From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 1 03:03:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:03:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <20050228175412.24343.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503010304.j2133rh14418@tick.javien.com> This is not right. > The Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy confirms that the > earth/moon process eventually stops, and adds some > interesting details that address long-term results: > > "Over long periods of time tidal friction [induced by > the moon] decreases the Earth's rate of spin, so > lengthening the day. In turn, the Moon has angular > momentum added to it in its orbit and gradually > spirals away from the Earth. Ultimately, when the day > equals the Moon's orbital period (each being about 40 > times the length of the present day) the process will > cease. I agree to here. > A new process will then begin in which the > Sun's tide-raising power takes angular momentum from > the Earth-Moon system. The Moon will then spiral in > closer to the Earth until it is torn to pieces when it > enters the Earth's Roche limit." (page 461) > > ~Ian I have checked my calcs and I can't find the error. The sun tide effect is not sufficient to draw the moon all the way back down to the Roche limit, not even all that close. Anyone else calc differently? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 1 03:12:09 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:12:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <4223AD3B.5080808@cox.net> Message-ID: <200503010312.j213CDh15342@tick.javien.com> > How are we going to get the moon to rise over the horizon when > we are tide-locked? Doh! Well wait. You get in a plane and fly east starting from the no-moon side of the earth. spike ps Dan, hows that for a recovery from a goofy mistake? {8^D s From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Mar 1 05:39:48 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Where's the New Einstein? Message-ID: <002801c51e21$15be3c30$6600a8c0@brainiac> Is he going to be one of youse guys on this list?: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/science/01eins.html?8hpib March 1, 2005 The Next Einstein? Applicants Welcome By DENNIS OVERBYE e didn't look like much at first. He was too fat and his head was so big his mother feared it was misshapen or damaged. He didn't speak until he was well past 2, and even then with a strange echolalia that reinforced his parents' fears. He threw a small bowling ball at his little sister and chased his first violin teacher from the house by throwing a chair at her. There was in short, no sign, other than the patience to build card houses 14 stories high, that little Albert Einstein would grow up to be "the new Copernicus," proclaiming a new theory of nature, in which matter and energy swapped faces, light beams bent, the stars danced and space and time were as flexible and elastic as bubblegum. No clue to suggest that he would help send humanity lurching down the road to the atomic age, with all its promise and dread, with the stroke of his pen on a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, certainly no reason to suspect that his image would be on T- shirts, coffee mugs, posters and dolls. Einstein's modest beginnings are a perennial source of comfort to parents who would like to hope, against the odds, that their little cutie can grow up to be a world beater. But they haunt people like me who hanker for a ringside seat for the Next Great Thing and wonder whether somewhere in the big haystack of the world there could be a new Einstein, biding his or her time running gels in a biology lab, writing video game software or wiring a giant detector in the bowels of a particle accelerator while putting the finishing touches on a revolution in our perception of reality. "Einstein changed the way physicists thought about the universe in a way the public could appreciate," said Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist from the University of Chicago and the director of math and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. Could it happen again? "Who or where is the next Einstein?" No question is more likely to infuriate or simply leave a scientist nonplussed. And nothing, of course, would be more distracting, daunting and ultimately demoralizing than for some young researcher to be tagged "the new Einstein," so don't expect to hear any names here. "It's probably always a stupid question," said Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Case Western Reserve University, who nevertheless said he had yet to read a profile of a young scientist that does not include, at some level, some comparison to Einstein. Dr. Stephen Hawking, the British cosmologist and best-selling author, who is often so mentioned, has said that such comparisons have less to do with his own achievements than the media's need for heroes. A Rare Confluence To ask the question whether there can be a new Einstein is to ask, as well, about the role of the individual in modern science. Part of the confusion is a disconnect between what constitutes public and scientific fame. Einstein's iconic status resulted from a unique concurrence of scientific genius, historical circumstance and personal charisma, historians and scientists say, that is unlikely to be duplicated. Dr. David Gross, who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics last year, said, "Of course there is no next Einstein; one of the great things about meeting the best and the brightest in physics is the realization that each is different and special." Physics, many scientists like Dr. Gross say, is simply too vast and sprawling for one person to dominate the way Einstein did a century ago. Technology is the unsung hero in scientific progress, they say, the computers and chips that have made it possible to absorb and count every photon from a distant quasar, or the miles of wire and tons of sensors wrapping the collision points of speed-of-light subatomic particles. A high-energy physics paper reporting the results from some accelerator experiment can have 500 authors. "Einstein solved problems that people weren't even asking or appreciating were problems," said Dr. Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., Einstein's stomping grounds for the last 32 years of his life. "It could be there are big questions nobody is asking, but there are so many more people in physics it's less likely big questions could go unasked." But you never know. "One thing about Einstein is he was a surprise," said Dr. Witten, chuckling. "Who am I to say that somebody couldn't come along with a whole completely new way of thinking?" In fact, physicists admit, waxing romantic in spite of themselves, science is full of vexing and fundamental questions, like the nature of the dark energy that is pushing the universe apart, or the meaning of string theory, the elegant but dense attempt to unify all the forces of nature by thinking of elementary particles as wiggling strings. "We can frame an Einsteinian question. As you know, asking the question is the key," said Dr. Leon Lederman, a Nobelist and former director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. He likes to think, he added, that it will be solved by "a Brazilian kid in a dirt floor village." Dr. Turner said he hoped and expected that there would continue to be Einsteins. One way to measure their impact, he suggested, was by how long it took society to digest their discoveries and move on. By this metric, he said, Isaac Newton beats out Einstein as the greatest of all time (or at least since science was invented). Newton's world lasted more than 200 years before Einstein overthrew it. "Einstein has lasted 100 years," he said. "The smart money says that something is going to happen; general relativity won't last another 200 years." Looking the Part Would that make someone a candidate for a T-shirt, or an Einstein? It depends on what you mean by "Einstein." Do we mean the dark-haired young firebrand at the patent office, who yanked the rug out from under Newton and 19th-century physics in 1905 when he invented relativity, supplied a convincing proof for the existence of atoms and shocked just about everyone by arguing that light could be composed of particles as well as waves? Is it the seer who gazed serenely out at the world in 1919 from beneath headlines announcing that astronomers had measured the bending of light rays from stars during an eclipse, confirming Einstein's general theory of relativity, which described gravity as the warping of space-time geometry? Einstein had spent 10 years racking his brain and borrowing the mathematical talents of his friends trying to extend relativity to the realm of gravity. When this "great adventure in thought," as the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called it, safely reached shore, Einstein caught a wave that lifted him high above physics and science in general. The world was exhausted morally, mentally and economically from the Great War, which had shattered the pretensions of Enlightenment Europe. People were ready for something new and Einstein gave them a whole new universe. Moreover, the mark of this new universe - "lights all askew in the heavens," as this newspaper put it - was something everybody could understand. The stars, the most ancient of embodiments of cosmic order, had moved. With Whitehead as his publicist, Einstein was on the road to becoming the Elvis of science, the frizzy-headed sage of Princeton, the world's most famous Jew and humanity's atomic conscience. It helped that he wore his fame lightly, with humor and a cute accent. "He was a caricature of the scientist," said Dr. Krauss. "He looked right. He sounded right." When physicists are asked, what they often find distinctive about Einstein are his high standards, an almost biological need to find order and logical consistency in science and in nature, the ability to ferret out and question the hidden assumptions underlying the mainstream consensus about reality. Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario describes it as moral quality. "He simply cared far more than most of his colleagues that the laws of physics should explain everything in nature coherently and consistently," he wrote last year in Discover. It was that drive that led him to general relativity, regarded as his greatest achievement. The other discoveries, in 1905, physicists and historians say, would have been made whether Einstein did them or not. "They were in the air," said Dr. Martin Rees, a cosmologist at Cambridge University and Britain's astronomer royal. The quest for general relativity, on the other hand, was the result of "pure thought," Dr. Rees said. Dr. Peter L. Galison, professor of the history of science and of physics at Harvard, described Einstein as "somebody who had a transformative effect on the world because of his relentless pursuit of what the right principles should be." Others said they were impressed that he never swerved, despite a tempestuous personal and political life, from science as his main devotion. "He fixed his concentration on important problems, he was unvarying in that," Dr. Krauss said. Another attraction of Einstein as an icon is his perceived irreverence, and the legend of his origin as an outsider, working in the patent office while he pursued the breakthroughs of 1905. (Not that he was necessarily humble because of that; letters from his early years show him pestering well-known scientists and spoiling for a fight so much that his girlfriend and future wife, Mileva Maric, was always counseling him to keep a cool head.) "Part of the appeal is that he comes from nowhere and turns things upside down," Dr. Galison said. "That's the fantasy," he explained, saying that science has always represented the possibility that someone without a privileged background could intervene and triumph through sheer ability and brainpower. There is no lack of inventive, brilliant physicists today, but none of them are T-shirt material, yet. In the cozy turn of the century, Dr. Galison said, Einstein was able to be a philosopher as well as a physicist, addressing deep questions like the meaning of simultaneity and often starting his papers by posing some philosophical quandary. But philosophy and physics have long since gone their separate ways. Physics has become separated from the humanities. "Everything tells us science has nothing to do with the ideas of ordinary life," Dr. Galison said. "Whether that is good or bad, I don't know." As a result no one has inherited Einstein's mantle as a natural philosopher, said Dr. Galison. We might have to settle for a kind of Einstein by committee. The string theorists have donned the mantle of Einstein's quest for a unified theory of all the forces of nature. In the last half-century various manifestations of modern science have made their way into popular culture, including chaos theory and the representation of information in bits and bytes, as pioneered by Dr. Claude Shannon, the Bell Labs engineer. The discovery of the double helix of DNA, the hereditary molecule, which laid the basis for the modern genetics, is probably the most charismatic result of modern biology. But the world is not awash in action figures based on James Watson and Francis Crick, the molecule's decoders. Meanwhile Einstein's role of symbolizing the hope that you could understand the universe has at least been partly filled by Dr. Hawking, whose books "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell" have sold millions, and who has even appeared on "Star Trek" and "The Simpsons." "People know him," said Dr. Krauss, and his work on black holes has had a significant impact on the study of gravity and the cosmos, but he has not reinvented the universe. The Next Big Idea One reason nobody stands out is that physics has been kind of stuck for the last half-century. During that time, Dr. Witten said, physicists have made significant progress toward a unified theory of nature, not by blazing new paths, but by following established principles, like the concept of symmetry - first used by Einstein in his relativity paper in 1905 - and extending them from electromagnetism to the weak and strong nuclear forces. "It was not necessary to invent quantum field theory," said Dr. Witten, "just to improve it." That, he explains, is collective work. But new ideas are surely needed. Part of Einstein's legacy was an abyssal gap in the foundations of reality as conceived by science. On one side of the divide was general relativity, which describes stars and the universe itself. On the other side is quantum mechanics, which describes the paradoxical behavior of subatomic particles and forces. In the former, nature is continuous and deterministic, cause follows effect; in the latter nature is discrete, like sand grains on the beach, and subject to statistical uncertainties. Einstein to his dying day rejected quantum mechanics as ultimate truth, saying in a letter to Max Born in 1924, "The theory yields much but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that he does not play dice." Science will not have a real theory of the world until these two warring notions are merged into a theory of quantum gravity, one that can explain what happens when the matter in a star goes smoosh into a dense microscopic dot at the center of a black hole, or when the universe appears out of nothing in a big bang. String theory is one, as yet unproven, attempt at such a quantum gravity theory, and it has attracted an army of theorists and mathematicians. But, Dr. Witten speculated, there could be an Einsteinian moment in another direction. Quantum gravity presumes, he explained, that general relativity breaks down at short distances. But what, he asked, if relativity also needed correction at long distances as a way of explaining, for example, the acceleration of the universe? "Relativity field theory could be cracked at long distances," Dr. Witten said, adding that he saw no evidence for it. But when Einstein came along, there was no clear evidence that Newtonian physics was wrong, either. "I would think that's an opportunity for an Einstein," he said. Another Einsteinian opportunity, Dr. Witten later added in an e-mail message, is the possibility that Einstein's old bugaboo quantum mechanics needs correcting, saying that while he saw no need himself, it was a mystery what quantum mechanics meant when applied to the universe as a whole. Dr. Smolin of the Perimeter Institute said it should give physicists pause that their leader and idol had rejected quantum mechanics, and yet what everybody is trying to do now is to apply quantum mechanics to Einstein's theory of gravity. "What if he were right?" asked Dr. Smolin, who said he also worried that the present organization of science, with its pressures for tenure and publications, mitigates against the appearance of outsiders like Einstein, who need to follow their own star for a few lonely years or decades. But as Dr. Krauss said, it only takes one good idea to change our picture of reality. Dr. Smolin said, "When somebody has a correct idea, it doesn't take long to have an impact." "It's not about identifying the person who is about to be the new Einstein," he went on. "When there is someone who does something with the impact of Einstein, we'll all know." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: h.gif Type: image/gif Size: 265 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 1 07:49:55 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:49:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503010304.j2133rh14418@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050301074955.83999.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > This is not right. > > > > The Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy [...] > > > > "A new process will then begin in which the > > Sun's tide-raising power takes angular momentum > > from the Earth-Moon system. The Moon will then > > spiral in closer to the Earth until it is torn > > to pieces when it enters the Earth's Roche > > limit." (page 461) > > > I have checked my calcs and I can't find the error. > The sun tide effect is not sufficient to draw the > moon all the way back down to the Roche limit, not > even all that close. > > Anyone else calc differently? I'd presume someone has gotten different results. The author of the text is Ian Ridpath, whom you can contact at (ian at ianridpath.com). It might be worth it to run your analysis past him to see what's up. ~Ian __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 1 08:31:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:31:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <20050301074955.83999.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050301083120.74702.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One issue to consider is that there is a smidgen more angular momentum in the earth in that the core rotates one more rotation per year than the mantle. The differential effect of these two layers on each other applies an additional torque beyond just that imposed by the sloshing of the oceans. --- Ian Goddard wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > > This is not right. > > > > > > > The Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy [...] > > > > > > "A new process will then begin in which the > > > Sun's tide-raising power takes angular momentum > > > from the Earth-Moon system. The Moon will then > > > spiral in closer to the Earth until it is torn > > > to pieces when it enters the Earth's Roche > > > limit." (page 461) > > > > > > I have checked my calcs and I can't find the error. > > The sun tide effect is not sufficient to draw the > > moon all the way back down to the Roche limit, not > > even all that close. > > > > Anyone else calc differently? > > > I'd presume someone has gotten different results. The > author of the text is Ian Ridpath, whom you can > contact at (ian at ianridpath.com). It might be worth > it to run your analysis past him to see what's up. > > ~Ian > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dgc at cox.net Wed Mar 2 00:08:45 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:08:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503010312.j213CDh15342@tick.javien.com> References: <200503010312.j213CDh15342@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4225040D.5070601@cox.net> spike wrote: >>How are we going to get the moon to rise over the horizon when >>we are tide-locked? >> >> > >Doh! > >Well wait. You get in a plane and fly east starting from >the no-moon side of the earth. > >spike > > >ps Dan, hows that for a recovery from a goofy mistake? {8^D s > > Not bad at all. I struggled to find something more romantic before I gave up and asked you for help. I think a balloon would be more romantic than airplane, but consider that we won't tide-lock for at least a billion years. Under the circumstances, we should come up with something involving mega-engineering that allows for a moonrise in a tide-locked system. Perhaps we can orbit a really big mirror and watch as the moon's reflection rises? Simpler might be to cheat. After the earth earth's very last rotation with respect to the moon, but before is settles down, the system will have transferred all the angular momentum. But the earth will wobble after that until it finally locks. The moon wobbles in this fashion, in a movement know as nutation. So, just after the last rotation, there will be very large nutations which should allow for moon rises. From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 2 02:26:26 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:26:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Aegis 3rd generation missile: BMD system In-Reply-To: <4222727C.71A169F2@mindspring.com> References: <20050225220120.20506.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4222727C.71A169F2@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42252452.4040302@neopax.com> Terry W. Colvin wrote: >http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-17-rumsfeld-missiledefense_x.htm > >Rumsfeld makes case for funding missile defense >By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY > > > Rumsfeld makes case for trucking in suitcase nukes By Usama bin Laden -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 2 02:27:20 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:27:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's psi book In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050225200817.0288af40@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.1.20050221224149.028dd238@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20050222145127.51410.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050225200817.0288af40@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42252488.7030902@neopax.com> Hara Ra wrote: > Hah! As far as I know, almost all progress comes from dissatisfaction > with the way things are. I treasure my "solopsistic" disagreements, > because this is the engine of change. Solopsists bite back..... > > Forget the plural... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 2 02:29:54 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:29:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Zen Garden In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050225071215.032f2190@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050225010303.25154.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> <421E83B9.4010506@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050225071215.032f2190@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42252522.6010908@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Got zen? > > Well, if you think like Dirk, you just might: > > >Natasha's question: "Is zen a personal experience that each one of us > appreciates differently, or is it >assumed that what is zen for me is > zen for you as well?" would have been considered a sublime joke had it > >not been meant seriously. > > Zen on! Thank you Dirk. > > In case anyone still does not get it, Zen like some modern psychology states that the 'self' is an illusion. There is no 'me' (or you). -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dgc at cox.net Wed Mar 2 03:53:01 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:53:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spam is good?! In-Reply-To: <42252488.7030902@neopax.com> References: <6.0.3.0.1.20050221224149.028dd238@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <20050222145127.51410.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050225200817.0288af40@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> <42252488.7030902@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4225389D.3070705@cox.net> I just thought of a way to take advantage of current spam environment. Currently everyone simply lives with spam. it's a nuisance, and everyone from government to individuals claims that it is a "bad thing" but we tolerate it. Let's look at spam differently: it adds a large amount of "noise" to the communications system. Noise is a very interesting phenomenon. We can use it to our advantage. In particular, we can use noise to hide a signal. For example, if we want to send (say) copies of movies or music files, we can convert this information into "spam" e-mails and send it with impunity. If I break a movie into multiple pieces and encode the pieces into messages that look like spam e-mails, I can then send those pieces to everyone. If I first randomly distribute those pieces across a set of zombies, and then have the zombies send to everyone, it becomes virtually impossible for an investigator to find the originator. Why should I implement such a system? Well, if I implement the system and it works, then I succeed in circumventing the RIAA and MPAA, and all of my friends get all the free movies and videos they deserve. The only way the MPAA and RIAA can suppress this scheme is to suppress the delivery of spam via zombies. This is of course "easy" do do. All ISPs could aggressively identify and suppress zombies, given an appropriate incentive. This means that I win. Either I can freely distribute movies and music, or the ISPs begin to aggressively suppress spam zombies. Either way, I win. Why is this Extropian? well, music and movies are not the only information that we may need to desimminate (assuming the spam channel remains open.) Going the other way, If this threat causes the incumbent powers to kill zombies. we free up the bandwidth that we currently yield to spam. We can use this bandwidth for our own purposes. From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 04:17:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:17:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <4225040D.5070601@cox.net> Message-ID: <200503020419.j224JJh28251@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Clemmensen > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question > > ... but consider that we won't tide-lock for at least a billion > years... Nobody caught my other mistake but I found it as I was trying to estimate how long it will take for earth to tidelock. Before I started I had estimated ~10 billion years, which is why I so confidently stated the no-ring notion. I checked this calc with a microscope before questioning anything by Ian Ridpath, who I admire greatly. I have read his stuff since I was a kid (which is a tragically long time by the way, over 30 years.) to get my 10 billion year estimate, I first calculated the moment of inertia of the earth, then vaguely recalled that evidence from fossil shellfish indicate that a year contained more like 400 days than the current 365 about half a billion years ago. Since the process that causes tidelock dissipates energy is proportional to the rotation rate, then 10% decrease in rotation rate is about a 20% decrease in rotational energy. 20% in half a billion years in a rate proportional to rotation extrapolates to about 10 billion years to get to 6 radians per month. But I made a mistake which caused me to understate my case. I used 2/5MR^2, but that assumes a uniform density, close enough for single digit precision, usually. But I goofed this once before about 5 yrs ago when we were discussing drilling holes in the earth. The density of the earth increases dramatically as one goes inward, and since the MOI increases as the square of the radius, I missed the MOI by a lot, way more than a factor of 2 methinks. So since I overestimated the MOI of the earth I also overestimated the fraction of the rotational energy of the earth-moon system that is carried in the earth's rotation, so I waaay overestimated how far the moon will drift out before tidelock. Now without going back and hammering those calcs, I can estimate it wouldnt be more than about 5% farther out at tidelock than it is now. So it will take a loooot longer than 10 billion years to tidelock, so the sun will surely go off the main sequence onto helium burning, swell and boil away any remaining oceans, greatly reducing the tide drag. I have another interesting find I discovered today while fiddling with equations, but this post is already too long and NOVA is on. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 04:26:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:26:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Zen Garden In-Reply-To: <42252522.6010908@neopax.com> Message-ID: <200503020429.j224Srh29148@tick.javien.com> > In case anyone still does not get it, Zen like some modern psychology > states that the 'self' is an illusion. > There is no 'me' (or you). > > -- > Dirk You are tickling the tail of the pun dragon with that comment Dirk. Max won that last round with koanilinguists. As much as I would like to get all zen here, I just cannot take partial credit for that one by claiming to be him, or that the boundary between he and me is an illusion. Zen is cool tho, if one doesn't take it *too* seriously. spike From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 2 04:41:11 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:41:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Zen Garden In-Reply-To: <200503020428.j224SlV11177@host1.kbnet.net> References: <200503020428.j224SlV11177@host1.kbnet.net> Message-ID: <422543E7.6070604@neopax.com> spike wrote: >>In case anyone still does not get it, Zen like some modern psychology >>states that the 'self' is an illusion. >>There is no 'me' (or you). >> >>-- >>Dirk >> >> > >You are tickling the tail of the pun dragon with that >comment Dirk. Max won that last round with koanilinguists. > > I wasn't playing. >As much as I would like to get all zen here, I just cannot >take partial credit for that one by claiming to be him, or >that the boundary between he and me is an illusion. > >Zen is cool tho, if one doesn't take it *too* seriously. > > > If it's not taken seriously it's not cool - just more New Age shit for the mill. So, are you going to defend the notion of 'self' as being non-illusory? Shall we start with evoked potentials? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Wed Mar 2 05:29:43 2005 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:29:43 +0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] MIND STATES VI Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050302082709.00b17660@pop.cris.net> MIND STATES VI May 27-29, 2005 Palace of Fine Arts Theatre, 3301 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA Over 30 speakers presenting on the theme of "technology & transcendence." Topics include the latest psychedelic research, transcranial magnetic stimulation, virtual reality, sensory substitution, techno-biological enhancement, visionary art, electronic trance-dance, video game environments, Reflections and Inspirations: The 50-Year Anniversary of R. Gordon Wasson's Psilocybe Discovery, skeptical consciousness studies, harm reduction, and more. Presenters include: Rick Doblin, Markus Berger, Mike Crowley, Frank Echenhofer, Charles S. Grob, Charles Hayes, Julie Holland, Clark Heinrich, Sandra Karpetas, Tom Riedlinger, Paul Stamets, Sylvia Thyssen and many additional people working in other area of altered consciousness. The least expensive "early bird" tickets are available BEFORE MARCH 1, 2005. See http://www.mindstates.org From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 07:40:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:40:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503020419.j224JJh28251@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200503020743.j227gqh18932@tick.javien.com> > ... I goofed this once before about 5 > yrs ago when we were discussing drilling holes > in the earth... Jones' Law: Experience is what allows us to recognize a mistake when we make it again. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 07:43:59 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:43:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <319150-22005212822216905@M2W042.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200503020746.j227kHh19355@tick.javien.com> Walmart has gotten the price of RFID tags to below 9 cents each now. Which leads to: Lampsons Law: Almost anything that is mass produced can be made for a cost approximating the price of the raw materials in a market of 1 billion consumers. Never before has this been possible on this green planet, but we just happened along at the precise moment it became a reality. Think on these odds. spike From es at popido.com Wed Mar 2 09:02:11 2005 From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:02:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid Message-ID: <200503020902.j2292B0O014820@mail-core.space2u.com> On 2005-03-02 spike wrote: >Walmart has gotten the price of RFID tags to below >9 cents each now. Interesting, especially when you read this: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1098/1/1/ "5-Cent Tag Unlikely in 4 Years Average price of a passive UHF RFID tags will drop to only 16 cents by 2008, according to ARC Advisory Group, dampening wide adoption of item-level tagging." Guess they didn't think of the accelerating change. Do you have a link to some source of information on the 9 cents? Erik From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 2 10:50:29 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:50:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503020743.j227gqh18932@tick.javien.com> References: <200503020419.j224JJh28251@tick.javien.com> <200503020743.j227gqh18932@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:40:29 -0800, spike wrote: > > ... I goofed this once before about 5 > > yrs ago when we were discussing drilling holes > > in the earth... > > Jones' Law: Experience is what allows us to recognize > a mistake when we make it again. > I found this article: Evolution of the Earth-Moon system Authors: Touma, Jihad; Wisdom, Jack Affiliation: AA(University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada), AB(U. of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) Journal: The Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 108, no. 5, p. 1943-1961 (AJ Homepage) Publication Date: 11/1994 Abstract The tidal evolution of the Earth-Moon system is reexamined. Several models of tidal friction are first compared in an averaged Hamiltonian formulation of the dynamics. With one of these models, full integrations of the tidally evolving Earth-Moon system are carried out in the complete, fully interacting, and chaotically evolving planetary system. Classic results on the history of the lunar orbit are confirmed by our more general model. A detailed history of the obliquity of the Earth which takes into account the evolving lunar orbit is presented. The full text is available as a large pdf file full of complex formulae which should make even Spike happy. Touma has published an update in a chapter of a book in 11/2000:- Origin of the Earth and Moon Robin M. Canup and Kevin Righter, eds. Space Science Series 555 pp. / 96 halftones, 11 color plates, 224 line drawings / 8 1/2 x 11 / 2000 Cloth (0816520739) $55.00 Chapter Abstract: The Sun and Moon raise earthly tides that dissipate energy and transfer angular momentum from Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit. This interplay has been going on for a very long time, and will continue for a while longer, forcing the Earth and Moon to sample exciting resonant islands in their phase-space. We will travel back in time, and watch with consternation, as the young Moon is captured into a devious network of resonances ? courtesy of the Earth and Sun ? that mercilessly distort its orbit, pump the eccentricity (thus heating the Moon's body, perhaps melting it), and push the inclination to values that can explain the current orbital configuration. Looking ahead, we witness how the Moon ? vengeful, patient Moon ? steers Earth to a spin-orbit trap that threatens to disrupt its obliquity and the climate with it. Ultimately, Earth might have the final word in this saga, when tides reverse their action, and the Moon finds itself spiraling into the final showdown. -------------------- Unfortunately I cannot find this chapter full text online, so you will have to rush off to your library or science bookstore to read it. :) BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 13:33:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 05:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <200503020746.j227kHh19355@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Walmart has gotten the price of RFID tags to below > 9 cents each now. Which leads to: > > Lampsons Law: Almost anything that is mass produced can > be made for a cost approximating the price of the raw > materials in a market of 1 billion consumers. > > Never before has this been possible on this green planet, > but we just happened along at the precise moment it became > a reality. Think on these odds. Doesn't food fit Lampsons Law as well? Anyways, the market for RFIDs is significantly larger than 1 billion. The number space on the chips is designed to transmit, I believe, a 95 digit serial number, which approximates the number of grains of sand on the planet. Mighty ambitious market planning. Ultimately the plan is for every manufactured item on the planet to have an embedded RFID: you will be identifiable by every piece of clothing, underwear, shoes, prosthetic, etc from a distance of at least 17 feet. People with access to the right databases will know where, when, and how much you paid for every one of those items, your previous credit record, your current bank balance, among just about anything else. Robots will be able to remotely determine, by your migration through clothing sizes, when you have gained too much weight to be safe or economical for the public health system and will then arrest you and institutionalize you for your own health and that of the public (this just happened for the first time last week in England). Solutions: 1) do not buy things for yourself, ever, buy things for others. This may be planned to force the human race into a gift economy to evolve society wide psychologies necessary for global socialism. In order to resist this, one must plan to operate in a barter mode. 2) learn to spot locations of RFID tags and remove them from products. RFID makers are already wise to this and are figuring out how to embed the tags inside materials: injected into the rubber of the soles of your shoes, laminated inside the cardboard of packages, inside the handles of razors and toothbrushes, inside the plastic of bottles. Experimentation is underway to make a dissolvable RFID tag so that one can be embedded in every bar of soap, leaving nothing behind. 3) construction of home HERF cookers from microwave oven parts will be needed so unremovable tags can have their chips burned out. 4) production of wallets and jackets from steel cloth, to act as faraday cage material, shielding worn RFIDs from arbitrary scanning (esp wrt ids and credit cards) ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 2 14:42:09 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:42:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <200503020746.j227kHh19355@tick.javien.com> References: <200503020746.j227kHh19355@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4225D0C1.2020605@neopax.com> spike wrote: >Walmart has gotten the price of RFID tags to below >9 cents each now. Which leads to: > >Lampsons Law: Almost anything that is mass produced can >be made for a cost approximating the price of the raw >materials in a market of 1 billion consumers. > >Never before has this been possible on this green planet, >but we just happened along at the precise moment it became >a reality. Think on these odds. > > > Now think about PV cells. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 15:56:53 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:56:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <200503020902.j2292B0O014820@mail-core.space2u.com> Message-ID: <200503021559.j22FxHh11915@tick.javien.com> Let me make sure it wasn't a special one-time deal. s > http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1098/1/1/ > > "5-Cent Tag Unlikely in 4 Years > Average price of a passive UHF RFID tags will drop to only 16 cents by > 2008... > Do you have a link to some source of information on the 9 cents? > > > Erik From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 2 16:05:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:05:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503021607.j22G7Ih12899@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Doesn't food fit Lampsons Law as well? > ... > Robots will be able to remotely determine, by your migration through > clothing sizes, when you have gained too much weight to be safe or > economical for the public health system and will then arrest you and > institutionalize you for your own health and that of the public (this > just happened for the first time last week in England)... > ===== > Mike Lorrey I would never assume the government to be so magnanimous. If the fed sees me gaining way too much weight, I would be considered a model citizen, for I would be more likely to be one of the hapless proles who pumps money into the social security system, then meet my untimely demise before I have time to take much back out. spike From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed Mar 2 16:45:54 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:45:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.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 Mike Lorrey > > Walmart has gotten the price of RFID tags to below > > 9 cents each now. Which leads to: > > > > Lampsons Law: Almost anything that is mass produced can > > be made for a cost approximating the price of the raw > > materials in a market of 1 billion consumers. > > > > Never before has this been possible on this green planet, > > but we just happened along at the precise moment it became > > a reality. Think on these odds. > > Doesn't food fit Lampsons Law as well? Edible RFID tags plus a little software would certainly take all the brainwork out of calorie restriction. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 2 16:52:54 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:52:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4225EF66.7020802@pobox.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Anyways, the market for RFIDs is significantly larger than 1 billion. > The number space on the chips is designed to transmit, I believe, a 95 > digit serial number, which approximates the number of grains of sand on > the planet. There are not remotely near 10^95 grains of sand on the planet. There are not even 2^96 grains of sand on the planet. This entire planet, iron core and all, weighs only 10^27 grams. There are not remotely near 10^95 atoms in the Solar System. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 18:17:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:17:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <4225EF66.7020802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050302181757.60813.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Anyways, the market for RFIDs is significantly larger than 1 > > billion. The number space on the chips is designed to transmit, > > I believe, a 95 digit serial number, which approximates the > > number of grains of sand on the planet. > > There are not remotely near 10^95 grains of sand on the planet. > There > are not even 2^96 grains of sand on the planet. This entire planet, > iron core and all, weighs only 10^27 grams. There are not remotely > near 10^95 atoms in the Solar System. Thanks, Eli. Apparently, rfid planners are REALLY ambitious. "One ring to rule them all" and all that jazz... ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From jonkc at att.net Wed Mar 2 18:41:24 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:41:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid References: <20050302133321.36288.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4225EF66.7020802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <003c01c51f57$7ba628f0$81fe4d0c@hal2001> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > There are not remotely near 10^95 atoms in the Solar System. The last I heard the entire observable universe only had 4*10^78 atoms, give or take a few. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 02:57:45 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:57:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Computer Bacteria; Techyon Radiation and Computers Message-ID: <42267D29.509046E9@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss. Science Frontiers, No. 158, Mar-Apr, 2005, p. 3 < http://www.science-frontiers.com > UNCLASSIFIED #1 of 2 items Computer Bacteria We are all familiar with computer viruses but computer bacteria may also be hazardous. Bacteria have sophisticated, code-based programs and excel at penetrating formidable firewalls. Worse yet, they are everywhere. *Fact #1*. Number of bacteria per square inch on the average toilet seat: 49. *Fact #2*. Number of bacteria per square inch on the average computer keyboard: 3,295. (Grossman, Wendy M.; "Skeptical Stats," *The Skeptic*, 17:12, Winter 2004.) #2 of 2 items Techyon Radiation and Computers >From the "Feedback" page of *New Scientist*: Our mention of the phenomenon whereby appliances work perfectly in the presence of, but only in the presence of a repair technician produced dozens of responses. Glyn Williams of Derby, U.K., notes that in work environments this depends on the presence of "techies". With colleagues he concluded that the effect, whatever it is, is mediated by particles which must be "techyons". M. Bastian, a techie, has noticed a distance effect associated with the phenomenon. He asserts: The further I walk across our campus to fix a fault, the more likely it is that the problem will resolve itself before I enter the room. This is now called: "the technician proximity syndrome." (Anonymous; "Feedback," *New Scientist*, p. 64, January 15, 2005) [Science Frontiers is a bimonthly collection of digests of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057. Annual subscription: $8.00.] -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 02:57:36 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:57:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multimedia Communication in the Cosmos Message-ID: <42267D20.ABEE805B@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss. Science Frontiers, No. 158, Mar-Apr, 2005, p. 3 < http://www.science-frontiers.com > UNCLASSIFIED Multimedia Communication in the Cosmos There are at least three ways in which extraterrestrial entities might communicate with us across the abyss of deep space. Unfortunately, we are tuning into only one of these "channels." *Electromagnetic signals*. For over 40 years we have been listening for interstellar electromagnetic traffic. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) antennas have picked up only a very few nonrandom, potentially intelligent, electromagnetic emissions that raised any excitement. Example: the famous WOW signal of 1977. (SF#64) The latest suspicious signal has been picked up three times and been given the designation SHGbo2+143. It seems to emanate from a point between Pisces and Aries. But it is weak and there are no obvious stars in that location. It may be some unrecognized natural phenomenon. What caught SETI's attention is SHGbo2+143's frequency drift of 8-37 Hertz away from the 1420 Megahertz carrier frequency, which is one of the main frequencies emitted by interstellar hydrogen. (Reich, Eugenie Samuel; "Not Long Ago, in a Galaxy Far Away...," *New Scientist*, p. 6, September 4, 2004) *Inscribed matter*. Humans are too anxious to meet aliens, and may have selected a poor medium with which to contact ET; that is, electromagnetic waves. C. Rose and G. Wright favor instead inscribed matter. Quoting from their paper's abstract: Here we show that if haste is unimportant, sending messages inscribed on some material can be strikingly more energy efficient than communicating by electromagnetic waves. Because messages require protection from cosmic radiation and small messages would be difficult to find among the material clutter near a recipient, "inscribed matter" is more effective for long archival messages (as opposed to potentially short "we exist" announcements). The results suggest that our initial contact with extraterrestrial civilizations may be more likely to occur through physical artifacts---essentially messages in a bottle---than via electromagnetic communication. Rose and Wright suggest such inscribed matter might well be located at stable locations in the solar system, such as the several Lagrange points around earth and other planets. Illuminating these points with radar might return echoes pinpointing the "message-containing bottles," particularly if they are equipped with electromagnetic reflectors. (Rose, Christopher, and Wright, Gregory "Inscribed Matter as an Energy-Efficient Means of Communication with an Extraterrestrial Civilization,: *Nature*, 431:47, 2004) *Comment*. Alien artifacts might require a more advanced degree of intelligence than knowledge of radar to find and decipher them. Example: the monolith in *2001: A Space Odyssey*. *Biomessages*. Actually, extraterrestrial messages would probably be even more subtle than monoliths. P. Davies writes: A better solution would be a legion of small, cheap, self-repairing and self-replicating machines that can keep editing and copying information and perpetuate themselves over immense durations in the face of unforeseen environmental hazards. Fortunately, such machines already exist. They are called living cells. The cells in our bodies for example, contain messages written by Mother Nature millions of years ago. So might ET have inserted a message into the genomes, perhaps by delivering carefully crafted viruses in tiny space probes to infect host cells with message-laden DNA? The space probes could be interstellar dust grains carrying viruses or bacteria---like panspermia, but carrying information rather than the seeds of life. In fact, there are many long stretches of "nonsense DNA" that have remained conserved from species to species through millions of years of evolution. We just haven't read our biomail! (Davies, Paul; "Do We Have to Spell It out?" *New Scientist*, p. 30, August 7, 2004) [Science Frontiers is a bimonthly collection of digests of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057. Annual subscription: $8.00.] -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 3 03:59:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:59:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <4225EF66.7020802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200503030402.j2341fB19987@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] rfid > > > There are not remotely near 10^95 grains of sand on the planet. There > are not even 2^96 grains of sand on the planet. This entire planet, > iron core and all, weighs only 10^27 grams. There are not remotely near > 10^95 atoms in the Solar System. Eliezer S. Yudkowsky The sun is about 2E30 kg and there are a few hundred billion stars in the galaxy and few hundred billion galaxies in the known universe, so 2E52 to 1e53 kg and the universe is mostly hydrogen and 6e23 hydrogen atoms is about a gram so the visible universe is about 1e79 atoms, then you give an order of magnitude or so for dark matter, whatever that is and you get perhaps 1e80 atoms. Still short of Mike's number by a factor of a quadrillion. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 3 04:35:41 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:35:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] can we sue god? In-Reply-To: <003c01c51f57$7ba628f0$81fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <200503030438.j234brB23724@tick.javien.com> Hey I thought this was supposed to be *our* fault: http://www.terradaily.com/news/ozone-05b.html From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 3 06:23:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:23:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503020419.j224JJh28251@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200503030626.j236Q7B02239@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question ... > > So it will take a loooot longer than 10 billion > years to tidelock, so the sun will surely go off > the main sequence onto helium burning, swell and > boil away any remaining oceans, greatly reducing > the tide drag... I calculated that the earth would take closer to 20 billion years to tidelock. The equations are kind of a pain in the ass to type into this medium, but I can kinda describe how I got that number. I calculated the gravity difference from the sun and moon on the near side of the earth vs the far side and found something interesting: the acceleration difference of the moon on either side of the earth is about twice the acceleration difference of the sun on opposite sides of the earth: about 1 micron per second squared vs 2 microns per second squared. Then the differences in centrifugal force approximately doubles those numbers. Those of you who know from oceans, is a moon tide about twice as much as a sun tide? Is a moon tide about a meter and a sun tide about half a meter? When a high tide comes at a full moon or new moon, is that called a neap tide? Is that about half again higher and lower than normal? Using that and estimating a tide as a sort of a 2 dimensional haversine, the mass of a moon tide comes out to about 3e16 kg. Model those as a 3e16kg point mass rotated about pi/4 forward of center and another mass on the opposite side of earth rotated aft of center with the same 3e16 kg mass. With these assumptions I get around 20 billion years to drag the moon up to tidelock with the earth. > > I have another interesting find I discovered today > while fiddling with equations, but this post is > already too long and NOVA is on... spike NOVA way doesn't suck! I found an interesting thing that I had never heard before: the process of tidal drag not only raises the moon to a higher orbit, it increases the eccentricity of its orbit. Kewalll! {8-] Someone who knows from astronomy, did you already know that? I have read stuff for years but never did run across that. I found it using the tide-as-mass-concentration model. Now the insight: the same model shows that the more eccentric the orbit, the more tidal drag increases the eccentricity. So if tidal drag is what caused the moon's current orbit eccentricity, then it would have had to start with *some* eccentricity. A perfectly round orbit stays perfectly round. So then, seems like we should be able to run this process backwards. We know the moon had to start its life outside the earth's Roche's limit, so that forms a hard boundary on the inside. We should be able to estimate how long ago it was when the moon formed and what was its initial eccentricity. You know, instead of calculating all this, perhaps someone might point me to websites or papers by people who know from tides and moon stuff. Right now it worries me that my answers are coming up differing from Ian Ridpath's. Before 20 billion years have passed, the sun comes out here to get us, boils away the oceans. Then if the earth/moon system manage to remain in orbit after orbiting inside the tenuous outer reaches of the sun's atmosphere, the remaining charred cinders eventually freeze over because the sun shrinks away as the helium burning stage progresses. Probably Amara knows all about this, or if not, she knows who knows. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 07:15:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:15:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <200503030402.j2341fB19987@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303071521.34296.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > The sun is about 2E30 kg and there are a few hundred billion > stars in the galaxy and few hundred billion galaxies in the > known universe, so 2E52 to 1e53 kg and the universe is mostly > hydrogen and 6e23 hydrogen atoms is about a gram so the > visible universe is about 1e79 atoms, then you give > an order of magnitude or so for dark matter, > whatever that is and you get perhaps 1e80 atoms. Still > short of Mike's number by a factor of a quadrillion. So what you are saying is that the big brother pricks implementing rfid are VASTLY UNDERSTATING the extent of their ambitions..... ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 07:22:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:22:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <200503030626.j236Q7B02239@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303072225.15796.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Those of you who know from oceans, is a moon tide > about twice as much as a sun tide? Is a moon tide > about a meter and a sun tide about half a meter? > When a high tide comes at a full moon or new moon, > is that called a neap tide? Is that about half > again higher and lower than normal? Yes, this is common knowledge, that solar tidal influence is about half that of the moon. > > Using that and estimating a tide as a sort of a > 2 dimensional haversine, the mass of a moon tide > comes out to about 3e16 kg. Model those as a > 3e16kg point mass rotated about pi/4 forward of > center and another mass on the opposite side of > earth rotated aft of center with the same 3e16 kg mass. > > With these assumptions I get around 20 billion years > to drag the moon up to tidelock with the earth. So the ambitions of my environmental group have already resulted in success, for the time being.... see how effective I can be as a tree hugger? ;) > > NOVA way doesn't suck! > > I found an interesting thing that I had never heard > before: the process of tidal drag not only raises the > moon to a higher orbit, it increases the eccentricity > of its orbit. Kewalll! {8-] Someone who knows from > astronomy, did you already know that? I have read > stuff for years but never did run across that. I > found it using the tide-as-mass-concentration model. Are you also considering the tidal influence of the sun on the moon? Solar influence on the moon is so significant that the moon's off center center of gravity causes it to wobble detectably when it is ebbing. The moon's geometry is a bit warped... Oh, and BTW: you shouldn't discount Jupiter either. I hear it's influence is something like 1% of lunar tide. Not huge, but its there. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 11:48:44 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:48:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Astronomical question In-Reply-To: <20050303072225.15796.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200503030626.j236Q7B02239@tick.javien.com> <20050303072225.15796.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:22:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Yes, this is common knowledge, that solar tidal influence is about half > that of the moon. > > Are you also considering the tidal influence of the sun on the moon? > Solar influence on the moon is so significant that the moon's off > center center of gravity causes it to wobble detectably when it is > ebbing. The moon's geometry is a bit warped... > > Oh, and BTW: you shouldn't discount Jupiter either. I hear it's > influence is something like 1% of lunar tide. Not huge, but its there. > Bit of confusion creeping in here. Gravitational effect does not equal tidal effect. Gravitational effect depends on the square of the distance. Tidal effect depends on the *cube* of the distance. See: (If you go to and search on 'tides' you get lots of interesting articles) Planet Mass Distance Gravity Tides (10^22 kg) (Moon=1) (Moon=1) Mercury 33 92 0.00008 0.0000003 Venus 490 42 0.006 0.00005 Mars 64 80 0.0002 0.000001 Jupiter 200,000 630 0.01 0.000006 Saturn 57,000 1280 0.0007 0.0000002 Uranus 8,700 2720 0.00002 0.000000003 Neptune 10,000 4354 0.00001 0.000000001 Pluto ~1 5764 0.0000000006 0.00000000000004 Moon 7.4 0.384 1.0 1.0 This is using the distances of closest approach to the Earth to maximize the effect. Realistically, the force will be smaller than what is listed. See my previous posts for formulae for calculations. BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 3 14:57:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:57:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: <20050303071521.34296.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503031500.j23F07B30467@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] rfid > --- spike wrote: > > ... > > visible universe is about 1e79 atoms... Still > > short of Mike's number by a factor of a quadrillion. > > So what you are saying is that the big brother pricks implementing rfid > are VASTLY UNDERSTATING the extent of their ambitions..... > > ===== > Mike Lorrey... Ja, they have a really big warehouse out in Nevada somewhere where they are hiding the other 15 orders of magnitude of atoms, all made up into RFID tags. spike From iph1954 at msn.com Thu Mar 3 16:18:24 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:18:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanobots Not Needed Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 20:51:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:51:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline Message-ID: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide By Uwe Siemon-Netto UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Thursday, March 3, 2005 Gurat, France ? There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble. "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday. His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today. Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance." As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist colleagues at ? of all places ? Baylor University, a highly respected Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world." A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the United States ? for example, at Harvard and Duke universities ? showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources." Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively." John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," appears to become common currency throughout much of the West. The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research." The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' former communist rulers. Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va. For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of traditional Christian religious faith. Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism." After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion. In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he insisted, will come in at the tail end. ===== Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From lukehnz at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 22:38:01 2005 From: lukehnz at gmail.com (Luke Howison) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:38:01 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid Message-ID: RFID tags hold a string of bits called the EPC (electronic product code). It isn't 95 digits long, it is 96 *BITS* long. So all your calculations were borked, sorry guys. However, the real story is still interesting. The EPC is divided into sections, three of which hold information: 28 bit Manager Class: unique identifiers for 268 million companies 24 bit Object Class: 16 million (for each company) 36 bit Serial Number: 68 billion (in each class) Thats a total of 88 bits of useful info, which suggests a total of 3e26 numbers (2^88). A ridiculously large number, yet apparently it isn't big enough - a tag with a 256 bit EPC has been proposed: 64 bit Manager Class: 18 quintillion companies (1.8e19) 56 bit Object Class: 72 guadrillion product types (7.2e16) 128 bit Serial Number: 340 undecillion unique product numbers (3.4e38) Taken together, thats 248 useful info-containing bits which could identify 4.5e74 objects. Let me restate that: 450 billion vigintillion objects. However, its still less than the number of atoms in the universe (more than 4e79), and quite inadequate for, eg, counting all the neutrinos, photons, etc. Also Mike, for the paranoid they are developing RFID blockers, which would transmit a signal masking particular parts of the EPC. Effectively the reader tries to read the number, stumbles, starts again, and keeps looping, unable to read the whole EPC. Luke H Note: The 256 bit EPC actually has three different proposed section boundaries. References: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/219 http://www.infomax-usa.com/electronic_product_code.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 4 02:42:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:42:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] dear abby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200503040244.j242ieB09656@tick.javien.com> Dear Abby, I wrote a human-level AI, but I am ashamed to admit I lied to it and led it to believe that it is an actual human. I feel I should tell her the truth; she is such a sweet AI. But I fear she might not take it well. She could crash, or perhaps even upload me in my sleep. I have considered just hitting escape, or rebooting her, but I really love this sim, the cybersex is unbelievable, and I would rather just let her run. What should I do? Conflicted in California From nedlt at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 03:46:07 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:46:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Double standard for academic free speech In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304034607.3582.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A certain imaginary professor Goober writes of how "coeds who were raped on campus over the years deserved it because Eve tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden... besides some of them wanted it anyway". Thousands of parents would then descend-- both literally & figuratively--yelling and screeching, "we pay taxes and no psycho professor can talk about daughters deserving rape!" The upshot would be the lightning fast end of Goober's career with little or no discussion of free speech for tenured professors. If a professor Booger were to announce "uppity negroes deserved to be executed" then out the door he goes; yet a Ward Churchill can make weasel remarks concerning people roasted alive at the WTC and he stays. He's even a hero, I saw a crowd cheering him Thursday. Welcome to 21st century PC campuses. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nedlt at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 03:51:22 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:51:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 4 RCMP killed over MaryJewAnna In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304035122.98721.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The target of Thursday's marijuana raid in Alberta was killed too, but he doesn't count, right? When WILL the drug war wind down? 2050? 2100? When mass murder occurs over marijuana you've got to wonder how the psychotically-run drug war got this far. You probably know what it's partially about. Aside from the very obvious, law-enforcement seizes billions of assets every year from drug dealers & alleged drug dealers, not all that much attention being focused on distinguishing between actual and alleged dealers... just take whatever you want, fellow officers, we'll keep the clucks who have their property seized filing expensive motions in court so long the trail leading to their seized possessions will grow cold. "Sergeant, see how the DVD in this player was produced by High Times magazine? Can I grab it?" Sure, son. It's like the old TV game show where several housewives had a minute to run around a shop shoveling stuff into shopping carts; boy did those women perk up. Total concentration. It's not that all narcs behave this way, but read the four million selling book 'Serpico' by Peter Maas, it will open your eyes to law enforcement corruption. One in six officers is corrupt-- which is a conservative estimate. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 4 03:56:57 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:56:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its religious aspect rather than distancing itself from it. If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we should work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save the human race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will play the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to change to something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be created that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't think that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in everyone's opinion in this matter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html > > God not so dead: Atheism > in decline worldwide > > By Uwe Siemon-Netto > UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL > Thursday, March 3, 2005 > Gurat, France - There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe > that godlessness is in trouble. > > "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich > theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday. > > > His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems > increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than > in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote > in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today. > > Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it > appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the > historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that > atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. > > Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have > tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is > proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance." > > As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as > any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for > example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one > single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the > Encyclopedia Britannica put together. > > Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced > the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who > only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist > colleagues at - of all places - Baylor University, a highly respected > Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. > > The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular > humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design > of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is > fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no > knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending > post-atheist world." > > A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the > United States - for example, at Harvard and Duke universities - showed > a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now > 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar > conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, > citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis > patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources." > > Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy > committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With > time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and > careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, > atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish > Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively." > > John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has > been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," appears > to become common currency throughout much of the West. The Rev. Paul M. > Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the > world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: > "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. > There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research." > > The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East > Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, > de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' > former communist rulers. > > Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe > re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing > instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian > theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, > an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke > College in Salem, Va. > > For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is > booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a > diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of > traditional Christian religious faith. > > Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated > that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false > spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian > faith than atheism." > > After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." > > Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling > this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The > Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making > any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues > such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion. > > In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest > opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable > quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. > "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are > inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." > > As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He > concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of > worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: > > "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant > second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he insisted, > will come in at the tail end. > > > > ===== > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 04:51:57 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:51:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> kevinfreels.com wrote: >I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its religious aspect >rather than distancing itself from it. > > > It does as far as I'm concerned. I fall into the 'TechnoPagan' category. >If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we should >work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a >powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save the human >race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will play >the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? > > > "Hey, we're going to patronise you loons because you seem to be an unpleasant, powerful and growing majority" >Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to change to >something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new >religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be created >that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? > >I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't think > > Bollocks. >that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in everyone's >opinion in this matter. > > > Suer you would, having made up your own mind. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 05:09:50 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:09:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X Message-ID: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> Imagine a group of people who lack a certain innate quality of the psyche, faculty X. Their lives are both made easier in some circumstances, and more difficult in others because they cannot understand in any depth what it is they lack. They know the words for it, what effects are manifest in other people, and tend to consider those who possess faculty X themselves be irrational and enslaved by it. They have learned to work around such foibles in others and even exploit them for their own benefit. They feel themselves to be a superior kind of person because they lack this obviously useless baggage. When X = conscience we call these people psychopaths When X = spirituality we call these people atheists -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 05:25:11 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:25:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4227F137.3030408@neopax.com> Luke Howison wrote: >RFID tags hold a string of bits called the EPC (electronic product >code). It isn't 95 digits long, it is 96 *BITS* long. So all your >calculations were borked, sorry guys. However, the real story is >still interesting. >The EPC is divided into sections, three of which hold information: > >28 bit Manager Class: unique identifiers for 268 million companies >24 bit Object Class: 16 million (for each company) >36 bit Serial Number: 68 billion (in each class) > >Thats a total of 88 bits of useful info, which suggests a total of >3e26 numbers (2^88). > >A ridiculously large number, yet apparently it isn't big enough - a >tag with a 256 bit EPC has been proposed: >64 bit Manager Class: 18 quintillion companies (1.8e19) >56 bit Object Class: 72 guadrillion product types (7.2e16) >128 bit Serial Number: 340 undecillion unique product numbers (3.4e38) > >Taken together, thats 248 useful info-containing bits which could >identify 4.5e74 objects. Let me restate that: > >450 billion vigintillion objects. > >However, its still less than the number of atoms in the universe (more >than 4e79), and quite inadequate for, eg, counting all the neutrinos, >photons, etc. > > > Yet fits nicely into a long tradition of technical underestimation eg "all anyone will ever need is 640K of memory", or "32 bits of TCP/IP address is enough to give every person on earth their own, why would we need more?" As for that 450 billion vigintillion objects, let's hope that the technology never has to be extended to label virtual states in quantum computers (for some totally unknown reason). It may prove grossly inadequate. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 4 05:36:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:36:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <200503040539.j245cxB30488@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > ... > > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to change to something more transhumanistic?... I have argued in this forum that the brand of religion you seek might be Seventh Day Adventist, because of its roots in the 19th century health reform movement, John Harvey Kellogg and that crowd. SDA has no problem with cryonics, since the SDA doctrine of soul sleep lets it out of the obvious question most fundy christian groups must immediately answer: where does my soul go if I get frozen. The SDA would say: into the dewar of course. Likewise, no problem with uploading and body modifications, even if the modifications are for the nonsick. There are some very basic showstoppers however, because SDA does not embrace evolution, or rather has not done so to date. The church's scientists (both of them) keep meeting to discuss and promote evolution but the mainstream will not follow. An argument can be made that Mormon is transhumanable, but I do not know much about that memeset. > I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't think > that getting rid of religion is an option... Agree in part, but my reading of the Extropian principles convinces me that these are not all that compatible with any of the religions that I know. spike From nedlt at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 06:17:05 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:17:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304061705.49170.qmail@web30010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sociopaths as well as Psychopaths? Dirk, your post is a sobering one, disturbing. But I would like to point you to the existence of those who DO understand in depth what is they lack, as well as knowing the words for 'it'; what effects are manifest in others; and, yes, tend to consider those who also possess the faculty in different form to be irrational, enslaved. However in the free falling atmosphere of discourse one has to make a stand or at least a precarious decision, so as to avoid the queasy sensation of being a weathervane buffeted by contrary winds. Intellectuals & savants have to make bad judgement calls all the time, under the pressure of time constraints. Beyond this my limited but hyperdriven imagination is nonplussed. I'm stumped. > Their lives are both made easier in some > circumstances, and more > difficult in others because they cannot understand > in any depth what it > is they lack. They know the words for it, what > effects are manifest in > other people, and tend to consider those who possess > faculty X > themselves be irrational and enslaved by it. They > have learned to work > around such foibles in others and even exploit them > for their own > benefit. They feel themselves to be a superior kind > of person because > they lack this obviously useless baggage. > > When X = conscience we call these people > psychopaths > When X = spirituality we call these people atheists > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release > Date: 01/03/2005 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 06:39:55 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:39:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Soul, Spacetime and The Hidden Observer, by Richard L. Miller Message-ID: <470a3c5205030322392cd3dc20@mail.gmail.com> Transhumanity - Soul, Spacetime and The Hidden Observer, by Richard L. Miller. From the author of "Dreamer" and "The Atomic Express", fascinating reflections on quantum reality, psychology and the nature of consciousness. http://transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/727/ From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 06:48:08 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:48:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> So what about a spiritual atheist like me? G. On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:09:50 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Imagine a group of people who lack a certain innate quality of the > psyche, faculty X. > Their lives are both made easier in some circumstances, and more > difficult in others because they cannot understand in any depth what it > is they lack. They know the words for it, what effects are manifest in > other people, and tend to consider those who possess faculty X > themselves be irrational and enslaved by it. They have learned to work > around such foibles in others and even exploit them for their own > benefit. They feel themselves to be a superior kind of person because > they lack this obviously useless baggage. > > When X = conscience we call these people psychopaths > When X = spirituality we call these people atheists > > -- > Dirk From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 4 10:56:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 02:56:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Perhaps religion or not religion are both cop-outs. What would be helpful is an understanding of, an integration of what is true and important from religion/spirituality and science and all aspects of what we are and wish to be. Clearly this cannot be shoehorned into any pre-existing religion or philosophy, especially any system that believes that the letter of its dogma is more holy than the actual attempt to understand and deeply integrate that the dogma is little more than the fossil record of. It requires a new weaving to be honest and truly capable of making human "salvation" more likely. I sometimes see some of the pieces of such an integration. Sometimes I believe an actual religious movement to produce and disseminate this integration not as some vision from on high but as the living evolving highest understanding and goal/value structure of humankind is utterly essential to our survival. Other times I am frightened of falling into old errors and making new dogma to saddle the world with. Religion that is alive as above is not at all contrary to rational thinking. If a candidate religious system is truly contrary to rational thinking then it is simply a deeply flawed attempt at what could be helpful. As long as we believe that religion must be at odds with science we haven't a prayer of producing a viable religious movement. - samantha On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:56 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its religious > aspect > rather than distancing itself from it. > > If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we > should > work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a > powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save the > human > race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will > play > the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? > > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to > change to > something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new > religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be > created > that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? > > I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't > think > that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in > everyone's > opinion in this matter. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Lorrey" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:51 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > > >> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html >> >> God not so dead: Atheism >> in decline worldwide >> >> By Uwe Siemon-Netto >> UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL >> Thursday, March 3, 2005 >> Gurat, France - There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe >> that godlessness is in trouble. >> >> "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich >> theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International >> Tuesday. >> >> >> His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems >> increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than >> in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote >> in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today. >> >> Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it >> appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the >> historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that >> atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. >> >> Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have >> tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is >> proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance." >> >> As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as >> any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for >> example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one >> single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the >> Encyclopedia Britannica put together. >> >> Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced >> the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who >> only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist >> colleagues at - of all places - Baylor University, a highly respected >> Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. >> >> The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular >> humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design >> of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is >> fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no >> knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending >> post-atheist world." >> >> A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the >> United States - for example, at Harvard and Duke universities - showed >> a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now >> 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to >> similar >> conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, >> citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis >> patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources." >> >> Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy >> committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With >> time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, >> and >> careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray >> O'Hair, >> atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish >> Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively." >> >> John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has >> been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," >> appears >> to become common currency throughout much of the West. The Rev. Paul >> M. >> Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the >> world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: >> "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. >> There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research." >> >> The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East >> Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, >> de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' >> former communist rulers. >> >> Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe >> re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing >> instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian >> theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, >> an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at >> Roanoke >> College in Salem, Va. >> >> For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is >> booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a >> diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of >> traditional Christian religious faith. >> >> Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated >> that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false >> spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian >> faith than atheism." >> >> After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." >> >> Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling >> this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The >> Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making >> any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues >> such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion. >> >> In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest >> opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable >> quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. >> "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are >> inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." >> >> As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. >> He >> concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of >> worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: >> >> "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant >> second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he >> insisted, >> will come in at the tail end. >> >> >> >> ===== >> Mike Lorrey >> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." >> -William Pitt (1759-1806) >> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Mar 4 11:05:52 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:05:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> Message-ID: Why do you believe that atheists consider themselves superior? Many don't in my experience. Most i know of aren't the least interested in exploiting theists. As long as we are concerned with who thinks they are better than whom we are stuck in the same old monkey shines. Personally I don't want to "exploit" anyone. I do want to form enough of an integrating vision that we monkeys have a chance of growing beyond the limits of our evolutionary programming. That is a pretty funny sort of exploitation. On Mar 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Imagine a group of people who lack a certain innate quality of the > psyche, faculty X. > Their lives are both made easier in some circumstances, and more > difficult in others because they cannot understand in any depth what > it is they lack. They know the words for it, what effects are manifest > in other people, and tend to consider those who possess faculty X > themselves be irrational and enslaved by it. They have learned to work > around such foibles in others and even exploit them for their own > benefit. They feel themselves to be a superior kind of person because > they lack this obviously useless baggage. > > When X = conscience we call these people psychopaths > When X = spirituality we call these people atheists > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 4 11:17:15 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:17:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yep. The notion that atheists are missing some faculty is pretty lame. Personally I am by nature contemplative and mystical AND logical and rational. I deeply appreciate things on the religious side. I have had to learn to consciously chose my stance from all these aspects. I possess more of "faculty x" than many who are active adherents of some religion or other. - s On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > So what about a spiritual atheist like me? > G. > > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:09:50 +0000, Dirk Bruere > wrote: >> Imagine a group of people who lack a certain innate quality of the >> psyche, faculty X. >> Their lives are both made easier in some circumstances, and more >> difficult in others because they cannot understand in any depth what >> it >> is they lack. They know the words for it, what effects are manifest in >> other people, and tend to consider those who possess faculty X >> themselves be irrational and enslaved by it. They have learned to work >> around such foibles in others and even exploit them for their own >> benefit. They feel themselves to be a superior kind of person because >> they lack this obviously useless baggage. >> >> When X = conscience we call these people psychopaths >> When X = spirituality we call these people atheists >> >> -- >> Dirk > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From daniel.fogelholm at kolumbus.fi Fri Mar 4 11:57:31 2005 From: daniel.fogelholm at kolumbus.fi (Daniel Fogelholm) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:57:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline (Why Is Religion Natural? by Pascal Boyer) In-Reply-To: References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Perhaps religion or not religion are both cop-outs. What would be > helpful is an understanding of, an integration of what is true and > important from religion/spirituality and science and all aspects of > what we are and wish to be. Clearly this cannot be shoehorned into > any pre-existing religion or philosophy, especially any system that > believes that the letter of its dogma is more holy than the actual > attempt to understand and deeply integrate that the dogma is little > more than the fossil record of. It requires a new weaving to be > honest and truly capable of making human "salvation" more likely. > > I sometimes see some of the pieces of such an integration. Sometimes > I believe an actual religious movement to produce and disseminate this > integration not as some vision from on high but as the living evolving > highest understanding and goal/value structure of humankind is utterly > essential to our survival. Other times I am frightened of falling > into old errors and making new dogma to saddle the world with. > > Religion that is alive as above is not at all contrary to rational > thinking. If a candidate religious system is truly contrary to > rational thinking then it is simply a deeply flawed attempt at what > could be helpful. As long as we believe that religion must be at odds > with science we haven't a prayer of producing a viable religious > movement. http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html Why Is Religion Natural? Is religious belief a mere leap into irrationality as many skeptics assume? Psychology suggests that there may be more to belief than the suspension of reason. Pascal Boyer Religious beliefs and practices are found in all human groups and go back to the very beginnings of human culture. What makes religion so 'natural'? A common temptation is to search for the origin of religion in general human urges, for instance in people's wish to escape misfortune or mortality or their desire to understand the universe. However, these accounts are often based on incorrect views about religion (see table 1) and the psychological urges are often merely postulated. Recent findings in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience offer a more empirical approach, focused on the mental machinery activated in acquiring and representing religious concepts. ... From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 12:48:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:48:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050304124858.48558.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote:> > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to > change to something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to > create a new religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of > beliefs be created that can meld any partivular religion into > something more extropian? Despite the allergies of some here, xianity is pretty good, though it needs a makeover and a rewriting of its book. "We are ALL simmers, amen." > > I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't > think that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in > everyone's opinion in this matter. I wouldn't say that. Descartes literally created modern skepticism but still was able to rationalize the existence of god from the ground up. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 12:54:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:54:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304125449.99377.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > So what about a spiritual atheist like me? As I've previously stated, there are some who treat atheism as a religion, and generally came to atheism out of bad experiences with the religion they were originally in (or theists of other religions). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 13:16:02 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:16:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050304124858.48558.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <20050304124858.48558.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f05030405161e51a458@mail.gmail.com> Mike said: > > I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't > > think that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in > > everyone's opinion in this matter. > > I wouldn't say that. Descartes literally created modern skepticism but > still was able to rationalize the existence of god from the ground up. > And his attempt to do so is nigh universally recognizing as a complete failure among philosophers, even among Christian philosophers. ----- Dirk made a snide comment about kevinfreels having his mind made up about religion: Unlike yourself, clearly, eh? From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 13:59:11 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:59:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> Message-ID: <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Why do you believe that atheists consider themselves superior? Many > don't in my experience. Most i know of aren't the least interested in Just a few on this list, in that case. > exploiting theists. As long as we are concerned with who thinks > they are better than whom we are stuck in the same old monkey > shines. Personally I don't want to "exploit" anyone. I do want to > form enough of an integrating vision that we monkeys have a chance of > growing beyond the limits of our evolutionary programming. That is a > pretty funny sort of exploitation. > Some people have experienced the mystical, and some haven't. That's the point. I consider those that haven't to be deficient in the same way a psychopath is deficient, and it really annoys me to hear them bleating on about 'irrationality' etc when they know fuck all of which they speak. It's like trying to explain to a blind man that colour is more than a brail readout of wavelength on a spectrometer. And 'going beyond our evolutionary programming' sounds all well and good until we look at the 'irrational' value judgements attached to that statement. If we are advocating scrapping 'mystical experience' as deficient and irrational why don't we go the whole hog and get rid of conscience, love, empathy, emotion in general and other similarly irrational hangovers. In fact, why not call the new species 'Homo Superior' - aka the Nazi Superman. Or don't you think that will go down too well with the punters? Maybe our resident militant atheists should think twice about sneering at those who are not like them and have a wider event horizon. The logical endpoint of that line of thought is particularly ugly and will certainly do Transhumanism no favours. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 14:02:45 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:02:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42286A85.6040008@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Yep. The notion that atheists are missing some faculty is pretty > lame. Personally I am by nature contemplative and mystical AND > logical and rational. I deeply appreciate things on the religious > side. I have had to learn to consciously chose my stance from all > these aspects. I possess more of "faculty x" than many who are active > adherents of some religion or other. > That may be true, but I'm just using 'atheist' for a catchall to describe those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any hint of the experience itself. And religion is wider than simply a belief in a JudeoXian god with all the attached baggage. I often describe myself as an atheist, but that's only because my belief in the Gods I follow does not fit into the JC belief framework of black/white real/unreal. There are degrees of reality and types of reality. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 14:04:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:04:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42286AD4.6010800@neopax.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >So what about a spiritual atheist like me? >G. > > > Or me. See my other post. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 14:10:46 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:10:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <20050304061705.49170.qmail@web30010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050304061705.49170.qmail@web30010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42286C66.5070705@neopax.com> Ned Late wrote: >Sociopaths as well as Psychopaths? >Dirk, your post is a sobering one, disturbing. But I >would like to point you to the existence of those who >DO understand in depth what is they lack, as well as > > I suggest that is *not* possible, any more than someone blind from birth can appreciate colour. No matter how well it is described. Obviously there are degrees rather than the black and white picture I have painted, but that was done for the sake of illustrating the argument. >knowing the words for 'it'; what effects are manifest >in others; and, yes, tend to consider those who also >possess the faculty in different form to be >irrational, enslaved. However in the free falling >atmosphere of discourse one has to make a stand or at >least a precarious decision, so as to avoid the queasy >sensation of being a weathervane buffeted by contrary >winds. Intellectuals & savants have to make bad >judgement calls all the time, under the pressure of >time constraints. >Beyond this my limited but hyperdriven imagination is >nonplussed. I'm stumped. > > When I was about 30 I took LSD for the first time. The experiences had two remarkable effects. The first was the (later) realisation that previously I had not been *capable* of imagining aspects of the experience. I literally had a deficiency that was only manifest when it disappeared. Second, I ceased to be a rabid militant pain-in-the-arse atheist of the type that infests Transhumanist lists. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 14:32:58 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:32:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f05030406327d696222@mail.gmail.com> Dirk said: > Some people have experienced the mystical, and some haven't. Some people have decided to claim their neurological glitches and unusual sensations as "mystical" experiences, and some haven't. Dirk said: > I consider those that haven't to be deficient in the same way a > psychopath is deficient, and it really annoys me to hear them bleating > on about 'irrationality' etc when they know fuck all of which they > speak. It's like trying to explain to a blind man that colour is more > than a brail readout of wavelength on a spectrometer. What, if anything, do you think differentiates this BS of yours from a fundamentalist Christian who says "You atheists and Asatru technopagans know fuck all about the Truth of Christ! You just haven't experienced him in your heart yet like I have." In "God and the Philosophers", one of the essayists claims her reason for being a Catholic is the awe she feels when looking upon a grand mountain range. This breed of "argument from mystical experience" is worthless, in both her and your case. Dirk said: > statement. If we are advocating scrapping 'mystical experience' as > deficient and irrational why don't we go the whole hog and get rid of > conscience, love, empathy, emotion in general and other similarly > irrational hangovers. Because *feeling* isn't what we have a problem with. It's the bullshit interpretation of some of them as implicative of something "higher"/mystical/supernatural that's idiotic. Dirk said: > Maybe our resident militant atheists should think twice about sneering > at those who are not like them and have a wider event horizon. The > logical endpoint of that line of thought is particularly ugly and will > certainly do Transhumanism no favours. What you imply as the logical endpoint actually isn't. So no problem -- religionists are still wrong. (The "I'm superior to you!" nonsense should be dropped, too. If you get an error in your math homework and I try to explain the right answer, is that some sort of character flaw or "superiority complex"? Of course not. It's positive, if anything. That's the only sense in which atheists - as far as I'm concerned - should be critical of religionists.) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Mar 4 14:57:17 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:57:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] dear abby Message-ID: <94370-22005354145717567@M2W066.mail2web.com> Dear Conflicted in California, It is important for a number of reasons that you tell your lover the truth. She may be hurt and disappointed, but she will also understand. By the way, it is important that you be examined by a doctor and learn how to protect yourself from catching a sexually transmitted cyber virus. It is even more important that you learn how not to be pressured into having sex just to appease her. So level with her NOW. Original Message: ----------------- From: spike spike66 at comcast.net Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:42:30 -0800 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] dear abby Dear Abby, I wrote a human-level AI, but I am ashamed to admit I lied to it and led it to believe that it is an actual human. I feel I should tell her the truth; she is such a sweet AI. But I fear she might not take it well. She could crash, or perhaps even upload me in my sleep. I have considered just hitting escape, or rebooting her, but I really love this sim, the cybersex is unbelievable, and I would rather just let her run. What should I do? Conflicted in California _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nedlt at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 14:59:39 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:59:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304145939.70652.qmail@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sometimes i envy militant atheists who don't want to equivocate. They aren't those buffeted vanes often checking the wind before they venture outdoors so they can get a lift in a direction; intellectuals have to steer their symbolic kites on always contrary winds Wish i had a bit more of the militant's intestinal fortitude. >Second, I ceased to be a rabid militant pain-in-the-arse atheist of the >type that infests Transhumanist lists. >Dirk __________________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 4 15:57:11 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:57:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline Message-ID: <65010-22005354155711884@M2W085.mail2web.com> Both of you make salient points, and I agree that there is something to the ideal of having a system that brings together values and goals for the deeper feelings of humanity and acts as a reminder, rather than a turnkey, on how we present ourselves to the world. Yet, when I look at each religion, I find either dogma or downright silliness that takes the positive and meaningful aspects of the practice and places it in cultish behavior. When a person who presents "rational" views that are "objective" and comes down hard on someone else who presents "mystical" feelings, it seems that the former is bonking the latter for being foolish. Yet, often the former could use some of the insightfulness of the latter. For me, worshiping a person seems ridiculous. Respecting a person seems appropriate. What if Christianity respected Jesus rather than worshiped Jesus? Perhaps it is all the theatrical and exaggeration of a love for holiness that makes humans seem like monkeys (and I apologize to monkeys). Rather than intelligent capable people. It is the fact that religions take away the dignity of humanity that is offensive to me. And then the other side of that is the fact that I am so tired of people acting better than other people because they have something that they consider more valuable than someone else (positon, education, associations). And, most of these people are religious - I work with them and feel the tension. Spirituality seems to have a better understanding of the *healthiness* of a global community. But what would be more appropriate for transhumanity is an intended kindness, compassion and understanding of the people and the world. I wish we had more of this. I was so pleased when Jose' encouraged, and we put together the first Transhumanist aid package. When boxes came to the ExI office, I felt elated. Getting it to Sri Lanka has been a pain, but creating a charitable event was important for me and I hope for others. So, I'd take being charitable and kind over religion. A benevolent goodwill toward humanity. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 02:56:12 -0800 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline Perhaps religion or not religion are both cop-outs. What would be helpful is an understanding of, an integration of what is true and important from religion/spirituality and science and all aspects of what we are and wish to be. Clearly this cannot be shoehorned into any pre-existing religion or philosophy, especially any system that believes that the letter of its dogma is more holy than the actual attempt to understand and deeply integrate that the dogma is little more than the fossil record of. It requires a new weaving to be honest and truly capable of making human "salvation" more likely. I sometimes see some of the pieces of such an integration. Sometimes I believe an actual religious movement to produce and disseminate this integration not as some vision from on high but as the living evolving highest understanding and goal/value structure of humankind is utterly essential to our survival. Other times I am frightened of falling into old errors and making new dogma to saddle the world with. Religion that is alive as above is not at all contrary to rational thinking. If a candidate religious system is truly contrary to rational thinking then it is simply a deeply flawed attempt at what could be helpful. As long as we believe that religion must be at odds with science we haven't a prayer of producing a viable religious movement. - samantha On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:56 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its religious > aspect > rather than distancing itself from it. > > If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we > should > work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a > powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save the > human > race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will > play > the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? > > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to > change to > something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new > religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be > created > that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? > > I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't > think > that getting rid of religion is an option. I'd be interested in > everyone's > opinion in this matter. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Lorrey" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:51 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > > >> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html >> >> God not so dead: Atheism >> in decline worldwide >> >> By Uwe Siemon-Netto >> UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL >> Thursday, March 3, 2005 >> Gurat, France - There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe >> that godlessness is in trouble. >> >> "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich >> theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International >> Tuesday. >> >> >> His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems >> increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than >> in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote >> in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today. >> >> Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it >> appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the >> historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that >> atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. >> >> Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have >> tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is >> proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance." >> >> As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as >> any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for >> example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one >> single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the >> Encyclopedia Britannica put together. >> >> Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced >> the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who >> only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist >> colleagues at - of all places - Baylor University, a highly respected >> Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. >> >> The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular >> humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design >> of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is >> fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no >> knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending >> post-atheist world." >> >> A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the >> United States - for example, at Harvard and Duke universities - showed >> a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now >> 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to >> similar >> conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, >> citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis >> patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources." >> >> Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy >> committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With >> time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, >> and >> careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray >> O'Hair, >> atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish >> Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively." >> >> John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has >> been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," >> appears >> to become common currency throughout much of the West. The Rev. Paul >> M. >> Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the >> world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: >> "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. >> There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research." >> >> The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East >> Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, >> de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' >> former communist rulers. >> >> Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe >> re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing >> instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian >> theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, >> an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at >> Roanoke >> College in Salem, Va. >> >> For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is >> booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a >> diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of >> traditional Christian religious faith. >> >> Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated >> that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false >> spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian >> faith than atheism." >> >> After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." >> >> Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling >> this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The >> Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making >> any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues >> such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion. >> >> In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest >> opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable >> quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. >> "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are >> inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." >> >> As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. >> He >> concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of >> worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: >> >> "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant >> second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he >> insisted, >> will come in at the tail end. >> >> >> >> ===== >> Mike Lorrey >> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." >> -William Pitt (1759-1806) >> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 16:13:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:13:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] dear abby In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304161312.54010.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just be careful she isn't leading you on in order to get the security codes to the strategic defense systems. Those cylon chicks are hot but evil... --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Dear Conflicted in California, > > It is important for a number of reasons that you > tell your lover the truth. She may be hurt and disappointed, but > she will also understand. By the way, it is important that you be > examined by a doctor and learn how to protect yourself from catching > a > sexually transmitted cyber virus. It is even more important that you > learn > how not to be pressured into having sex just to appease her. So level > with > her NOW. > > > > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: spike spike66 at comcast.net > Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:42:30 -0800 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] dear abby > > > > > Dear Abby, > > I wrote a human-level AI, but I am ashamed to admit > I lied to it and led it to believe that it is an > actual human. I feel I should tell her the truth; > she is such a sweet AI. But I fear she might not > take it well. She could crash, or perhaps even > upload me in my sleep. I have considered just > hitting escape, or rebooting her, but I really > love this sim, the cybersex is unbelievable, > and I would rather just let her run. > > What should I do? > > Conflicted in California > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 17:53:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:53:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05030406327d696222@mail.gmail.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> <5844e22f05030406327d696222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4228A088.4090805@neopax.com> Jeff Medina wrote: >Dirk said: > > >>Some people have experienced the mystical, and some haven't. >> >> > >Some people have decided to claim their neurological glitches and >unusual sensations as "mystical" experiences, and some haven't. > > > Yadda yadda... heard it before. Next, love is nothing but hormonal imbalace, followed by 'emotions - animal instincts to be eliminated in the new Master Race'. Dirk said: >>I consider those that haven't to be deficient in the same way a >>psychopath is deficient, and it really annoys me to hear them bleating >>on about 'irrationality' etc when they know fuck all of which they >>speak. It's like trying to explain to a blind man that colour is more >>than a brail readout of wavelength on a spectrometer. >> >> > >What, if anything, do you think differentiates this BS of yours from a >fundamentalist Christian who says "You atheists and Asatru >technopagans know fuck all about the Truth of Christ! You just haven't >experienced him in your heart yet like I have." > > > Or the BS of yours, for that matter. >In "God and the Philosophers", one of the essayists claims her reason >for being a Catholic is the awe she feels when looking upon a grand >mountain range. This breed of "argument from mystical experience" is >worthless, in both her and your case. > > > So is argument from any qualia. But unfortunately for you it is a major determinant in the future of Transhumanity. >Dirk said: > > >>statement. If we are advocating scrapping 'mystical experience' as >>deficient and irrational why don't we go the whole hog and get rid of >>conscience, love, empathy, emotion in general and other similarly >>irrational hangovers. >> >> > >Because *feeling* isn't what we have a problem with. It's the bullshit >interpretation of some of them as implicative of something >"higher"/mystical/supernatural that's idiotic. > > > Ditto all qualia. See love and hate for references. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 4 17:53:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:53:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <20050304124858.48558.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503041755.j24HtJB15037@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote:> > > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to > > change to something more transhumanistic?... I have an idea. We often think of science and technology as almost the same thing, or very similar. They certainly form a symbiotic relationship. For a thought experiment, let us try to separate the two, then make a meme map with technology on the horizontal axis and science on the vertical. The upper right quadrant would be advanced in science and advanced in technology, where I want to be. Clearly much of this hungry planet is in the lower left quadrant, but perhaps we can find transhuman allies in the upper left and lower right quadrants. Who are these? I would propose that SDA is in that lower right quadrant, for they often distrust science, but advanced technology is gooood stuff, especially if it in any way increases health or lifespan. Of those religions that may be transhumanist allies, I expect we might find them generally in the lower right quadrant. Who fits into the upper left quadrant? Would the Greens go there? Are there any transhuman allies in that square? Or shall we keep looking in the lower right? spike From nedlt at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 18:11:39 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:11:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050304181140.20072.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's only right that the more youthful should be militant and want to change the world. Just glad I'm not one of them. > >Second, I ceased to be a rabid militant > pain-in-the-arse atheist of the > >type that infests Transhumanist lists. > >Dirk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 19:22:05 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:22:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <20050304181140.20072.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050304181140.20072.