Davis Hanson: court intellectuals. Hanson might be an intelligent court intellectual, but he's still a court intellectual. (A good paper dealing with the phenomenon of court intellectuals is "Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision-Making and Class Structure" by Walter E. Grinder and John Hagel III at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_7.pdf It's a PDF file.) Regardless of who you like, too, you should probably read a decent mix and especially read some of those you disagree with and even dislike. Happy New Year! Dan See more of my droolings at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html "... governments kill far more people than do terrorist groups. From 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to the U.S. State Department. Yet, in the same decades, governments killed more than 10 million people in ethnic-cleansing campaigns, mass executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters. The 9/11 attacks made 2001 probably the only year in decades in which the number of people killed by international terrorists even approached 1 percent of the number killed by governments. Governments pose a far greater threat to peace and survival than do terrorist groups." -- James Bovard at http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Dec 31 16:11:28 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:11:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year! Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051231095345.04afc528@pop-server.austin.rr.com> New Year's Day: Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual. ~Mark Twain New Year's Eve, where auld acquaintance be forgot. Unless, of course, those tests come back positive. ~Jay Leno Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. ~Benjamin Franklin I feel that you are justified in looking into the future with true assurance, because you have a mode of living in which we find the joy of life and the joy of work harmoniously combined. Added to this is the spirit of ambition which pervades your very being, and seems to make the day's work like a happy child at play. ~Albert Einstein Youth is when you're allowed to stay up late on New Year's Eve. Middle age is when you're forced to. ~Bill Vaughn Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. ~Benjamin Franklin The merry year is born Like the bright berry from the naked thorn. ~Hartley Coleridge Never tell your resolution beforehand, or it's twice as onerous a duty. ~John Selden New Year's eve is like every other night; there is no pause in the march of the universe, no breathless moment of silence among created things that the passage of another twelve months may be noted; and yet no man has quite the same thoughts this evening that come with the coming of darkness on other nights. ~Hamilton Wright Mabie The Old Year has gone. Let the dead past bury its own dead. The New Year has taken possession of the clock of time. All hail the duties and possibilities of the coming twelve months! ~Edward Payson Powell Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right. ~Oprah Winfrey Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow: The year is going, let him go; Ring out the false, ring in the true. ~Alfred, Lord Tennyson, 1850 The proper behavior all through the holiday season is to be drunk. This drunkenness culminates on New Year's Eve, when you get so drunk you kiss the person you're married to. ~P.J. O'Rourke Every man should be born again on the first day of January. Start with a fresh page. Take up one hole more in the buckle if necessary, or let down one, according to circumstances; but on the first of January let every man gird himself once more, with his face to the front, and take no interest in the things that were and are past. ~Henry Ward Beecher The new year begins in a snow-storm of white vows. ~George William Curtis For last year's words belong to last year's language And next year's words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning. ~T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding" We will open the book. Its pages are blank. We are going to put words on them ourselves. The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year's Day. ~Edith Lovejoy Pierce Yesterday, everybody smoked his last cigar, took his last drink and swore his last oath. Today, we are a pious and exemplary community. Thirty days from now, we shall have cast our reformation to the winds and gone to cutting our ancient shortcomings considerably shorter than ever. ~Mark Twain 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 megao at sasktel.net Sat Dec 31 18:11:51 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:11:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [futuretag] HACCP for Humans: Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes Sunday, January 1st Message-ID: <43B6C9E7.4080204@sasktel.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [futuretag] HACCP for Humans: Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes Sunday, January 1st Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:07:23 -0600 From: Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO Reply-To: futuretag at yahoogroups.com To: ExI chat list , csmith2 at agr.gov.sk.ca, juurlink , Carol Ann Patterson , kbettschen at foodcentre.sk.ca, futuretag at yahoogroups.com, futuretagltd at yahoogroups.com, "Hughes, James J." , orin , hempforhorses at sasktel.net, kevans2 at agr.gov.sk.ca, Morris Johnson References: I'm looking forward to seeing the below noted "60Minutes" item and further formulating what I am describing as "HACCP for humans". HACCP (Hazard Avoidance at Critical Control Points) is a well developed QA (Quality Assurance) procedure applied to everything from food and drug manufacturing to Financial Accounting Practices which ought to be applied to the task of proactive management of the maintenance and real-time upgrading of the most valuable " processing plant" we know of, the human body. The 7 steps to implement HACCP are: 1-Identification of the hazardsassessment of internal risks. 