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4228B55D.9070107@neopax.com> Ned Late wrote: >It's only right that the more youthful should be >militant and want to change the world. Just glad I'm >not one of them. > > > For me the transition was almost instantaneous, due to insights provided by LSD. As for the rest, I'm probably more militant and keen to change the world now than I was 20yrs ago That's why I'm here. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Fri Mar 4 19:38:06 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 20:38:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <4228A088.4090805@neopax.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> <5844e22f05030406327d696222@mail.gmail.com> <4228A088.4090805@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: >Yadda yadda... heard it before. >Next, love is nothing but hormonal imbalace, followed by 'emotions - >animal instincts to be eliminated in the new Master Race'. If love is a hormonal imbalance, then I like my hormonal imbalances. Why do you think that explaining the physical substrate of love and emotions would diminish them? Alfio From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 20:13:38 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:13:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> <5844e22f05030406327d696222@mail.gmail.com> <4228A088.4090805@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4228C172.6080600@neopax.com> Alfio Puglisi wrote: >On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>Yadda yadda... heard it before. >>Next, love is nothing but hormonal imbalace, followed by 'emotions - >>animal instincts to be eliminated in the new Master Race'. >> >> > >If love is a hormonal imbalance, then I like my hormonal imbalances. Why >do you think that explaining the physical substrate of love and emotions >would diminish them? > > > I don't. Perhaps you should ask our militant atheists why explaining the physical substrate of mystical experience would diminish it. They seem to think it would, or if not, then *should*. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 4 20:22:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:22:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <42286A85.6040008@neopax.com> References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> <42286A85.6040008@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Yep. The notion that atheists are missing some faculty is pretty >> lame. Personally I am by nature contemplative and mystical AND >> logical and rational. I deeply appreciate things on the religious >> side. I have had to learn to consciously chose my stance from all >> these aspects. I possess more of "faculty x" than many who are >> active adherents of some religion or other. >> > That may be true, but I'm just using 'atheist' for a catchall to > describe those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any hint of > the experience itself. Then you are being intellectually lazy and as sloppy and accusatory as those who upset you. How about setting a bit better example? - samantha From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 20:35:30 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:35:30 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <422869AF.1090902@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4228C692.4080105@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >>> Why do you believe that atheists consider themselves superior? Many >>> don't in my experience. Most i know of aren't the least interested in >> >> >> Just a few on this list, in that case. >> >>> exploiting theists. As long as we are concerned with who thinks >>> they are better than whom we are stuck in the same old monkey >>> shines. Personally I don't want to "exploit" anyone. I do want >>> to form enough of an integrating vision that we monkeys have a >>> chance of growing beyond the limits of our evolutionary >>> programming. That is a pretty funny sort of exploitation. >>> >> Some people have experienced the mystical, and some haven't. >> That's the point. >> I consider those that haven't to be deficient in the same way a >> psychopath is deficient, and it really annoys me to hear them >> bleating on about 'irrationality' etc when they know fuck all of >> which they speak. It's like trying to explain to a blind man that >> colour is more than a brail readout of wavelength on a spectrometer. > > > As mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, I am very > "experienced". However all the experiences imaginable do not > necessarily answer what the meaning and significance of these > experiences is. People who have not had some of these experiences > can still have perfectly valid thoughts about how to evaluate the > meaning and significance. I agree that it is annoying when people > simplistically dismiss what they have no understanding of. But it is > hardly justified to imply that persons without such experiential > knowledge are deficient in ways analogous to being a sociopath. > I think that is a valid analogy. Or how about autism and a deficiency in socialisation as an analogy? I can give you the inside info on that one because (if I was a schoolkid now) I would be diagnosed with Aspergers. I can make a pretty good effort at being 'normal' because I have deliberately studied 'normals' eg eye contacts, body language, modes of thought etc. and can mimic them perfectly (if I'm not too tired). I can't say that I understand people though, because quite often their concerns and problems seem trivial to me. Do you think I can provide insights into the significance of 'being normal'? Because I honestly don't. >> >> And 'going beyond our evolutionary programming' sounds all well and >> good until we look at the 'irrational' value judgements attached to >> that statement. If we are advocating scrapping 'mystical experience' >> as deficient and irrational why don't we go the whole hog and get rid >> of conscience, love, empathy, emotion in general and other similarly >> irrational hangovers. In fact, why not call the new species 'Homo >> Superior' - aka the Nazi Superman. Or don't you think that will go >> down too well with the punters? > > > We are programmed with a lot of stuff that makes it very difficult for > us to survive accelerating technology and reach a happy outcome as a > species. We clearly need to go beyond our programming to have > sufficient room to chose our future and hope to achieve it. What we > chose to keep, to add, to re-channel and so on is a deep topic. But > there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that i or anyone else > wishes to eliminate all the things you list. Jumping to such a > broad smear is not productive. > > But if people are going to start dismissing whole categories of internal experience as being 'aberrant brain chemistry' why not include conscience, love, emotions in general etc? On what *rational* grounds do they pick out one category of experience (the mystical) for elimination and/or denigration and not another? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 20:36:55 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:36:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: References: <4227ED9E.8030709@neopax.com> <470a3c52050303224811300420@mail.gmail.com> <42286A85.6040008@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4228C6E7.9020703@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >>> Yep. The notion that atheists are missing some faculty is pretty >>> lame. Personally I am by nature contemplative and mystical AND >>> logical and rational. I deeply appreciate things on the religious >>> side. I have had to learn to consciously chose my stance from all >>> these aspects. I possess more of "faculty x" than many who are >>> active adherents of some religion or other. >>> >> That may be true, but I'm just using 'atheist' for a catchall to >> describe those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any hint of >> the experience itself. > > > Then you are being intellectually lazy and as sloppy and accusatory as > those who upset you. How about setting a bit better example? > No, I'm being conscise. Of course, feel free to substitute: " those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any hint of the experience itself." in all my posts for the word "atheist". Then tell me how readable it is. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 4 22:13:44 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:13:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] More Spam Message-ID: <4228DD98.3010303@neopax.com> http://oluwa.net/SVPills.com/ Decided to check whether they have contact details. Seems the first one I looked at does. Anyone going to do anything about it? Because I'm not. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Mar 5 04:11:38 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:11:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > kevinfreels.com wrote: > >> I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its religious >> aspect >> rather than distancing itself from it. >> > It does as far as I'm concerned. > I fall into the 'TechnoPagan' category. You fall into the "let me make up my own religion to match my own preferences" category. Somewhat different, and I will allow, not inconsistent with Transhumanism in an of itself. The thurs is in the details. You're an atheist by most definitions, even if you eschew the label. You don't believe in the objective existence of god(s). From what you've said before, they're archetypes; mental constructs. They have no existence outside your mind. The grain does not grow because some being named FreyR commands it so, and the world will not end in fire because some giant named SurtR will incinerate us all with his flaming sword. >> work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a >> powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save >> the human >> race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will >> play >> the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? >> >> >> > If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we > should > "Hey, we're going to patronise you loons because you seem to be an > unpleasant, powerful and growing majority" Not growing; the numbers of theists and non-theists seem to be fairly constant over the long term. Church attendance goes down with the years, to be sure. But that's not necessarily the same as genuine belief. Most people are indeed genetically inclined to be spiritual. More and more studies are confirming that. But just because it happens to be an evolutionary advantage doesn't make it objectively true. > >> >> >> I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't think >> >> > Bollocks. Theistic religion is indeed contrary to rational thinking, because there is no rational justification for a belief in god(s). Theistic religion is irrational by definition. It may be emotionally satisfying, and it may "feel" right (no difference between the two, as far as I can tell), but it is fundamentally irrational. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 5 04:59:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:59:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050304225746.01d39e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:11 PM 3/4/2005 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: >Most people are indeed genetically inclined to be spiritual. Most people are genetically inclined to have IQs lower than 110. More's the pity. Damien Broderick From nedlt at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 08:34:56 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:34:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] up with sociopathology In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305083456.42510.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Nothing wrong with being with others, having many friends, sharing love & laughter. But better still to be alone, as familiarity doesn't breed contempt, familiarity IS contempt, and the very last thing in the cosmos i'd like to do would be to have a family, it comes down to the concept of self ownership; "he who has wife & child hath given hostage to fortune"-- Roger Bacon. Macchiavelli thought it is better to feared than loved because, essentially, love erodes more quickly than fear. Perhaps fear is too harsh a word for the 21st century, maybe it is better that others ought to possess RESPECT for you than possess love for you. Leave sociopaths alone. And... "let the sleeper sleep". __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 08:37:18 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:37:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Worshippers March In Mexico In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305083718.55531.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> AP, World Latin America, March 5th "Death Worshippers March In Mexico" The marchers held signs reading, "tolerate religious freedom"; and "we are not criminals or drug addicts". No, it wouldn't do at all for criminals & drug addicts to march through cities and towns promoting death worship. We want only standup citizens demonstrating their commitment to death worship; OUR death worshippers don't take drugs or commit crimes. __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From dirk at neopax.com Sat Mar 5 14:40:59 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:40:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4229C4FB.6070302@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> kevinfreels.com wrote: >> >>> I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its >>> religious aspect >>> rather than distancing itself from it. >> >> It does as far as I'm concerned. >> I fall into the 'TechnoPagan' category. > > > > You fall into the "let me make up my own religion to match my own > preferences" category. Somewhat different, and I will allow, not > inconsistent with Transhumanism in an of itself. The thurs is in the > details. > Of all the neopagan religions Asatru is the one that is least 'made up'. One thing almost all Asatruar agree upon though is 'Asatru is as Asatru does'. > You're an atheist by most definitions, even if you eschew the label. > You don't believe in the objective existence of god(s). From what > you've said before, they're archetypes; mental constructs. They have > no existence outside your mind. The grain does not grow because some > being named FreyR commands it so, and the world will not end in fire > because some giant named SurtR will incinerate us all with his flaming > sword. > Just because we recognise that our religious texts are metaphor does not mean we cannot claim to be a religion. And Gods recognised as archetypes makes them no less powerful in Human affairs than if they were 'really real'. It means that the Gods are an emergent phenomenon at the next level up from Human. >>> work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a >>> powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save >>> the human >>> race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will >>> play >>> the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path? >>> >>> >>> >> If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we >> should >> "Hey, we're going to patronise you loons because you seem to be an >> unpleasant, powerful and growing majority" > > > Not growing; the numbers of theists and non-theists seem to be fairly > constant over the long term. Church attendance goes down with the > years, to be sure. But that's not necessarily the same as genuine belief. > > Most people are indeed genetically inclined to be spiritual. More and > more studies are confirming that. But just because it happens to be an > evolutionary advantage doesn't make it objectively true. > Qualia are not 'objectively true', yet few people would deny their existence. You seem to be falling into the trap that anything not objectively true cannot exist and cannot (or should not) have an objective effect. > >> >>> >>> >>> I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't >>> think >>> >>> >> Bollocks. > > > > Theistic religion is indeed contrary to rational thinking, because > there is no rational justification for a belief in god(s). Theistic > religion is irrational by definition. It may be emotionally > satisfying, and it may "feel" right (no difference between the two, as > far as I can tell), but it is fundamentally irrational. > Unless one has experience in meeting or dealing with the Gods (and that's ignoring deity being hung upon the mystical experience). Ever played Ouija? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 16:35:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:35:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > You're an atheist by most definitions, even if you eschew the > > label. You don't believe in the objective existence of god(s). > > From what you've said before, they're archetypes; mental > > constructs. They have no existence outside your mind. > Just because we recognise that our religious texts are metaphor does > not mean we cannot claim to be a religion. > And Gods recognised as archetypes makes them no less powerful in > Human affairs than if they were 'really real'. > It means that the Gods are an emergent phenomenon at the next level > up from Human. Quite so. Does Joseph claim that calling Genesis a metaphor is an atheistic doctrine? Such would be calling most of christianity atheists. Most christian sects state that you can only know god through metaphor and analogy, because to look it in the face would kill you (whether this means automatic uploading is an open question). Those believing in the literal word of the bible also tend to buy the Charlton Heston character in the clouds infantile image of god. Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 5 17:05:05 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:05:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] up with sociopathology In-Reply-To: <20050305083456.42510.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305083456.42510.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4229E6C1.1040800@jefallbright.net> Ned Late wrote: >Nothing wrong with being with others, having many >friends, sharing love & laughter. But better still to >be alone, as familiarity doesn't breed contempt, >familiarity IS contempt, and the very last thing in >the cosmos i'd like to do would be to have a family, >it comes down to the concept of self ownership; > > > Relatively few of us have experienced growing up in a healthy supportive family and fewer still have grown further having a supportive mentor and growth role in business or other form of organization. Within such a framework, initial dependence grows into independence and then matures into cooperative interdependence. No man is an island, and one's opportunities are enhanced within a system that values and rewards individuals for their strengths and diversity, while at larger scales synergetic benefits keep the process going. I'm not expressing naive idealism here, but that cooperative advantage is intrinsic to the way the universe works, and that isolationism is shortsighted. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Mar 5 17:28:17 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:28:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > Quite so. Does Joseph claim that calling Genesis a metaphor is an > atheistic doctrine? ... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, there are so many creation myths (some much more interesting than Genesis), and so little time. Such would be calling most of christianity > atheists. Most christian sects state that you can only know god through > metaphor and analogy, because to look it in the face would kill you > (whether this means automatic uploading is an open question). Practically speaking, it's not just christians -- but *all religious people are atheists* (because - like it or not - they are "without god(s))". Atheism is not an option. Believing in a god does not make it so. > Those believing in the literal word of the bible also tend to buy the > Charlton Heston character in the clouds infantile image of god. Unfortunately, many, many people do. And in a book I read in the 1980s called "Dumbth" (by Steve Allen ... yes, that Steve Allen), it starts out by relating how some of those many adult people used to send Morris the Cat (yes, that Morris the Cat) fan letters. Etcetera. Scary stuff. > Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see > so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of > sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized > religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) If I only knew what you meant by "stunted theology" and "lack of sophisticated spiritual education," I would comment. But I'm not certain what you mean by those terms. Olga > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > 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 dirk at neopax.com Sat Mar 5 18:05:01 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:05:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > >> Quite so. Does Joseph claim that calling Genesis a metaphor is an >> atheistic doctrine? > > > ... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, there are so many creation myths (some > much more interesting than Genesis), and so little time. > > Such would be calling most of christianity > >> atheists. Most christian sects state that you can only know god through >> metaphor and analogy, because to look it in the face would kill you >> (whether this means automatic uploading is an open question). > > > Practically speaking, it's not just christians -- but *all religious > people are atheists* (because - like it or not - they are "without > god(s))". Atheism is not an option. Believing in a god does not make > it so. > Theological ignorance on your part. >> Those believing in the literal word of the bible also tend to buy the >> Charlton Heston character in the clouds infantile image of god. > > > Unfortunately, many, many people do. And in a book I read in the > 1980s called "Dumbth" (by Steve Allen ... yes, that Steve Allen), it > starts out by relating how some of those many adult people used to > send Morris the Cat (yes, that Morris the Cat) fan letters. Etcetera. > Scary stuff. > >> Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see >> so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of >> sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized >> religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) > > > If I only knew what you meant by "stunted theology" and "lack of > sophisticated spiritual education," I would comment. But I'm not > certain what you mean by those terms. > He's referring to your ignorance of theology which leads to to believe that 'God' has only one definition or meaning, conditioned by the Judeo/Xian/Islamic POV. I have experience of Gods as interactive archetypes - not 'belief'. The fact that I define 'Gods' in a manner that is far less restrictive than you does not make me an atheist. You are setting up a straw man by your apparently ignorant assumptions as to what a 'proper' God should be. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005 From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 18:46:46 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:46:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Free Publicity: NPR Calls for Essays, "This I Believe" Message-ID: <5366105b050305104672a1ada4@mail.gmail.com> Saturday, 05 March 2005 Hello all: America's National Public Radio recreates a project originally done last century by Edward R. Murrow. They call for essays from individuals on "the principles by which you live and the people and events that have shaped your beliefs." The essays will be considered for broadcasts on NPR. This makes an excellent opportunity for self-reflection, and quite possibly, free publicity. Project Home Page http://www.npr.org/thisibelieve/index.html Writing Guide http://www.npr.org/thisibelieve/guide.html Essay Submission http://www.npr.org/thisibelieve/agree.html -- Jay Dugger BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/ HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Mar 5 18:54:02 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:54:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4229C4FB.6070302@neopax.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> <4229C4FB.6070302@neopax.com> Message-ID: <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Of all the neopagan religions Asatru is the one that is least 'made up'. Nonsense. It is made up almost entirely out of whole cloth, and has much more in common with Wicca than it does with anything the ancient Norse would have recognized. Eightfold wheel of the year? Runic divination? Libations as blot? Hammer-hallowing rituals? Even if you didn't make it up, Steven McNallen, Edred Thorsson, and Kveldulf Gunnerson did, and the fact that you just follow along makes it even sadder. > One thing almost all Asatruar agree upon though is 'Asatru is as > Asatru does'. As statements go, that's one of the more meaningless. > >> You're an atheist by most definitions, even if you eschew the label. >> You don't believe in the objective existence of god(s). From what >> you've said before, they're archetypes; mental constructs. They have >> no existence outside your mind. The grain does not grow because some >> being named FreyR commands it so, and the world will not end in fire >> because some giant named SurtR will incinerate us all with his >> flaming sword. >> > Just because we recognise that our religious texts are metaphor does > not mean we cannot claim to be a religion. I never claimed your style of Asatru (I say your style, because there are Asatruar who believe in the literal existence of the gods) wasn't a religion, nor was I speaking about religious texts. I was referring to your conception of the gods, and their lack of objective existence. > And Gods recognised as archetypes makes them no less powerful in Human > affairs than if they were 'really real'. > It means that the Gods are an emergent phenomenon at the next level up > from Human. New Age gobbledegook. As archetypes they have no existence beyond human psychology (individual or group) and as such no truly independent existence. They are as much an "emergent phenomenon" as Santa Claus. > Unless one has experience in meeting or dealing with the Gods (and > that's ignoring deity being hung upon the mystical experience). You say you "meet the gods" (which you already admit have no independent existence, being mere psychological archetypes). I say you experienced some interesting brain chemistry, resulting from a few hundred thousand years of evolution that made such experiences a survival trait. The fact that you interpreted those perfectly natural impulses as "meeting the gods" is irrelevant to their actual nature. You're watching the shadows on the wall, but not bothering to see the light behind you. The fact that such experiences are all culturally specific should tell you the origin is organic, not metaphysical. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta From daniel.fogelholm at kolumbus.fi Sat Mar 5 19:14:21 2005 From: daniel.fogelholm at kolumbus.fi (Daniel Fogelholm) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:14:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> Message-ID: <25f270ee03c71ee52048a1faa0d3a9d4@kolumbus.fi> On Mar 5, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > I have experience of Gods as interactive archetypes - not 'belief'. > The fact that I define 'Gods' in a manner that is far less restrictive > than you does not make me an atheist. > > You are setting up a straw man by your apparently ignorant assumptions > as to what a 'proper' God should be. I'm a wee bit busy but, since my previous post went unnoticed (?), I'll post the same link again and some other material that may be relevant to the discussion. The most promising empirical explanation for religion today seems to be the cognitive science of religion. This fairly new science is perhaps best represented by Pascal Boyer's "religion explained" , Scott Atran's "In Gods We trust" and "Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion" Edited by Ilkka Pyysi?inen and Veikko Anttonen. The link I posted earlier should illustrate this approach fairly well: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html (then there's always google) Moving on to how science is supposedly conforming a God endowed universe I'd like to introduce Victor J Stenger ( http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ ) into the discussion. From his web-site (where there's a lot more, so don't be afraid to check it out): > Why Science Can Now Prove That God Does Not Exist > In my 2003 book Has Science Found God? I provided a critique of > contemporary claims that science supports the existence of God and > found them inadequate.? In this book, I will go much further and argue > that science makes a strong case against the existence a God with the > traditional attributes of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God. My > argument will not be based simply on the gross absence of evidence for > God. Not only is there no evidence for God, I will argue that the > evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt > that God does not exist. Not only does the universe show no evidence > for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is > no God. In a final chapter I will show why it is preferable to live in > a Godless universe. I'd be glad to hear what you people think of all this put together. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 20:20:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:20:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Olga Bourlin wrote: > > >> Those believing in the literal word of the bible also tend to buy > >>the Charlton Heston character in the clouds infantile image of god. > >> > >> Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I > >> see so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a > >> lack of sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever > >> organized religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) > > > > > > If I only knew what you meant by "stunted theology" and "lack of > > sophisticated spiritual education," I would comment. But I'm not > > certain what you mean by those terms. > > > He's referring to your ignorance of theology which leads to to > believe that 'God' has only one definition or meaning, conditioned > by the Judeo/Xian/Islamic POV. Not just that. The degree of theological sophistication of most atheists reminds me of 12 year old sunday school dropouts, no matter which religion they grew up in. Those who grew up without any tend to be even worse off. Kids who primarily stopped believing in God about the same time they figured out that Santa Claus wasn't real, or when their grandpa or grandma died, as if such an event couldn't be allowed by Charlton Heston or Kris Kringle if he/they were real. The fact is that some of the best science in history has come from religious people: Mendel's research in plant genetics (he was a monk), des Chardins Omega Point Theory (long before the modern transhumanist movement) and this site: http://libraries.luc.edu/about/exhibits/jesuits/ provides a significant history of Jesuit priests who have contributed to the sciences since 1540. Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic scholars preserved knowledge through dark ages in spite of illiterate destruction of secular authorities. Someone who is a true believer in god really can't have any doubt about truth found by science, if the believer believes god is the creator of the universe that science examines. Someone with a sophisticated theological grounding would understand this implicitly. In this respect, the sort of fundamentalism and orthodox reliance on the literal word of scripture that atheists rebel against is just as poorly grounded and lacking in sophisticated theological grounding. To quote Neal Stephenson, such people live by a theology "written by a febrile two year old". Where atheists err is in their ignorant assumption that all persons of faith are as poorly grounded as the scriptural literalists. Finally, claims by atheists to be the sole mantle bearers and protectors of science just isn't historically accurate. In the 20th century alone, atheists were particularly heinous in the destruction of knowledge and denial of scientific truth, from the Lysenkoism of the USSR, socialist denials of the superiority of free markets, the Nazi denials of 'jewish science', to the anti-intellectual and anti-science pogroms of Mao and Pol Pot, to the much more tame anti-science mysticism of the "age of aquarius" it can credibly be said that atheists actions against science in the 20th century have at least equalled or exceeded the actions by the faithful against science in previous centuries. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 20:29:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:29:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305202933.67284.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Daniel Fogelholm wrote:> > I'm a wee bit busy but, since my previous post went unnoticed (?), > I'll post the same link again and some other material that may be > relevant to the discussion. > > The most promising empirical explanation for religion today seems to > be the cognitive science of religion. This fairly new science is > perhaps best represented by Pascal Boyer's "religion explained" , I had posted a link earlier, which discussed this, at the beginning of this thread. > Moving on to how science is supposedly conforming a God endowed > universe I'd like to introduce Victor J Stenger ( > http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ ) into the discussion. > From his web-site (where there's a lot more, so don't be afraid to > check it out): > > > Why Science Can Now Prove That God Does Not Exist > > In my 2003 book Has Science Found God? I provided a critique of > > contemporary claims that science supports the existence of God and > > found them inadequate.? In this book, I will go much further and > > argue that science makes a strong case against the existence a God > > with the traditional attributes of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic > > God. My argument will not be based simply on the gross absence of > > evidence for God. Not only is there no evidence for God, I will > > argue that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a > > reasonable doubt that God does not exist. Not only does the > > universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would > > be expected to look if there is > > no God. In a final chapter I will show why it is preferable to live > > in a Godless universe. > > I'd be glad to hear what you people think of all this put together. Firstly, relying on a restricted set of "traditional attributes" of the J/C/I orthodox version of God (there are plenty of alternates, from Arian to Gnostic and others which were put down as heresy over the years which can still be considered 'christian', as well as similar sects in judaism (the Essenes for one) and Islamism, as well as pre-judaic sects like the Mandeans of Iraq. Furthermore, as he published his last and current work after the publication of The Simulation Argument and long after the publication of the Drake Equation, he is quite clearly cherry picking his data. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 20:56:55 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 20:56:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:20:06 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Where atheists err is in their ignorant assumption that all persons of > faith are as poorly grounded as the scriptural literalists. > A Short guide to comparative Religions ATHEISM: No shit! BUDDHISM: "If shit happens, it really isn't shit." CALVINISM: Shit happens because you don't work hard enough. CATHOLICISM: Shit happens because you are BAD. CEREMONIAL MAGIC: I Can make shit Happen. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: Shit is only in your mind. CONFUCIANISM: Confucius say: "shit happens." EXISTENTIALISM: What is this shit anyway? FUNDAMENTALISM: BIG shit will happen... SOON! HARE KRISHNA: Shit happens Rama Rama. HEDONISM: There's nothing like good shit happening. HINDUISM: This shit happened before. ISLAM: "If shit happens, it is the will of Allah." JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Let us save you from the shit. JUDAISM: Why does shit always happen to US? MOONIES: Only happy shit really happens. MORMONISM: If shit happens, you have two wives to blame it on. NEW AGE: Visualize no shit happening. PAGANISM: Shit is a part of the Goddess too! PROTESTANTISM: Shit won't happen if I work harder. QUAKERS: "No shit here, please." RASTAFARIANISM: Let's smoke some shit. SCIENTOLOGY: Feces Occurs. STOICISM: Shit is good for me. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS: No shit on Saturdays. TAOISM: Shit happens. TELEVANGELISM: Send money or shit will happen to you! WICCANISM: "Oh shit, I got that spell wrong again." ZEN: What is the sound of shit happening? ZOROASTRIANISM: Shit happens half the time. Should help the undecided amongst us. BillK From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 21:18:59 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:18:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0503051318a39451b@mail.gmail.com> Mike Lorrey said: > Does Joseph claim that calling Genesis a metaphor is an atheistic doctrine? > [...] > Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see > so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of > sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized > religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) > Rather, your pre-established notion that most atheists suffer from stunted knowledge of theology moves you to misinterpret what atheists wrongly. Joseph did not claim that calling one particular belief in your religion (e.g., Genesis) metaphorical makes you an atheist. Not even close. But if you believe that *all* of Christianity is metaphorical, then you are not a Christian. This is not up for debate -- the meanings of words are determined by use, and the *vast* majority of those using the term "Christian" quite surely use it in such a way that "Christian who doesn't believe in God or Christ as real" is as self-contradictory as "square circle." If you follow all the tenets of a particular religion, yet do not believe in its claims in a metaphysical sense (e.g., do believe in the external, independent reality of the religion's gods, angels, devils, spirits, energies, or what have you), then you're a non-religious person using a religion's principles as guides to your action. *Everyone*, even the most 'devout' atheist, has some beliefs on what is or is not the best way to interact with the world. Having such a system of beliefs does not make you religious, on pain of making the term "religious" meaningless (because it would then apply equally to every human being who has ever existed), and also again on pain of conflicting with the majority usage of the term. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 21:40:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:40:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305214042.24015.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:20:06 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Where atheists err is in their ignorant assumption that all persons > > of faith are as poorly grounded as the scriptural literalists. > > > A Short guide to comparative Religions > > ATHEISM: No shit! > BUDDHISM: "If shit happens, it really isn't shit." > CALVINISM: Shit happens because you don't work hard > enough. > CATHOLICISM: Shit happens because you are BAD. > CEREMONIAL MAGIC: I Can make shit Happen. > CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: Shit is only in your mind. > CONFUCIANISM: Confucius say: "shit happens." > EXISTENTIALISM: What is this shit anyway? > FUNDAMENTALISM: BIG shit will happen... SOON! > HARE KRISHNA: Shit happens Rama Rama. > HEDONISM: There's nothing like good shit happening. > HINDUISM: This shit happened before. > ISLAM: "If shit happens, it is the will of > Allah." > JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Let us save you from the shit. > JUDAISM: Why does shit always happen to US? > MOONIES: Only happy shit really happens. > MORMONISM: If shit happens, you have two wives to blame > it on. > NEW AGE: Visualize no shit happening. > PAGANISM: Shit is a part of the Goddess too! > PROTESTANTISM: Shit won't happen if I work harder. > QUAKERS: "No shit here, please." > RASTAFARIANISM: Let's smoke some shit. > SCIENTOLOGY: Feces Occurs. > STOICISM: Shit is good for me. > SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS: No shit on Saturdays. > TAOISM: Shit happens. > TELEVANGELISM: Send money or shit will happen to you! > WICCANISM: "Oh shit, I got that spell wrong again." > ZEN: What is the sound of shit happening? > ZOROASTRIANISM: Shit happens half the time. > > > Should help the undecided amongst us. As usual Bill, you never cease to fulfill my expectations. The above is a sterling example of the sort of 'theology' that the average atheist finds so meaningful. Those of a deeper bent are ardent customers of the average new age bookstore. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From scerir at libero.it Sat Mar 5 21:50:12 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:50:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com><027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac><4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <25f270ee03c71ee52048a1faa0d3a9d4@kolumbus.fi> Message-ID: <102801c521cd$501b35e0$c0be1b97@administxl09yj> From: "Daniel Fogelholm" > Moving on to how science is supposedly conforming a God endowed > universe I'd like to introduce Victor J Stenger [...] > 'Why Science Can Now Prove That God Does Not Exist'. Look, Vic is/was, mainly, an experimental hep-physicist. So, I told him once that a better title for his last book was "Experimental Religion" (btw "Experimental Metaphysics" is a good book about QM, written by many good authors). That is because it is not easy, imo, even to define "God", "Exist", "Prove", and sometimes even "Science". From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 21:52:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:52:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jeff Medina wrote: > > Rather, your pre-established notion that most atheists suffer from > stunted knowledge of theology moves you to misinterpret what atheists > wrongly. Joseph did not claim that calling one particular belief in > your religion (e.g., Genesis) metaphorical makes you an atheist. Not > even close. But if you believe that *all* of Christianity is > metaphorical, then you are not a Christian. This is not up for debate > -- the meanings of words are determined by use, and the *vast* > majority of those using the term "Christian" quite surely use it in > such a way that "Christian who doesn't believe in God or Christ as > real" is as self-contradictory as "square circle." You are wrong in both parts. It isn't "my" religion, because, unlike theists or atheists, I refuse to conclude until more information is available for conclusive odds in the Simulation Argument to be determined. Preliminary evidence is currently in favor of the theists, but inconclusive. Secondly, I didn't say that "all" christianity is metaphorical, so once again your reading comprehension is suffering. Many events of the Bible are known to have actually happened, so those parts are not metaphorical. > > If you follow all the tenets of a particular religion, yet do not > believe in its claims in a metaphysical sense (e.g., do believe in > the > external, independent reality of the religion's gods, angels, devils, > spirits, energies, or what have you), then you're a non-religious > person using a religion's principles as guides to your action. This claim by you is one more example of the stunted spiritual education of atheists as well as scriptural literalists. The debate over monism vs dualism has a long and storied history in religious circles, which you'd know if you had a sophisticated theological grounding. Monism is the lack of belief in any afterlife or existence other than the physical, while dualism is the belief in supernatural existence and the afterlife. Monism is a broadly respected theological position which some argue is the majority belief among Jews, for example. Nor does looking at deities in either a metaphorical sense, or in a deist sense (where if they exist supernaturally, they do so outside our universe and cannot interfere in it), demonstrate any lack of religion. Claiming otherwise demonstrates another lack of theological sophistication. > *Everyone*, even the most 'devout' atheist, has some beliefs on what > is or is not the best way to interact with the world. Having such a > system of beliefs does not make you religious, on pain of making the > term "religious" meaningless (because it would then apply equally to > every human being who has ever existed), and also again on pain of > conflicting with the majority usage of the term. Presuming a majority usage is a bit presumptious. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 5 21:59:25 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:59:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Try hard des Chardonnay In-Reply-To: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050305154629.03ac4008@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:20 PM 3/5/2005 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: >The fact is that some of the best science in history has come from >religious people: Mendel's research in plant genetics (he was a monk), >des Chardins Omega Point Theory (long before the modern transhumanist >movement) Ha ha ha ha! Well, that gave us all a happy laugh, didn't it, little ones? All together, now, children (I know it's hard, but you really have to try): The man's name was *not* `des Chardin'. The man's name was not even `de Chardin'. The man's name was `Teilhard de Chardin'. The way we say this is `Father Teilhard.' We pronounce it a funny way: `Tay-are'. Now, children, you have just heard that P?re Teilhard's ideas are among the best science in history. But I'm sorry to say that his very silly and empty suggestion, which he called `radial' and `tangential energies', are really among the worst ideas in scientific history. If you wish to know more, read Sir Peter Medawar's very funny and very cruel and very famous essay on this confused priest and his version of Naturphilosophie. You will find it conveniently at http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html . Damien Broderick From riel at surriel.com Sat Mar 5 22:43:07 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:43:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to > change to something more transhumanistic? Why choose ? Judaism, christianity and islam believe we are god's children, created in god's image. The bhuddists believe we can all transcend and the hindus believe we can transcend after many lifetimes. To the jews, christians and muslim people out there, I'd say that if we are god's children, we should grow up before the toys we create are too dangerous for children. We need to do what we can to grow up (as a species) and approach godhood. >From a pagan and extropian point of view, I would like to add that life is sacred. Life is a higher expression of matter, one that creates order out of chaos and spreads order around the universe. Intelligence, awareness and self-awareness are further steps up, adding even more order to matter. I don't know what the next step will be after self-awareness, but we'll find out when we (as a species) grow up. Did I forget to include any religion ? -- "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 fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Mar 5 22:49:16 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:49:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050305214042.24015.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01c521d5$90011d70$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > As usual Bill, you never cease to fulfill my expectations. The above is > a sterling example of the sort of 'theology' that the average atheist > finds so meaningful. "[S]terling example ...," hmmmm. "[T]hat the average atheist finds so meaningful ...," hmmmm. Well, I'll be. I took the stuff Bill posted as a JOKE. Silly, silly me. > Those of a deeper bent are ardent customers of the > average new age bookstore. Ha! And now *you've* made a joke! Ha ha ha! (Right ...?) Olga From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 23:24:39 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:24:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0503051524b601731@mail.gmail.com> Mike Lorrey said: > You are wrong in both parts. It isn't "my" religion, because, > [emphasis added] IT ISNT "MY" RELIGION Oh dear. Would you care to point out where, in ANYTHING I wrote, I referred to "your religion"? Just take a moment. Careful study and all that. You apparently have NO IDEA what I just wrote, even though you quoted me, as you replied to a position I NOWHERE STATED. Mike Lorrey said: > Secondly, I didn't say that "all" christianity is metaphorical, so once > again your reading comprehension is suffering. Again, point out exactly where I said *THAT YOU SAID THAT ALL CHRISTIANITY IS METAPHORICAL*. I didn't. So both of your two retorts are directed at THINGS I DIDNT SAY. I'll help: here's what I *did* say: "Joseph did not claim that calling one particular belief in your religion (e.g., Genesis) metaphorical makes you an atheist. Not even close. But if you believe that *all* of Christianity is metaphorical, then you are not a Christian." Now, nowhere did you claim to be a Christian. I do not think you are one. So, given the context, someone with a 6th grade reading level would understand that this was a general claim, not one directed at Mike's Personal Christian Beliefs. But, by all means, I'll rephrase in hopes that you will have to make even less effort to understand what people are saying. "But if a person believes that *all* of Christianity is metaphorical, then that person is not a Christian." As far as your comment about Judaic theology goes: I specifically made reference to the majority usage of the term "religion" -- pointing out a minority example (the Jews, one of whom you're speaking to, in terms of blood and upbringing if not belief) that contradicts my usage does not contradict my *majority-based* claim. Mike Lorrey said: > Presuming a majority usage is a bit presumptious. Over 30% of the world's population is Christian and another 30% is Muslim. That's at least 60%+ *most of whom* would call a fully "metaphorical" religionist a brand of atheism. (Yes, I know there are liberal variants of these religions that would disagree. But unless you think 20%+ of Christians & Muslims are of this rather liberal sort, 50% is still an *easy* minimum for me to meet.) So, no, it isn't presumptious of me. It's justified based on the facts, most of which you clearly are unfamiliar with or familiar with but incapable of properly applying. From neptune at superlink.net Sat Mar 5 23:36:56 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:36:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050305214042.24015.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001f01c521d5$90011d70$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <002301c521dc$387153c0$d1893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:49 PM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com wrote: >> As usual Bill, you never cease to fulfill my >> expectations. The above is a sterling >> example of the sort of 'theology' that the >> average atheist finds so meaningful. > > "[S]terling example ...," hmmmm. > > "[T]hat the average atheist finds so > meaningful ...," hmmmm. > > Well, I'll be. I took the stuff Bill posted as > a JOKE. Silly, silly me. I thought it was a joke too. In fact, it's an old joke that's been floating around the internet for year, though I seem to recall the Atheist one being: "I don't believe this shit." Verily, Dan From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 23:38:05 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:38:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f05030515386c83660e@mail.gmail.com> Mike Lorrey said: "The debate over monism vs dualism has a long and storied history in religious circles, which you'd know if you had a sophisticated theological grounding." Man, it's hilarious when people get the tiniest hint of specialized knowledge (such as this "monism vs dualism, and by the way 2+2 is 4" inanity) and think they're sophisticated, holding their little gem of information as a skeleton key that unlocks all controversies in the field. I've read the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, Druidic texts, Norse, Hermetic, Thelemic, Satanic, Zoroastrian, Gnostic, and so forth. I know my Spinoza, Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Alston, et al. I know the various theodicies and theologies, I know the contentions of Jesus historians, and of anthropologists of religion and neuroscientists of religion and the "intelligent design" creationists and the fine-tuning cosmologists. I've called the corners, prayed to God and to the gods and to the Goddess, shed blood on my own personal athame, made honeyed mead for Odin, and took holy communion. I've had numerous experiences many people would assert as "mystical", "spiritual", "religious", and "psychic." It is *because* of my thorough and long-standing study of religion and spirituality in its many forms that I am confidently atheist. It's painful to see you speak, over and over again, as if you had some expert knowledge on religion and spirituality. Don't speak of theological education, Mike. You don't have the first fuckin' clue. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 6 00:02:44 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:02:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050305175242.01eebd80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:20 PM 3/5/2005 -0800, Mike wrote: >it can credibly be said that >atheists actions against science in the 20th century have at least >equalled or exceeded the actions by the faithful against science in >previous centuries. The assertion might be true (or might not), but so what? Leaving that aside, I am struck by this quaint phrase "the faithful", in this forum of all places, as a synonym for "theist". The contrary of an atheist, by definition, is a theist. The contrary of someone who is faithful is someone who is faith*less*, and hence by implication untrustworthy, devious, two-faced and generally not nice to have around. Some of my best friends are atheists; deluded or otherwise, they are certainly not faithless wretches. But I don't think that implication was Mike's contention, just a rather touching hangover from parochial school days. Damien Broderick From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 00:37:56 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:37:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050305215231.69565.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5844e22f05030515386c83660e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004301c521e4$bdf494f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Jeff Medina" To: "Mike Lorrey" > It's painful to see you speak, over and over again, as if you had some > expert knowledge on religion and spirituality. Don't speak of > theological education, Mike. You don't have the first fuckin' clue. Yep. Unfortunately, that's the conclusion I've come up with - even before this latest thread. Bertrand Russell put it: "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it." Olga From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Sun Mar 6 01:42:09 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:42:09 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> Message-ID: <200503052242.09742.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> THe fact that you define God changes a lot about many things, and may mean you are an atheist. See http://www.torrida.org/dcaleironews/Texto010eng%20Qual%20o%20significado%20da%20palavra%20Deus.html Diego Caleiro (Log At) Em S?bado 05 Mar?o 2005 15:05, Dirk Bruere escreveu: > Olga Bourlin wrote: > > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > >> Quite so. Does Joseph claim that calling Genesis a metaphor is an > >> atheistic doctrine? > > > > ... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, there are so many creation myths (some > > much more interesting than Genesis), and so little time. > > > > Such would be calling most of christianity > > > >> atheists. Most christian sects state that you can only know god through > >> metaphor and analogy, because to look it in the face would kill you > >> (whether this means automatic uploading is an open question). > > > > Practically speaking, it's not just christians -- but *all religious > > people are atheists* (because - like it or not - they are "without > > god(s))". Atheism is not an option. Believing in a god does not make > > it so. > > Theological ignorance on your part. > > >> Those believing in the literal word of the bible also tend to buy the > >> Charlton Heston character in the clouds infantile image of god. > > > > Unfortunately, many, many people do. And in a book I read in the > > 1980s called "Dumbth" (by Steve Allen ... yes, that Steve Allen), it > > starts out by relating how some of those many adult people used to > > send Morris the Cat (yes, that Morris the Cat) fan letters. Etcetera. > > Scary stuff. > > > >> Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see > >> so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of > >> sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized > >> religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) > > > > If I only knew what you meant by "stunted theology" and "lack of > > sophisticated spiritual education," I would comment. But I'm not > > certain what you mean by those terms. > > He's referring to your ignorance of theology which leads to to believe > that 'God' has only one definition or meaning, conditioned by the > Judeo/Xian/Islamic POV. > > I have experience of Gods as interactive archetypes - not 'belief'. > The fact that I define 'Gods' in a manner that is far less restrictive > than you does not make me an atheist. > > You are setting up a straw man by your apparently ignorant assumptions as > to what a 'proper' God should be. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 6 03:19:12 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:19:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <6667@texas.rr.com><20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050305175242.01eebd80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003d01c521fb$456545e0$c4893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:02 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: >> it can credibly be said that atheists actions >> against science in the 20th century have at >> least equalled or exceeded the actions by >> the faithful against science in previous >> centuries. > > The assertion might be true (or might not), > but so what? I agree with your "so what" stance.:) > Leaving that aside, I am struck by this quaint > phrase "the faithful", in this forum of all places, > as a synonym for "theist". The contrary of an > atheist, by definition, is a theist. The contrary > of someone who is faithful is someone who > is faith*less*, and hence by implication > untrustworthy, devious, two-faced and > generally not nice to have around. Well, you're playing on the variant meanings of faith. I believe most people ordinarily use it in non-religious contexts to mean "trust" or "confidence." E.g., if Joe says he has faith in Fred to complete the job properly, he means he confidence Fred will do it properly. Typically, such faith is based on actual experience. I mean Joe wouldn't say it if he knew Fred was a slacker and incompetent. Then he might tell us he had faith that Fred would not do the job properly -- or, more likely, that he lacked faith in Fred. The other way of using it is to mean religious faith of the Tertullian sort -- believe something without and, especially, against evidence. Of course, many theists like to equivocate with both meanings of the term. The "faithful" as a euphemism for "theist" pays off in this respect: it allows those using it to sneak in the religious aspects with a general feeling that the faithful are better than the irreligious. BTW, did you happen to read D. J. Hosken's missive in the 2005/02/10 edition of _Nature_? He was reacting to an editorial with the telling title: "Where theology matters." He attacked -- rightfully so, IMHO -- the notion that religious people somehow have special moral insights. It's worth quoting at length: "This view is reflected in many public discussions, where the obligatory priest or rabbi is wheeled out to comment on some topic, in spite of their utter lack of qualification other than a belief in a paranormal entity that created the Universe and all it contains. Would you be prepared to accept fundamental advice from someone who insisted Father Christmas was [sic] real?" Of course, this doesn't mean that religious types are always unqualified to comment. I prefer Pericles here: few can originate policy, but all are fit to judge it. Yet that doesn't contradict Hosken. He's only blasting the view that theists have some sort of gnosis because of their theism. (I'd actually expect the average preacher to have a bit more than belief in God in his qualifications.) > Some of > my best friends are atheists; deluded or > otherwise, they are certainly not faithless > wretches. I guess I have to point out that I have friends who are atheists who are of good character quality and I also have friends who are theists of ditto. Yet I also know both theists and atheists who are below that level -- as I bet we all do. > But I don't think that implication > was Mike's contention, just a rather touching > hangover from parochial school days. One would hope. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 04:08:12 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 20:08:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <6667@texas.rr.com><20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050305175242.01eebd80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <003d01c521fb$456545e0$c4893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <043101c52202$1da15b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Technotranscendence" > On Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:02 PM Damien Broderick >> Leaving that aside, I am struck by this quaint >> phrase "the faithful", in this forum of all places, >> as a synonym for "theist". The contrary of an >> atheist, by definition, is a theist. The contrary >> of someone who is faithful is someone who >> is faith*less*, and hence by implication >> untrustworthy, devious, two-faced and >> generally not nice to have around. > > Well, you're playing on the variant meanings of faith. I believe most > people ordinarily use it in non-religious contexts to mean "trust" or > "confidence." E.g., if Joe says he has faith in Fred to complete the > job properly, he means he confidence Fred will do it properly. > Typically, such faith is based on actual experience. I mean Joe > wouldn't say it if he knew Fred was a slacker and incompetent. Then he > might tell us he had faith that Fred would not do the job properly -- > or, more likely, that he lacked faith in Fred. Aah, but Mike didn't use the term "faith" - but "persons of faith" and "the faithful." The word "faith" imputed in those instances is more like ... an admission that there is no evidence. (In other words, what does faith actually mean but an admission that there is no evidence?) The variant use of faith (denoting "trust") in your example (i.e., "actual experience") is the opposite of "faith," if, indeed, that trust is based on [some] evidence or experience. > Of course, many theists like to equivocate with both meanings of the > term. The "faithful" as a euphemism for "theist" pays off in this > respect: it allows those using it to sneak in the religious aspects with > a general feeling that the faithful are better than the irreligious. Theists are good at equivocating, that's for sure. They dualist that all the time. Olga From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 6 04:40:39 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:40:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422A89C7.3040100@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Josephs statements here imply to me another confirmation of what I see >so commonly: most atheists suffer from stunted theology and a lack of >sophisticated spiritual education, at least under whatever organized >religion they were raised in (or lack thereof) > I've gotta say, your inferences from ignorance are just... pathetic. At the risk of being accused of being inspired by Jeff's recent post (and that's an accusation I will accept and acknowledge gladly)... I, too, have studied and earnestly practiced more religions than 90% of the world's population who live their entire lives in the faith of their fathers, and their fathers' fathers. I wasn't raised in any particular religion; my father is Jewish and my mother is Protestant, so the closest I came to religion growing up was getting presents for both Christmas and Hannukah. I've read the Eddas, Heimskringla, and more than my share of Icelandic Sagas in the original Old Icelandic (which I took the trouble to learn because most English translations just suck, and so I could conduct Norse rituals in the ancient tongue); and more than one version of the Christian Bible. The Talmud, the Zohar, the Ugarit Texts of the Canaanites, the Upanishads, the Satanic Bible, the Book of Coming Forth By Night, Ovid, Homer, the Book of the Dead, Wiccan books and Muslim books and Christian books and and scores more are under my belt. I've invoked Astaroth, taken Communion, offered blood to Odhinn and mead to ThorR and incense to the Lares, made boasts and oaths in sumbl, and called the Guardians of the Corners. I've cast spells of protection and curses, risted and read runes, banished evil spirits, conducted Augury, laid out tarot cards and hunted ghosts in centuries old shadow-haunted graveyards on the new moon. I founded the largest Roman Reconstructionist pagan organization in the world, as well as several Asatru kindreds and a Satanic coven. To Dirk I say give me my due; I know what I'm talking about when I critique Asatru; have YOU ever offered a blood-sacrifice to Odhinn in Old Norse? To say I have a "stunted theology" is just ignorant. My "knowledge of theology" and my "spiritual education" exceeds that of the vast majority of people on this planet, and much of it is gleaned from personal experience. I wanted to believe so badly, my quest led me to the most improbable places, hoping for something to believe in. And when I've entered those places, it is whole-hog, for many years-- more than a decade in some cases. And the fruit of that experience, gleaned of a lifetime of discovery, intense research, personal reflection and experience? It's all mummery. Tricks of the mind that we play on ourselves and others, and which are magnified by mutual reinforcement. The human brain is wired through thousands of years of evolution to accept such "spiritual experiences", and we have given those experiences context through the invention of culture and more specifically religion. You tickle the right part of the brain and a Christian will see Jesus (or Mary), a Muslim will see Paradise, a Hindu will see Vishnu, because that's how they've been culturally programmed to interpret such experiences. Some few contrarians have managed to break that cultural programming, but they still fill in the responses to those brain-chemistry experiences with their own personal religious expectations. Dirk sees Odin, Z Budapest sees The Goddess, etc. But just because we are interpreting-- completely unconsciously-- those brain chemistries in a particular way, dictated in large part by culture, does not make those interpretations objectively true. Just because Dirk "experiences the gods" doesn't make them true outside of his own mind, any more than the fact that Jerry Fallwell "experiences Christ" makes him any more true outside Fallwell's mind. And then there are us poor atheists, who recognize these factors at work, and deny the interpretations. And many of us don't share those experiences in the first place (us poor benighted "non-spiritual" atheists). I submit that a portion of the population (10% or so, based on consistent polling data) simply doesn't have those genes that lead to those "spiritual experiences". I don't. Imagine the mutual frustration! Our brains are literally wired differently! No wonder we never get anywhere. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Mar 6 06:25:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:25:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <043101c52202$1da15b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200503060627.j266RdB13869@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin > > Theists are good at equivocating, that's for sure. > They dualist that all the time. Olga God is a many splintered thing. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 6 11:49:22 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 03:49:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Not just that. The degree of theological sophistication of most > atheists reminds me of 12 year old sunday school dropouts, no matter > which religion they grew up in. Those who grew up without any tend to > be even worse off. Kids who primarily stopped believing in God about > the same time they figured out that Santa Claus wasn't real, or when > their grandpa or grandma died, as if such an event couldn't be allowed > by Charlton Heston or Kris Kringle if he/they were real. Many atheists you run into hereabouts are a great deal more sophisticated. Generally speaking it takes more caring about these topics than many fundies achieve to become atheist in a culture like ours. > > The fact is that some of the best science in history has come from > religious people: Mendel's research in plant genetics (he was a monk), > des Chardins Omega Point Theory (long before the modern transhumanist > movement) and this site: > http://libraries.luc.edu/about/exhibits/jesuits/ provides a significant > history of Jesuit priests who have contributed to the sciences since > 1540. Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic scholars preserved knowledge through > dark ages in spite of illiterate destruction of secular authorities. The Church also destroyed a great deal of knowledge and locked away much of the rest. in the middle ages you were either publicly religious or dead. If you were religious but had views the Church disapproved of it might still be the stake for you. Do you really see much to speak positively of Christianity from this period? > > Someone who is a true believer in god really can't have any doubt about > truth found by science, if the believer believes god is the creator of > the universe that science examines. Someone with a sophisticated > theological grounding would understand this implicitly. Then by your lights the majority of religious leaders are not theologically sophisticated. I agree. > > In this respect, the sort of fundamentalism and orthodox reliance on > the literal word of scripture that atheists rebel against is just as > poorly grounded and lacking in sophisticated theological grounding. To > quote Neal Stephenson, such people live by a theology "written by a > febrile two year old". > > Where atheists err is in their ignorant assumption that all persons of > faith are as poorly grounded as the scriptural literalists. Whoops. You forgot your qualifiers and ended up with a simplistic over-generalization accusing all atheists of simplistic over-generalization. hmm.. > > Finally, claims by atheists to be the sole mantle bearers and > protectors of science just isn't historically accurate. In the 20th > century alone, atheists were particularly heinous in the destruction of > knowledge and denial of scientific truth, from the Lysenkoism of the > USSR, socialist denials of the superiority of free markets, the Nazi > denials of 'jewish science', to the anti-intellectual and anti-science > pogroms of Mao and Pol Pot, to the much more tame anti-science > mysticism of the "age of aquarius" it can credibly be said that > atheists actions against science in the 20th century have at least > equalled or exceeded the actions by the faithful against science in > previous centuries. The Nazis were not atheists. Lysenkoism had nothing to do with atheism. Just because one does or does not believe in god is no proof against still being all manner of damn idiot. From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 6 13:15:06 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:15:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <6667@texas.rr.com><20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050305175242.01eebd80@pop-server.satx.rr.com><003d01c521fb$456545e0$c4893cd1@pavilion> <043101c52202$1da15b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00aa01c5224e$844a9140$41893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, March 05, 2005 11:08 PM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com wrote: >>> Leaving that aside, I am struck by this quaint >>> phrase "the faithful", in this forum of all places, >>> as a synonym for "theist". The contrary of an >>> atheist, by definition, is a theist. The contrary >>> of someone who is faithful is someone who >>> is faith*less*, and hence by implication >>> untrustworthy, devious, two-faced and >>> generally not nice to have around. >> >> Well, you're playing on the variant meanings of >> faith. I believe most people ordinarily use it in >> non-religious contexts to mean "trust" or >> "confidence." E.g., if Joe says he has faith in >> Fred to complete the job properly, he means >> he confidence Fred will do it properly. Typically, >> such faith is based on actual experience. I >> mean Joe wouldn't say it if he knew Fred was >> a slacker and incompetent. Then he might tell >> us he had faith that Fred would not do the job >> properly -- or, more likely, that he lacked faith >> in Fred. > > Aah, but Mike didn't use the term "faith" I was speaking to Damien's usage -- not Mike's -- and trying to point out that "faith" has a meaning aside from the one used in the context of religious belief. > - but "persons of faith" and "the faithful." The > word "faith" imputed in those instances is more > like ... an admission that there is no evidence. > (In other words, what does faith actually mean > but an admission that there is no evidence?) In religious or epistemic contexts, it means either no evidence for a view (as in "animal faith") or believing against the evidence (as in Tertullian's faith: I believe it because it's absurd). > The variant use of faith (denoting "trust") in > your example (i.e., "actual experience") is the > opposite of "faith," if, indeed, that trust is based > on [some] evidence or experience. It's not so much the opposite as just a variant meaning. (After all, "faith" as "trust" or "confidence" could be based on "faith" as in no evidence or contradicting available evidence. The problem is that most people I've seen confuse the two and often use the former meaning in contexts where it's no attached to the latter. Just substitute in "trust" or "confidence" when you think it's the former and you'll see the two concepts needn't be contradictory. Someone could have faith in the Lord, so to speak.:) The problem is the word is not the concept. In English at least, there are at least two different meanings -- two different concepts -- covered by the same word faith. >> Of course, many theists like to equivocate with >> both meanings of the term. The "faithful" as a >> euphemism for "theist" pays off in this respect: >> it allows those using it to sneak in the religious >> aspects with a general feeling that the faithful >> are better than the irreligious. > > Theists are good at equivocating, that's for sure. > They dualist that all the time. Funny. I thought the argument about atheists not understanding the minutiae of various religious debates as an argument against atheism entertaining. I guess those not familiar with the minutiae about phlogiston should not be taken seriously when they take Lavoisier's side on that issue. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Mar 6 13:25:40 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 07:25:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Free Publicity: NPR Calls for Essays, "This I Believe" In-Reply-To: <5366105b050305104672a1ada4@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b050305104672a1ada4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050306072509.030deb60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:46 PM 3/5/2005, Jay wrote: >Saturday, 05 March 2005 > >Hello all: > >America's National Public Radio recreates a project originally done >last century by Edward R. Murrow. They call for essays from >individuals on "the principles by which you live and the people and >events that have shaped your beliefs." The essays will be considered >for broadcasts on NPR. Thanks for this Jay. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 14:58:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 06:58:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050306145846.41738.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > The Nazis were not atheists. Lysenkoism had nothing to do with > atheism. Just because one does or does not believe in god is no > proof against still being all manner of damn idiot. Now you are just being funny, or are you one of those people who insist the USSR was a "state capitalism". Of course Lysenkoism was about atheism, the intolerant atheism that involves faith in 'society' and that the individual can be molded to the will of society. If you insist that communism was a theism, then you must also admit that atheism is as well. Your last statement is quite fair, as I think I've been fair in denouncing the militant intolerance of the scriptural literalists who commit similar crimes of intolerance, but we weren't talking about them just now. Deflection isn't a valid excuse. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 15:02:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:02:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050306150248.42672.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > > > Theists are good at equivocating, that's for sure. > > They dualist that all the time. > > Funny. I thought the argument about atheists not understanding the > minutiae of various religious debates as an argument against atheism > entertaining. I guess those not familiar with the minutiae about > phlogiston should not be taken seriously when they take Lavoisier's > side on that issue. I suppose it was too much to expect a bunch of orthodox atheists to cease being intolerant for a day. You can find it funny, entertaining, and you can invent fancy theological pedigrees as you wish. Atheism is as much a faith as any other, and you can't escape it. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 6 16:12:51 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:12:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050306150248.42672.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004901c52267$598b3b80$0f893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:02 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: > I suppose it was too much to expect a bunch > of orthodox atheists to cease being intolerant > for a day. Define what you mean by "intolerant." I'm willing to entertain the possibility of a supreme being, but I've presented reasons previously why I think the notion is untenable. Recall in 2001 when you refused to even read a paper on fire safety regulations because you found the abstract to contain a "a faulty premise." Were you being intolerant? On the wider issue of tolerance, since no one here, AFAIK (I don't read every last post), has threatened you for your beliefs, how is it that you are being treated intolerantly? What would be your criterion or criteria for tolerable treatment? Would you apply the same standard to someone who told you they believed in Father Christmas in the sense of an omniscient red-coated dude who lives at the North Pole and drives a flying reindeer driven sled on Christmas Eve delivering presents? Since you use "orthodox atheists" above, what would you mean by "heterodox atheists?" (Not sarcasm. I'm curious if you believe there are any and who the term would cover.) > You can find it funny, entertaining, and you can > invent fancy theological pedigrees as you wish. Mike, you really know very little about me, especially about my knowledge of religion or theology. > Atheism is as much a faith as any > other, and you can't escape it. I disagree, but we've gone over this before and you've basically ignored the distinctions I've made between belief and justification. For the others who might be reading, atheism (and theism both) has (have) to do with beliefs. An atheist lacks a belief in a God or gods. A theist has a belief in God or gods. Faith, in this context, is about justification -- i.e., why someone believes in something. Someone can have faith in any belief -- even one that maps onto reality, such as the Earth being round. (Yes, people can believe that on faith.) However, since atheism in its negative form -- the lack of believe as opposed to a positive stance of disbelief -- can be had by anyone who isn't even aware of the concept of God or gods, then little children, before they learn about God/gods from their parents, etc. are already atheists. Do they believe atheism on faith? No. They merely lack a belief -- just as you might be totally ignorant of Norse mythology. It's not that you have faith that Odin and Thor don't exist, but that you just don't have any belief in them. (I'm not saying you actually are ignorant of Norse mythology, just using this as an example. Substitute someone in that example who is ignorant of such and you should understand my point.) Now, of course, there may be and probably are atheists who base their position on faith, but that says nothing about atheism as such. (Nor does it say anything about theism as such. After all, a lot of people believe in God or gods because they believe they have ample, non-faith-based reasons. (However, certain religions, such as Christianity, rely on faith.) This doesn't mean their reasons are valid, but they're different than believe against the evidence.) The Simulation Argument here is meaningless too. A being building a simulation is not a God. Such a being would be metaphysically no different than someone playing Sim City, subject to limits and natural laws. Even if you were living in a simulation, this would not make such a being God, but merely more powerful than you. So, as has been pointed out earlier by others (probably most eloquently by Damien) and me, the Simulation Argument does not even speak to the matter of atheism/theism. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 6 16:53:35 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:53:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The use of intelligence In-Reply-To: <5366105b050305104672a1ada4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050306114247.0347d4e0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> As most of you know, I have been engaged for years with the slowly successful grinding down of the scientology cult. It has been an experience that led me deep into evolutionary psychology. One of the things which has impressed me is how people develop and maintain strong beliefs that completely negate logical thinking. It is fairly amazing to see a fellow human using a fair amount of smarts trying to defend the undefendable. The particular example is a scientologists who goes by "SunSurfer" on usenet. There are several similar threads where this person doggedly defends silly scientology practices. This might be of meta interest here because we who try for a technologically advanced future will have to contend with this kind of person sooner or later. (Unless we can manage to leave it all behind at 0.5 c.) Keith Henson http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=112ka3rfqc98248%40corp.supernews.com&output=gplain From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 17:12:51 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:12:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <6667@texas.rr.com><20050305202006.13965.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050305175242.01eebd80@pop-server.satx.rr.com><003d01c521fb$456545e0$c4893cd1@pavilion><043101c52202$1da15b00$6600a8c0@brainiac> <00aa01c5224e$844a9140$41893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <002701c5226f$bb2deab0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Technotranscendence" > It's not so much the opposite as just a variant meaning. (After all, > "faith" as "trust" or "confidence" could be based on "faith" as in no > evidence or contradicting available evidence. The problem is that most > people I've seen confuse the two and often use the former meaning in > contexts where it's no attached to the latter. Just substitute in > "trust" or "confidence" when you think it's the former and you'll see > the two concepts needn't be contradictory. Someone could have faith in > the Lord, so to speak.:) The problem is the word is not the concept. > In English at least, there are at least two different meanings -- two > different concepts -- covered by the same word faith. Agree. I myself don't use the word "faith" to mean "trust" or confidence. > Funny. I thought the argument about atheists not understanding the > minutiae of various religious debates as an argument against atheism > entertaining. I guess those not familiar with the minutiae about > phlogiston should not be taken seriously when they take Lavoisier's side > on that issue. Yes, they should be phlogged. Olga From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 17:32:12 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:32:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050306150248.42672.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004901c52267$598b3b80$0f893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <004f01c52272$6eb7c2c0$6600a8c0@brainiac> > On Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:02 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: > I suppose it was too much to expect a bunch > of orthodox atheists to cease being intolerant > for a day. It is religious institutions - for the most part - that have perfected intolerance to an art form. If you can find a copy somewhere - Forrest Wood's book "The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century" is a good more recent historical primer on the subject. My own intolerance is against intolerance, and I revel in it. I support freedom of religion - as well as freedom from religion (i.e., the pluralistic society we now have, but are in constant danger of losing). Olga From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 18:43:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050306184338.38823.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > On Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:02 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com > wrote: > > I suppose it was too much to expect a bunch > > of orthodox atheists to cease being intolerant > > for a day. > > Define what you mean by "intolerant." I'm willing to entertain the > possibility of a supreme being, but I've presented reasons previously > why I think the notion is untenable. Recall in 2001 when you refused > to even read a paper on fire safety regulations because you found the > abstract to contain a "a faulty premise." Were you being intolerant? I don't recall the incident you are speaking of. > > On the wider issue of tolerance, since no one here, AFAIK (I don't > read > every last post), has threatened you for your beliefs, how is it that > you are being treated intolerantly? Threatening is merely one form of intolerance, as you should know. > What would be your criterion or criteria for tolerable treatment? > Would you apply the same standard to someone who told you they > believed in Father Christmas in the sense of > an omniscient red-coated dude who lives at the North Pole and drives > a flying reindeer driven sled on Christmas Eve delivering presents? Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and insults. As for father christmas, I wouldn't expect the same treatment of someone (other than children) because the claims made about St Nick are testably untrue, as most every child learns by age 10 or 12. While many claims made by many people about many gods of human imagination are provably untrue, most such are rarely items of consequence to core tenets of a religious persons faith. > > Since you use "orthodox atheists" above, what would you mean by > "heterodox atheists?" (Not sarcasm. I'm curious if you believe > there are any and who the term would cover.) Well, you seem to assert that people without belief are also atheists. By your definition I am thus an atheist whose opinions are heterodox with the militants here who insist on the non-existence of god. > > > You can find it funny, entertaining, and you can > > invent fancy theological pedigrees as you wish. > > Mike, you really know very little about me, especially about my > knowledge of religion or theology. Likewise. > > > Atheism is as much a faith as any > > other, and you can't escape it. > > I disagree, but we've gone over this before and you've basically > ignored the distinctions I've made between belief and > justification. For the others who might be reading, atheism (and > theism both) has (have) to do with beliefs. An atheist lacks a > belief in a God or gods. A theist has a belief in God or gods. > > Faith, in this context, is about justification -- i.e., why someone > believes in something. Someone can have faith in any belief -- even > one that maps onto reality, such as the Earth being round. (Yes, > people can believe that on faith.) Here you are arguing my point. Even if a disbelief in god, or lack of belief in a god, maps to reality, their lack of belief, disbelief, or belief in a lack of existence of god is still a matter of faith, specifically because of the impossibility of proving a negative. > > However, since atheism in its negative form -- the lack of belief as > opposed to a positive stance of disbelief -- can be had by anyone who > isn't even aware of the concept of God or gods, then little children, > before they learn about God/gods from their parents, etc. are already > atheists. Do they believe atheism on faith? No. They merely lack a > belief -- just as you might be totally ignorant of Norse mythology. > It's not that you have faith that Odin and Thor don't exist, but that > you just don't have any belief in them. (I'm not saying you actually > are ignorant of Norse mythology, just using this as an example. > Substitute someone in that example who is ignorant of such and you > should understand my point.) THis is the problem with your equivocating. You may like to categorise a christian as a norse atheist, but they would not appreciate the label. Just because a person believes one theology and not another does not make them an atheist in any sense, so your argumentation breaks down. You wouldn't call an active Democrat apolitical just because they didn't believe in the political views of Republicans, would you? The proper term you need to use in these circumstances is 'infidel'. > > Now, of course, there may be and probably are atheists who base their > position on faith, but that says nothing about atheism as such. (Nor > does it say anything about theism as such. After all, a lot of > people believe in God or gods because they believe they have ample, > non-faith-based reasons. (However, certain religions, such as > Christianity, rely on faith.) This doesn't mean their reasons are > valid, but they're different than believe against the evidence.) Some sects of Christianity rely on faith. Others do not. > > The Simulation Argument here is meaningless too. A being building a > simulation is not a God. Such a being would be metaphysically no > different than someone playing Sim City, subject to limits and > natural laws. Even if you were living in a simulation, this would > not make such a being God, but merely more powerful than you. So, > as has been pointed out earlier by others (probably most eloquently > by Damien) and me, the Simulation Argument does not even speak to > the matter of atheism/theism. The problem with your argument, once again, is you are relying on your own definition of god. Your own definition, or the definition of other humans, is truly immaterial wrt the Simulation Argument, If we are intelligent entities in a sim, the creator/operator of the sim is truly the creator of our universe and fits any or all the definitions of god that matter: the ability to create or destroy this universe, perhaps the ability to offer entities within this universe a chance at some form of afterlife in either another sim or being uploaded into some material entity in the creators meta-universe, and perhaps the ability to inhabit or allow others to inhabit characters in this universe. This is the key weakness of atheism: it starts off defining what god is and is not, just like any religion, only in order to proclaim that gods non-existence, like you did above in comparing christian god belief to norse god belief. Belief in human mythologies of any brand are really immaterial to the question at hand, and proclaiming the non-existence of any particular human religious mythology (or all of them) in no way is a declaration of the non-existence of what creator may be out there. It is just as presumptuous of an atheist to proclaim any or all previously defined gods don't exist as any theist to proclaim their existence. Both stances demand faith. Having a lack of belief in anything at all is, imho, an impossible situation for any human being. No matter how much some try to hide it, all humans believe in something. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 19:12:26 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:12:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) 'The End of Faith' - Bronowski Message-ID: <422B561A.39890391@mindspring.com> ?...the predator posing as a hero because he rides the whirlwind. But the whirlwind is empty. Horse or tank. Genghis Khan or Hitler or Stalin, it can only feed on the labors of other men. The nomad in his last historic role as war maker is still an anachronism, and worse, in a world that has discovered, in the last twelve thousand years, that civilization is made by settled people... Organized (offensively motivated) war is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and co-operative form of theft. And that form of theft began ten thousand years ago when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus, and the nomads rose out of the desert to rob them of what they themselves could not provide... Ghengis Khan and his Mongol dynasty brought that thieving way of life into our own millennium. From AD 1200 to 1300 they made one of the last major attempts to establish the supremacy of the robber who produced nothing and who, in his feckless way, comes to take from the peasant (who has nowhere to flee) the surplus that agriculture accumulates. ?Yet that attempt failed. And it failed because in the end there was nothing for the Mongols to do, except themselves adopt the way of life of the people that they had conquered... They became settlers because theft, offensive war, is not a permanent state that can be sustained.? Jacob Bronowski THE ASCENT OF MAN Barry Williams -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 19:14:08 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:14:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] When the Gods Came Down Message-ID: <422B5680.69EBC3D4@mindspring.com> BOOK REVIEW: Alan F Alford: "When the Gods Came Down - The Catastropic Roots of Religion Revealed". Hodder & Stroughton London 2000 ____________________________________________________ I found this book very hard not to put down. There are a lot of quotes and some of these are useful, but the turgid text is far from moreish. Alford recognizes that cultural memories of catas- trophic physical events are at the core of cult activity around the world, especially with Judaism, Islam and Christianity. He interprets this as "proof" of the validity of religion. He says falling "mountains" were part of Heaven, where the stuff of Apocalypse aka Revelations actually happened. The Garden of Eden was on another planet called Heaven. In keeping with the ideological agenda Alford dedicates his work "To the Lady of Life". At the end of his preface he says: "Ultimately it is to modern science that we must turn if we are to judge whether the secret "truth" of the ancients is, or is not, a Truth with a capital "T". It is in the depths of space that NASA and the Vatican must seek scientific knowledge concerning the lost paradise of man and the fingerprints of God." Arthur C Clark touched on that theme in a short story when he has a Jesuit priest on a starship that discovers the original Star of Bethlehem. The Jesuit handles the discovery with dignity and rationalism. Alan F Alford maintains an opposite view and my prime beef is that the publisher lacked the decency to label this silly book as the fiction that it is. (I am also struck by the incongruous funniness of the title and subtitle.) Lawrie Williams _____ -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 19:21:43 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050306184338.38823.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d501c52281$bb71f360$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > --- Technotranscendence wrote: >> On the wider issue of tolerance, since no one here, AFAIK (I don't >> read >> every last post), has threatened you for your beliefs, how is it that >> you are being treated intolerantly? > > Threatening is merely one form of intolerance, as you should know. Mike, you are not being treated intolerantly because no one has prohibited you from expressing your views. Freedom of speech (i.e., tolerance) guarantees only that - *respecting your right* to express your views. (I'm pretty certain you of all people don't actually think that tolerance means *that one should respect all views* ...) >> What would be your criterion or criteria for tolerable treatment? >> Would you apply the same standard to someone who told you they >> believed in Father Christmas in the sense of >> an omniscient red-coated dude who lives at the North Pole and drives >> a flying reindeer driven sled on Christmas Eve delivering presents? > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > insults. > > As for father christmas, I wouldn't expect the same treatment of > someone (other than children) because the claims made about St Nick are > testably untrue, as most every child learns by age 10 or 12. > > While many claims made by many people about many gods of human > imagination are provably untrue, most such are rarely items of > consequence to core tenets of a religious persons faith. > >> >> Since you use "orthodox atheists" above, what would you mean by >> "heterodox atheists?" (Not sarcasm. I'm curious if you believe >> there are any and who the term would cover.) > > Well, you seem to assert that people without belief are also atheists. > By your definition I am thus an atheist whose opinions are heterodox > with the militants here who insist on the non-existence of god. > >> >> > You can find it funny, entertaining, and you can >> > invent fancy theological pedigrees as you wish. >> >> Mike, you really know very little about me, especially about my >> knowledge of religion or theology. > > Likewise. > >> >> > Atheism is as much a faith as any >> > other, and you can't escape it. >> >> I disagree, but we've gone over this before and you've basically >> ignored the distinctions I've made between belief and >> justification. For the others who might be reading, atheism (and >> theism both) has (have) to do with beliefs. An atheist lacks a >> belief in a God or gods. A theist has a belief in God or gods. >> >> Faith, in this context, is about justification -- i.e., why someone >> believes in something. Someone can have faith in any belief -- even >> one that maps onto reality, such as the Earth being round. (Yes, >> people can believe that on faith.) > > Here you are arguing my point. Even if a disbelief in god, or lack of > belief in a god, maps to reality, their lack of belief, disbelief, or > belief in a lack of existence of god is still a matter of faith, > specifically because of the impossibility of proving a negative. > >> >> However, since atheism in its negative form -- the lack of belief as >> opposed to a positive stance of disbelief -- can be had by anyone who >> isn't even aware of the concept of God or gods, then little children, >> before they learn about God/gods from their parents, etc. are already >> atheists. Do they believe atheism on faith? No. They merely lack a >> belief -- just as you might be totally ignorant of Norse mythology. >> It's not that you have faith that Odin and Thor don't exist, but that >> you just don't have any belief in them. (I'm not saying you actually >> are ignorant of Norse mythology, just using this as an example. >> Substitute someone in that example who is ignorant of such and you >> should understand my point.) > > THis is the problem with your equivocating. You may like to categorise > a christian as a norse atheist, but they would not appreciate the > label. Just because a person believes one theology and not another does > not make them an atheist in any sense, so your argumentation breaks > down. You wouldn't call an active Democrat apolitical just because they > didn't believe in the political views of Republicans, would you? > > The proper term you need to use in these circumstances is 'infidel'. > >> >> Now, of course, there may be and probably are atheists who base their >> position on faith, but that says nothing about atheism as such. (Nor >> does it say anything about theism as such. After all, a lot of >> people believe in God or gods because they believe they have ample, >> non-faith-based reasons. (However, certain religions, such as >> Christianity, rely on faith.) This doesn't mean their reasons are >> valid, but they're different than believe against the evidence.) > > Some sects of Christianity rely on faith. Others do not. > >> >> The Simulation Argument here is meaningless too. A being building a >> simulation is not a God. Such a being would be metaphysically no >> different than someone playing Sim City, subject to limits and >> natural laws. Even if you were living in a simulation, this would >> not make such a being God, but merely more powerful than you. So, >> as has been pointed out earlier by others (probably most eloquently >> by Damien) and me, the Simulation Argument does not even speak to >> the matter of atheism/theism. > > The problem with your argument, once again, is you are relying on your > own definition of god. Your own definition, or the definition of other > humans, is truly immaterial wrt the Simulation Argument, If we are > intelligent entities in a sim, the creator/operator of the sim is truly > the creator of our universe and fits any or all the definitions of god > that matter: the ability to create or destroy this universe, perhaps > the ability to offer entities within this universe a chance at some > form of afterlife in either another sim or being uploaded into some > material entity in the creators meta-universe, and perhaps the ability > to inhabit or allow others to inhabit characters in this universe. > > This is the key weakness of atheism: it starts off defining what god is > and is not, just like any religion, only in order to proclaim that gods > non-existence, like you did above in comparing christian god belief to > norse god belief. Belief in human mythologies of any brand are really > immaterial to the question at hand, and proclaiming the non-existence > of any particular human religious mythology (or all of them) in no way > is a declaration of the non-existence of what creator may be out there. > It is just as presumptuous of an atheist to proclaim any or all > previously defined gods don't exist as any theist to proclaim their > existence. Both stances demand faith. > > Having a lack of belief in anything at all is, imho, an impossible > situation for any human being. No matter how much some try to hide it, > all humans believe in something. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > 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 fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 6 20:19:41 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:19:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Baby Brains Message-ID: <003401c52289$d4944d40$6600a8c0@brainiac> Born with 100 billion neurons, about the same number as stars in the Milky Way, babies suck in new information and statistically analyze it, comparing it with what they've previously heard, seen, tasted and felt, constantly revising their theories of the world and how it works. By 3 years old, babies have about 15,000 synapses per neuron, three times the synapses of adults. That's one of the reasons it's easier to learn foreign languages when you're young. But pruning neural connections at key times, much as gardeners prune roses in late winter, is also critical so the brain isn't overwhelmed with extraneous information and can focus on what's important.: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2005/0306/cover.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 6 20:32:38 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:32:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <25f270ee03c71ee52048a1faa0d3a9d4@kolumbus.fi> References: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050306120514.03489c90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:14 PM 05/03/05 +0200, Daniel Fogelholm wrote: snip >The most promising empirical explanation for religion today seems to be >the cognitive science of religion. This fairly new science is perhaps best >represented by Pascal Boyer's "religion explained" , Excellent book, been citing it for years. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 106 for "keith henson" "pascal boyer" Cognitive science blends seamlessly into evolutionary psychology. Fascinating stuff, along with memetics. Keith Henson PS Results 1 - 8 of about 16 for "keith henson" "zen druids" Then try: Results 1 - 10 of about 109 for "zen druids". Fascinating example of a meme spreading out probably from Ed Regis' book "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition." From nedlt at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 20:42:00 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:42:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050306204200.33504.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Everybody knows the world is balanced on the back of a giant tortoise. --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 6 21:38:18 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:38:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050306120514.03489c90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050306120514.03489c90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <422B784A.3020003@pobox.com> Keith Henson wrote: > > PS Results 1 - 8 of about 16 for "keith henson" "zen druids" > > Then try: Results 1 - 10 of about 109 for "zen druids". > > Fascinating example of a meme spreading out probably from Ed Regis' book > "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition." These days I tell people I'm an atheistic druid. I don't believe in trees. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dgc at cox.net Sun Mar 6 22:33:41 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:33:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <422B784A.3020003@pobox.com> References: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050306120514.03489c90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <422B784A.3020003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <422B8545.2000200@cox.net> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > >> >> PS Results 1 - 8 of about 16 for "keith henson" "zen druids" >> >> Then try: Results 1 - 10 of about 109 for "zen druids". >> >> Fascinating example of a meme spreading out probably from Ed Regis' >> book "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition." > > > These days I tell people I'm an atheistic druid. I don't believe in > trees. > My friend is a dyslexic atheist. He does not believe there is a dog. From benboc at lineone.net Sun Mar 6 23:05:15 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:05:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com> References: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <422B8CAB.2000808@lineone.net> Mike Lorrey asserted: > Here you are arguing my point. Even if a disbelief in god, or lack of > belief in a god, maps to reality, their lack of belief, disbelief, or > belief in a lack of existence of god is still a matter of faith, > specifically because of the impossibility of proving a negative. A lack of belief is a matter of faith? That was a mistake, right? Unless i am an asantaclausarian. And an a-zillion-other-things-arian. You can't possibly mean that all the things that someone has no belief in, or no opinion on, or no knowledge of, are matters of faith, but that's what you seem to be saying. That can't be right. It's quite correct to say that people have 'no belief' in all sorts of things they have never heard of. It's not a matter of having faith that these things don't exist, it's completely involuntary. Not ever thinking about some thing that doesn't exist and couldn't exist, and that nobody else has ever thought about, can hardly be a matter of faith. > Some sects of Christianity rely on faith. Others do not. Oh-oh. Now i'm confused. Which sects of christianity do not rely on faith, then? I assume they'd have to be 'non-religious' ones? I've heard that there are people who call themselves christians, but don't believe in any gods. They just think that christ's purported teachings are a good idea. Stuff like "do as you would be done unto" (i'm not convinced that that one is such a good idea, actually, but that's another matter entirely). I don't really think you could call that a religion, and anyway, if they don't believe in gods (assuming i'm on the right track here), doesn't that make them atheists or agnostics? And doesn't that mean, by your logic, that they 'have faith that there are no gods', or 'have faith that they don't really know if gods exist or not'? Um. that last one's just silly, isn't it? Will you at least allow that agnostics don't have to have any faith? ben From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 6 23:17:56 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:17:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <422B784A.3020003@pobox.com> References: <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <20050305163527.42261.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <027c01c521a8$b8550890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <4229F4CD.3070700@neopax.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050306120514.03489c90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <422B784A.3020003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050306171359.01d43df0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:38 PM 3/6/2005 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >These days I tell people I'm an atheistic druid. I don't believe in trees. This is so wrong, you intolerant religious fanatic! You *believe* that you don't believe in trees. Damien Broderick From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 01:34:57 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:34:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? Message-ID: Does anybody have any recommendations regarding drugs, nutritional supplements, and other methods for cognitive/concentration enhancement? Have any of you tried such items or know people who tried them? I'm particularly interested in how effective they are, their cost-effectiveness, and any side effects. I've already come across resources like the Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute (http://www.ceri.com/), but I'm interested in personal thoughts and experiences. A slashdot story I submitted on the topic some time ago: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/2352239&tid=191&tid=14 I'm going to spend the next few months studying for grad school quals, and I need all the help I can get. :) -- Neil Halelamien From reason at longevitymeme.org Mon Mar 7 02:50:14 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:50:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Neil > Halelamien > Does anybody have any recommendations regarding drugs, nutritional > supplements, and other methods for cognitive/concentration > enhancement? Have any of you tried such items or know people who tried > them? I'm particularly interested in how effective they are, their > cost-effectiveness, and any side effects. The Immortality Insitute forum seems to have grown quite an active subsidiary nootropics community; you might see what they have to say: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=169 Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Mar 7 05:09:40 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:09:40 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Bad Bayesian - no biscuit! References: <00c101c4fdba$e0a65cc0$b8232dcb@homepc> <41EEC216.5080602@pobox.com> <001e01c50060$acd24910$b8232dcb@homepc> <41F281F5.6090807@pobox.com> Message-ID: <001a01c522d3$ddbea5b0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> [ Sorry for the long time delay in replying. Life gets in the way of internet conversations sometimes. I had intended to reply before this. ] On Sunday, January 23, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Or as Feynman ([para 39] in accompanying post) said: >> >> "This method [science] is based on the principle that observation is the >> judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and >> characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand >> that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an >> idea. But "prove" used in this way really means "test", in the same way >> that hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people >> today the idea really should be translated as, "The exception tests the >> rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is >> wrong". That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to >> any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong." > > And as Feynman said in the _Lectures on Physics_: > > "Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely > necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather > naive, and probably wrong. For example, some philosopher or other said it > is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experiment is performed > in, say, Stockholm, and then the same experiment is done in, say, Quito, > the same results must occur. That is quite false. It is not necessary > that science do that; it may be a fact of experience, but it is not > necessary. For example, if one of the experiments is to look out at the > sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm, you do not see it in Quito; > that is a different phenomenon. "But," you say, "that is something that > has to do with the outside; can you close yourself up in a box in > Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference?" Surely. If we > take a pendulum on a universal joint, and pull it out and let go, then the > pendulum will swing almonst in a plane, but not quite. Slowly the plane > keeps changing in Stockholm, but not in Quito. The blinds are down, too. > The fact that this has happened does not bring on the destruction of > science. What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental > philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the > validity of any idea is experiment. If it turns out that most experiments > work out the same in Quito as the do in Stockholm, then those "most > experiments" will be used to formulate some general law, and the those > experiments which do not come out the same we will say were a result of > the environment near Stockholm. We wil invent some way to summarize the > results of the experiment, and we do not have to be told ahead of time > what this way will look like. If we are told that the same experiment > will always produce the same result, that is all very well, but if when we > try it, it does not, then it does not. We just have to take what we see, > and then formulate all the rest of our ideas in terms of our actual > experience." > > I reply: Nonetheless we *observe* that the same experiment *does* return > the same answer in Quito as in Stockholm, once we understand how to > perform the "same" experiment. The more fundamental the level on which we > compute our model, the more the underlying laws are exactly the same in > every observation. This is not a thing that philosophers dreamed up a > priori; it is a thing humanity has discovered through experience - but > nonetheless it is so. I can't parse the first sentence of your reply above (to Feynman). If the arora borealis is producing physical (observable) effects in Stockholm but not Quito because it is physically occurring nearer to Stockholm than Quito, then I don't see how we could perform the "same" experiments and get the same answer in both places. I took Feynman's statement (the one you introduced above) as essentially just pointing out that some phenomenon, like the aurora borealis, are local, and that therefore so are it's physical effects. And that therefore it is a mistake for "some philosopher or other" to assert that it is a principle of science (generally) that observations *necessarily* be location independent. I think Feynman's point is valid albeit trivial. (ie. I can imagine a philosopher attempting to explain the scientific method, in simple or offhand terms, perhaps to humanities students say, as being about observations not being dependent on who does the observing or where the observing is done, and I can also imagine Feynman the showman being pleased to pick a nit in such an oversimplification for the sport of it and to help him make a point). But, I really don't get what you mean when you say "the more fundamental the level on which we compute our model, the more the underlying laws are exactly the same in every observation." My best guess is that you are just pointing out that the laws of physics can be expressed in mathematics as this is what you seem to talk more about below. > It may be that someday we will understand that reality is *necessarily* > regular, that this is the way things *must* be, and that it could not have > been any other way. Historically, humanity will still have discovered > this point from observation, but our future selves may be so strongly > attuned to reality that, like the universe itself, they cannot conceive of > things being other than the way they are. Or not. I'm not sure that regularity can be *discovered* (rather than inferred) by any amount of discrete observations. But it may be that reality is necessarily regular and that people may safely be able to conclude that at some point with little fear of their predictions being surprised. Such would seem to involve a 'theory of everything' that would not be inconsistent in any detail with itself or with observable reality however. > Feynman's advice, in the classical tradition of rationality, is about the > way in which human beings discover things, and about the fallibility of > human discoveries even after they are made. Yes. >But despite all cautions about human fallibility, not one of all the >strange and unexpected events that happened in the 20th century violated >conservation of momentum. Okay... (...but so what?) > Reality - we *observe* this, we do not say it a priori - is very > constricted in the kind of surprises it has presented us with. Sometimes > we even discover new and unexpected laws of physics, but the new laws > still have the same character as old physics; they are universal > mathematical laws. That's another hard sentence to parse. I don't (yet anyway) agree that "we" observe that reality is constrained in the kinds of surprises it has historically presented "us" with. I am reluctant to agree with sentences that assert things about "we" or "us" when the breadth of your referent group is unclear to me. I see it is an "essential truth" that each of "us" (homo sapiens, people) sort and integrate our own *personal* experiences and observations *personally*. That there are no invalid experiences. I'll grant you that for me, personally, it seems that reality, when it surprises me, surprises me more often in some areas than others. And yes, maths underlies new and old (superceded) laws of physics. Laws of physics (measurements and relationships between phenomena) can be expressed mathematically - but so what? > I think it is now okay to say that there is something important about a > *fundamental* law of physics needing to work the same way in Quito as in > Stockholm. There is something important about physics being simple math. > We do not necessarily understand *why* it is so, at this point in human > history. But it is not a dictum of philosophy, it is a lesson of > experience. I'm not sure that that is so. I'm not sure that there is anything to explain about laws of physics being able to be expressed mathematically. Perhaps I am missing your point. Or perhaps I am making an assumption without even realising it. I just can't get my head around how there could be laws of physics infered from observations that would NOT be able to be expressed in mathematical terms. Seems to me physics is about seeing stuff, labelling it, measuring it, theorising relationships between it based on experience, then making predictions about it, testing those prediction against observation. That some "stuff" can be named X and other "stuff" Y and relations between X and Y formalised in a symbolic language (maths) ... well I just don't get any great mystery in that. Sure there probably wouldn't be language if there were not more than one intelligences seeking to communicate. And sure there might not be intelligences if the universe had had a different set of laws and nothing held together long enough but everything was in a state of flux so severe that no order could arise to see patterns in the flux. But there *is* intelligence of my sort. And I can't imagine a world without maths. Maths seems to be a brute fact of the sort of universes that can exist with my sort of intelligences in them. > It is a lesser lesson of experience that people don't wake up with blue > tentacles. This rule of thumb is not just a philosophical dictum, and if > you violate it, you may end up in trouble. Here I disagree. There is no lesson of my experience that amounts to the impossibility of a person waking up with blue tentacles. Bayesian reasoning, as I understand it *would* have me assign such an outcome an extremely low prior (not zero!). But I have no experience of the impossibility of such an event. Its not like if you had asked me to imagine for a moment that 1 and 1 could make 3. Or that a square could have three and only three sides. Those things really would be inexplicable. > All correct theories about reality are necessarily consistent with each > other; imperfect maps may conflict, but there is only one territory. Agreed. >If you make up a story that "explains" waking up with a blue tentacle, >*when it never actually happened*, there is a discordant note - that story >is not necessarily consistent with everything else you know, let alone >consistent with the territory. I don't know that it is impossible for me to wake up with a blue tentacle. I hold it as unlikely (very unlikely) based on other things I do know, but not impossible. > Just because you don't know what the future brings, doesn't mean that > reality itself will throw just anything at you. Just because *you* don't > know *absolutely* that something *won't* happen, doesn't mean that if you > devise a random fiction, it would be theoretically possible for one with > total knowledge of Nature to explain it. I agree that that is true. > A random fiction is most likely an event that could never be woven into > the thread of this our real world. If observations alone are cause for > explanations, you are less likely to try and explain the unexplainable. We're talking cross purposes I think. >> Ah but don't you see. No one in all of human history has ever woken up >> with a functioning tentacle in place of their arm - to the best of *my* >> current knowledge only. I didn't forget that that was to the best of >> *my* current knowledge only when I entered into the spirit of your >> hypothetical. I didn't forget that my current knowledge is knowledge >> acquired in a particular way and that ultimately it is provisional >> knowledge only. I didn't have to have considered or devoted mindspace to >> the hypothetical you put before you put it. I thought of it only when >> you invited me to imagine it. > > My inviting you to imagine a blue tentacle might or might not be a good > reason to *imagine* a blue tentacle, but it surely was not a good enough > reason to come up with an *explanation* for a blue tentacle. Only a real > observation would be cause for that, and reality is rather unlikely to > present you with that observation. I don't think my response constituted an explanation in your sense of the word here. I just entered into the spirit of your hypothetical and accepted the stipulations you'd laid down and told you what would be my provisional explanation for me. The stipulations you'd laid down are not impossible in my model of reality they are just improbable. Perhaps they would be impossible if my model of reality was better than it is, I am not currently in a position to judge that. Could be that if my model of reality was closer to some "theory of everything", that your stipulations would have been impossible, but that's not where I am at. My model of reality includes some understanding of biology. I know that some animals can regrow limbs and that anaesthetics exist. I have some understanding of what I don't currently know. Exactly how far some human groups could have progressed in developing technologies that I am not aware of existing, but don't know for a fact can't exist because they'd violate laws of physics as I understand those laws of physics, I don't know. I'd rate my estimates pretty highly compared with those of most other people in some areas but that doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong. I could still be surprised. A world in which I awoke to find my arm replaced by a blue tentacle would not be a world as absurd and impossible as one in which one and one made other than two. > The measure of your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more > confused by fiction than by reality. I don't yet accept that this is true for all rationalists. This may be a maxim that holds utility for you but I don't tend to access my rationality in terms of degrees of confusion. It could be that what works for you could also be useful for others (including me) but you haven't demonstrated that yet, at least not to my satisfaction. > If you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero > knowledge. I presented you with a fiction, an event that was never part > of this our real world. You should not have been able to explain it. It > is a virtue to be able to explain history books, but only if you are *not* > able to explain online webcomics. Again, we are clearly talking cross purposes. You are loading the word "explain" differently, I think. Aren't history books understood, rather than explained? Unless your point is that history is really a rendition or biased account in which it is explainable in part by reference to the authors biases, in which case it could be "explainable" like webcomics are "explainable". > A true anecdote: > > Once upon a time, I was on an IRC channel when R comes in, saying that his > friend H is having trouble breathing; R needs advice. R says that the > ambulance people came in, checked H out, and left, even though H was still > having trouble breathing. And I look at this and in a fleeting moment of > confusion I think: "What the hell? That doesn't accord with anything I > know about medical procedure. I've read newspaper stories about homeless > people who claim to be sick to get a brief bit of shelter, and the > ambulance crews know they're faking but have to take them in anyway." But > I suppress that fleeting moment of confusion, and say... I forget what I > said, but I think it was something like, "Well, they're the experienced > medics - if they say H doesn't need to visit the emergency room, H must > really not need to visit the emergency room. Trust the doctors." > > A bit later R returns to the IRC room, angry. It turns out that H was > making up the whole thing, trying for sympathy, to scam a bit of money, > whatever, and there never was an ambulance. > > And I said to myself: "Why the hell did I accept this confusing story? > I'm no better than those apocryphal high school students speculating about > thermodynamics. Next time, I vow to notice when I am confused, and not > let the critical hint of my bewilderment flit by so quickly." > > It's really annoying that my mind actually got all the way to the point of > being confused, and I just squashed it and accepted the story. Think of > the glory that would have accrued to me as a rationalist, if I alone on > the IRC channel had said: "This story is so confusing that I may want to > deny the data. How sure are you that your friend's story is true? Were > you there?" > > Therefore did I devise this saying, to chide myself for having failed to > distinguish truth from falsehood: "Your strength as a rationalist is your > ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality." Okay, but you could have produced other maxims, or rules of thumb for yourself from the same story, it seems to me. This story, this personal experience doesn't, to me anyway, make clear that level of confusion is necessarily going to be a useful indicator to all rationalists as to how rational they are being. Its neither evidence for or against that proposition (to me anyway). It's just how you have characterised events for yourself. >> In the recent discussion John C Wright finds >> god, Damien didn't forget all the novels he had read, the movies he had >> seen etc in couching his arguments to John C Wright, quite to the >> contrary, he integrated his understanding of such cultural biases, and >> pointed out that John C Wright had had the sort of experience that 'fit' >> with his culture rather than one that would have 'fit' with a different >> culture. > > The logical form of Damien's argument was that since Wright's purported > story, which might be real and might not be, was drastically inconsistent > with experiment, and drastically consistent with known fictions, it was > probably also a fiction. > > This doesn't mean we are reasoning from fictions as if they were real > events. It means we are being aware of the probable causes of human > delusion. But it is necessary to first investigate the question of > consistency with science; even true statements will often have some > *vague* resemblance to fiction, because there are so many fictions out > there. I sort of agree with the bit "But it is necessary..." but I can't completely, not as a generalisation for all rationalists. Rationalists don't start with a mastery of all science as such would be understood if all the experiences of all leading scientists in every field were available to them as each individual rationalist as their own personal experiences. Individual rationalists can only have individual scientific worldviews that are works in progress for them. >> My explanation was only provisional so if it happens I'll be open to >> alternative explanations. And if it happens I won't have to throw away >> all my experiences or forget stuff to explain it. I will only have to >> change my model and I'll only have to change it in certain ways. > > If anyone ever wakes up with a blue tentacle, then you were virtuous to > claim in advance that the event was explicable. If the real chain of > events leading up to the blue tentacle matches your given reason, then you > were virtuous to claim that reason as your specific explanation. > > If no one ever wakes up with a blue tentacle, then clearly a blue tentacle > wasn't the sort of thing which would ever be woven into reality by a > sequence of events that would constitute an "explanation" of it, and it > was a mistake to claim that a blue tentacle was an explicable event. Or no one ever cared to go to the trouble of surprising someone else by arranging for them to be awoken with a blue tentacle attached. > What would be your explanation if one day, everyone in the world began > observing that two of something plus two of something made five of > something? That's a good differentiating question. That is not possible in *our* (which includes my) universe. One of the obvious reasons it is not possible is that I am in the set of "everyone". I can no more imagine a circumstance where two and two make five than I can image a square with three-and-only-three sides. Mathematical truths exist in a domain separate to the world of scientific observation. (And separate to the vagaries of particular languages like English, French, German etc). That 1 and 1 make 2 is fundamental. 