2-Determination of the Critical Control Points (CCPs) 3-Determination/Specification of the Critical limits for the CCPs 4-Establishment of procedures to monitor the CCPs 5-Establishment of corrective actions when the CCPs are exceeded 6-Establisment of a system of effective documentation 7-Establishment of procedures to verify the HACCP plan is working. This could be a lucrative new field for those who want to work in an an interdisciplinary environment bridging Rx medicine, kinesiology, nutrition, dietetics, pharmacy, political science, bioethics, economics, biomechanical, to name a few. A chart describing the inter-related nature of these and other fields would be a useful tool to describe this emerging field. One could describe this as a "singularity or field of strategic convergence" for pure and applied sciences of a reactive and proactive nature. http://www.pharmtech.com/pharmtech/ http://www.pharmtech.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=261882 This article on pgs 44-52 0f the Dec 2005 issue documents the rewards to those who undertake this field-QA. PS- when I mentioned the 60-120K USD salary for QA at the GMP Agwestbio-PharmEng course Nov.01, at Saskatoon this is what I was referring to. Also of note is an a recruitment add on pgs 54-55 from Bristol-Myers Squibb... The header is "extending and enhancing human life". The foundling extropian, transhuman and posthuman futurist think tanks have considered creating businesses centered on corporate consulting for enhancing executive performance, with future broad based consumer applications. Perhaps this is a viable point for theory to meet with practical application. Hughes, James J. wrote: >>From Longevity Meme: >http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2141 > >60 Minutes On Radical Life Extension > >Biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey - advocate for the Strategies >for Engineered Negligible Senescence, a path towards and justification >for real anti-aging medicine - Jay Olshansky and other scientists will >be appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 1st in a segment on >radical life extension: "60 Minutes is planning three stories about >beginning anew this New Year's Day. ... We'll also take a look at new >medical research that may lead to people living much longer lives than >we ever thought possible, maybe even 400 or 500 years. Some doctors >believe with medical breakthroughs on the horizon, humans can live much >longer lives." > >"Up Next" at 60 Minutes: >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > Happy New Year "Singularity or Bust", MFJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "futuretag " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: futuretag-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///C|/WINDOWS/TEMP/nsmail.txt URL: From emerson at singinst.org Sat Dec 31 20:17:17 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:17:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Last Call for 2005 Gifts - Double Your Gift by Midnight Tonight Message-ID: <200512312017.jBVKHIe14610@tick.javien.com> LAST CALL FOR 2005 GIFTS - $53,000 REMAINING IN THE 2006 CHALLENGE The deadline for a 2005 tax deduction in the U.S. or Canada is *tonight* at midnight. Every single dollar you give to the Challenge will be matched. Again: Your sheer act of giving matters more than the extent of your gift. The Singularity Institute grows only as far as our public support allows. WAYS TO CONTRIBUTE * Online: http://www.singularitychallenge.com * Phone: 866.667.2524 * Mail: Checks postmarked by February 19, 2006 will be matched. * Wire Transfer: Call us for wire transfer instructions. * Stock: We greatly welcome gifts of stock, bonds, or mutual funds that have appreciated in value. You will get a tax deduction for the full market value (deductible up to 30% of your Adjusted Gross Income), and will avoid paying a capital gains tax on the appreciation. I hope our Institute is worthy of having your name added below as a donor. 2006 CHALLENGE DONORS I can never express enough gratitude for the ongoing support of Edwin Evans, Jason Joachim, and Mikko Rauhala. Edwin is the first $15,000 Visionary Humanitarian - pledging each year for three years. Jason and Mikko have done the same as the first two $5,000 Research Benefactors. I am especially grateful for Ray Kurzweil's $10,000 Challenge contribution. Ray has done more than anyone this year to escalate Singularity dialogue. Our full list of Challenge donors is below. They have all shown they share our Institute's most basic belief: that furthering beneficial AI, and lowering the prospect of existential risks, are ends of immeasurable worth. SI COUNCIL FOUNDING DONORS - $1,000 COMMUNITY PATRONS Mitchell Howe, Sergio Martinez, Oliver Ratzesberger, Aleksei Riikonen, Christian Rovner, and Robert Wellman. MONTHLY DONORS Trevor Cappallo, Frederick Cheeseman, Nader Chehab, Jean-Marie Common, Shawn Hack, Joey Katz, Matthew Malament, Robin Lee Powell, Ashley Thomas, Leon Tranter, Jon Weston, and Gary York. ONE-TIME DONORS Michael Baj, Cathy Berwaldt, Durant Schoon, Lari Etelaniemi, Emil Gilliam, Nick Hay, David Kristoffersson, Noam Lenz, Jesse Merriman, Jani Moliis, Trent Nadeau, Alfio T. Puglisi, Brian Rich, Brian Sandberg, Stephen Scothern, Craig O'Shannessy, Shuka Smith, Ben Spencer, Gregory Tippett, Michael Wilson, Ken Wolfe, and Gordon Worley. With best wishes in the New Year, ~~ 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 20:36:05 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:36:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <611ECDC3-12D5-4F60-9DA6-65EACFCB48EB@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051231203605.20788.