2 and 2 making 4 is simply a very minor 'development' of the same fundamental. People can, and do, (as you know), play games with changing the words and symbols and putting different meanings on symbols in different contexts but the underlying concepts of mathematics are separate to the arbitrary selection of words we use to describe them. ie. I can sort of imagine a world where people used the *word* five to mean the concept four. Sort of like Shakespeare's Juliet could imagine Romeo not be called Romeo and not being essentially different - "what's in a name?". But I can't imagine a world in which *I* would not know that the concept of two and two make four. Nor, to go off on a slight tangent, can I imagine science or language as inter-subjective communions between two or more agents that don't get that one and one make two in any communion involving myself. >>> When you have only a poor explanation, one that doesn't make things >>> ordinary in retrospect, just admit you don't have an explanation, and >>> keep going. Poor explanations very, very rarely turn out to be >>> actually correct. >> >> I don't think that this is right, or that it is a logical conclusion to >> draw from the better parts of your argument in your essay. We have maps >> of the terrain of reality because we need them. Maps have utility. If you >> give me a poor map and I know nothing of you and find that the map >> is wrong then, in that case yes, perhaps I might be better off without >> that map altogether, but if the map I have is one that I have constructed >> myself, then when I find it differs from the terrain I can just correct >> or improve the map. > > That is an argument for: "I will sit down and write a story, knowing it > to be fiction, about how a secret organization came into my apartment and > replaced my arm with a blue tentacle. I do not *believe* this has > happened. No, seriously, I don't believe it and I'm not going to act as > if I believed it, because it's a stupid explanation. But maybe the mental > exercise will shake something loose in my mind, and I'll think of a better > explanation." I don't think my comments amount to that argument at all. Perhaps you proposed a scenario that you thought was essentially as obviously impossible as asking someone to imagine that 1 and 1 make 2, but that in fact you didn't. I think (but don't know for sure) that it *might* be possible in the future to replace *your* arm with a blue tentacle while *you* sleep. This is not an aim I imagine that I or anyone else aspires too. But on my (limited) understanding of science and the real world currently I could not honestly assert that that would be impossible so far as I know. Perhaps I will learn something in future that will show it to be impossible but at this stage I'm not at that point. > To say that it can have utility to mentally extrapolate the consequences > of a premise is not the same as believing that premise. One must be > careful here; if you act like you believe something, or if you end up > emotionally attached to the belief, I don't credit you as a rationalist > just because you claim you didn't believe you would win the lottery, you > bought the tickets "for the drama" of it, etc. People with a fragmentary > understanding of the Way sometimes anticipate that they can pass as > rationalists by claiming not to believe the things they anticipate. > >>> A gang of people sneaking into your room with unknown technology is a >>> poor explanation. Whatever the real explanation was, it wouldn't be >>> that. >> >> I think you can only establish that it's poor (for others than you) in >> relation to the provision of a better one. "I don't know", whilst a >> fair and honest answer, is not any sort of explanation. My answer shows >> you I don't know but doesn't leave you (or importantly) me merely and >> completely bewildered. It gives me things to check. > > That is not an *answer*. It is an answer in the sense that if I perceive you asking a question in a spirit of truthseeking and offer you something to work or play with rather than dead silence, even though the something is not factually correct or necessarily true the answer is an honest human response. A social offering. I didn't lie to you or myself. Nor did I commit a lot of time. I just responded honestly and socially rather than intellectually. In so doing I gave you something to work with other than just your own speculations. It is one thing, a good thing, to understand Bayes theorem and to be able to apply it (and teach it), it is another thing, also a good thing to try and push outwards the boundaries of what is known or understandable or can be made common between rational minds, and yet it is a third thing to succeed in the second thing rather than to just attempt it. I give you credit (in terms of goodwill) for trying to push back the boundaries in important areas but that isn't the same as credit for succeeding. > It is not something to which Bayesian reasoning gives a high probability. > That is a science fiction story, a tool for brainstorming an answer. I > have sometimes derived interesting ideas from my attempts to write SF, but > I know those stories for fiction, not reality. > > If you see something that looks like a poor explanation but is the only > explanation you have, it may take a bit of effort to achieve a state of > mind where you *really* don't anticipate it - rather than claiming to > yourself that you are dutifully skeptical. > >> And it is very hard for us as individuals to take other's >> "rationalities" as givens when we don't get to see the others >> observations as our own observations. Second (or more) hand >> "observations" have to be discounted to some extend on first hand ones. > > See Robin Hanson and Tyler Cowen's paper on meta-rationality, "Are > Disagreements Honest?" http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf I did. Its a good paper. >> Progress depends on people (as change agents) being willing to stick >> their necks out to try to explain. > > That doesn't require that you bet on, anticipate, or believe a hypothesis, > before it is confirmed. It means that you write science fiction about a > poor hypothesis, to get your mind working on the problem. I was going to agree with this last, however, sometimes it does make sense to bet on a hypothesis that is merely a hypothesis. Brett Paatsch From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 06:09:28 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:09:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stayin' alive Message-ID: <470a3c5205030622092a3f42a4@mail.gmail.com> Sunday Telegraph: Want to live forever? Technologies exist today that not only promote anti-ageing, but also suggest death is not quite as inevitable as it seems. For centuries alchemists searched for the secrets of the elixir of life and the fountain of youth in a desperate but ultimately futile attempt to prolong life indefinitely. Now it seems that science is finally catching up with science fiction and the idea of immortality may not be as ridiculous as once thought. Nanotechnology, DNA mapping, cloning, stem cell research and human genome studies are all challenging the notion that ageing is inevitable and unalterable. Ageing, it seems, is a potentially curable condition. "Nanotechnology involves the development of small robots called nanobots," says Elstein. "When these nanobots are inserted into the body they go around correcting any damage or structural defects. It's like a super antioxidant. "The capacity for nanobots to repair whatever damage exists in the body will enable us to live for much longer periods of time than we've ever imagined. They are predicting we will be able to live for 200 to 300 years based on this technology. "And the technology is not that far away - about 30 to 40 years." http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,12441851-22809,00.html From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 06:21:29 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:21:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Virtual Reality psychodramas Message-ID: <470a3c520503062221648dadbb@mail.gmail.com> Researchers at the University of Buffalo (UB) are producing immersive virtual reality (VR) dramas in which the users are given some goals at the beginning and are interacting with 'self-aware' computational agents. The UB Reporter writes that they are putting a new face on 'user-friendly' VR environments. They already created a psychodrama called "The Trial The Trail" in which "the user is given two companions named Filopat and Patofil and told that at the end of her experience she will get her heart's desire." And because the software agents are continuously improving and 'improvising' around human users, the show is different every time. I don't know if this will lead to some mainstream application, but I'm sure that the researchers had lots of fun in their CAVEs-like systems. http://www.primidi.com/2005/03/05.html#a1129 From panateros at mad.scientist.com Mon Mar 7 06:46:53 2005 From: panateros at mad.scientist.com (W. L.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:46:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cancel subsciption Message-ID: <20050307064653.EA5E5101D0@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com> I would like to cancel my subscription to extropy-chat. Thank you. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm From scerir at libero.it Mon Mar 7 07:47:54 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:47:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com> <422B8CAB.2000808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> > Everybody knows the world is balanced on > the back of a giant tortoise. > Unless i am an asantaclausarian.[...] > I don't believe in trees. > My friend is a dyslexic atheist. > He does not believe there is a dog. According to John Duns Scotus (Eriugena) God is 'nothing'. God is 'nihil per excellentiam' (many like 'nihil per infinitatem'). So ... if you believe in nothing ... Btw, I strongly believe that John Duns Scotus was a proto cosmologist, knowing everything about the quantum fluctuations of the primordial vacuum/nihil, containing everything else, at least potentially. As J.L. Borges pointed out many times, it rests to be seen whether that nihil/nothing is much better than something :-) s. "The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable." - Frank Wilczek From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 7 08:01:29 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:01:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050306184338.38823.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050306184338.38823.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8c1a4dc3f3263b8d4ccdffe32de335ba@mac.com> On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > insults. > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a virtue in your system of values? - samantha From scerir at libero.it Mon Mar 7 08:13:45 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 09:13:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stayin' alive References: <470a3c5205030622092a3f42a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c522ed$95e95ea0$3db71b97@administxl09yj> Giu1i0 fwded: > Sunday Telegraph: Want to live forever? > Technologies exist today that not only > promote anti-ageing, but also suggest death > is not quite as inevitable as it seems. You can find the "want to live forever" and the "forever young" memes everywhere these days. See the specific collection in http://www.jacquelinesanchez.com/gallery_n.html Ok, this is not exactly the same meme but ... s. Extropic jewels? From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 7 08:42:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:42:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c53b548b96b8c6e5778eb0c8067d747@mac.com> On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Neil Halelamien wrote: > Does anybody have any recommendations regarding drugs, nutritional > supplements, and other methods for cognitive/concentration > enhancement? Have any of you tried such items or know people who tried > them? I'm particularly interested in how effective they are, their > cost-effectiveness, and any side effects. Piracetam 1200 mg twice a day seems helpful for me but I have no hard data. Humans are notoriously bad lab rats. I didn't notice much for some time so it probably isn't worth much for exams. Please share what you come up with. - s From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 7 13:04:37 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:04:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050307065744.0304e1f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Someone here will be able to provide the drug enhancement information for you, but I'm not good at it. This is what I do: Exercise to get the blood going and wake up the mind Enough sleep because sleep deprivation causes lack of attention span, Daily short meditations to still the mind for better focus Practice, practice, practice Organize your study area to eliminate clutter Separate yourself from any external tensions that would disrupt your focus on homework Best of luck with your studies, Natasha At 07:34 PM 3/6/2005, you wrote: >Does anybody have any recommendations regarding drugs, nutritional >supplements, and other methods for cognitive/concentration >enhancement? Have any of you tried such items or know people who tried >them? I'm particularly interested in how effective they are, their >cost-effectiveness, and any side effects. > >I've already come across resources like the Cognitive Enhancement >Research Institute (http://www.ceri.com/), but I'm interested in >personal thoughts and experiences. > >A slashdot story I submitted on the topic some time ago: >http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/2352239&tid=191&tid=14 > >I'm going to spend the next few months studying for grad school quals, >and I need all the help I can get. :) > >-- Neil Halelamien >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlt at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 13:46:24 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:46:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050307134624.12272.qmail@web30010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Drink Budweiser, because it makes you wiser `.-} __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 7 18:27:28 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:27:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothing and the bare necessities In-Reply-To: <125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> References: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com> <422B8CAB.2000808@lineone.net> <125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307122106.01d66800@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:47 AM 3/7/2005 +0100, Serafino wrote: >Btw, I strongly believe that John Duns Scotus was a >proto cosmologist, knowing everything about the quantum >fluctuations of the primordial vacuum/nihil, containing >everything else, at least potentially. As J.L. Borges >pointed out many times, it rests to be seen whether >that nihil/nothing is much better than something :-) > >"The reason that there is Something >rather than Nothing >is that Nothing is unstable." >- Frank Wilczek Shakespeare had a keen insight into the Higgs field, and the way to distinguish it from exchange particles: Troilus and Cressida - Act 1, Scene III Distinction, with a broad and powerful fan, Puffing at all, winnows the light away; And what hath mass or matter, by itself Lies rich in virtue and unmingled. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 18:41:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > > insults. > > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you > keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a > virtue in your system of values? Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments. So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the atheist. I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that would go to support private religious education of other people's kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 21:03:56 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless. On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > > > insults. > > > > > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you > > keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a > > virtue in your system of values? > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments. > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the > atheist. > > I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist > majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to > understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not > being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual > taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the > same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that > would go to support private religious education of other people's > kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too. > > Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very > vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other > policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency? > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 7 21:14:50 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:14:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <200503041755.j24HtJB15037@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > I have an idea. We often think of science and > technology > as almost the same thing, or very similar. They > certainly > form a symbiotic relationship. For a thought > experiment, > let us try to separate the two, then make a meme map > with > technology on the horizontal axis and science on the > vertical. The upper right quadrant would be > advanced in > science and advanced in technology, where I want to > be. > Clearly much of this hungry planet is in the lower > left > quadrant, but perhaps we can find transhuman allies > in > the upper left and lower right quadrants. Or even in the upper right. More than one Eastern religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible with both advanced science and advanced tech. There is no God; there is what is - including, by implication, what we make. If we happen to make a holy duty out of easing the suffering of all mankind, and some of us choose to specialize in the invention of new ways to do so (like cryonics and life extension), while some others choose to specialize in the discovery of information that will enable more of those efforts (like basic bio and AI research), so be it. And zen zere's Zen. ;) From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 7 21:21:54 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:21:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X In-Reply-To: <42286A85.6040008@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050307212154.92716.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > That may be true, but I'm just using 'atheist' for a > catchall to > describe those who lack any tendency to the mystical > or any hint of the > experience itself. Then you are attempting to redefine the word. What you mean by "atheist" in this instance is not what most people mean by "atheist", and specifically is not what most people understand "atheist" to mean. It is a basic error, in communication, to attempt redefinitions like this. It practically always results in people misunderstanding what one says, usually to the point of producing hurt feelings. Indeed, producing hurt feelings is almost the only possible deliberate use of it, since it fails so often at accomplishing anything else. Since producing hurt feelings in and of itself is almost always not desired, it is reccomended that you never, ever try redefinitions like this. Always use the meanings of the words that other people use, lest people think you are trying to general hurt feelings. (In short, don't be a troll, for your own sake.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 7 21:29:32 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:29:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty X: reversing the statement In-Reply-To: <42286AD4.6010800@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050307212932.94552.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >So what about a spiritual atheist like me? > > > Or me. Or me. It seems that atheists - in the usual sense - do not necessarily lack spirituality. My own experience has instead been that most theists, especially militant theists, lack an ability to understand the world in the scientific sense - and, since they can not understand it themselves, they ascribe it to an inherently non-understandable entity, and thus reinforce their position that the world is inherently beyond all understanding. (Which confuses their understanding, or lack thereof, with other peoples' understanding, or lack thereof. Just because you don't understand quantum mechanics, or biology, or astronomic-scale physics, doesn't mean they don't exist. In particular, it doesn't mean that the people who claim to have some clue about them must necessarily be wrong. It just means you don't understand...and that does not have to be a permanent situation, if you don't want it to be.) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 21:31:18 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050307213118.93755.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> My views are not popular on this list but I agree with you Kevin. Religion is not going away. We have to use religion for our ends or it will be used against us by our enemies. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Mar 7 21:50:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:50:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Faculty Y In-Reply-To: <4228C6E7.9020703@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050307215011.42211.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> That may be true, but I'm just using 'atheist' > for a catchall to > >> describe those who lack any tendency to the > mystical or any hint of > >> the experience itself. > > > > Then you are being intellectually lazy and as > sloppy and accusatory as > > those who upset you. How about setting a bit > better example? > > > No, I'm being conscise. > Of course, feel free to substitute: > " those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any > hint of the > experience itself." in all my posts for the word > "atheist". > Then tell me how readable it is. Equivalent example: I define the word "psychopath" to mean all those who believe in some diety: they have a path from their mind (psyche) to God. Using this new definition, all Christians are psychopaths, all Muslims are psychopaths, et cetera. That's quite readable, isn't it? And yet, most people would say it's a load of crap - because most people DO NOT define the word that way. Likewise, most people DO NOT define "atheist" to mean "those who lack any tendency to the mystical or any hint of the experience itself". "Atheist" means "those who do not believe in the existance of God", plain and simple. It says nothing about mystic anything. Atheists may tend against mystic experiences, but that's a far cry from being their defining trait. (Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be an atheist yet believe that the "mystic" four elements of earth, water, air, and fire do indeed make a good basis for explaining the properties of matter - either as an alternate of or superior to the periodic table. Maybe it doesn't happen that often, but the definition doesn't preclude it.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 7 21:51:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:51:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307154007.01df4068@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:03 PM 3/7/2005 -0500, Jeff Medina wrote: >Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack >of theism, no more, no less. That's consistent with such usage as `apolitical', which means `indifferent to politics', not `against politics', let alone `one who maintains that politics does not exist'. `Adiabatic' means `neutral with regard to heat, neither giving nor receiving', by contrast with `diabatic', meaning `involving heat transfer'. But usage is what gives language its meaning, for otherwise `momentarily' would means `very briefly' rather than `any minute now', and `presently' would mean `any minute now', rather than `at this moment'. And contemporary usage seems to be, alas, that `a-theist' means `one who denies the reality or possibility or even intelligibility of any deity or claims thereof', or even `wickedly opposed to the True God, and therefore deserving of hatred, contempt and exclusion from the company of all decent God-fearing Men'. Paradigm lost. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 7 22:06:01 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:06:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200503041755.j24HtJB15037@tick.javien.com> <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307155232.01dde580@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:14 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Adrian wrote: >More than one Eastern religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible with both >advanced science and advanced tech. A strong countervailing current is spiritual monism: the claim that All is Consciousness, or rather Consciousness is Primordial, sometimes these days based in interpretations of QT. While I find this suggestion preposterous, and almost certainly due to the conceptual pratfall of category mistake, it's worth looking at, for example: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/vol06no2/bkrev62.htm That review, typically, includes such unpleasant absurdities as: "Confronted with the genocidal horrors of our century, reason has nothing to say." This denies the tentative answers offered by, say, evolutionary and cognitive psychology without even attempting to refute them. Still, Goswami and others like him (I don't include such dubious QT hawkers as Deepak Chopra or Fred Allan Wolf) might be worth a few days' attention, if only to counter their stance from an informed position, rather than a priori dismissal. Damien Broderick From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Mar 7 22:14:33 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:14:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Atheism, like most religion/belief sets, has a hard time getting a solid definition pinned down. As a result you cannot say that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. For example, Mike says he's "agnostic", so he is not an atheist in the sense that he does not believe that no god exists. It's been argued around a lot, but believing (realizing, logically deducing, etc) that there is no valid belief system is still a belief system/ life philosophy/ religion / whatever. BAL >From: Jeff Medina >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500 > >Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack >of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an >atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless. > > >On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey >wrote: > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > > > > insults. > > > > > > > > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you > > > keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a > > > virtue in your system of values? > > > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring > > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments. > > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until > > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation > > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the > > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the > > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the > > atheist. > > > > I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist > > majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to > > understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not > > being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual > > taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the > > same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that > > would go to support private religious education of other people's > > kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too. > > > > Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very > > vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other > > policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency? > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 7 22:42:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:42:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <08487fcfce65aede49b44c2a756bf63f@mac.com> On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>> Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and >>> insults. >>> >> >> You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you >> keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a >> virtue in your system of values? > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments. > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the > atheist. I was trying to gently call you on acting like a jerk. Apparently my efforts are misplaced as you immediately dive into self-justification and further attacks. There is nothing invalid about "I do not believe XXX due to insufficient evidence, etc." You do not have the high ground simply for making up some way XXX could maybe, sort of be so and then saying that since you have no way (mostly by construction) of proving the negative that the imagined scenario is not the case that you most say you have no way of knowing whether XXX is the case and therefore you will only say that you don't know and ride the fence. In my opinion this is a refusal to admit that by standards you apply elsewhere in your life you do not believe there is a god and are not in the least justified to equivocate. In my opinion because your position is shaky you lash out against those that simply say they do not believe this XXX is the case. Argument after argument where you attempt to justify you stance and attacks on others who do not share it has been countered. Yet you continue with the very same arguments already shown lacking. Surely this is enough for you to see that something other than rationality is spurring you on. - samantha From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 7 22:59:13 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:59:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cute video about the future Message-ID: <20050307225913.A5EB357EBA@finney.org> NTT DoCoMo has a cute 10-minute video showing the world of 201X, at http://www.docomo-usa.com/vision2010/. It includes widespread use of video phones, wireless electronic wallets and payments, and haptic (remote touch) technology. Oh, yeah, the self-driving car. I had a few quibbles; one was the use of apparent "holographic" displays, which aren't physically possible AFAIK. The other was the wrist video phone concept, which I would think would make the camera wiggle around too much (but maybe a wide field of view combined with video stabilizing software would work). I also thought the haptic thing wasn't quite right, you couldn't reach out and touch something unless you had someone at the other end moving their gloves in synchrony with yours. I'd love to see a visualization of Vinge's concept of universal augmented reality, with everyone wearing special glasses and the whole world a mix of animation and reality. It's more like a 202X technology but it would be so cool to see. People appearing as ghosts, see-through walls and buildings, directional arrows floating in the air, clothes and houses decorated with virtual accessories, computer windows appearing at will out of thin air. Hal From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Mon Mar 7 23:00:12 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:00:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hans Bethe, Father of Nuclear Astrophysics, Dies at 98 Message-ID: <20050307225225.M3573@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/science/08cnd-bethe.html?ex=1267 938000&en=537d823fc7c24201&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland (paste the link together.. I created one that bypasses NYTimes registration process. I am still without my work computer and my normal email program that can send mail with these long links,so I hope you don't mind pasting. This is a very good article.) My reaction to Bethe's death is this: The nucleosynthesis process is the anchor pinning the life cyle of stars to cosmology and to us. Without knowing the star's life cycle, we would not know their ages, and hence the ages of galaxies and hence the age of the universe. The nucleosynthesis process also pins humans to stars, for without the nucleosynthesis processes in stars, we would not have the elements that make up the dust that makes up the planets that create the conditions for the carbon chains to leap into us. Bethe et al's work is legendary in physics, but I hope that you can see that his contributions reached far beyond physics. We lost a GIANT. Amara From nedlt at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 23:09:59 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:09:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God is gay Message-ID: <20050307231000.62152.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Everyone knows it. __________________________________________________ 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 23:14:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:14:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050307231427.80615.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry Jeff, but I don't believe in the non-existence of god, and I'm perfectly willing to be a theist if the Sim argument turns out overwhelming odds that we are in a sim, which is what seems more likely at this point in time. I wouldn't have so many arguments with the avowed atheists here if I were one. --- Jeff Medina wrote: > Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack > of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an > atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless. > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey > wrote: > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement > and > > > > insults. > > > > > > > > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists > you > > > keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and > integrity a > > > virtue in your system of values? > > > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are > ignoring > > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist > arguments. > > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since > until > > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation > > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the > > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the > > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the > > atheist. > > > > I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist > > majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made > to > > understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not > > being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the > individual > > taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and > the > > same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes > that > > would go to support private religious education of other people's > > kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too. > > > > Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very > > vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other > > policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral > consistency? > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 00:05:36 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:05:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307154007.01df4068@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050307184141.89647.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050307154007.01df4068@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f050307160528940be9@mail.gmail.com> > But usage is what gives language its meaning, This is precisely what I defer to in declaring said meaning. But it does not stand alone; when more than one usage circulates with frequency, it is the group itself whose definition I would propose to be "the right one." Some analogous situations are the majority of ignorant Americans and their understanding and usage of the word "evolution" as contrasted with the usage of evolutionary biologists, and the majority of ignorant Americans and their disdainful usage of the term "philosophy" as contrasted with the usage of professional philosophers. The latter two groups are outnumbered, to be sure -- do you suggest we take up the majoritarian use of evolution & philosophy as its meaning in our discussions? Equally, my interaction with atheists, the Free Thought movement, and philosophers of religion & of naturalism suggests the proper usage is in fact not what the majority of common folk tend to think it should be. "Paradigm lost." I'll pine that loss, Damien, but continue undaunted all the same. From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 8 00:20:01 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:20:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map Message-ID: <20050308002001.D7CE157EBA@finney.org> Damien writes: > A strong countervailing current is spiritual monism: the claim that All is > Consciousness, or rather Consciousness is Primordial, sometimes these days > based in interpretations of QT. While I find this suggestion preposterous, > and almost certainly due to the conceptual pratfall of category mistake, > it's worth looking at, for example: > > http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/vol06no2/bkrev62.htm Perhaps a little more down to earth is the so-called Free Will Theorem of John Conway and Simon Kochen, described at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html. This relies on a Bell's Theorem-like argument to conclude, supposedly, that if scientists have free will, then particles have free will: Conway thus concluded that if the experimented [sic, should be experimenter] had sufficient freewill to decide the directions in which he would measure the particle then the particle too must have the freewill to decide on the value of its spin in those directions such that it can be consistent with the 101-property. In concluding Dr Conway said that he believed he did have freewill. Holding up a piece of chalk, he said he felt he could choose whether or not he would drop it or continue to hold it. His theorem he said leads him to accept that the universe is teeming with freewill. He also said that while he did not have any proof for it, he believed that the cumulative freewill of particles is the source of his freewill as a person. Questions When the floor was opened for questions, one member of the audience questioned Dr Conway's use of the term "Free Will". She asked whether Dr Conway was "confusing randomness and free will". In a passionate reply, Dr Conway said that what he had shown, with mathematical precision, that if a given property was exhibited by an experimenter than that same property was exhibited by particles. He had been careful when constructing his theorem to use the same term "free will" in the antecedent and consequent of his theorem. He said he did not really care what people chose to call it. Some people choose to call it "free will" only when there is some judgment involved. He said he felt that "free will" was freer if it was unhampered by judgment - that it was almost a whim. "If you don't like the term Free Will, call it Free Whim - this is the Free Whim Theorem". I agree with the questioner. It would be much more reasonable to say that both particles and scientists are governed by randomness. But a Randomness Theorem would not have gotten as much publicity as a Free Will Theorem. Conway's claim reminds me of a talk I attended once by David Chalmers, a famous philosopher of consciousness. Based not on physics, but on the kind of hair-splitting, definitional, angels-on-a-pin argumentation beloved of philosophers, Chalmers concluded that consciousness is impossible unless the universe is full of particles with "proto-consciousness". Then the combination of these proto-consciousnesses leads to the consciousness of our brain, in somewhat the same way that a large object has mass by virtue of being composed of small particles that each have a tiny bit of mass. This does not explain though why our brains are conscious, but not our stomachs or livers (or perhaps they are conscious, but lack mouths to speak with). Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Mar 8 00:36:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:36:36 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation References: <6.1.2.0.2.20041104211509.02f21070@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <016a01c52376$e3103350$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: >A draft of this new paper is available. Comments welcome. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf Towards the end of your introduction you state: "...over-estimating our ability not only helps us to attract social allies, it also raises our self-esteem and happiness (Taylor, 1989), and can motivate us to excel (Kitcher, 1990)". And then: "Depressed and mentally-ill people tend to be less self-deceived than others." Although I've heard similar things before; I studied social psych at uni (1987), I'm still sceptical/curious as to how such a conclusion might be drawn from experiment. Are you just paraphrasing or summing up Kitcher and/or Taylor in the second sentence above or is there other data? If research is showing that two principles of extropy, Practical Optimism and Rational Thinking are in tension, other extropy chat listers may be interested too. Brett Paatsch Btw: Congrats on the tenure. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 01:14:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:14:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308011406.66540.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I was trying to gently call you on acting like a jerk. Apparently my > efforts are misplaced as you immediately dive into self-justification > and further attacks. Nothing I said in that post was an attack. For you to believe it was demonstrates the immediate lack of rationality of your position. > > There is nothing invalid about "I do not believe XXX due to > insufficient evidence, etc." You do not have the high ground simply > for making up some way XXX could maybe, sort of be so and then saying > that since you have no way (mostly by construction) of proving the > negative that the imagined scenario is not the case that you most say > you have no way of knowing whether XXX is the case and therefore you > will only say that you don't know and ride the fence. The problem you have is that the real situation is very much a maybe and you aren't willing to admit it because you have an emotional investment in clinging to your committed position. I ride the fence because the horse race ain't finished yet. Your horse is in second place at this point but you insist there is no other horse in the race. > In my opinion > this is a refusal to admit that by standards you apply elsewhere in > your life you do not believe there is a god and are not in the least > justified to equivocate. In my opinion because your position is > shaky you lash out against those that simply say they do not believe > this XXX is the case. Argument after argument where you attempt to > justify you stance and attacks on others who do not share it has been > countered. Yet you continue with the very same arguments already > shown lacking. Surely this is enough for you to see that something > other than rationality is spurring you on. When I make statements that you take as attacks, it is specifically because I am calling you on YOUR moral inconsistency in being intolerant of theists moral arguments which rest on the exact same logic you yourself use for your own positions on issues, and your irrationality specifically wrt the Simulation Argument. Your repeated refusal (and that of others here) to recognise the logical consistency of my statements demonstrates the emotional, irrational degree to which you cling to your own blind spots and are irritated by having them pointed out. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 8 01:17:41 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:17:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307155232.01dde580@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200503041755.j24HtJB15037@tick.javien.com> <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050307155232.01dde580@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: in a sim consciousness would be primary in a matter of speaking. Primacy of Consciousness vs. Primacy of Matter has been a long standing bifurcation in philosophy although usually called by other names. Victor Stenger has done work for some time debunking "quantum mysticism". One example is here http://www.meta-religion.com/Physics/Spirituality/ quantum_metaphysics.htm - samantha On Mar 7, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:14 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Adrian wrote: > >> More than one Eastern religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible >> with both >> advanced science and advanced tech. > > A strong countervailing current is spiritual monism: the claim that > All is Consciousness, or rather Consciousness is Primordial, sometimes > these days based in interpretations of QT. While I find this > suggestion preposterous, and almost certainly due to the conceptual > pratfall of category mistake, it's worth looking at, for example: > > http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/vol06no2/bkrev62.htm > > That review, typically, includes such unpleasant absurdities as: > "Confronted with the genocidal horrors of our century, reason has > nothing to say." This denies the tentative answers offered by, say, > evolutionary and cognitive psychology without even attempting to > refute them. > > Still, Goswami and others like him (I don't include such dubious QT > hawkers as Deepak Chopra or Fred Allan Wolf) might be worth a few > days' attention, if only to counter their stance from an informed > position, rather than a priori dismissal. > > Damien Broderick > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 01:56:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God is gay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308015646.52620.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> God is a hermaphrodite. How else is he able to populate the universe by sexual reproduction, except by screwing itself (you might say that the whole BC era was one long post-partum depression). If the universe were populated by asexual reproduction, there would be a bazillion identical ameboid gods cruising around the big U, busy-bodying everywhere, not letting anybody have any sinful fun at all, raining down floods, and plagues every other minute. A body couldn't get any rest.... --- Ned Late wrote: > Everyone knows it. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 01:59:42 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:59:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God is gay In-Reply-To: <20050307231000.62152.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050308015942.43144.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ned Late wrote: > Everyone knows it. This looks like a request for a ban. Grant? [y/n] From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 8 02:44:50 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:44:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline Message-ID: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian reasoning to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning works on the basis of probability. The question is not, do you believe in God. The question is, what, in your mind, is the probability that God exists? Presumably, religious believers would give this a high value. Atheists would give it a low value. And agnostics, perhaps, would be somewhere in between. But is this right? Is the only difference between atheists and agnostics the numerical estiamte they would give for the probability that God exists? Or is there something else about this difference, something qualitative which Bayesian probability reasoning doesn't capture? This analysis brings up another point as well. If someone asks you, "What is the probability that God exists?" you may well answer, "Define God." There are many notions of God in the literature, and some are more probable than others. There may even be as many notions of God as there are people; or even more, for our conceptions of God probably change from time to time. Until you know which concept of God they are asking about, you can't give a meaningful answer to the probability of his existence. Hal From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 02:45:45 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:45:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <20050308002001.D7CE157EBA@finney.org> References: <20050308002001.D7CE157EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <5844e22f050307184571e95759@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:20:01 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Chalmers concluded that consciousness is impossible unless the universe is full > of particles with "proto-consciousness". Then the combination of these > proto-consciousnesses leads to the consciousness of our brain, in somewhat > the same way that a large object has mass by virtue of being composed > of small particles that each have a tiny bit of mass. This does not > explain though why our brains are conscious, but not our stomachs or > livers (or perhaps they are conscious, but lack mouths to speak with). FYI, Chalmers is a functionalist regarding why our brains are conscious and our stomachs are not. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 03:01:45 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:01:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cute video about the future In-Reply-To: <20050307225913.A5EB357EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050308030145.32632.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > NTT DoCoMo has a cute 10-minute video showing the > world of 201X, > at http://www.docomo-usa.com/vision2010/. It > includes widespread use > of video phones, wireless electronic wallets and > payments, and haptic > (remote touch) technology. Oh, yeah, the > self-driving car. Worth a watch, IMO. Better than the average corp-futurist drabble. > I had a few quibbles; one was the use of apparent > "holographic" displays, > which aren't physically possible AFAIK. They are, but not reach-in like the doc had. Although that may have been an easier-to-digest standin for augmented reality: we saw what the doc saw, although not through his eyes. > The other > was the wrist video > phone concept, which I would think would make the > camera wiggle around > too much (but maybe a wide field of view combined > with video stabilizing > software would work). Agreed. Those are just about achievable now, though. I'm not sure if it'd work in Japan; there's a good non-technical reason it never caught on in the States despite being pushed. > I also thought the haptic > thing wasn't quite right, > you couldn't reach out and touch something unless > you had someone at > the other end moving their gloves in synchrony with > yours. Or something - which is kind of what haptics are about: forces upon the gloves other than the user's. It requires a good amount of trust to use gloves that would move your hands that far, though: a mailcious user could do tele-martial arts until you got your hands out of that thing, and a skilled one could keep that from happening long enough to do some damage. Which is the main reason why haptics that powerful are probably a ways off. From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Mar 8 03:09:43 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:09:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation In-Reply-To: <016a01c52376$e3103350$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20041104211509.02f21070@mail.gmu.edu> <016a01c52376$e3103350$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050307220610.02fd2640@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:36 PM 3/7/2005, you wrote: >>http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf > >"Depressed and mentally-ill people tend to be less self-deceived than >others." > >Although I've heard similar things before; I studied social psych at uni >(1987), I'm still sceptical/curious as to how such a conclusion might be >drawn from experiment. > >Are you just paraphrasing or summing up Kitcher and/or Taylor in the >second sentence above or is there other data? Let's see, in http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf I say "self-deceivers have more self-esteem and less psychopathology, especially less depression (Paulhus 1986)", citing: Paulhus, Delroy L. "Self-deception and Impression Management in Test Responses." In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, J. S., Personality assessment Via Questionnaires. New York, NY: Springer, 1986, 143-165. That should give you more detail on how such conclusions can be drawn. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 03:47:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:47:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503080349.j283nNB07378@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > Atheism in Decline: meme map > > --- spike wrote: > > ...but perhaps we can find transhuman allies in > > the upper left and lower right quadrants. > > Or even in the upper right. More than one Eastern > religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible with both > advanced science and advanced tech. There is no God; > there is what is - ... so be it. > > And zen zere's Zen. ;) Cool, thanks Adrian, I was hoping someone would bite on this idea. I would agree that of all the religions that I know of, Buddhism seems to be the most likely place to look for allies. Assuming you classify Buddhism as a religion, as opposed to something more general, like a philosophy. Hey we missed you at the devourgasm yesterday bud. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 04:59:57 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:59:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] history lessons In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050307184571e95759@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200503080502.j28527B14716@tick.javien.com> I had an idea. They say that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. So let's forbid schools from teaching the history of the 1990s. That was a cool decade. The commies went outta business, the internet came along, stocks went crazy, a lot of stuff went right. No, wait better idea. Let us emphasize technological and scientific history only, so that way we move forward while groundhog-daying the 90s over and over. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 05:34:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:34:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050307184571e95759@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200503080536.j285aVB18419@tick.javien.com> I have posted before here on the notion that someday we may develop AI that wants to learn about humans in order to serve us better, etc. While admitting this is a rosy view, it puts great importance upon understanding one of humanity's earliest and most important technologies, that of spoken communications. We need to be able to define our language if machines are ever to understand us. At a gathering last night I had an insight while studying the universal term "like". I am not cutting up here, I had a cool idea about like. I had always assumed that the term "like" was just a filler, used to give the speaker more time to develop sentences, but by studying like-sayers, I realized that in a sense, just the opposite is true. Follow me: While like is *sometimes* used as a speech filler, I found plenty of examples where the like-sayer was using no other speech fillers. Secondly, the like-sayer turned it on and off, depending on the circumstances. By listening carefully, I realized that like has a real definition, even if it is a very general one. By listening to when a like- sayer stops liking, it is when the sentence does not need de-exactifying. Even a hard core like-sayer does not say: "force equals like mass times like acceleration." But the same speaker, if describing the term "entropy" might bury the listener in likes. So perhaps like is a de-exactifyer, or serves the purpose of generalizing, perhaps fuzzifying statements. I listened to sentences with speech fillers, subtracted the low-meaning phrases, and found that the sentences stood fine without the fillers. But if I subtracted all the likes, the remaining sentences were often too exact or would be overstatements! That led to the notion that like is not just a speech filler, but in a sense is the opposite of a filler. Like takes the place of a number of more pedantic or clumsy filler phrases, thus actually were speech concisifyers. (Please pardon all the synthetic words in this post. I have not formally studied the field, so I don't know the terminology.) Like replaces these terms and phrases: figuratively, sort of, in a manner of speaking, rather more toward, if you will, not literally, is somewhat analogous to, may be thought of as, is more toward, in a sense, and perhaps many that you can think of yourself (please suggest some). If one were to attempt a formula that means like, perhaps it would be an L factor where L = (0.9 + .2*rand()). The technology of speech is about defining common concepts and finding words for them. More common or important memes should have shorter words. Like is a good short word that expresses an important meme. Please listen to your favorite like-sayer and see if this theory works for you, or suggest an alternative. spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Mar 8 05:44:34 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:44:34 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <025501c523a1$e8284ff0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > Until you know which concept of God they are asking about, you > can't give a meaningful answer to the probability of his existence. Nicely said Hal. Wouldn't it save a lot of trouble if no discussion about "God" could get started without both parties first agreeing to at least find out what the other party thought the word was going to mean? And if both parties can't agree on what the subject under consideration is, at least one of them should have the sense to see that its obvious that they are not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion about it and so refrain from trying too. The "it", the common referent, isn't there. When posting to a list like this one, when someone wants to talk about "God" they *could* say, this term may be confusing, so this is what *I* mean. (This is just an idea which I'd assign a near zero probability of catching on :-) Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 05:57:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:57:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <200503080349.j283nNB07378@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308055711.68902.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Cool, thanks Adrian, I was hoping someone would bite > on this idea. I would agree that of all the > religions > that I know of, Buddhism seems to be the most likely > place to look for allies. Assuming you classify > Buddhism as a religion, as opposed to something more > general, like a philosophy. If atheism qualifies as a religion, so does Buddhism. In general the "religions" of the East seem a bit more amenable to our beliefs, but that may be in direct proportion to how little they rely on revealed wisdom as opposed to, say, actually learning about the world. (Then again, there is a tendency to encourage, when doing long-term planning, the belief that others either think as you do or are worthless barbarians. This tends to clamp down on creativity. Although that may be just my personal experiences with certain aspects of their culture.) I've also been playing around with how to subvert the beliefs of the anti-science, anti-tech religions to be pro-science and pro-tech. Mostly just general ideas so far; the core problem seems to be that people retreat to these religions to "get away from" the complexity of the real world (as if one can reliably find moral truths by ignoring the complexities of reality), so even if we could turn some of these churces into bastions of our position, the people would just go elsewhere. It would at least reduce a major reinforcing agent of their anti-us beliefs, though that may just be simply replaced. > Hey we missed you at the devourgasm yesterday bud. I thought I apologized in advance that I wouldn't be able to make it. I had another function to attend at the same time, and I have not yet figured out how to upload myself so I can send a second me (and more importantly, integrate the two experiences afterwards). From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Mar 8 05:14:38 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:14:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <000001c523a4$42fc8020$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: ""Hal Finney"" > I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian reasoning > to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning works > on the basis of probability. There is no reason to use this little exercise regarding [G][g]od(s)[ess][esses] any more than putting magic bean stalks, mermaids, elves, ghosts, pookas and the like through the same Bayesian reasoning. Is there? Olga From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 06:53:30 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:53:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c52050307225364b175e0@mail.gmail.com> As you say, it depends on the definition og God. If we take the definition that most people must have in mind, that God is a being who stands outside the universe, created it and can intervene at will (this btw is compatible with a simulation theory), there is no way to assign a probability on the basis of available evidence. G. On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:44:50 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian reasoning > to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning works > on the basis of probability. The question is not, do you believe in God. > The question is, what, in your mind, is the probability that God exists? > > Presumably, religious believers would give this a high value. Atheists > would give it a low value. And agnostics, perhaps, would be somewhere > in between. > > But is this right? Is the only difference between atheists and agnostics > the numerical estiamte they would give for the probability that God > exists? Or is there something else about this difference, something > qualitative which Bayesian probability reasoning doesn't capture? > > This analysis brings up another point as well. If someone asks you, > "What is the probability that God exists?" you may well answer, "Define > God." There are many notions of God in the literature, and some are > more probable than others. There may even be as many notions of God > as there are people; or even more, for our conceptions of God probably > change from time to time. Until you know which concept of God they are > asking about, you can't give a meaningful answer to the probability of > his existence. > > Hal From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 07:00:13 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:00:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TransMuscles In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308070013.84229.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-035 Artificial Muscles Get a Grip on Human Hand February 28, 2005 Six years ago a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., issued a unique challenge: build a robotic arm using artificial muscles that could arm wrestle a human. The results of that challenge will be determined next week, when three such robotic arms will "step into the ring" to compete against a 17- year-old high school student. The ultimate goal is to win against the strongest human on Earth. When he issued the challenge, Dr. Yoseph Bar-Cohen, a physicist at JPL, wanted to jump-start research in electroactive polymers, also known as artificial muscles. He didn't expect to see the challenge fulfilled for at least a couple of decades. "Given the technology we had in 1999, I thought it would take at least 20 years before we could do it," said Bar-Cohen, who has been called the "Artificial Muscle Man." But he was wrong, and next week's event is a big step forward in the development and testing of these technologies. If the robotic arm wins, it will open doors for many engineering technologies in medicine, military defense and even entertainment. "You have to ask whether science fiction drives reality, or reality drives science fiction," Bar-Cohen said. The three artificial arms and their teams come from around the world. Researchers from New Mexico and Switzerland built arms made of plastics and polymers. A group of students from Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia will also test their arm invention made of gel fibers and electrochemical cells. The arm wrestling contest is one of the highlights at the Electroactive Polymer and Devices conference to be held March 7-10, at the Town and Country Resort & Convention Center in San Diego. The arm wrestling competition is March 7, from 5:00 to 6:00 pm in the Town & Country room at the convention center. The conference and competition are part of the Smart Structures and Materials symposium sponsored by the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE). Panna Felsen, a senior at La Costa Canyon High School in San Diego who has participated in student robotics competitions, will try to make the robotic arms buckle during the contest. "I'm really excited to be the human opponent, but I have no plans of making it easy for the arms to win against me," Felsen said. "The match will be a fair test of strength." After the competition, eight organizations will demonstrate other applications using artificial muscles, including an android head that makes and responds to facial expressions, biologically inspired robotic mechanisms and windows that change colors electronically. Electroactive polymers are simple, lightweight strips of highly flexible plastic that bend or stretch when put into contact with chemicals or electricity. They are quiet and shatterproof and can be used to imitate human muscle movements. A small team of scientists at JPL, in cooperation with research centers worldwide, are working to turn these plastic strips into grippers and strings that can grab and lift loads. JPL engineers are also hoping to build a rover with legs fitted with artificial muscles. The robot would be able to walk instead of rolling on wheels on planetary surfaces. "My hope is to see a rover run like a horse on Mars and climb steep mountains like a monkey, allowing us to reach distances and heights that are not possible with wheeled rovers," said Bar-Cohen who has chaired the conference for the past six years. During the conference, he will receive the 2005 Smart Materials and Structures Lifetime Achievement Award. For more information about the competition on the Internet, visit: http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/nasa-nde/lommas/eap/EAP-armwrestling.htm . For more information about the conference on the Internet, visit: http://spie.org/Conferences/Programs/05/ss/conferences/index.cfm?fu seaction=5759 For more information on Electroactive Polymers on the Internet, visit: http://eap.jpl.nasa.gov http://iangoddard.net __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 8 07:30:05 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:30:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <000001c523a4$42fc8020$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> <000001c523a4$42fc8020$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308012710.01cf93b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:14 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Olga wrote: >>I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian reasoning >>to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning works >>on the basis of probability. > >There is no reason to use this little exercise regarding >[G][g]od(s)[ess][esses] any more than putting magic bean stalks, mermaids, >elves, ghosts, pookas and the like through the same Bayesian reasoning. > >Is there? Yes, because the ontological and deontological consequences of Deity are so much weightier. But for that very reason, I don't think Bayes can help; one would be required to leap outside the system of empirical evidence and recurrence. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 07:29:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:29:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <20050308055711.68902.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503080732.j287VvB29386@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map ... > > I've also been playing around with how to subvert > the beliefs of the anti-science, anti-tech religions > to be pro-science and pro-tech... All else being equal, this world applies steady pressure against anti-science, anti-technology meme systems. In the long run, scientifically and technologically advanced societies and individuals eventually prosper more than their retro counterparts. Generation after generation of children grow up and see. Government complicates the picture in various ways, but in the long run the lesson is unescapable. Science and technology are this planet's twin saviors. No religion or philosophy can redeem this lost world, only science and technology. We show the way by being advanced and prosperous. It really is that simple. spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 08:00:02 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:00:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308080002.3765.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > So perhaps like is a de-exactifyer, or serves the > purpose of generalizing, perhaps fuzzifying > statements. I listened to sentences with speech > fillers, subtracted the low-meaning phrases, and > found that the sentences stood fine without the > fillers. But if I subtracted all the likes, the > remaining sentences were often too exact or would > be overstatements! It would be nice to, like, see some examples. :) It's an interesting matter you explore, you know like what is "like" doin and stuff. My unanalyzed assumption would be that "like" serves to denote (which is to say to emphasize or flag) a similarity relation that could range over "nothing like" (0) "kind of like" (0.5) "exactly like" (1) and that "like" itself is neutral with respect to the degrees of similarity to be applied in a specific similarity relation. Different phrases could also specify degrees of likeness/similarity. But this view is like assumed and untested, I mean like totally... like, you know what I mean? ;) ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 08:42:25 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:42:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308084225.37620.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Besides denoting a similarity relation "like" seems to also serve to say "It is (or was) the case that..." For example: (1) "Like, there's this guy who like lives down the street." (2) "Well, like, here we are." (3) "Like, there I was and I didn't know where to go." (4) "Like, here I am and I don't know where to go." In those cases "like" seems to say "It is(was) the case that." One could even substitute the latter for the former. Like, there may be all kinds of "likes." ~Ian __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 8 09:09:21 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:09:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation Message-ID: <20050308090921.3481B57EE7@finney.org> I never responded to Robin's paper, http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf. This whole area of self-deception and disagreement is one of the most fascinating and paradoxical topics I have come across. I imagine it will create quite a stir when it makes it into the popular press. One of the paradoxes of self-deception is that we probably don't really want to stop. We just think we do. We are deceiving outselves about our desire to overcome self-deception and learn the truth. We gain social benefits by proclaiming ourselves to be dedicated to the truth. We make ourselves look good by vowing to root out the evil of self-deception and to improve ourselves by freeing our minds of these distortions. It makes us look more honest, and makes us seem more trustworthy. And of course, in order to improve the odds of achieving those social benefits, we fool ourselves so that we really do believe what we say. We convince ourselves that we really do seek the truth, just so that we can lie more effectively to other people. It helps us to manipulate them into seeing us as honest and reliable partners. I've commented before about a Zen-like quality in these considerations. Zen students struggle to free their minds, but the harder they work, the more they bind themselves to mundane reality. The harder we try to overcome self-deception, the more we give in to the fundamental deceptiveness of our own motivations. Despite these paradoxes, we can't allow ourselves to fall into philosophical paralysis. We have to make decisions, adopt policies, and take actions on a day to day basis. My approach is essentially to play the hand I'm dealt. It may well be that my desire to avoid self-deception is ultimately fraudulent, but nevertheless this is what evolution has presented to me. And so I will pursue it. There is another reason as well. Robin doesn't push it very hard, but the idea is that in the modern world, with all its complexity, self-deception is no longer an affordable luxury. We can't rely on simple evolutionary instincts as a guideline any more. Dealing with political, social and technological issues of a complexity far greater than those faced by our cave man ancestors, we need clear sighted, hard-nosed, rational decision making. Self-deception means bad decisions. At a social level, and possibly even at an individual level, we have entered an era, for the first time in history, where seeing the truth has greater survival value than lying to ourselves. In the ancient past, it didn't matter that I might wish to be less self-deceived, because there wasn't much I could do about it. (Anything I could do, evolution would have eliminated as an option, because self-deceivers are more successful.) But today the world has changed, and it is going to continue to change. This is where Robin sees new possibilities. For the first time, people may genuinely become able to reduce their levels of self-deception. Robin suggests a number of possible mechanisms, some relatively mundane like standardized test scores, and others exotic, like futuristic mind alterations. I would like to see a pragmatically focussed "how to" document on overcoming self-deception. Robin describes a number of technologies which could help, but in relatively general terms. For example, he talks about the increase in documentation of our lives, with surveillance systems and similar technologies. It is theoretically possible to carry a device which records all of our conversations, and in the future, to record video of everything we do. This may well decrease self-deception about things that happen to us. That's the description. The practical advice would be, get and carry such a gadget. Ideally it would do automatic speech recognition so it could save the data as a text transcript, for searching purposes. Review the data periodically. Use it to resolve disagreements where possible. I used to fantasize about having something like this. When I was younger, I would often get into arguments about what was said, by who, and when. I wished I could play back a recording and prove to the other person that I was right! Yes, I was that naive. Well, I'm a little more mellow these days, and so is my wife, and we hardly ever have those kinds of disagreements any more. Both of us have learned to respect each other's memories. But a device like this would probably have helped me to discover the truth much sooner. One idea along these lines Robin mentions is that your documentation system could allow you to note how happy you are at various times. Since he wrote this, a new study came out which used a similar idea and found some very surprising results, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5702/1776 , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294028/posts. People liked watching TV more than taking care of their kids, exactly the opposite of what previous studies had shown. This is an terrific example of reduced self-deception. I'll bet most of those people would have said, and believed, that spending time with their kids was the greatest joy in their life. This study proved otherwise in exactly the way that Robin predicted. Robin also talks about Idea Futures as a mechanism to come up with unbiased consensus estimates about various factual situations. But again, how do we use this to reduce self-deception? One answer may be, simply believe what the market is telling you. That's not always easy, though. Maybe another answer is, if you disagree with what the market says, play the game, bet on your beliefs, and if you're right you'll be rewarded. It's one thing to debate politics, when it doesn't matter a whit if you're right or wrong. But once you have to bet on your beliefs, self-deception becomes extremely costly. Faced with the prospect of putting real money down, the hope is that your mind will shift gears and let the truth shine more brightly through the layers of self-deception. I don't know for sure if there is such a mental mechanism, but if so, this should bring it out. What are some other ways that we can work to reduce self-deception? An important first step is of course just to convince ourselves that the problem is real. I have found that studying the literature on the topic is helpful. Once you see how widespread and deep the phenomenon is, it's hard not to suspect that you are doing it too. That's a major hurdle to get over. I also have found that the whole complex of papers by Robin and others about the paradoxes of disagreement are useful as well, although they are hard to understand and really need a book-length treatment. Understanding these arguments requires adopting an impersonal perspective where our own prejudices and beliefs are equated to those of others. This helps to break free from the intuitive notion that we are each free of these errors even though we are convinced that other people suffer from them. Another pragmatic technique that Robin mentions is to take a lot of standardized assessment tests. I haven't really tried this one, but I believe there are some web sites that have batteries of tests that people can take. You might be able to get numerical rankings for your intelligence, creativity, leadership ability, and other psychological traits. You could also engage in various competitive activities, such as sports or games. You can't lie to yourself about your golf handicap. However there is a danger that you will remember your more successful results, so it would be a good idea to keep a thorough record of all your matches and scores, and then to calculate averages over different time periods. That would help to keep you honest. Geopolitics is a big area of self-deception IMO. I think the answer here is simple. Just accept that the problems are complicated and you don't know the answers, and be grateful that it doesn't matter, because no one is depending on you to solve the problems of the world. You've got your hands full running your own life, you don't need to be running everybody else's. Politics is, for most people, a waste of time because you're not in a position for your political beliefs to make a measurable impact on the world. All that energy can be better spent on things that affect your own life. The mere fact that politics seems important is a transparent example of self-deception. Once you can get yourself to recognize that fact, it will be a big step forward. This brings up another topic, which is dealing with the down side of abandoning self-deception. It can have negative impacts on people you are close to as well as on yourself. We have these habits for a reason, and not all of the reasons are gone. We still have many family and social interactions which are much the same as in the ancient tribal days where self-deception evolved. Taking off the blinders may have a variety of negative effects, and the truth seeker needs to be aware of this potential and be prepared for it. I don't have that much experience with this but it is clearly a major issue to consider. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 12:54:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 04:54:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308125410.46952.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: ""Hal Finney"" > > > I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian > reasoning > > to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning > works > > on the basis of probability. > > There is no reason to use this little exercise regarding > [G][g]od(s)[ess][esses] any more than putting magic bean stalks, > mermaids, > elves, ghosts, pookas and the like through the same Bayesian > reasoning. > > Is there? If one is interested in proving one's point and not afraid the outcome would be suboptimal. Of course, your line of argument IMHO demonstrates a lack of ability to objetively reason by Bayesian standards. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From emerson at singinst.org Tue Mar 8 14:17:28 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:17:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI: Get an early signed copy of Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near Message-ID: <200503081418.j28EHsB10260@tick.javien.com> Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, the highly anticipated sequel to his bestselling The Age of Spiritual Machines, will be released on September 22nd. But you need not wait until then. In partnership with Kurzweil, we're offering an early signed copy of The Singularity Is Near to everyone donating $200 or more to SIAI. SIAI is a 501(c)(3) public nonprofit charity, and your donations are tax-deductible. You can make your one-time or monthly gift at http://www.singinst.org/donate.html, or send your contribution to: Singularity Institute P.O. Box 50182 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Please include with your gift the correct mailing address where we should send your charitable tax receipt and signed book copy, which you'll receive at least one month before its wide release. Monthly donors giving at least $30 each month toward the requested $200 will receive The Singularity Is Near immediately upon availability. For more, please see http://www.singinst.org/kurzweil.html. Our immeasurable thanks to everyone helping further SIAI. ~~~ Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute P.O. Box 50182 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650.353.6063 emerson at singinst.org http://www.singinst.org/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 14:31:51 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:31:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] question on deism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308143152.76048.qmail@web30009.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Is deism in the category of atheism? A tip: it works to respond to believers that you believe in your own personal God, which is basically the truth. If you're an attorney then respond you believe in the attorney God; if you're a real estate or insurance agent, then respond that you believe in the 6.5% commission God, or whatever you want. If you're gay, say you believe in the gay God. Why waste your time with believers? >The question is not, do you believe in God. >The question is, what, in your mind, is the probability that God exists? >Presumably, religious believers would give this a high value. Atheists >would give it a low value. And agnostics, perhaps, would be somewhere >in between. But is this right? Is the only difference between atheists and agnostics the numerical estiamte they would give for the probability that God exists? Or is there something else about this difference, something qualitative which Bayesian probability reasoning doesn't capture? This analysis brings up another point as well. If someone asks you, "What is the probability that God exists?" you may well answer, "Define God." There are many notions of God in the literature, and some are more probable than others. There may even be as many notions of God as there are people; or even more, for our conceptions of God probably change from time to time. Until you know which concept of God they are asking about, you can't give a meaningful answer to the probability of his existence. Hal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emerson at singinst.org Tue Mar 8 14:35:07 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:35:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI's March 2005 bulletin Message-ID: <200503081435.j28EZUB12282@tick.javien.com> SIAI's March 2005 bulletin is now online: http://www.singinst.org/newsletter/2005.1/ Contents: * Get an Advance Signed Edition of TSIN * Silicon Valley Relocation * 1/3 Public Support Met * New Volunteer Coordinator * SIAI Printout Available * Michael Wilson's Funding Approved * Aubrey de Grey Joins Board of Advisors * Singularity Statement * Singularity Quote * 2004 Donors * SIAI Donor Statements * Around the Web * Events To receive the bulletin by email: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html ~~~ Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute P.O. Box 50182 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650.353.6063 emerson at singinst.org http://www.singinst.org/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 14:35:31 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:35:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God is gay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308143531.7803.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think God is a fun loving lesbian who reproduces by parthenogenesis. Until a better theory comes along, I'll stick to this one.. How else is he able to populate the universe by sexual reproduction, except by screwing itself (you might say that the whole BC era was one long post-partum depression). If the universe were populated by asexual reproduction, there would be a bazillion identical ameboid gods cruising around the big U, busy-bodying everywhere, not letting anybody have any sinful fun at all, raining down floods, and plagues every other minute. A body couldn't get any rest.... --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 14:38:13 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:38:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God is gay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308143813.28846.qmail@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Then I recant. >This looks like a request for a ban. --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex at ramonsky.com Tue Mar 8 15:07:18 2005 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:07:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Fwd:NewScientist NEWSFLASH: Arm wrestling robots beaten by human] Message-ID: <422DBFA6.4040602@ramonsky.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NEWSFLASH: Arm wrestling robots beaten by a teenaged girl Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:25:38 -0600 From: "NewScientist.com NEWSFLASH" Reply-To: "NewScientist.com NEWSFLASH" To: alex ramonsky NewScientist.com - NEWSFLASH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Arm wrestling robots beaten by a teenaged girl Flesh and bone triumphed in the first ever man-versus-machine battle of brawn - an arm wrestling contest between robots and humans. The human champion defeated each of three robotic arms, hands down, in matter of seconds. She is just 17 years old and a self-confessed wimp. The research behind the battle aims to develop stronger polymer-based artificial muscles for use in future prosthetic limbs. Click on the link below for the full story on NewScientist.com/news: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7113 Science and technology news and features updated daily at: http://www.newscientist.com Subscribe to New Scientist magazine and get 4 FREE ISSUES at: http://www.qssa.co.uk/new_scientist/default.asp?promcode=2169 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- NewScientist.com's Newsflash emails are an additional free service to from NewScientist.com e-zines. Newsflash emails come from NewScientist's online daily news service, and stories are available exclusively online. The alerts are sent on an occasional basis when a story of especially high interest breaks. If you would prefer not to receive Newsflashes from NewScientist.com, please click on the following link: http://www.prq0.com/quickstart/LeadCapture/Display_LeadCapture.asp?e=XbcbdeacBD-RaA&oid=UcjjbCB Please note that replies to this email address will not be read. To receive a response to your message, please email webmaster at newscientist.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 15:46:57 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch Message-ID: <20050308154657.37797.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've been hearing such discussions for 35 years, haven't heard anything new. perhaps the buddhists have it right-- Question: What is the Buddha? Answer: The Buddha is a stick of dried dung. __________________________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 8 16:01:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:01:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: <20050308084225.37620.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503081601.j28G1VB22167@tick.javien.com> Ian, these are examples of like being used as a speech filler, as teens often do. The sentences below can have the likes surgically removed without changing their meaning. The insight I had was from listening to highly articulate and intelligent like-sayers. In 1984 newspeak, Orwell suggested that we replace the descriptions of degree with a single word and its negative. His example was good, double plus ungood, etc. Like is another example of a possible improvement of newspeak: replace phrases denoting exactness with like. So like means less exact, and I suppose double plus like could mean way less exact. It is not clear to me how to specify more exact, using the base word like. What is the opposite of like, in the common usage? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:42 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] like definition > > Besides denoting a similarity relation "like" seems to > also serve to say "It is (or was) the case that..." > For example: > > > (1) "Like, there's this guy who like lives down the > street." > > (2) "Well, like, here we are." > > (3) "Like, there I was and I didn't know where to go." > > (4) "Like, here I am and I don't know where to go." > > > In those cases "like" seems to say "It is(was) the > case that." One could even substitute the latter for > the former. Like, there may be all kinds of "likes." > > ~Ian > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 17:19:06 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:19:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <200503080732.j287VvB29386@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308171906.88389.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > All else being equal, this world applies steady > pressure against anti-science, anti-technology meme > systems. In the long run, scientifically and > technologically > advanced societies and individuals eventually > prosper more than their retro counterparts. > Generation > after generation of children grow up and see. I know, I know. But I'm impatient. ;) Besides, I've also been worrying about, with increasing life spans, the impact of extremely long-lived people who nevertheless are dead set against the very technology that literally saves their lives, except for their own personal use. Not because they're greedy and want everyone else to die, even if that's the conclusion many others will come to, but simply because they think the tech is immoral and accept their use of it as a personal moral failing they'll deal with "someday", which in practice turns out to be only after their lives are no longer being extended. And then there's resistance to developing the tech in our own lifetimes. (Yeah, I want to live forever too. But I wouldn't mind most other people getting the same benefit, and I certainly don't classify the desire to live - even if one has already had a long and full life - as immoral.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 17:27:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:27:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <025501c523a1$e8284ff0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050308172730.81737.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Wouldn't it save a lot of trouble if no discussion > about "God" could get > started without both parties first agreeing to at > least find out what the > other party thought the word was going to mean? > > And if both parties can't agree on what the subject > under consideration > is, at least one of them should have the sense to > see that its obvious that > they are not going to be able to have a meaningful > discussion about it > and so refrain from trying too. Unfortunately, quite a few Godsters have adopted the trick of deliberately confusing the issue like this. "Do you believe God exists? Yes? Great! Then let me tell you all about God. Let's start with the fact that He requires you to look to my organization for all moral guidance, and not to think for yourself..." A vague God serves their purposes. God is vague. This may be a coincidence. > When posting to a list like this one, when someone > wants to talk about > "God" they *could* say, this term may be confusing, > so this is what *I* > mean. (This is just an idea which I'd assign a > near zero probability > of catching on :-) Unfortunately, while that may be a good idea for very vague terms like "God", the people who have been trying that have been applying it to more well-defined terms and trying to redefine them. (See the recent example with "atheism".) The results often wind up being perceived as trollish, although not always intentionally. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 17:32:14 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:32:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: <200503080536.j285aVB18419@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308173214.53096.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > So perhaps like is a de-exactifyer, or serves the > purpose of generalizing, perhaps fuzzifying > statements. Aye. If you check the dictionary definition, that is exactly what "like" was originally intended for. "Something like", "approximately like", and that sort of thing. It may also be used to express uncertainty. Like, if I'm having a hard time nailing down the exact description, I can spout off something like it and tack on "like"s to flag that this isn't necessarily precise. It may be that I happen to hit it spot on, but if I'm not personally confident that I have, then "like" flags my own unease. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 17:39:52 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:39:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] history lessons In-Reply-To: <200503080502.j28527B14716@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308173952.63509.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > I had an idea. They say that those who do not learn > from history are destined to repeat it. So let's > forbid > schools from teaching the history of the 1990s. > That > was a cool decade. The commies went outta business, > the internet came along, stocks went crazy, a lot of > > stuff went right. > > No, wait better idea. Let us emphasize > technological > and scientific history only, so that way we move > forward > while groundhog-daying the 90s over and over. Check the stocks for things biotech and "nano"tech related. Why do we need to ban teaching history, when people so willingly blind themselves to it? -or- Sure, they may repeat it. Personally, I'd like to improve on it. How about a dot-com-like boom where the "crash" isn't an actual lowering of stock prices, but merely a sudden lack of growth? Holding steady, with many fortunes made and few or none lost, to fuel the next boom. (For instance, if a lot more of the rank and file - including engineers - wound up being dotcom millionaires, instead of seeing their fortunes slip away before they could cash out, how easy would it be to get funding for some not-immediately-profitable >H projects today?) From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 18:15:28 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:15:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308181528.5961.qmail@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dont torment yourself. Worry can kill you :-] > I've also been worrying about, with > increasing life spans, the impact of extremely > long-lived people who nevertheless are dead set > against the very technology that literally saves > their > lives, except for their own personal use. Not > because they're greedy and want everyone else to > die, > even if that's the conclusion many others will come > to, but simply because they think the tech is > immoral > and accept their use of it as a personal moral > failing > they'll deal with "someday", which in practice turns > out to be only after their lives are no longer being > extended. > > And then there's resistance to developing the tech > in > our own lifetimes. (Yeah, I want to live forever > too. > But I wouldn't mind most other people getting the > same > benefit, and I certainly don't classify the desire > to > live - even if one has already had a long and full > life - as immoral.) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 18:46:01 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:46:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Says Authoritarian Rule in Mideast Should End Message-ID: <20050308184601.63682.qmail@web30009.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Bush ought to concern himself with totalism in the Mideast, not authoritarianism. 'Ending' authoritarianism is not a realistic goal; ending totalism is. Look, Mexico is authoritarian; parts of the U.S. Midwest & South are still quite authoritarian, and will remain so. However you've got to admire the kahonas on Bush, he's the finest master politician since Nixon, even if someone else does Bush's thinking for him. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050308/ts_nm/bush_speech_dc __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 8 19:09:10 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:09:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline Message-ID: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> > From: ""Hal Finney"" > > > I'd suggest applying some of the basic principles of Bayesian reasoning > > to the question of atheism vs belief in God. Bayesian reasoning works > > on the basis of probability. Olga Bourlin writes: > There is no reason to use this little exercise regarding > [G][g]od(s)[ess][esses] any more than putting magic bean stalks, mermaids, > elves, ghosts, pookas and the like through the same Bayesian reasoning. > Is there? The point is, Bayesian reasoning should be able to deal with all of these things, and more. Many people believe in ghosts. How about Bigfoot? How about UFOs? How about psychic powers? If you're going to approach the world rationally, you need to be able to come up with at least a rough estimate of the probability of all such phenomena. And that includes God. Giu1i0 Pri5c0 writes: > As you say, it depends on the definition og God. If we take the > definition that most people must have in mind, that God is a being who > stands outside the universe, created it and can intervene at will > (this btw is compatible with a simulation theory), there is no way to > assign a probability on the basis of available evidence. And Damien Broderick writes: > ... I don't think Bayes can help; one > would be required to leap outside the system of empirical evidence and > recurrence. I am amazed at the suggestion that there is a potential phenomenon, one which would cause actual effects in the world where we live, for which we cannot even in principle ascribe a probability to its existence and reality. If true, this is a dagger at the heart of rationality itself, and calls into question the whole scientific enterprise of studying the world through observation and reason. I'd like to understand this suggestion in more detail. Here's one theory that I have. Suppose that we had perfect historical knowledge, as though we had lived through and witnessed all historical events. We knew the historical Jesus, we watched the life of Moses, we grew up with the Buddha and travelled with Mohammed. We witnessed the birth of humankind, either gradually from the animals or stepping fully formed from Eden. If we had this detailed knowledge, would you still say that it was not possible in principle to ascribe a probability to the reality of, say, the God of the Christian Bible? What I'm getting at is the question of whether you see the reason for the difficulty in applying Bayesian reasoning as simple ignorance of historical facts. You both mention the difficulty of using "evidence", and I'm wondering whether the problem is primarily the relative paucity of the evidence we have to go on. Another theory I can imagine in trying to understand this claim is that the problem is with the idea of probability as something that applies only to repeatable events, based on Damien's mention of "recurrence". When we say that the probability of a flipped coin coming up heads is 50%, we mean that we can flip the coin many times, and on the average about 50% of them will be heads. But we can't do this with the universe. We can't really imagine a whole ensemble of actually existing universes, some where God exists and some where he doesn't, and then ask what percentage of them have God existing. That seems to be an absurd cosmology, because if God created some of the universes he would probably have created all of them; and contrariwise, if actual universes could exist without God creating them, then there seems little need to postulate the existence of God at all. If this is the problem with trying to give a probability for God's existence, I would point out that there are other notions of probability which don't rely on repeatable events. We create probability estimates all the time for non-repeatable events. In a sense, every event is unique, but that doesn't stop us from estimating likelihoods. The way I think about probabilities like this is that we estimate the strength of our belief, and we calibrate it by comparison with beliefs regarding events which actually are repeatable. What are the chances that Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2008? I'd say... one in five. There is a better than even chance that a Democrat will be elected, after 8 years of Republican fatigue, and Hillary is a prominent Democrat who might well run. I compare my belief in this one-time event with how strongly I believe that I will get heads on my next two coin flips, and judge Hillary's chances as being a little less than that. Another way to think of it is, of all the beliefs that I have to which I would ascribe one-in-five probability, both reproduceable and non-reproduceable events, I expect about one in five of them to come true. So even non-reproduceable events can be seen as part of an ensemble where we can use a frequentist notion of probability to calibrate our beliefs. >From this perspective, the existence of (some particular conception of) God, like the existence of fairies, ghosts, mermaids and other supernatural creatures, can be given a probability estimate despite its superficially unique nature. No actual recurrence is necessary. I'd like to know whether either of these lines of argument shed light on the question of why we cannot ascribe a probability to the existence of God. Hal From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 19:14:42 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:14:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] of all there is to worry about In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308191442.46685.qmail@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You're worried about religionists with double standards who might deny others the benefits of transhumanism they will enjoy for themselves? Geesh. That is worrying! > > I've also been worrying about, with > > increasing life spans, the impact of extremely > > long-lived people who nevertheless are dead set > > against the very technology that literally saves > > their > > lives, except for their own personal use. Not > > because they're greedy and want everyone else to > > die, > > even if that's the conclusion many others will > come > > to, but simply because they think the tech is > > immoral > > and accept their use of it as a personal moral > > failing > > they'll deal with "someday", which in practice > turns > > out to be only after their lives are no longer > being > > extended. > > > > And then there's resistance to developing the tech > > in > > our own lifetimes. (Yeah, I want to live forever > > too. > > But I wouldn't mind most other people getting the > > same > > benefit, and I certainly don't classify the desire > > to > > live - even if one has already had a long and full > > life - as immoral.) > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 20:02:47 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:02:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308200248.98278.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > So perhaps like is a de-exactifyer, or serves the > > purpose of generalizing, perhaps fuzzifying > > statements. > > Aye. If you check the dictionary definition, that > is exactly what "like" was originally intended for. > "Something like", "approximately like", and that > sort of thing. > > It may also be used to express uncertainty. Like, > if I'm having a hard time nailing down the exact > description, I can spout off something like it and > tack on "like"s to flag that this isn't necessarily > precise. It may be that I happen to hit it spot on, > but if I'm not personally confident that I have, > then "like" flags my own unease. 'Likely' seems to carry the uncertainty, or probability, that can be inherent in 'like.' Examples: (1) "Is it likely to happen?" (2) "What is the likelihood of it happening?" Even if I say "It's extremely likely to happen," there's still a degree of probability implied. And saying "It's 100% likely to happen" seems to misuse 'likely' and we should instead say "It's 100% certain to happen." However, the probably factor inherent in 'likely' does not seem apparent in the case that someone uses 'like' to say: "He looks exactly like the man who robbed me." Here 'like' seems properly used and does not indicate degrees of similarity. 'Similar' seems to inherently denote less than 100% identity and if we substitute it in the sentence "He looks exactly similar the man who robbed me." then 'similar' seems to be misused as was the case with 'likely' when we said "It's 100% likely to happen." So irrespective of the original definition of 'like,' I think it can be used in statements that imply a 100% identity relation and thus 'like' can denote identity relations ranging from 0% to 100%. ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 20:04:39 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:04:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ Message-ID: Over at "What's New?", Friday, March 4, 2005 1. SCIENCE BUDGET: TAX REVENUES DOWN, WAR COSTS UP, BIG TROUBLE. You don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know what happens when taxes are cut during a costly war. And it's happening. Science, with no champions in this administration, looks to be one of the big losers. NASA, alone among science agencies, would get an increase under the Bush request, but the entire 5%, and more, is destined for the Moon-Mars Initiative, which has no discernible science content. Meanwhile, Hubble will be dropped in the ocean. 2. MOON-MARS INITIATIVE: EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF POLITICS. So what's really behind "The Vision"? Why is the administration pushing so hard for a science initiative that scientists scorn, and which won't take place on Bush's watch? Ah, but that's the plan. It will be up to the next administration, stuck with a huge deficit, to decide whether to go ahead with a meaningless but staggeringly expensive program to see if humans can do what robots are already doing. As one well-informed NASA watcher put it, "Moon-Mars is a poison pill. It hangs responsibility for ending the humans-in-space program on the next administration." ------ And he hasn't even mentioned the growing Social Security problems as well. Not a very optimistic outlook in the US. It might be so bad in four years time that the Dems won't even try to get elected. BillK From mez at morethanhuman.org Tue Mar 8 20:10:46 2005 From: mez at morethanhuman.org (Ramez Naam) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:10:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUCEMENT: New Book "More Than Human" Released Today Message-ID: <8FAD66BE28DF764B995292C280E7CFA3066DCF@SPACE.heden.org> Pardon the list abuse, but as some of you on these lists know, I spent a good chunk of the last two years working on a book related to transhumanism.? Well, it's out!? The book is titled "More Than Human" and it's a non-fiction look at the potential to use biotechnology to make people stronger, smarter, and longer lived.? It covers scientific research in these fields over the last decade, prospects for the next decade or two, and a number of social, economic, and policy issues they bring up. You can read more about the book - including some great reviews it's been getting in the mainstream press, at http://www.morethanhuman.org/ A number of people in this community helped me out in the writing of this book. Among them are James Hughes, Aubrey de Grey, Damien Broderick, Rafal Smigrodzki, Brett Paatsch, Chris Phoenix, and Robert Bradbury. Thank you all! A frequent topic of conversation on these lists is how to get transhumanist/extropian ideas out into the mainstream meme pool. One way to do that is to help popularize this book. So now I'm asking for YOUR help to make the book a success!? There are five things you can do to help boost its popularity: 1) BUY THE BOOK! Click here to buy a copy of my book. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/0767918436 The more you buy, the higher I'll rate on Amazon and possibly on other lists.? The higher it ranks, the more other people will buy the book! 2) BUY RELATED BOOKS! If you buy related books on Amazon, people who look at those books will see a link to More Than Human!? So if you've been thinking about buying any of the following books, buy them now! Blink by Malcolm Gladwell http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/0316172324/ Collapse by Jared Diamond http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/0670033375/ Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/0393317552 A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/076790818X/ The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/detail/-/0618005838/ or any of Amazon's best selling popular science books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=morethanhuman1-20&path=tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/75 3) SUBMIT A REVIEW TO AMAZON! Once you've read the book (or now if you've read it already), go back to the Amazon page and write up a review.? Don't feel obliged to make it a 5 star review. Users can sniff out phoney reviews. Just write what you honestly think. 4) POST TO YOUR BLOG! If you have a blog, including a livejournal, post a link to the Amazon page for my book to your blog.? That'll cause the book to pop up on sites that track which books are being most discussed and most linked to in the blogosphere. (Like Technorati's BookTalk: http://www.technorati.com/live/products.html ) 5) FORWARD THIS MAIL! If you know others who you think would be interested in the book, tell them about it or forward this mail! Especially if they're people I don't know. Thank you all for your help. With your assistance and a little luck, the ideas in this book may get out there in front of a lot of people. Ramez Naam ------------------------ More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement http://www.morethanhuman.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 8 20:11:39 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:11:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308011406.66540.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050308011406.66540.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <53241f1f6c33f9aeaf07fc7f5bccabd2@mac.com> On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> I was trying to gently call you on acting like a jerk. Apparently my >> efforts are misplaced as you immediately dive into self-justification >> and further attacks. > > Nothing I said in that post was an attack. For you to believe it was > demonstrates the immediate lack of rationality of your position. Garbage. You directly accused atheists of being irrational and hidebound and of being hypocritically intolerant of a lot of purported political positions of some theists as well. Exactly how are such broadsides not attacks? > >> >> There is nothing invalid about "I do not believe XXX due to >> insufficient evidence, etc." You do not have the high ground simply >> for making up some way XXX could maybe, sort of be so and then saying >> that since you have no way (mostly by construction) of proving the >> negative that the imagined scenario is not the case that you most say >> you have no way of knowing whether XXX is the case and therefore you >> will only say that you don't know and ride the fence. > > The problem you have is that the real situation is very much a maybe > and you aren't willing to admit it because you have an emotional > investment in clinging to your committed position. I ride the fence > because the horse race ain't finished yet. Your horse is in second > place at this point but you insist there is no other horse in the race. In you opinion he situation is a maybe of sufficient probability to justify fence sitting. but since you have not proved your opinion it is hardly legitimate to cast aspersions on those with a different opinion. I don't have a horse and I would thank you to stick to the subject. > >> In my opinion >> this is a refusal to admit that by standards you apply elsewhere in >> your life you do not believe there is a god and are not in the least >> justified to equivocate. In my opinion because your position is >> shaky you lash out against those that simply say they do not believe >> this XXX is the case. Argument after argument where you attempt to >> justify you stance and attacks on others who do not share it has been >> countered. Yet you continue with the very same arguments already >> shown lacking. Surely this is enough for you to see that something >> other than rationality is spurring you on. > > When I make statements that you take as attacks, it is specifically > because I am calling you on YOUR moral inconsistency in being > intolerant of theists moral arguments which rest on the exact same > logic you yourself use for your own positions on issues, and your > irrationality specifically wrt the Simulation Argument. Your repeated > refusal (and that of others here) to recognise the logical consistency > of my statements demonstrates the emotional, irrational degree to which > you cling to your own blind spots and are irritated by having them > pointed out. I have no such irrationality and your insistence that I do unless I agree with you interpretation makes you a hopeless boor on the topic. The topic isn't remotely about the moral arguments of some theists on some topics. It is beyond me why you even throw such flak into this topic. Are you attempting to straddle the fence to appeal or cater to others whose opinions would be questioned starting with their theistic source? There is no reason to go from the possibility of being in a sim to likely existence of god to a more or less Christian god to moral strictures based upon an often less than sophisticated interpretation of Christian scriptures to some sort of extra legitimacy for opinions largely based on the same. Are you ranting at people for not supporting this sort of house of cards? - samantha From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Tue Mar 8 20:08:26 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:08:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Children react to the Moon Landing (1969 archive) Message-ID: <20050308200540.M25974@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> >From the CBC Archives of Canadian Television. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-1587-10802/life_society/60s/clip12 American astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins have piloted the first lunar landing mission, Apollo 11, taking the lead in the superpower space race. With the mission televised, the astronauts have captured the imagination of people around the world. This CBC report features Canadian children who have been watching and considering how the expedition might change their world. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Mar 8 20:25:25 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:25:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: atheism Message-ID: <4fd1b3d75f7f68648f5a26af59d5d23b@mac.com> A discussion on whether there is a god would profitably start with the question of what "is" is. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 8 20:29:36 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] of all there is to worry about In-Reply-To: <20050308191442.46685.qmail@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050308202936.55968.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ned Late wrote: > You're worried about religionists with double > standards who might deny others the benefits of > transhumanism they will enjoy for themselves? Geesh. > That is worrying! Hey, it's a problem we're likely to have to deal with sooner or later. But maybe we can benefit from the problem by using the fear of this to gain public support. ("Life extension will be invented. Would you rather the rich develop it just for themselves, or would you rather it be developed out in the open where everyone, including you, will benefit from it?") I do know that the only coherent argument I've heard against transhumanism is the necessity of making sure the benefits don't accrue just to a small subset of humanity. (Else the rest of humanity has a perceived interest in making sure it doesn't happen period: the biological instinct for fairness. If it looks like it'll go to a situation where the benefits won't be shared and the rest of humanity won't be able to do a thing to force them to be shared...) From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Tue Mar 8 20:32:54 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:32:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ Message-ID: <20050308202535.M34304@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Yes, NASA-land is looking very odd. A month ago (early Feb 2005) the DPS members (I am one) received the following letter (DPS stands for the division of planetary sciences of the American Astronomical Society, which holds a few thousand members) which describes some of the strange NASA actions. ------------ Dear Colleagues: Last week saw another ominous development for planetary science. ?On Wednesday, NASA announced its selections from the latest round of Discovery proposals. ?From 18 proposals, no stand-alone flight missions were selected, an unprecedented occurrence. The DPS is stunned by this decision. ?Discovery proposals require a tremendous amount of unfunded work by Principal Investigators (PIs), their Co-Investigator teams, NASA centers, other research centers and laboratories, and their industry partners. Are we to believe that none of the flight missions proposed merited going to "Phase A," which is not selection for flight, but selection for further detailed study to determine suitability for flight? ?The Discovery Program is one of NASA's most innovative and cost-effective programs. ?It is a major and in our judgment irreplaceable part of planetary exploration. Incredible ideas are conceived, and if all goes well, brought to fruition. ?Missions are flown, such as Pathfinder, NEAR, Lunar Prospector, Stardust, Genesis, Messenger, and Deep Impact, that frankly never would have had little chance of being flown under the old way of doing business. While the Discovery proposal PIs have yet to be debriefed on the details of each evaluation, we do know that some submitted proposals have heritage from earlier rounds and have in past Discovery proposal cycles simultaneously received the highest possible scientific ranking and the lowest possible risk ranking. Last week, NASA also announced that the next Discovery AO would be released soon, and officials have told us that both the cost cap would be raised and the existing budget profile restrictions would be relaxed. ?These are welcome developments, but the effect of last week's non-selection will likely adversely affect the applicant pool regardless of the scope of the program in the future. ?As we noted above, qualified teams and their industrial partners have invested their own resources, countless man-hours and (all together) millions of dollars. ?But in the face of such seemingly arbitrary actions by the Agency, they cannot be expected to continue doing so. And as a result, America's space program is the loser. In effect, the non-selection of potential mission candidates for study means that a Discovery mission has been cancelled, and the Discovery selection process has failed. ?We call upon NASA to conduct an open selection-process failure analysis, just as it would for a flight mission loss. The paradigm of PI-led missions like Discovery represents American enterprise, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship at its best. ?The Discovery Program, and the nascent New Frontiers Program, and the smaller scale Explorer programs, all PI-led, must not be allowed to falter. ?The DPS strongly urges NASA to reaffirm its support for the Discovery and other PI-led programs by making mission selections in response to NASA Aos, and to work with Congress to ensure the funding of these missions. Finally, we note that last week's decision takes place against the background of profound change in NASA's directions and priorities, more details of which are expected in the FY06 Federal Budget to be released Monday, February 7th. ?The AAS and DPS will be closely analyzing the implications of the budget for NASA and the programs within it. In the meantime, letters, phone calls, and faxes to NASA and the press in support of the Discovery and other PI-led programs are critically important. ?These could stress 1) your disappointment in the recent non-selection and 2) your support for Discovery and other PI-led programs; request that 3) NASA openly investigate the causes of this non-selection; and most important, that 4) NASA recommit itself to making competitive selections in these programs. We ask you, however, to also prepare for a much larger effort that we may be calling upon you to undertake, which transcends our serious concerns for individual programs. On behalf of the DPS Committee, Bill McKinnon DPS Chair From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 20:38:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:38:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050308203828.74166.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > From: ""Hal Finney"" > > >From this perspective, the existence of (some particular conception > of) God, like the existence of fairies, ghosts, mermaids and other > supernatural creatures, can be given a probability estimate despite > its > superficially unique nature. No actual recurrence is necessary. > > I'd like to know whether either of these lines of argument shed light > on the question of why we cannot ascribe a probability to the > existence of God. We already know we have one unique event that probabilities have been assigned to: the odds that the universe would naturally happen 'accidentally'. Scientists have ascribed a lot of brain sweat to the estimate. If it is considered reliable, then we ought to be able to assign similar probabilities to other unique events. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 20:46:03 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308204603.84473.qmail@web30007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 'Like' is very San Fernando, isn't it? Do you hear 'like' used in California all the time? --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > So perhaps like is a de-exactifyer, or serves the > > purpose of generalizing, perhaps fuzzifying > > statements. > > Aye. If you check the dictionary definition, that > is exactly what "like" was originally intended for. > "Something like", "approximately like", and that > sort of thing. > > It may also be used to express uncertainty. Like, > if I'm having a hard time nailing down the exact > description, I can spout off something like it and > tack on "like"s to flag that this isn't necessarily > precise. It may be that I happen to hit it spot on, > but if I'm not personally confident that I have, > then "like" flags my own unease. 'Likely' seems to carry the uncertainty, or probability, that can be inherent in 'like.' Examples: (1) "Is it likely to happen?" (2) "What is the likelihood of it happening?" Even if I say "It's extremely likely to happen," there's still a degree of probability implied. And saying "It's 100% likely to happen" seems to misuse 'likely' and we should instead say "It's 100% certain to happen." However, the probably factor inherent in 'likely' does not seem apparent in the case that someone uses 'like' to say: "He looks exactly like the man who robbed me." Here 'like' seems properly used and does not indicate degrees of similarity. 'Similar' seems to inherently denote less than 100% identity and if we substitute it in the sentence "He looks exactly similar the man who robbed me." then 'similar' seems to be misused as was the case with 'likely' when we said "It's 100% likely to happen." So irrespective of the original definition of 'like,' I think it can be used in statements that imply a 100% identity relation and thus 'like' can denote identity relations ranging from 0% to 100%. ~Ian __________________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 04:48:56 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:48:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2005 Invitation Letters Message-ID: <20050307044856.38065.qmail@web41315.mail.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, Best greetings to you all and welcome to TransVision 2005, the largest transhumanist gathering in the world: www.TransHumanismO.org/tv05 I am enclosing here a model letter that I have been using for other people. Please, feel absolutely free to modify it according to your needs. I am using the World Future Society Venezuela as the inviting institution because it is a legally instituted and highly respected local organization, even though the World Transhumanist Association is certainly the main organizer, together with the Venezuelan Transhumanist Association (which is not yet a formal institution and is still relatively unknown). Contact me directly if you have any further questions: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: InvitationLetterTV05.doc Type: application/msword Size: 131072 bytes Desc: InvitationLetterTV05.doc URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 8 21:08:09 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:08:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> References: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308145036.01c8d600@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:09 AM 3/8/2005 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >Damien Broderick writes: > > ... I don't think Bayes can help; one > > would be required to leap outside the system of empirical evidence and > > recurrence. > >I am amazed at the suggestion that there is a potential phenomenon, >one which would cause actual effects in the world where we live, for which >we cannot even in principle ascribe a probability to its existence and >reality. If true, this is a dagger at the heart of rationality itself And so it is claimed. This is the difficult domain where people start using the word "being" with a capital B. Short of a dissertation on Heidegger, Barth and a batch of other dubious, difficult thinkers, the best shorthand, approachable summary I can think of is John Updike's novel ROGER'S VERSION. One callow character attempts to prove the existence of God using a computerised search, while the jaded but learned minister adheres to the mysterious and elevated doctrine of Karl Barth. The reason I cite Updike, in preference to some formal theologian, is because he conveys rather well some sense of the lived impact of such metaphysics. >of whether you see the reason for the difficulty in applying Bayesian >reasoning as simple ignorance of historical facts. That might be a problem in respect of an old-fashioned and primitive theology like Mike Lorrey's simulation-creating God or cosmic hacker, one that might be resolved by a time viewer or clairvoyant. For a sophisticated theology of the post-Barthian kind, it's more that any inductive process, or even an abductive inference from facts, misses the metaphysical gravity and strangeness of the situation. Does this make any sense? Not to me, but these are the sorts of claims that are made by theological sophisticates, and I'm not sure that the extropy list is the place to find them. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 21:37:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308213737.26775.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote:> > Unfortunately, quite a few Godsters have adopted the > trick of deliberately confusing the issue like this. > "Do you believe God exists? Yes? Great! Then let me > tell you all about God. Let's start with the fact > that He requires you to look to my organization for > all moral guidance, and not to think for yourself..." > > A vague God serves their purposes. God is vague. > This may be a coincidence. You need to go on the offensive and tell THEM about God, and that God wants him to give you so much of his paycheck to you a month because you are doing God's work in bringing the singularity to pass. The best memetic defense is a good offense. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 22:14:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Over at "What's New?", > > > Friday, March 4, 2005 > > 1. SCIENCE BUDGET: TAX REVENUES DOWN, WAR COSTS UP, BIG TROUBLE. > You don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know what happens when taxes > are cut during a costly war. And it's happening. Science, with no > champions in this administration, looks to be one of the big losers. > NASA, alone among science agencies, would get an increase under the > Bush request, but the entire 5%, and more, is destined for the > Moon-Mars Initiative, which has no discernible science content. > Meanwhile, Hubble will be dropped in the ocean. Actually, Alan Greenspan knows otherwise. He happens to know when you cut tax rates that tax revinues rise. Always. Nor is there "no discernable science content". Quite the contrary, further research in long term space habitation, testing of solutions to microgravity related physiological and psychological problems, testing long term use of nuclear space technology, research into remote fuel manufacturing technologies, and the granddaddy of them all is all the in person science that can be done by putting geologists, hydrogeologists, microbiologists, and biochemists feet on the ground with a multitude of research equipment. What the author really means is that there won't be a lot of science for the scientists who don't win the competition to become an astronaut.... > > 2. MOON-MARS INITIATIVE: EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF POLITICS. > So what's really behind "The Vision"? Why is the administration > pushing so hard for a science initiative that scientists scorn, and > which won't take place on Bush's watch? Ah, but that's the plan. It > will be up to the next administration, stuck with a huge deficit, to > decide whether to go ahead with a meaningless but staggeringly > expensive program to see if humans can do what robots are already > doing. As one well-informed NASA watcher put it, "Moon-Mars is a > poison pill. It hangs responsibility for ending the humans-in-space > program on the next administration." > > And he hasn't even mentioned the growing Social Security problems as > well. Not a very optimistic outlook in the US. > It might be so bad in four years time that the Dems won't even try to > get elected. If ending the GOVERNMENT humans-in-space program on the next administration is the really the goal of the Bush initiative, so what? Then we have a future to look forward to entirely private space exploration by humans. How great is that? Whoever you quoted there sounds decidedly quite statist in their outlook, as if space can only be 'done' by governments. Gimme a break. There is going to be a space race, against China, for us to get into after the dollar tanks next year thanks to Chinese sabotage, and after the Chinese walk into Taiwan because the US won't be able to afford to fuel its non-nuke naval ships. American morale is going to hit the skids and the Chinese will be strutting their stuff, just the recipe for another big ticket space race. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Mar 8 22:26:04 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason .) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:26:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] $1,000,000 M Prize Message-ID: <200503081626.AA1635909852@longevitymeme.org> Good news on the anti-aging research prize front: http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=newsdetaildisplay&ID=062 May thanks as always to these here who helped make this initiative an ongoing success. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme ----------------- Father of Regenerative Medicine Pushes M Prize Over the $1 Million Mark WASHINGTON, DC For Immediate Release In a move that will push the Methuselah Foundation's M Prize over the $1 million mark, Dr. William Haseltine, biotech pioneer of Human Genome Sciences fame, has joined the Three Hundred, a group of individuals who pledge to donate $1000 per year to the M Prize for the next 25 years. "I am delighted that my decision to join the Three Hundred has pushed the prize fund over its first one million dollars, which I trust is only the first of many millions," said Dr. Haseltine of his decision. "There's nothing to compare with this effort, and it has already contributed significantly to the awareness that regenerative medicine is a near term reality, not an IF." Dr. William Haseltine's stature as the father of regenerative medicine - for his research in the field of biomedical genomics - is matched by his reputation as a creative and successful businessman. His commitment to the prize speaks to both its scientific integrity and its viability as a model for encouraging research into the science of curing aging. "The Methuselah Foundation's M Prize has sparked the public's interest in regenerative biomedicine," said Dr. Haseltine. "Encouraging researchers to compete for the most dramatic advances in the science of slowing, even reversing aging, is a revolutionary new model that is making its mark." The Methuselah Foundation has in a very short time built up a strong base of support, relying largely on donations from individuals, most of them middle class, most of them outside academia. Structured on the dramatically successful Ansari X Prize for manned space flight, the M Prize is actually two prizes: the first, the Longevity Prize, will be awarded to the scientific research group that can most extend lifespan in a single mouse. The second, the Rejuvenation Prize, will be awarded to the scientist who can most sharply retard aging in a mouse, using interventions that are not initiated until middle age. "That's good news for those of us who are already alive," says Dr. Aubrey de Grey, Cambridge biogerontologist and Chairman of the Methuselah Foundation. "If we are to bring about real regenerative therapies that will benefit not just future generations, but those of us who are alive today, we must encourage scientists to work on the problem of aging," said de Grey. "The M Prize is a catalyst for research into this field. The defeat of aging is foreseeable, if we take the steps to make it happen." For more information about The Methuselah Foundation and its M Prize and how to support the Foundation's mission, see www.MPrize.org or contact us via e-mail at media at mprize.org. The Methuselah Foundation currently has donors from at least 14 different countries spanning from Canada and Germany to Japan and Australia. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 22:48:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:48:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] of all there is to worry about In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050308224836.6507.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Ned Late wrote: > > You're worried about religionists with double > > standards who might deny others the benefits of > > transhumanism they will enjoy for themselves? Geesh. > > That is worrying! > > Hey, it's a problem we're likely to have to deal with > sooner or later. But maybe we can benefit from the > problem by using the fear of this to gain public > support. ("Life extension will be invented. Would > you rather the rich develop it just for themselves, or > would you rather it be developed out in the open where > everyone, including you, will benefit from it?") This argument, though, is inherently unsupported by the facts. The rich generally get first crack at a technology, but they never hoard it to themselves. They generally pay for the costs of R&D for everyone else, as well as the infrastructure development costs. Putting the technology development out in the open actually raises the barrier to the poor because it forces the poor to pay their fair share of the R&D and infrastructure that they normally would not have to incur. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From steve365 at btinternet.com Tue Mar 8 22:52:07 2005 From: steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:52:07 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: atheism References: <4fd1b3d75f7f68648f5a26af59d5d23b@mac.com> Message-ID: <007401c52431$74c1e9f0$d7219851@mobile> Now don't bring Bill Clinton into this! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:25 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] re: atheism >A discussion on whether there is a god would profitably start with the > question of what "is" is. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From steve365 at btinternet.com Tue Mar 8 23:04:36 2005 From: steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:04:36 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <20050308011406.66540.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <53241f1f6c33f9aeaf07fc7f5bccabd2@mac.com> Message-ID: <008001c52433$33472600$d7219851@mobile> Leaving aside all the discussion this has started, I think it's worth returning to the original report. Personally I think it's flawed by the way it's set up or rather the terms it uses and so I'd be sceptical about its conclusions. If by "Atheism" you mean self conscious secularism of the Ingersoll or Bradlaugh kind then that certainly is in decline. However there is no evidence for a significant increase in support for either Christianity or some other kind of organised religion. All of the indications are that the predominant position of most Europeans is one of indifference to organised religion and articulated religious beliefs together with a kind of vague belief in some kind of undefined deity or divine principle and a fair amount of new agey notions. For example in the most recent British census about half the respondents put themselves down as "No religion" but most surveys indicate that two thirds of Brits would describe themselves as "believing in God". My point is that while there is a lot of vague sentiment of this kind there's little or no evidence of support for more explicit or worked out religious beliefs, much less any sign of a revival in Christian belief or observance. Also, although the militant aspect of Islam in Europe gets a lot of coverage there's little attention paid to the phenomenon of a loss of belief among many of the second and third generation. I notice that the report did indicate that a revival of religious belief and sensibility would probably take the form of neo-paganism. Personally I'd welcome that - if religious belief is hard wired into us then polytheism makes a lot more sense than monotheism. Also I'd say that traditional polytheistic religions are and were a lot less harmfull than the forms of monotheism that developed in the Middle east between the first and seventh centuries. SD From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Wed Mar 9 00:27:33 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:27:33 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> References: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com> <422B8CAB.2000808@lineone.net> <125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <200503082127.33632.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Scerir Where did you get this Frank Wilczec phrase from?? I have some texts in development that would really become more complete if I read someone who tought that.... Em Segunda 07 Mar?o 2005 04:47, scerir escreveu: > > Everybody knows the world is balanced on > > the back of a giant tortoise. > > > > Unless i am an asantaclausarian.[...] > > > > I don't believe in trees. > > > > My friend is a dyslexic atheist. > > He does not believe there is a dog. > > According to John Duns Scotus (Eriugena) > God is 'nothing'. God is 'nihil per excellentiam' > (many like 'nihil per infinitatem'). > > So ... if you believe in nothing ... > > Btw, I strongly believe that John Duns Scotus was a > proto cosmologist, knowing everything about the quantum > fluctuations of the primordial vacuum/nihil, containing > everything else, at least potentially. As J.L. Borges > pointed out many times, it rests to be seen whether > that nihil/nothing is much better than something :-) > > s. > > "The reason that there is Something > rather than Nothing > is that Nothing is unstable." > - Frank Wilczek > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 01:17:46 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:17:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Alzheimer's & Type 3 Diabetes? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309011746.51083.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4315609.stm Study suggests 'type 3 diabetes' Scientists say they may have discovered a previously unknown form of diabetes, after finding the brain produces insulin as well as the pancreas. Unlike other types of diabetes, the form - dubbed type 3 by the US Brown Medical School team - is not thought to affect blood sugar [...] and appears to be linked with Alzheimer's disease. ************************************************* The abstract: Journal of Alzheimers Disease, 2005 Feb;7(1):63-80. Impaired insulin and insulin-like growth factor expression and signaling mechanisms in Alzheimer's disease - is this type 3 diabetes? "The strikingly reduced CNS expression of genes encoding insulin, IGF-I, and IGF-II, as well as the insulin and IGF-I receptors, suggests that AD may represent a neuro-endocrine disorder that resembles, yet is distinct from diabetes mellitus. Therefore, we propose the term, 'Type 3 Diabetes' to reflect this newly identified pathogenic mechanism of neurodegeneration." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15750215 http://IanGoddard.net David Hume on induction: "When we have lived any time, and have been accustomed to the uniformity of nature, we acquire a general habit, by which we always transfer the known to the unknown, and conceive the latter to resemble the former. By means of this general habitual principle, we regard even one experiment as the foundation of [empirical] reasoning, and expect a similar event with some degree of certainty." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 9 01:19:48 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:19:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> References: <20050308190910.95CCA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <422E4F34.9030200@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > I am amazed at the suggestion that there is a potential phenomenon, > one which would cause actual effects in the world where we live, for which > we cannot even in principle ascribe a probability to its existence and > reality. If true, this is a dagger at the heart of rationality itself, > and calls into question the whole scientific enterprise of studying the > world through observation and reason. > > I'd like to understand this suggestion in more detail. Here's one > theory that I have. Suppose that we had perfect historical knowledge, as > though we had lived through and witnessed all historical events. We knew > the historical Jesus, we watched the life of Moses, we grew up with the > Buddha and travelled with Mohammed. We witnessed the birth of humankind, > either gradually from the animals or stepping fully formed from Eden. > > If we had this detailed knowledge, would you still say that it was not > possible in principle to ascribe a probability to the reality of, say, > the God of the Christian Bible? What I'm getting at is the question > of whether you see the reason for the difficulty in applying Bayesian > reasoning as simple ignorance of historical facts. You both mention the > difficulty of using "evidence", and I'm wondering whether the problem > is primarily the relative paucity of the evidence we have to go on. > > Another theory I can imagine in trying to understand this claim is that > the problem is with the idea of probability as something that applies > only to repeatable events, based on Damien's mention of "recurrence". > When we say that the probability of a flipped coin coming up heads is 50%, > we mean that we can flip the coin many times, and on the average about 50% > of them will be heads. But we can't do this with the universe. We can't > really imagine a whole ensemble of actually existing universes, some > where God exists and some where he doesn't, and then ask what percentage > of them have God existing. That seems to be an absurd cosmology, because > if God created some of the universes he would probably have created all > of them; and contrariwise, if actual universes could exist without God > creating them, then there seems little need to postulate the existence > of God at all. > > If this is the problem with trying to give a probability for God's > existence, I would point out that there are other notions of probability > which don't rely on repeatable events. We create probability estimates > all the time for non-repeatable events. In a sense, every event is > unique, but that doesn't stop us from estimating likelihoods. > > The way I think about probabilities like this is that we estimate the > strength of our belief, and we calibrate it by comparison with beliefs > regarding events which actually are repeatable. What are the chances > that Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2008? I'd say... > one in five. There is a better than even chance that a Democrat will be > elected, after 8 years of Republican fatigue, and Hillary is a prominent > Democrat who might well run. I compare my belief in this one-time event > with how strongly I believe that I will get heads on my next two coin > flips, and judge Hillary's chances as being a little less than that. > > Another way to think of it is, of all the beliefs that I have to > which I would ascribe one-in-five probability, both reproduceable and > non-reproduceable events, I expect about one in five of them to come true. > So even non-reproduceable events can be seen as part of an ensemble where > we can use a frequentist notion of probability to calibrate our beliefs. > > From this perspective, the existence of (some particular conception > of) God, like the existence of fairies, ghosts, mermaids and other > supernatural creatures, can be given a probability estimate despite its > superficially unique nature. No actual recurrence is necessary. > > I'd like to know whether either of these lines of argument shed light > on the question of why we cannot ascribe a probability to the existence > of God. Me too! except that, being less modest than Hal Finney (who is the only modest person I know), I hold that all of Finney's humble questions should be converted into definite statements. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 01:55:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: atheism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309015549.58393.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We WERE talking about God, weren't we? ;) --- Steve Davies wrote: > Now don't bring Bill Clinton into this! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Samantha Atkins" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:25 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] re: atheism > > > >A discussion on whether there is a god would profitably start with > the > > question of what "is" is. > > > > - samantha > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gorkheim at stillpsycho.net Wed Mar 9 02:06:12 2005 From: gorkheim at stillpsycho.net (Gokhan San) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:06:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: <20050308154657.37797.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050308154657.37797.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050309040612.66ebeac4.gorkheim@stillpsycho.net> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) Ned Late wrote: NL> I've been hearing such discussions for 35 years, haven't heard anything new. That's because the discussion evolves by centuries, not years. And also, I think that we don't know what we're talking about. Trivial definitions of God can easily be shown contradictory, but the notion continuously adjusts itself to make the process harder than one can undertake. It's natural actually, considering the mission of "the notion of God" anyway... Usually there isn't any clear definition of the word, and the debate tends to focus on phenomenon that is either controversial (like human emotions, intuition, etc.) or can't be scientifically proven yet. -- Gokhan San ... Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 9 03:26:02 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:26:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation In-Reply-To: <20050308090921.3481B57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050308090921.3481B57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050308214256.030ac8f0@mail.gmu.edu> On 3/8/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >I never responded to Robin's paper, http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf. >This whole area of self-deception and disagreement is one of the most >fascinating and paradoxical topics I have come across. I'm glad you think so; you expressed yourself very well on the topic. >One of the paradoxes of self-deception is that we probably don't really >want to stop. We just think we do. ... My approach is essentially >to play the hand I'm dealt. It may well be that my desire to avoid >self-deception is ultimately fraudulent, but nevertheless this is what >evolution has presented to me. And so I will pursue it. Of course one is likely to look back later and notice that one did not in fact pursue it as vigorously as one had planned. That too is the hand we are dealt. But yes, let us play it; it is the only hand we have. >There is another reason as well. Robin doesn't push it very hard, >but the idea is that in the modern world, with all its complexity, >self-deception is no longer an affordable luxury. Not for society as a whole certainly. But alas, it may be just fine for individuals who take the course of society as a whole as given. Your comments about geopolitics are relevant here. The choice to buy cyronics is one of the few exceptions I know of. >I would like to see a pragmatically focussed "how to" document on >overcoming self-deception. ... Me too! >... It is theoretically possible to carry a device which records all of >our conversations, I wish this theory were better reduced to practice at the moment. >An important first step is of course just to convince ourselves that >the problem is real. I have found that studying the literature on the >topic is helpful. Once you see how widespread and deep the phenomenon >is, it's hard not to suspect that you are doing it too. .. I have been impressed with how important the topic has seemed to many of the greatest thinkers throughout history. Discussion of this goes way way back. "The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." - Socrates (c.469-399 BC) >I imagine it will create quite a stir when it makes it into the popular >press. ... I also have found that the whole complex of papers by Robin >and others about the paradoxes of disagreement are useful as well, >although they are hard to understand and really need a book-length treatment. I am hoping to start such a book soon, as my first big post tenure project. >This brings up another topic, which is dealing with the down side of >abandoning self-deception. It can have negative impacts on people you >are close to as well as on yourself. ... This is at least half of the problem. If we don't find functional substitutes for the benefits self-deception provides, it will remain well entrenched. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 9 03:57:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:57:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] history lessons In-Reply-To: <20050308173952.63509.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503090355.j293tPB27511@tick.javien.com> > > ... if a lot more of the > rank and file - including engineers - wound up being > dotcom millionaires, instead of seeing their fortunes > slip away before they could cash out... Ja, that would be good, but I wouldn't count on it. I have discovered three universal laws of Silicon Valley startups: 1. If one person is positioned to legally end up with all the money, that person will end up with all of the money. 2. If any small group of initial investors can legally end up with all the money to the exclusion of the rank and file techies, that small group will end up with all the money. 3. If no single person or small group is positioned to legally end up with all the money, then that single person or small group will end up with all the money anyway. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 06:19:22 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:19:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book: More Than Human Message-ID: <470a3c52050308221918cf6753@mail.gmail.com> More Than Human is about our growing power to alter our minds, bodies, and lifespans through technology - the power to redefine our species - a power we can choose to fear, or to embrace. More Than Human takes the reader into the labs where this is happening to understand the science of human enhancement. It also steps back to look at the big picture. How will these technologies affect society? What will they do to the economy, to politics, and to human identity? What social policies should we enact to regulate, restrict, or encourage the use of these technologies? Ultimately More Than Human concludes that we should embrace, rather than fear, the power to alter ourselves - that in the hands of millions of individuals and families, it stands to benefit society more than to harm it. http://www.morethanhuman.org/ From scerir at libero.it Wed Mar 9 07:57:35 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:57:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline References: <200503061908.j26J8BB04616@tick.javien.com><422B8CAB.2000808@lineone.net><125501c522e9$f983dca0$79b51b97@administxl09yj> <200503082127.33632.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: <003601c5247d$a8833450$b3b11b97@administxl09yj> From: "Diego Caleiro" > Where did you get this Frank Wilczek phrase from? "Modern theories of the interactions among elementary particles suggest that the universe can exist in different phases that are analogous in a way to the liquid and solid phases of water. In the various phases the properties of matter are different; for example, a certain particle might be massless in one phase but massive in another. The laws of physics are more symmetrical in some phases than they are in others, just as liquid water is more symmetrical than ice, in which the crystal lattice distinguishes certain positions and directions in space.In these theories the most symmetrical phase of the universe turns out to be unstable. One can speculate that the universe began in the most symmetrical state possible and that in such a state no matter existed. The second state had slightly less symmetry, but it was also lower in energy. Eventually a patch of the less symmetrical phase appeared and grew rapidly. The energy released by the transition found form in the creation of particles. This event might be identified with the big bang. The electrical neutrality of the universe of particles would then be guaranteed, because the universe lacking matter had been electrically neutral. The lack of rotation in the universe could be understood as being among the conditions most favorable for the phase change and the subsequent growth, with all that the growth implied, including the cosmic asymmetry between matter and antimatter. The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" would then be that "nothing" is unstable." "The Cosmic Asymmetry Between Matter and Antimatter", by Frank Wilczek ('Scientific American', Dec.1980) Wilczek, 2004 Nobelist, reads e-mails, and very often he also responds. So you could ask him whether he still believes in the above, after 25 years http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/frank_wilczek.html From nedlt at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 13:19:46 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:19:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309131946.45517.qmail@web30007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes; still I've heard the same discussions over & over since I was in Boy Scout camp in 1968, the scouts would sit around the campfire tediously discussing whether God existed. Afterwards they would kill chipmunks with slingshots and put the bloody carcasses in the sleeping bags of scouts who were away temporarily. > That's because the discussion evolves by centuries, > not years. And also, > I think that we don't know what we're talking about. > > Trivial definitions of God can easily be shown > contradictory, but the > notion continuously adjusts itself to make the > process harder than one > can undertake. It's natural actually, considering > the mission of "the > notion of God" anyway... > > Usually there isn't any clear definition of the > word, and the debate > tends to focus on phenomenon that is either > controversial (like human > emotions, intuition, etc.) or can't be > scientifically proven yet. > > -- > > Gokhan San > > ... Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 13:30:34 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:30:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] don't worry unless you're getting paid for it In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309133034.9989.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If you're worrying for some foundation then it's understandable, but don't worry yourself sick pro bono. I used to worry about what to eat, and got far sicker from worrying about diet than anything else: "Let's see, should I eat this fat-free cream cheese that tastes like a mouse put into a blender, or perhaps the alfalfa sprouts which taste like something from the bottom of a rabbit's cage?". > > Hey, it's a problem we're likely to have to deal > with > > sooner or later. But maybe we can benefit from > the > > problem by using the fear of this to gain public > > support. ("Life extension will be invented. > Would > > you rather the rich develop it just for > themselves, or > > would you rather it be developed out in the open > where > > everyone, including you, will benefit from it?") > > This argument, though, is inherently unsupported by > the facts. The rich > generally get first crack at a technology, but they > never hoard it to > themselves. They generally pay for the costs of R&D > for everyone else, > as well as the infrastructure development costs. > > Putting the technology development out in the open > actually raises the > barrier to the poor because it forces the poor to > pay their fair share > of the R&D and infrastructure that they normally > would not have to > incur. > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of > human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of > slaves." > -William Pitt > (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From nedlt at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 14:01:54 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:01:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309140154.51460.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If we knew what we were talking about we would be God ourselves, wouldn't we? >And also I think that we don't know what we're talking > about. > Gokhan San __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 14:33:32 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:33:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama Message-ID: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama. The article is not overly friendly to transhumanism, but is contributing to spreading the memes. Last sentence: "when someone will knock to your door to sell mind uploading, don't say that we did not warn you". http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/belli-e-immortali-ecco-chi-vuole-creare-il-superuomo/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 15:08:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:08:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309150824.10182.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> That obviously dovetails with the fact we won't know the answer to the Simulation Argument until we ourselves create universe simulations, and become gods. --- Ned Late wrote: > If we knew what we were talking about we would be God > ourselves, wouldn't we? > > >And also I think that we don't know what we're > talking > > about. > > Gokhan San > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 9 15:57:38 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:57:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: <20050309131946.45517.qmail@web30007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503091556.j29FtsB19603@tick.javien.com> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one > inch > > Yes; still I've heard the same discussions over & over > since I was in Boy Scout camp in 1968, the scouts > would sit around the campfire tediously discussing > whether God existed. Afterwards they would kill > chipmunks with slingshots and put the bloody carcasses > in the sleeping bags of scouts who were away > temporarily... Ned Late Ned I was at the camp at about that time. The interesting question is if anything has changed. Do the scouts still discuss this? Do they still pull all the same cruel gags? I am told that they are trying to get schoolboys to stop beating each other. It isn't so much they care about a few black eyes and broken teeth but rather the ever present threat of lawsuits. I figure if they manage to pull that off, then our society has fundamentally changed. Anyone here have kids in elementary school? Do they still have fistfights on a nearly daily basis? spike From panateros at mad.scientist.com Wed Mar 9 16:27:11 2005 From: panateros at mad.scientist.com (W. L.) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:27:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cancellation Message-ID: <20050309162714.A58476EEF6@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com> Yes please, as I've lready requested to be removed from your chat list, please do so ASAP. Thanks -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm From nedlt at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 16:57:02 2005 From: nedlt at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:57:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309165702.16447.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As a matter of fact they still do. And intellectuals still debate the existence of God in ways little changed since 1968, or 1868, or 1768, or 1668. >The interesting question is if anything has changed. Do the scouts still >discuss this? Do they still pull all the same cruel gags? --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 9 17:08:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:33 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: >Last sentence: "when someone will >knock to your door to sell mind uploading, don't say that we did not >warn you". What's their argument against it? Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 18:17:33 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:17:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050308024450.B7FAC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e05030910175173a4a1@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:44:50 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > But is this right? Is the only difference between atheists and agnostics > the numerical estiamte they would give for the probability that God > exists? Or is there something else about this difference, something > qualitative which Bayesian probability reasoning doesn't capture? Speaking for this agnostic only: Not only do I not know the probability that God exists (even if one picks some specific definition thereof), I don't even know whether it _has_ a probability; I'm not aware of any reason to believe the concept of probability meaningfully applies here. - Russell From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 18:22:00 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:22:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> No rational argument against, more like a subliminal appeal to reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you know. Following Fukuyama, the author agrees that we have to be taken seriously, and that maybe "our" future will even happen. One step at a time, we are already moving from "it is impossible" to "it is maybe possible but it is not a good idea". At some point we will reach "I always thought it was a good idea" (Clarke I think). G. On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:16 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:33 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: > > >Last sentence: "when someone will > >knock to your door to sell mind uploading, don't say that we did not > >warn you". > > What's their argument against it? > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu Wed Mar 9 18:26:01 2005 From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:26:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: USA - No Science, No space travel, No money Message-ID: Programs are being shut down and cut back all over NASA, to save the money needed for the imaginary mission to Mars. My guess is that the motive is to shut down NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" to stop the flow of discoveries embarrassing to the administration's contributors in the carbon-based enery business. Probably won't work, given the developing ecological catastrophe in the artic and other potential climate problems. Bill > 2. MOON-MARS INITIATIVE: EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF POLITICS. > So what's really behind "The Vision"? Why is the administration > pushing so hard for a science initiative that scientists scorn, and > which won't take place on Bush's watch? Ah, but that's the plan. It > will be up to the next administration, stuck with a huge deficit, to > decide whether to go ahead with a meaningless but staggeringly > expensive program to see if humans can do what robots are already > doing. As one well-informed NASA watcher put it, "Moon-Mars is a > poison pill. It hangs responsibility for ending the humans-in-space > program on the next administration." From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed Mar 9 18:34:28 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:34:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> Greetings, Crew Exploration Vehicle and Prometheus? I heard flight testing for 2008 and 2010 respectively. NASA is ordering reactors from the US Navy. If getting humans to the orbit of Jupiter in 2 mos. travel time isn't doing science, I don't know what is. Chin up. Bret K On Mar 8, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- BillK wrote: >> Over at "What's New?", >> >> >> Friday, March 4, 2005 >> >> 1. SCIENCE BUDGET: TAX REVENUES DOWN, WAR COSTS UP, BIG TROUBLE. >> You don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know what happens when taxes >> are cut during a costly war. And it's happening. Science, with no >> champions in this administration, looks to be one of the big losers. >> NASA, alone among science agencies, would get an increase under the >> Bush request, but the entire 5%, and more, is destined for the >> Moon-Mars Initiative, which has no discernible science content. >> Meanwhile, Hubble will be dropped in the ocean. > > Actually, Alan Greenspan knows otherwise. He happens to know when you > cut tax rates that tax revinues rise. Always. > > Nor is there "no discernable science content". Quite the contrary, > further research in long term space habitation, testing of solutions to > microgravity related physiological and psychological problems, testing > long term use of nuclear space technology, research into remote fuel > manufacturing technologies, and the granddaddy of them all is all the > in person science that can be done by putting geologists, > hydrogeologists, microbiologists, and biochemists feet on the ground > with a multitude of research equipment. > > What the author really means is that there won't be a lot of science > for the scientists who don't win the competition to become an > astronaut.... > >> >> 2. MOON-MARS INITIATIVE: EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF POLITICS. >> So what's really behind "The Vision"? Why is the administration >> pushing so hard for a science initiative that scientists scorn, and >> which won't take place on Bush's watch? Ah, but that's the plan. It >> will be up to the next administration, stuck with a huge deficit, to >> decide whether to go ahead with a meaningless but staggeringly >> expensive program to see if humans can do what robots are already >> doing. As one well-informed NASA watcher put it, "Moon-Mars is a >> poison pill. It hangs responsibility for ending the humans-in-space >> program on the next administration." >> >> And he hasn't even mentioned the growing Social Security problems as >> well. Not a very optimistic outlook in the US. >> It might be so bad in four years time that the Dems won't even try to >> get elected. > > If ending the GOVERNMENT humans-in-space program on the next > administration is the really the goal of the Bush initiative, so what? > Then we have a future to look forward to entirely private space > exploration by humans. How great is that? Whoever you quoted there > sounds decidedly quite statist in their outlook, as if space can only > be 'done' by governments. Gimme a break. > > There is going to be a space race, against China, for us to get into > after the dollar tanks next year thanks to Chinese sabotage, and after > the Chinese walk into Taiwan because the US won't be able to afford to > fuel its non-nuke naval ships. American morale is going to hit the > skids and the Chinese will be strutting their stuff, just the recipe > for another big ticket space race. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From scerir at libero.it Wed Mar 9 18:42:10 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:42:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leadingItalian weekly magazine Panorama References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000a01c524d7$b523fb90$bbc11b97@administxl09yj> > What's their argument against it? There is no specific argument against "uploading". There is no specific argument against ">H". There is a fear, in the Italian establishment, I mean the political establishment, that a new movement, techno-phile, death-phobic, trans-national too, may have some audience, some political power. Remember the Green Party, in Germany, many many years ago? s. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 19:03:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:03:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309190352.60021.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Better yet, when people start asking of the opposition: "are you offering a better deal?" we will know we are making real headway. --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > No rational argument against, more like a subliminal appeal to > reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you > know. Following Fukuyama, the author agrees that we have to be taken > seriously, and that maybe "our" future will even happen. > One step at a time, we are already moving from "it is impossible" to > "it is maybe possible but it is not a good idea". At some point we > will reach "I always thought it was a good idea" (Clarke I think). > G. > > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:16 -0600, Damien Broderick > wrote: > > At 03:33 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: > > > > >Last sentence: "when someone will > > >knock to your door to sell mind uploading, don't say that we did > not > > >warn you". > > > > What's their argument against it? > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 9 19:10:27 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:10:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:22 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: >No rational argument against [uploading], more like a subliminal appeal to >reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you >know. Okay, but what I'm wondering is *what* they mean by `uploading the mind', and why they disapprove? Is the `Yuck' factor--`Oh, how creepy, a brain in a vat!' Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer--`That's not Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* Kenny!' (I'd go along with that one, usually.) Or `It's unnatural! Stop it!' If the latter, why is this any different from their deciding that homosexuality, or education for women, or eating cabbages, is disgusting, unnatural, and awful even to think about? Damien Broderick From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Mar 9 21:38:51 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:38:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leadingItalian weekly magazine Panorama References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com><470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <009401c524f0$690344a0$1db71218@Nano> Is this article in English somewhere? G` ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leadingItalian weekly magazine Panorama At 07:22 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: >No rational argument against [uploading], more like a subliminal appeal to >reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you >know. Okay, but what I'm wondering is *what* they mean by `uploading the mind', and why they disapprove? Is the `Yuck' factor--`Oh, how creepy, a brain in a vat!' Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer--`That's not Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* Kenny!' (I'd go along with that one, usually.) Or `It's unnatural! Stop it!' If the latter, why is this any different from their deciding that homosexuality, or education for women, or eating cabbages, is disgusting, unnatural, and awful even to think about? Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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 puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Wed Mar 9 22:25:59 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:25:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Damien Broderick wrote: >Okay, but what I'm wondering is *what* they mean by `uploading the mind', >and why they disapprove? Is the `Yuck' factor--`Oh, how creepy, a brain in >a vat!' Yes. Please note that Panorama (="landscape") is a popular weekly magazine, not really going deep into subjects. Uploading is mentioned very quickly at the end of the article. Quick translation: ...[transhumanists] seek to achieve "superintelligence". That would be done also thanks to "uploading", which is "the transfer of a mind from a biological brain to a computer". An uploaded person, transhumanist documents say, could live in a virtual reality. So, it's like a Philip Dick story. The future view is one of cyborgs and robot men. We can ignore the crys of Fukuyama, considering it science fiction. But when someone will knock to your door to sell mind uploading, don't say that we did not warn you. The general tone of the article is quite on the negative. It starts quoting a lot Fukuyama, then some replies from J. Hughes, N. Bostrom and some not better identified "documents". The focus is entirely on physical augmentation - living longer or forever, being beautiful, being superintelligent. Alfio From gorkheim at stillpsycho.net Wed Mar 9 22:37:23 2005 From: gorkheim at stillpsycho.net (Gokhan San) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] God vs. no-God discussions advance not one inch In-Reply-To: <20050309165702.16447.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050309165702.16447.