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Samantha, your dislike of me is to be taken as a compliment; the way you ranted on concerning Iraq!-- and how disappointed you'll be if things work out there. Here's proof Confederate sympathizers have visited extropy bbs: http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php?board=16;action=display;threadid=53751 If I hadn't already written you off as a twit this would do it. - samantha --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 20:48:04 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:48:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20051231203605.20788.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051231204804.67202.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Actually this poster is worse than a confederate sympathizer, she is a crypto-confederate sympathizer, which makes it harder to discern. Get this: there are countless monuments in Dixie to confederate traitors, when the civil war killed 600,000, and harmed many more. Go figure. http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php?board=16;action=display;threadid=53751 --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul_illich at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 21:37:15 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:37:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ramez Naam - promise of biological enhancement MP3 In-Reply-To: <200512311900.jBVJ0Be07867@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051231213715.61665.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> this is not new, as was done in Jan '05, and the link my well have been up before, but just in case you missed it, I thought this was interesting... Paul http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~clgroks/605to405.html 06/01/2005 -- Ramez Naam, author of More than Human, discussed the promise of biological enhancement. (Listen MP3) INTERVIEW DESCRIPTION: Breakthroughs in biomedical research will soon allow us to live longer, grow stronger, and think smarter. But, will these advances come at a price? On this program, Ramez Naam discussed the promise of biological enhancement. __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Sat Dec 31 18:07:23 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:07:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] HACCP for Humans: Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes Sunday, January 1st In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B6C8DB.2070104@sasktel.net> I'm looking forward to seeing the below noted "60Minutes" item and further formulating what I am describing as "HACCP for humans". HACCP (Hazard Avoidance at Critical Control Points) is a well developed QA (Quality Assurance) procedure applied to everything from food and drug manufacturing to Financial Accounting Practices which ought to be applied to the task of proactive management of the maintenance and real-time upgrading of the most valuable " processing plant" we know of, the human body. The 7 steps to implement HACCP are: 1-Identification of the hazardsassessment of internal risks. 2-Determination of the Critical Control Points (CCPs) 3-Determination/Specification of the Critical limits for the CCPs 4-Establishment of procedures to monitor the CCPs 5-Establishment of corrective actions when the CCPs are exceeded 6-Establisment of a system of effective documentation 7-Establishment of procedures to verify the HACCP plan is working. This could be a lucrative new field for those who want to work in an an interdisciplinary environment bridging Rx medicine, kinesiology, nutrition, dietetics, pharmacy, political science, bioethics, economics, biomechanical, to name a few. A chart describing the inter-related nature of these and other fields would be a useful tool to describe this emerging field. One could describe this as a "singularity or field of strategic convergence" for pure and applied sciences of a reactive and proactive nature. http://www.pharmtech.com/pharmtech/ http://www.pharmtech.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=261882 This article on pgs 44-52 0f the Dec 2005 issue documents the rewards to those who undertake this field-QA. PS- when I mentioned the 60-120K USD salary for QA at the GMP Agwestbio-PharmEng course Nov.01, at Saskatoon this is what I was referring to. Also of note is an a recruitment add on pgs 54-55 from Bristol-Myers Squibb... The header is "extending and enhancing human life". The foundling extropian, transhuman and posthuman futurist think tanks have considered creating businesses centered on corporate consulting for enhancing executive performance, with future broad based consumer applications. Perhaps this is a viable point for theory to meet with practical application. Hughes, James J. wrote: >>From Longevity Meme: >http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2141 > >60 Minutes On Radical Life Extension > >Biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey - advocate for the Strategies >for Engineered Negligible Senescence, a path towards and justification >for real anti-aging medicine - Jay Olshansky and other scientists will >be appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 1st in a segment on >radical life extension: "60 Minutes is planning three stories about >beginning anew this New Year's Day. ... We'll also take a look at new >medical research that may lead to people living much longer lives than >we ever thought possible, maybe even 400 or 500 years. Some doctors >believe with medical breakthroughs on the horizon, humans can live much >longer lives." > >"Up Next" at 60 Minutes: >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > Happy New Year "Singularity or Bust", MFJ