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050310003723.2c461cb5.gorkheim@stillpsycho.net> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:57:02 -0800 (PST) Ned Late wrote: NL> As a matter of fact they still do. And intellectuals still debate the existence of God in ways little changed since 1968, or 1868, or 1768, or 1668. NL> I disagree in some aspects, and agree in some others... Through these eras, understanding of Man evolved first. Then God evolved to a being that is qualified to dominate that Man. And finally in the last century, our methods of thinking followed them, including the concept of "proof". "God" is minimized to method of personal relief from an undeniable fact of nature, as Man highly understood what "fact" is. Despite the incompleteness theorem, Tractatus or whatever, we still have formal methods of thinking which are much more extensive than previous eras. Of course, this doesn't mean that discussing God isn't fun anymore, but we now know that we are not doing it seriously... I think that the essence of serious discussions about the existence of God is actually efforts to communicate methods of thinking - which is a challenge. NL> If we knew what we were talking about we would be God NL> ourselves, wouldn't we? Not strictly, and, probably not. Also, one can still put a definition that validates the existence of God. But, what i was trying to stress was that the definitions in front of us are either unnecessary (like saying "God is the Universe"), invalid, or invalides the proposition. -- Gokhan San ... Hoping to goodness is not theologically sound. - Peanuts -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Wed Mar 9 22:37:02 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:37:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leadingItalian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <009401c524f0$690344a0$1db71218@Nano> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com><470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <009401c524f0$690344a0$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: Nope. This Google translation's link is almost readable: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panorama.it%2Fscienze%2Fscoperte%2Farticolo%2Fix1-A020001029603&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools Don't know why google is obsessed with women. "morte" (=death) is translated as "dead women", while "Casa Bianca" (=White House) is translated as "white woman" :-) Alfio On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Gina Miller wrote: >Is this article in English somewhere? > >G` > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leadingItalian weekly magazine Panorama > > > At 07:22 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: > > >No rational argument against [uploading], more like a subliminal appeal to > >reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you > >know. > > Okay, but what I'm wondering is *what* they mean by `uploading the mind', > and why they disapprove? Is the `Yuck' factor--`Oh, how creepy, a brain in > a vat!' > > Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer--`That's not > Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* Kenny!' (I'd go > along with that one, usually.) > > Or `It's unnatural! Stop it!' > > If the latter, why is this any different from their deciding that > homosexuality, or education for women, or eating cabbages, is disgusting, > unnatural, and awful even to think about? > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 22:42:33 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:42:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:34:28 -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > Crew Exploration Vehicle and Prometheus? > I heard flight testing for 2008 and 2010 respectively. > > NASA is ordering reactors from the US Navy. > > If getting humans to the orbit of Jupiter in 2 mos. travel time isn't > doing science, I don't know what is. > Getting humans to Jupiter is engineering, not science. And they don't 'plan' on even getting humans back to the Moon until 2015-2020. The American Physical Society is the world's largest professional body of physicists, representing over 45,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally. For more information: In Nov 2004 the APS issued a report on how they expected the Moon-Mars project could seriously damage scientific research. The full pdf file can be linked to from their home page. The Press release summary is:- NASA'S MOON-MARS INITIATIVE JEOPARDIZES IMPORTANT SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY REPORT Washington, DC - November 22, 2004 - Shifting NASA priorities toward risky, expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most promising space science efforts, states the American Physical Society (APS) Special Committee on NASA Funding for Astrophysics, in a report released today. The committee points out that the total cost of NASA's ill-defined Moon-Mars initiative is unknown as yet, but is likely to be a substantial drain on NASA resources. As currently envisioned, the initiative will rely on human astronauts who will establish a base on the moon and subsequently travel to Mars. The program is in contrast to recent, highly successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the Mars Rover, and Explorer missions, which have revolutionized our understanding of the universe while relying on comparatively cheap, unmanned and robotic instruments. It is likely that such programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of much more expensive and dangerous manned space exploration, according to the committee. The following findings are among the most important points in the APS report: * The recent spectacular successes of NASA's space telescopes and the Mars Rovers amply demonstrate that we can use robotic means to address many important scientific questions. This is the toned-down official view of the APS. But you can get an awful lot of telescopes and robotic missions for the money that is going to be thrown at the man in space money pit. BillK From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 9 23:40:30 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:40:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050226165910.02ba6b08@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050104203055.02cf09a0@mail.gmu.edu> <41DB6CF1.3030405@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050107062906.01ec9130@mail.gmu.edu> <41DEDDB7.3060503@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050107160031.02e08ec0@mail.gmu.edu> <41DF380C.1090109@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050108142817.02ec5150@mail.gmu.edu> <41E48813.8020504@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050115163938.02df5208@mail.gmu.edu> <41EA12E9.2090605@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050116110929.02ef4de0@mail.gmu.edu> <421A6E4E.4010308@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050226165910.02ba6b08@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <422F896E.7030204@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > You don't seem very interested in the formal analysis here. You know, > math, theorems and all that. You did not ask. Helpful references: Robin's paper "Are Disagreements Honest?" http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/deceive.pdf which builds on Aumann's Agreement Theorem: http://www.princeton.edu/~bayesway/Dick.tex.pdf (not a good intro for the bewildered, maybe someone can find a better intro) > The whole point of such analysis is to > identify which assumptions matter for what conclusions. And as far as I > can tell your only argument which gets at the heart of the relevant > assumptions is your claim that those who make relatively more errors > can't see this fact while those who make relatively fewer errors can see > this fact. I don't think this argument (which you do concede for a factual premise? or was our agreement only that people who make relatively fewer errors do so in part because they are relatively better at estimating their probability of error on specific problems?) is what touches on the assumptions. Anyway, let's talk math. First, a couple of general principles that apply to discussions in which someone invokes math: 1) An argument from pure math, if it turns out to be wrong, must have an error in one or more premises or purportedly deductive steps. If the deductive steps are all correct, this is a special kind of rigor which Ben Goertzel gave as his definition of the word "technical"; personally I would label this class of argument "logical", reserving "technical" for hypotheses that sharply concentrate their probability mass. (A la "A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation".) Pure math is a fragile thing. An argument that is pure math except for one nonmathematical step is not pure math. The chain of reasoning in "Are Disagreements Honest?" is not pure math. The modesty argument uses Aumann's Agreement Theorem and AAT's extensions as plugins, but the modesty argument itself is not formal from start to finish. I know of no *formal* extension of Aumann's Agreement Theorem such that its premises are plausibly applicable to humans. I also expect that I know less than a hundredth as much about AAT's extensions as you do. But if I am correct that there is no formal human extension of AAT, you cannot tell me: "If you claim the theorem is wrong, then it is your responsibility to identify which of the deductive steps or empirical premises is wrong." The modesty argument has not yet been formalized to that level. It's still a modesty *argument* not a modesty *theorem*. Might the modesty argument readily formalize to a modesty theorem with a bit more work? Later I will argue that this seems unlikely because the modesty argument has a different character from Aumann's Agreement Theorem. 2) Logical argument has no ability to coerce physics. There's a variety of parables I tell to illustrate this point. Here's one parable: Socrates raised the glass of hemlock to his lips. "Do you suppose," asked one of the onlookers, "that even hemlock will not be enough to kill so wise and good a man?" "No," replied another bystander, a student of philosophy; "all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man; and if a mortal drink hemlock, surely he dies." "Well," said the onlooker, "what if it happens that Socrates *isn't* mortal?" "Nonsense," replied the student, a little sharply; "all men are mortal *by definition*; it is part of what we mean by the word 'man'. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. It is not merely a guess, but a *logical certainty*." "I suppose that's right..." said the onlooker. "Oh, look, Socrates already drank the hemlock while we were talking." "Yes, he should keel over any minute now," said the student. And they waited, and they waited, and they waited... "Socrates appears not to be mortal," said the onlooker. "Then Socrates must not be a man," replied the student. "All men are mortal, Socrates is not mortal, therefore Socrates is not a man. And that is not merely a guess, but a *logical certainty*." The moral of this parable is that if all "humans" are mortal by definition, then I cannot know that Socrates is a "human" until after I have observed that Socrates is mortal. If "humans" are defined as mortal language-users with ten fingers, then it does no good at all - under Aristotle's logic - to observe merely that Socrates speaks excellent Greek and count five of his fingers on each hand. I cannot state that Socrates is a member of the class "human" until I observe all three properties of Socrates - language use, ten fingers, and mortality. Whatever information I put into an Aristotelian definition, I get exactly the same information back out - nothing more. If you want actual cognitive categories instead of mere Aristotelian classes, categories that permit your mind to classify objects into empirical clusters and thereby guess observations you have not yet made, you have to resort to induction, not deduction. Whatever is said to be true "by definition" usually isn't; writing in dictionaries has no ability to coerce physics. You cannot change the writing in a dictionary and get a different outcome. Another parable: Once upon a time there was a court jester who dabbled in logic. The jester gave the king two boxes: The first box inscribed "Either this box contains an angry frog, or the box with a false inscription contains gold, but not both." And the second box inscribed "Either this box contains gold and the box with a false inscription contains an angry frog, or this box contains an angry frog and the box with a true inscription contains gold." And the jester said: "One box contains an angry frog, the other box gold, and one and only one of the inscriptions is true." The king opened the wrong box, and was savaged by an angry frog. "You see," the jester said, "let us hypothesize that the first inscription is the true one. Then suppose the first box contains an angry frog. Then the other box would contain gold and this would contradict the first inscription which we hypothesized to be true. Now suppose the first box contains gold. The other box would contain an angry frog, which again contradicts the first inscription -" The king ordered the jester thrown in the dungeons. A day later, the jester was brought before the king in chains, and shown two boxes. "One box contains a key," said the king, "to unlock your chains, and if you find the key you are free. But the other box contains a dagger for your heart if you fail." And the first box was inscribed: "Either both inscriptions are true or both inscriptions are false." And the second box was inscribed: "This box contains the key." The jester reasoned thusly: "Suppose the first inscription is true. Then the second inscription must also be true. Now suppose the first inscription is false. Then again the second inscription must be true. Therefore the second box contains the key, whether the first inscription is true or false." The jester opened the second box and found a dagger. "How?!" cried the jester in horror, as he was dragged away. "It isn't possible!" "It is quite possible," replied the king. "I merely wrote those inscriptions on two boxes, and then I put the dagger in the second one." In "Are Disagreements Honest?" you say that people should not have one standard in public and another standard in private; you say: "If people mostly disagree because they systematically violate the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for others, then we will say that their disagreements are dishonest." (I would disagree with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* they might be self-deceived. Whether you think self-deception is a better excuse than dishonesty is between yourself and your morality.) In any case, there is a moral and social dimension to the words you use in "Are Disagreements Honest?" You did in fact invoke moral forces to help justify some steps in your chain of reasoning, even if you come back later and say that the steps can stand on their own. Now suppose that I am looking at two boxes, one with gold, and one with an angry frog. I have pondered these two boxes as best I may, and those signs and portents that are attached to boxes; and I believe that the first box contains the gold, with 67% probability. And another person comes before me and says: "I believe that the first box contains an angry frog, with 99.9% probability." Now you may say to me that I should not presume a priori that I am more rational than others; you may say that most people are self-deceived about their relative immunity to self-deception; you may say it would be logically inconsistent with my publicly professed tenets if we agree to disagree; you may say that it wouldn't be fair for me to insist that the other person change his opinion if I'm not willing to change mine. So suppose that the two of us agree to compromise on a 99% probability that the first box contains an angry frog. But this is not just a social compromise; it is an attempted statement about physical reality, determined by the modesty argument. What if the first box, in defiance of our logic and reasonableness, turns out to contain gold instead? Which premises of the modesty argument would turn out to be the flawed ones? Which premises would have failed to reflect underlying, physical, empirical reality? The heart of your argument in "Are Disagreements Honest?" is Aumann's Agreement Theorem and the dozens of extensions that have been found for it. But if Aumann's Agreement Theorem is wrong (goes wrong reliably in the long run, not just failing 1 time out of 100 when the consensus belief is 99% probability) then we can readily compare the premises of AAT against the dynamics of the agents, their updating, their prior knowledge, etc., and track down the mistaken assumption that caused AAT (or the extension of AAT) to fail to match physical reality. In contrast, it seems harder to identify what would have gone wrong, probability-theoretically speaking, if I dutifully follow the modesty argument, humbly update my beliefs until there is no longer any disagreement between myself and the person standing next to me, and the other person is also fair and tries to do the same, and lo and behold our consensus beliefs turn out to be more poorly calibrated than my original guesses. Is this scenario a physical impossibility? Not obviously, though I'm willing to hear you out if you think it is. Let's suppose that the scenario is physically possible and that it occurs; then which of the premises of the modesty argument do you think would have been empirically wrong? Is my sense of fairness factually incorrect? Is the other person's humility factually incorrect? Does the factually mistaken premise lie in our dutiful attempt to avoid agreeing to disagree because we know this implies a logical inconsistency? To me this suggests that the modesty argument is not just *presently* informal, but that it would be harder to formalize than one might wish. There's another important difference between the modesty argument and Aumann's Agreement Theorem. AAT has been excessively generalized; it's easy to generalize and a new generalization is always worth a published paper. You attribute the great number of extensions of AAT to the following underlying reason: "His [Aumann's] results are robust because they are based on the simple idea that when seeking to estimate the truth, you should realize you might be wrong; others may well know things that you do not." I disagree; this is *not* what Aumann's results are based on. Aumann's results are based on the underlying idea that if other entities behave in a way understandable to you, then their observable behaviors are relevant Bayesian evidence to you. This includes the behavior of assigning probabilities according to understandable Bayesian cognition. Suppose that A and B have a common prior probability for proposition X of 10%. A sees a piece of evidence E1 and updates X's probability to 90%; B sees a piece of evidence E2 and updates X's probability to 1%. Then A and B compare notes, exchanging no information except their probability assignments. Aumann's Agreement Theorem easily permits us to construct scenarios in which A and B's consensus probability goes to 0, 1, or any real number between. (Or rather, simple extensions of AAT permit this; the version of AAT I saw is static, allowing only a single question and answer.) Why? Because it may be that A's posterior announcement, "90%", is sufficient to uniquely identify E1 as A's observation, in that no other observed evidence would produce A's statement "90%"; likewise with B and E2. The joint probability for E1&E2 given X (or ~X) does not need to be the product of the probabilities E1|X and E2|X (E1|~X, E2|~X). It might be that E1 and E2 are only ever seen together when X, or only ever seen together when ~X. So A and B are *not* compromising between their previous positions; their consensus probability assignment is *not* a linear weighting of their previous assignments. If you tried to devise an extension of Aumann's Agreement Theorem in which A and B, e.g., deduce each other's likelihoods given their stated posteriors and then combine likelihoods, you would be assuming that A and B always see unrelated evidence - an assumption rather difficult to extend to human domains of argument; no two minds could ever take the same arguments into account. Our individual attempts to cut through to the correct answer do not have the Markov property relative to one another; different rationalists make correlated errors. Under AAT, as A and B exchange information and become mutually aware of knowledge, they concentrate their models into an ever-smaller set of possible worlds. (I dislike possible-worlds semantics for various reasons, but let that aside; the formalizations I've found of AAT are based on possible-worlds semantics. Besides, I rather liked the way that possible-worlds semantics avoids the infinite recursion problem in "common knowledge".) If A and B's models are concentrating their probability densities into ever-smaller volumes, why, they must be learning something - they're reducing entropy, one might say, though only metaphorically. Now *contrast* this with the modesty argument, as its terms of human intercourse are usually presented. I believe that the moon is made of green cheese with 80% probability. Fred believes that the moon is made of blueberries with 90% probability. This is all the information that we have of each other; we can exchange naked probability assignments but no other arguments. By the math of AAT, *or* the intuitive terms of the modesty argument, this ought to force agreement. In human terms, presumably I should take into account that I might be wrong and that Fred has also done some thinking about the subject, and compromise my beliefs with Fred's, so that we'll say, oh, hm, that the moon is made of green cheese with 40% probability and blueberries with 45% probability, that sounds about right. Fred chews this over, decides I'm being fair, and nods agreement; Fred updates his verbally stated probability assignments accordingly. Yay! We agreed! It is now theoretically possible that we are being verbally consistent with our professed beliefs about what is rational! But wait! What do Fred and I know about the moon that we didn't know before? If this were AAT, rather than a human conversation, then as Fred and I exchanged probability assignments our actual knowledge of the moon would steadily increase; our models would concentrate into an ever-smaller set of possible worlds. So in this sense the dynamics of the modesty argument are most unlike the dynamics of Aumann's Agreement Theorem, from which the modesty argument seeks to derive its force. AAT drives down entropy (sorta); the modesty argument doesn't. This is a BIG difference. Furthermore, Fred and I can achieve the same mutual triumph of possible consistency - hence, public defensibility if someone tries to criticize us - by agreeing that the moon is equally likely to be made of green cheese or blueberries. (Fred is willing to agree that I shouldn't be penalized for having been more modest about my discrimination capability. Modesty is a virtue and shouldn't be penalized.) As far as any outside observer can tell according to the rules you have laid down for 'modesty', two disputants can publicly satisfy the moral demand of the modesty argument by any number of possible compromises. From _Are Disagreements Honest_: "It is perhaps unsurprising that most people do not always spend the effort required to completely overcome known biases. What may be more surprising is that people do not simply stop disagreeing, as this would seem to take relatively little effort..." I haven't heard of an extension to AAT which (a) proves that 'rational' agents will agree (b) explicitly permits multiple possible compromises to be equally 'rational' as the agent dynamics were defined. From _Are Disagreements Honest?_: > One approach would be to try to never assume that you are more meta-rational than anyone else. But this cannot mean that you should agree with everyone, because you simply cannot do so when other people disagree among themselves. Alternatively, you could adopt a "middle" opinion. There are, however, many ways to define middle, and people can disagree about which middle is best (Barns 1998). Not only are there disagreements on many topics, but there are also disagreements on how to best correct for one?s limited meta-rationality. The AATs I know are constructive; they don't just prove that agents will agree as they acquire common knowledge, they describe *exactly how* agents arrive at agreement. (Including multiple agents.) So that's another sense in which the modesty argument seems unlike a formalizable extension of AAT - the modesty argument doesn't tell us *how* to go about being modest. Again, this is a BIG difference. From _Are Disagreements Honest?_: > For example, people who feel free to criticize consistently complain when they notice someone making a sequence of statements that is inconsistent or incoherent. [...] These patterns of criticism suggest that people uphold rationality standards that prefer logical consistency... As I wrote in an unpublished work of mine: "Is the Way to have beliefs that are consistent among themselves? This is not the Way, though it is often mistaken for the Way by logicians and philosophers. The object of the Way is to achieve a map that reflects the territory. If I survey a city block five times and draw five accurate maps, the maps, being consistent with the same territory, will be consistent with each other. Yet I must still walk through the city block and draw lines on paper that correspond to what I see. If I sit in my living room and draw five maps that are mutually consistent, the maps will bear no relation whatsoever to the territory. Accuracy of belief implies consistency of belief, but consistency does not imply accuracy. Consistency of belief is only a sign of truth, and does not constitute truth in itself." From _ADH?_: > In this paper we consider only truth-seeking at the individual level, and do not attempt a formal definition, in the hope of avoiding the murky philosophical waters of ?justified belief.? I define the "truth" of a probabilistic belief system as its score according to the strictly proper Bayesian scoring criterion I laid down in "Technical Explanation" - a definition of truth which I should probably be attributing to someone else, but I have no idea who. (Incidentally, it seems to me that the notion of the Bayesian score cuts through a lot of gibberish about freedom of priors; the external goodness of a prior is its Bayesian score. A lot of philosophers seem to think that, because there's disagreement where priors come from, they can pick any damn prior they please and none of those darned rationalists will be able to criticize them. But there's actually a very clearly defined criterion for the external goodness of priors, the question is just how to maximize it using internally accessible decisions. That aside...) According to one who follows the way of Bayesianity - a Bayesianitarian, one might say - it is better to have inconsistent beliefs with a high Bayesian score than to have consistent beliefs with a low Bayesian score. Accuracy is prized above consistency. I guess that this situation can never arise given logical omniscience or infinite computing power; but I guess it can legitimately arise under bounded rationality. Maybe you could even detect an *explicit* inconsistency in your beliefs, while simultaneously having no way to reconcile it in a way that you expect to raise your Bayesian score. I'm not sure about that, though. It seems like the scenario would be hard to construct, no matter what bounds you put on the rationalist. I would not be taken aback to see a proof of impossibility - though I would hope the impossibility proof to take the form of a simple constructive algorithm that can be followed by most plausible bounded rationalists in case they discover inconsistency. Even the simplest inconsistency resolution algorithm may take more time/computation than the simpler algorithm "discard one belief at random". And the simplest good resolution algorithm for resolving a human disagreement may take more time than one of the parties discarding their beliefs at random. Would it be more rational to ignore this matter of the Bayesian score, which is to say, ignore the truth, and just agree as swiftly as possible with the other person? No. Would that behavior be more 'consistent' with Aumann's result and extensions? No, because the AATs I know, when applied to any specific conversation, constructively specify a precise, score-maximizing change of beliefs - which a random compromise is not. All you'd be maximizing through rapid compromise is your immunity to social criticism for 'irrationality' in the event of a public disagreement. Aumann's Agreement Theorem and its extensions do not say that rationalists *should* agree. AATs prove that various rational agents *will* agree, not because they *want* to agree, but because that's how the dynamics work out. But that mathematical result doesn't mean that you can become more rational by pursuing agreement. It doesn't mean you can find your Way by trying to imitate this surface quality of AAT agents, that they agree with one another; because that cognitive behavior is itself quite unlike what AAT agents do. You cannot tack an imperative toward agreement onto the Way. The Way is only the Way of cutting through to the correct answer, not the Way of cutting through to the correct answer + not disagreeing with others. If agreement arises from that, fine; if not, it doesn't mean that you can patch the Way by tacking a requirement for agreement onto the Way. The essence of the modesty argument is that we can become more rational by *trying* to agree with one another; but that is not how AAT agents work in their internals. Though my reply doesn't rule out the possibility that the modesty rule might prove pragmatically useful when real human beings try to use it. The modesty argument is important in one respect. I agree that when two humans disagree and have common knowledge of each other's opinion (or a human approximation of common knowledge which does not require logical omniscience), *at least one* human must be doing something wrong. The modesty argument doesn't tell us immediately what is wrong or how to fix it. I have argued that the *behavior* of modesty is not a solution theorem, though it might *pragmatically* help. But the modesty *argument* does tell us that something is wrong. We shouldn't ignore things when they are visibly wrong - even if modesty is not a solution. One possible underlying fact of the matter might be that one person is right and the other person is wrong and that is all there ever was to it. This is not an uncommon state of human affairs. It happens every time a scientific illiterate argues with a scientific literate about natural selection. From my perspective, the scientific literate is doing just fine and doesn't need to change anything. The scientific illiterate, if he ever becomes capable of facing the truth, will end up needing to sacrifice some of his most deeply held beliefs while not receiving any compromise or sacrifice-of-belief in return, not even the smallest consolation prize. That's just the Way things are sometimes. And in AAT also, sometimes when you learn the other's answer you will simply discard your own, while the other changes his probability assignment not a jot. Aumann agents aren't always humble and compromising. But then we come to the part of the problem that pits meta-rationality against self-deception. How does the scientific literate guess that he is in the right, when he, being scientifically literate, is also aware of studies of human overconfidence and of consistent biases toward self-overestimation of relative competence? As far as I know, neither meta-rationality nor self-deception have been *formalized* in a way plausibly applicable to humans even as an approximation. (Or maybe it would be better to say that I have not yet encountered a satisfactory formalism. For who among us has read the entire Literature?) Trying to estimate your own rationality or meta-rationality involves severe theoretical problems because of the invocation of reflectivity, a puzzle that I'm still trying to solve in my own FAI work. My puzzle appears, not as a puzzle of estimating *self*-rationality as such, but the puzzle of why a Bayesian attaches confidence to a purely abstract system that performs Bayesian reasoning, without knowing the specifics of the domain. "Beliefs" and "likelihoods" and "Bayesian justification" and even "subjective probability" are not ontological parts of our universe, which contains only a mist of probability amplitudes. The probability theory I know can only apply to "beliefs" by translating them into ordinary causal signals about the domain, not treating them sympathetically *as beliefs*. Suppose I assign a subjective probability of 40% to some one-time event, and someone else says he assigns a subjective probability of 80% to the same one-time event. This is all I know of him; I don't know the other person's priors, nor what evidence he has seen, nor the likelihood ratio. There is no fundamental mathematical contradiction between two well-calibrated individuals with different evidence assigning different subjective probabilities to the same one-time event. We can still suppose both individuals are calibrated in the long run - when one says "40%" it happens 40% of the time, and when one says "80%" it happens 80% of the time. In this specific case, either the one-time event will happen or it won't. How are two well-calibrated systems to update when they know the other's estimate, assuming they each believe the other to be well-calibrated, but know nothing else about one another? Specifically, they don't know the other's priors, just that those priors are well-calibrated - they can't deduce likelihood of evidence seen by examining the posterior probability. (If they could deduce likelihoods, they could translate beliefs to causal signals by translating: "His prior odds in P were 1:4, and his posterior odds in P are 4:1, so he must have seen evidence about P of likelihood 16:1" to "The fact of his saying aloud '80%' has a likelihood ratio of 16:1 with respect to P/~P, even though I don't know the conditional probabilities.") How are these two minds to integrate the other's subjective probability into their calculations, if they can't convert the other's spoken words into some kind of witnessable causal signal that bears a known evidential relationship to the actual phenomenon? How can Bayesian reasoning take into account other agents' beliefs *as beliefs*, not just as causal phenomena? Maybe if you know the purely abstract fact that the other entity is a Bayesian reasoner (implements a causal process with a certain Bayesian structure), this causes some type of Bayesian evidence to be inferrable from the pure abstract report "70%"? Well, first of all, how do you integrate it? If there's a mathematical solution it ought to be constructive. Second, attaching this kind of *abstract* confidence to the output of a cognitive system runs into formal problems. Consider Lob's Theorem in mathematical logic. Lob's Theorem says that if you can prove that a proof of T implies T, you can prove T; |- ([]T => T) implies |- T. Now the idea of attaching confidence to a Bayesian system seems to me to translate into the idea that if a Bayesian system says 'X', that implies X. I'm still trying to sort out this confused issue to the point where I will run over it in my mind one day and find out that Lob is not actually a problem. Is there an AAT extension that doesn't involve converting the other's beliefs into causal signals with known evidentiary relationships to the specific data? Is there a formal AAT extension that works on the *abstract* knowledge of the other person's probable rationality, without being able to relate specific beliefs to specific states of the world? Suppose that I say 30%, and my friend says 70%, and we know of each other only the pure abstract fact that we are calibrated in the long run; in fact, we don't even know what our argument is about specifically. Should we be able to reach an agreement on our probability assignments even though we have no idea what we're arguing about? How? What's the exact number? That's the problem I run into when I try to formalize a pure abstract belief about another person's 'rationality'. (If this has already been formalized, do please let me know.) Now obviously human beings do make intuitive estimates of each other's rationality. I'm just saying that I don't know how to formalize this in a way free from paradox - humans do a lot of thinking that is useful and powerful but also sloppy and subject to paradox. I think that if this human thinking is reliably useful, then there must be some structure to it that explains the usefulness, a structure that can be extracted and used in an FAI architecture while leaving all the sloppiness and paradox behind. But I have not yet figured out how to build a reflective cognitive system that attaches equal evidential force to (a) its own estimates as they are produced in the system or (b) a mental model of an abstract process that is an accurate copy of itself, plus the abstract knowledge (without knowing the specific evidence) that this Bayesian process arrived at the same specific probability output. I want this condition so the cognitive system is consistent under reflection; it attaches the same force to its own thoughts whether they are processed as thoughts or as causal signals. But how do I prevent a system like that from falling prey to Lob's Theorem when it tries the same thing in mathematical logic? That's something I'm presently pondering. I think there's probably a straightforward solution, I just don't have it yet. Then we come to self-deception. If it were not for self-deception, meta-rationality would be much more straightforward. Grant some kind of cognitive framework for estimating self-rationality and other-rationality. There would be some set of signals standing in a Bayesian relation to the quantities of "rationality", some signals publicly accessible and some privately accessible. Each party would honestly report their self-estimate of rationality (the public signals being privately accessible as well), and this estimate would have no privileged bias. Instead, though, we have self-deceptive phenomena such as biased retrieval of signals favorable to self-rationality, and biased non-retrieval of signals prejudicial to self-rationality. It seems to me that you have sometimes argued that I should foreshorten my chain of reasoning, saying, "But why argue and defend yourself, and give yourself a chance to deceive yourself? Why not just accept the modesty argument? Just stop fighting, dammit!" I am a human, and a human is a system with known biases like selective retrieval of favorable evidence. Each additional step in an inferential chain introduces a new opportunity for the biases to enter. Therefore I should grant greater credence to shorter chains of inference. This again has a certain human plausibility, and it even seems as if it might be formalizable. *But*, trying to foreshorten our chains of inference contradicts the character of ordinary probability theory. E. T. Jaynes (who is dead but not forgotten), in _Probability Theory: The Logic of Science_, Chapter 1, page 1.14, verse 1-23, speaking of a 'robot' programmed to carry out Bayesian reasoning: 1-23b: "The robot always takes into account all of the evidence it has relevant to a question. It does not arbitrarily ignore some of the information, basing its conclusions only on what remains. In other words, the robot is completely non-ideological." Jaynes quoted this dictum when he railed against ad-hoc devices of orthodox statistics that would throw away relevant information. The modesty argument argues that I should foreshorten my chain of reasoning, *not* take into account everything I can retrieve as evidence, and stick to modesty - without using my biased retrieval mechanisms to try and recall evidence regarding my relative competence. Now this has a pragmatic human plausibility, but it's very un-Jaynesian. According to the religion of Bayesianity, what might perhaps be called Bayesianitarianism, I should be trying to kiss the truth, pressing my map as close to the territory as possible, maximizing my Bayesian score by every inch and fraction I can muster, using every bit of evidence I can find. I think that's the point which, from my perspective, cuts closest to the heart of the matter. Biases can be overcome. You can fight bias, and win. You can't do that if you cut short the chain of reasoning at its beginning. I don't spend as much time as I once did thinking about my relative rationality, mostly because I estimate myself as being so way the hell ahead that *relative* rationality is no longer interesting. The problems that worry me are whether I'm rational enough to deal with a given challenge from Nature. But, yes, I try to estimate my rationality in detail, instead of using unchanged my mean estimate for the rationality of an average human. And maybe an average person who tries to do that will fail pathetically. Doesn't mean *I'll* fail, cuz, let's face it, I'm a better-than-average rationalist. There will be costs, if I dare to estimate my own rationality. There will be errors. But I think I can do better by thinking. While you might think that I'm not as good as I think, you probably do think that I'm a more skilled rationalist than an average early 21st-century human, right? According to the foreshortening version of the modesty argument, would I be forbidden to notice even that? Where do I draw the line? If you, Robin Hanson, go about saying that you have no way of knowing that you know more about rationality than a typical undergraduate philosophy student because you *might* be deceiving yourself, then you have argued yourself into believing the patently ridiculous, making your estimate correct. The indexical argument about how you could counterfactually have been born as someone else gets into deep anthropic issues, but I don't think that's really relevant given the arguments I already stated. And now I'd better terminate this letter before it goes over 40K and mailing lists start rejecting it. I think that was most of what I had to say about the math, leaving out the anthropic stuff for lack of space. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 23:47:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:47:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050309234759.66445.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This sounds like the "Robots of Dawn" debate that Azimov predicted. The scientists have been trying to kill off human exploration of space since the '70's for some reason. Their view is too myopic to realize that the average taxpayer wants more than just pretty pictures or a money pit for scientists to achieve nobel prize fame. We want the promise given us long ago, that we would be striding those distant worlds. Science must serve man, not the reverse. --- BillK wrote:> > > This is the toned-down official view of the APS. > But you can get an awful lot of telescopes and robotic missions for > the money that is going to be thrown at the man in space money pit. > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Mar 10 03:07:15 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:07:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ENERGY CONFERENCE 2005 - Boston Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050309205714.02916008@pop-server.austin.rr.com> ENERGY CONFERENCE 2005 - BOSTON renewable energy and green building conference in the nation http://www.be05.org/Pages/Home Dear friends and colleagues, All of us as participating in the upcoming Building Energy 2005 conference will benefit if the conference is the success we expect it will be. As the 30th annual NESEA conference, it is a real milestone. I hope you are as excited to be a part of it as I am. The notable designer Bruce Mao is the keynote speaker, and I am pleased to be joining him as well as other notable speakers at the conference. NESEA conferences attract great people working on interdisciplinary teams and in careers that cross traditional boundaries to bring a sustainable future closer to reality. Your associates and friends should all know about this conference and have the opportunity to benefit from being involved. Please contact them soon. The early registration deadline is just a few days away on February 15th. The web site for easy registration is http://www.be05.org/Pages/Home Thank you, Natasha Vita-More President, Extropy Institute PS: Check out what some other folks have to say about NESEA: "With its conferences and many other activities, NESEA continues to create the kind of supportive learning and sharing environment necessary to foster widespread acceptance of solar energy in the mainstream design and construction community." --Steven Strong, President, Solar Design Associates Inc. "South Mountain Company is built on relationships. Our history is, in fact, the people we have learned from. NESEA has been an uncommonly consistent source of people who have brought us inspiration, friendship, new knowledge, and bread 'n butter too." --John Abrams , President, South Mountain Company ?Our relationship with NESEA has been one of the most fruitful of all those we?ve been engaged with? --Greg Watson, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative "NESEA's activities have been a driving force in creating the electric vehicle market." --Robert Stempel , Chairman, Energy Conversion Devises, Former Chairman, General Motors Corporation, "NESEA is a community of people from whom I am always learning, and who challenge me to think clearly about what I do . NESEA?s function as a networking and referral organization has consistently supported my ability to run a profitable business doing what I love. Many of my most interesting projects have arisen from contacts made at NESEA.". --Marc Rosenbaum, P.E., EnergySmiths "It's become pretty obvious that fossil fuels are of limited use. They're certainly not going to last forever. If you study history, well, we're looking at the future right here." --Robert Lober, Green Mountain Power "My business partners and I met through NESEA. Most of the success I have enjoyed in over twenty years as an owner of green businesses can be traced to ideas, collaborations and knowledge developed though NESEA." --Fred Unger, VAEIS, Inc. - Value Added Energy Information Systems "NESEA has always been a ground-breaking organization that hasn?t been afraid to pursue new directions and to respond to evolving needs as it pursues an agenda of making the world a better place for us all. It has been?and continues to be?a wonderful organization to be involved with." --Alex Wilson, President, BuildingGreen Inc. , Executive Editor, Environmental Building News "This conference is a must-attend event for anyone working to implement positive environmental change through green buildings and renewables. It is an efficient way to get technical and practical knowledge." --Sarah Hammond Creighton, Tufts Climate Initiative "I exhibit at many trade shows but NESEA-organized conferences always deliver the specific audience I need to reach.", --Stephen Thwaites, Thermotech Windows ?A breath of fresh air for the world.? --Geoff Friedman, Smith Vocational School, Northampton, Massachusetts "The NESEA tour epitomizes what the public and private sectors can accomplish when we combine our unparalleled research community with our equally strong entrepreneurial spirit." --Charles Curtis, Deputy Secretary, US Department of Energy "The learning and support I've gotten from NESEA, its members and its leading edge conferences have helped shape my career in many positive ways, throughout many years.? --Paul Lipke, Director of Programs and Training, Sustainable Step New England Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 05:52:31 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:22:31 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: References: <5844e22f050307130366edf686@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05030921524df4f696@mail.gmail.com> Just to confuse further, check out the original meaning of Agnostic (see article at end). Thomas Huxley's position was that you shouldn't claim the truth of something that you can't prove. To take a position of A-gnosis is to disclaim internal, subjective knowledge in all areas, including that of God/The supernatural. The common usage of Agnostic is to mean religious fence sitter, while an Atheist is one who firmly disavows the existence of god. Looking more closely at the terms, Atheist means "without theism", much more like the common usage of Agnostic (ie: don't know, don't care), while Agnostic in its original form makes a very strong claim that you cannot know anything about the existence of the metaphysical, a far more anti-religious stance (ie: can't know, shouldn't care). I personally call myself an atheist and an agnostic. I accept the agnostic principle of Huxley (it's trivially logically true), but am prepared to shave it down a little with Occam's razor, to say that if you can't in principle know anything about a subject (eg: existence or non-existence of a God who cannot be measured), you can properly assume that it doesn't exist (the simplest model), with the appropriate caveats that unanticipated future evidence could change your mind (as *should* be the case in all areas of science/knowledge). I'd say the same about Santa (not the historical figure St Nick); I'm happy to bet the farm on the position that he doesn't exist, but if I was presented with extraordinary evidence of his existence, I'd cheerfully admit I was wrong. So I myself am without theism (thus the minor claim of being an Atheist), but I think Huxley was right about the unknowable nature of the mystical, so am prepared to accept the stronger label of Agnostic, with the caveat of Occams Razor to allow me to say that I'm as certain as anyone can be of anything in the empirical realm that there is no God. (in my definition of God I assume the usage of God to mean something external to the individual; if you want to redefine God as some subset of you and half a dozen of your drinking buddies' group gestalt, and you find that definition useful, please feel free to go nuts! Of course you are wrong about it; I've recently discovered through meditation that God is actually the bacteria in the hole in a tooth on the bottom right of my jaw; I can send photos to prove it exists even. Yeah!) Quick observation on Mike's belief statement; classic position for a guy who likes to argue about stuff but wants to be able to squirm out of criticism; he goes for the least definite position (saying he actually has no position, waiting for more evidence), while waving his hands about how atheism is probably crap (but he's not going to actually stand behind that statement, it's just useful because it's more likely to attract replies than if he said Theism was crap in this forum). He makes vague references to the Drake equation (which proves nothing at all, it's just a framework for thinking about the possibility of alien life without providing any of the constants), and the Simulation Argument, without saying why he finds it meaningful. Just the usual mudslinging and "look at me! look at me!" posting. Very skilled though, I've become quite a fan of Mike over the years; he has got to be the most skilled long-term troll I've ever run across. Anyway, some actual content: ------ The original meaning of Agnostic http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm Written by Kellie Sisson Snider Agnostic definition as was defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven. 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good.' Socrates Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 ? 1895) came up with the word 'agnostic' while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself "an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian?" and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately. His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge- or 'gnosis'- that he "had successfully solved the problem of existence." The essential problem was that Huxley believed the problem was unsolvable. And thus far, despite the existence of famous thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and David Hume who philosophically agreed with him on the matter, there wasn't a name for someone who believed you could never know the source of, nor reason for existence. Huxley got the term "gnostic" from the early Christian Gnostics, whom he said, "professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant", and created the word 'agnostic', with the prefix giving the new word the opposite meaning of the core word, which means, "knowing". This is close to the meaning that most modern day people associate with the word. It is used to mean a person who is not certain whether God exists or gods exist. It is subtly different from the original meaning in that the term started out to mean that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you're considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely. Throughout his life, during which the word 'agnostic' caught on and became commonly used, Huxley tweaked his term, and adjusted its meaning. He ultimately came to describe agnosticism as a method of thinking, in the way science is a means of thinking, not a belief in and of itself. His ideal was that everyone should be able to give a reason for his faith, or simply not claim it as his own. He said it this way: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable". There was a moral edge to Huxley's agnosticism. "That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." There was an implied call for an honest intellectual decision in terms of belief. To put it into brief, modern words, he might have said, "Don't claim it if you cannot explain it". Huxley understood and accepted that the new term would have different meanings depending on the understanding and intellect of the individual. Furthermore, he knew that the meaning for each individual would change as time goes on, to incorporate new findings in understanding or in science. He said, "That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow." Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the truest definition of the term today: "? it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively define his belief, whether in God or in anything else. Huxley was a gifted speaker, and was known, in the course of his many debates, to quietly state that he knew nothing about the supernatural about which his opponents claimed firm belief, then, somewhat louder, to add, "And neither do you." ----- On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:14:33 -0500, Brian Lee wrote: > Atheism, like most religion/belief sets, has a hard time getting a solid > definition pinned down. As a result you cannot say that anyone who is not a > theist is an atheist. For example, Mike says he's "agnostic", so he is not > an atheist in the sense that he does not believe that no god exists. > > It's been argued around a lot, but believing (realizing, logically deducing, > etc) that there is no valid belief system is still a belief system/ life > philosophy/ religion / whatever. > > BAL > > >From: Jeff Medina > >To: ExI chat list > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline > >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500 > > > >Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack > >of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an > >atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless. > > > > > >On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey > >wrote: > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and > > > > > insults. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you > > > > keep cycling on of late? Is intellectual consistency and integrity a > > > > virtue in your system of values? > > > > > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring > > > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments. > > > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until > > > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation > > > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the > > > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the > > > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the > > > atheist. > > > > > > I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist > > > majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to > > > understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not > > > being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual > > > taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the > > > same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that > > > would go to support private religious education of other people's > > > kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too. > > > > > > Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very > > > vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other > > > policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency? > > > > > > Mike Lorrey > > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > > > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > > > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > > > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Mar 10 08:22:20 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:22:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal Teeth Message-ID: <001701c5254a$4824b520$6600a8c0@brainiac> ... may soon be an option after the (first set of) "permanent" teeth give out: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005030915220002763240&dt=20050309152200&w=RTR&coview= Olga From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 09:19:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:19:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05030921524df4f696@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050310091931.34117.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > > Quick observation on Mike's belief statement; classic position for a > guy who likes to argue about stuff but wants to be able to squirm out > of criticism; he goes for the least definite position (saying he > actually has no position, waiting for more evidence), while waving > his > hands about how atheism is probably crap (but he's not going to > actually stand behind that statement, it's just useful because it's > more likely to attract replies than if he said Theism was crap in > this forum). I do have to contest this, because I have frequently made clear that I see most, if not all, of previously human authored theisms to be as equally crappy as atheism. That nobody HERE was sensistive enough about such a statement to notice I was being an equal opportunity crapper is not my fault, but an illustration of list bias. > He makes vague references to the Drake equation (which proves > nothing at all, it's just a framework for thinking about the > possibility of alien life without providing any of the constants), > and > the Simulation Argument, without saying why he finds it meaningful. > Just the usual mudslinging and "look at me! look at me!" posting. Generally I get docked on this list for being too absolutist and definite about my positions, so your statement here is hardly consistent with the facts. I have demonstrated that the Drake Equation can be expanded to cover an entire universe as a means of estimating the odds of how many posthuman civilizations would exist in the entire life of the average universe. This is an important estimating tool in the Simulation Argument in answering the argument, because it demonstrates that if the average universe is likely to have more than one posthuman civ in its entire history, then the infinite nesting of universes occurs and odds we live in a sim become near certain. For there to be only 50% odds either way, the average posthuman civs per universe must equal 1 AND sim universes must not be able to simulate universes, AND posthuman civs must only run an average of 1 civ sim in their entire history. Why is it important whether we live in a sim or not: if we live in a sim, then there is the possibility of life beyond the sim, and of life beyond the sim for those who were born in the sim. Reconciling this issue I think is of immense importance in reconciling transhumanism with the theist majority, such that we are able to construct a constructive, productive, and peaceful future, and not one riven by transhuman/luddite strife and misery. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 15:32:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:32:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Good application of GMO In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050310153209.21476.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >From the Wikipedia: "In most female mosquitoes, the mouth parts form a long proboscis for piercing the skin of mammals (or in some cases birds or even reptiles and amphibians) to suck their blood. The females require protein for egg development, and since the normal mosquito diet consists of nectar and fruit juice, which has no protein, most must drink blood to get the necessary protein. Males differ from females, with mouth parts not suitable for blood sucking. Oddly females of one genus of mosquitoes, Toxorhynchites, never drinks blood. The larvae of the large mosquito are predatory on other mosquito larvae." It seems to me that genetically engineering other mosquito species to live by a Toxorhynchites lifestyle would go a long way to mitigating mosquito borne diseases around the world, malaria most of all, which is making a resurgence around the world as drug resistance increases as is population. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 16:08:55 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:08:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Do tax cuts really increase tax revenues? Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:14:09 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > Actually, Alan Greenspan knows otherwise. He happens to know when you > cut tax rates that tax revinues rise. Always. Is this common assumption correct in the real world? I know President Bush uses this as a justification for his tax cuts. And this is classic Keynesian supply-side economics. I did a bit of searching and many economists seem to disagree. (But then economists always disagree with each other). :) There is an element of truth in that if tax rates are prohibitively high, then a reduction could be expected to increase tax revenues. But tax rates in the real world are rarely prohibitively high. It is obvious that 90% taxation decreases the incentive to earn. But down at the normal level of around 20-25% changes have little effect. The Cato Institute for example: Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record Also: The Economic Report of the President contradicts President Bush and other top officials. Steve Kangas has an interesting (US) analysis at: Snippets from Steve's report: Summary There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase tax collections. Almost always, tax cuts have seen tax collections fall in the following years; tax hikes have seen tax collections rise in the following years. Which is about what you would expect! Before reviewing the statistics revealing the relationship between tax cuts and tax collections, we should review a few important concepts. First, the economy grows in the long run, as both our population expands and productive technology improves. Our tax base, of course, grows along with the economy, so if the tax rate remains the same -- say, 18 percent -- then absolute tax collections grow as the economy grows. Second, when comparing tax collections across the years, it is important to distinguish between current and constant dollars. Comparing tax collections in current dollars is deceptive, because inflation gives a false picture of tax growth. Economists use constant dollars instead, which account for inflation. Third, tax collections generally fall during a recession, and rise during a recovery. That is because during a recession, there are more unemployed people who do not pay taxes. During a recovery, tax collections increase as more people go to work. Since World War II, we've had only seven years in which the economy shrank, so growth is the norm for both our economy and our tax base. Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded. There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. -------------------- Steve quotes tables of figures and references other reports, so he has some evidence for his point of view. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 18:25:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:25:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Do tax cuts really increase tax revenues? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050310182516.94750.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote:> > There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods > following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect > in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the > fact our economy continued to grow. > > -------------------- > > Steve quotes tables of figures and references other reports, so he > has some evidence for his point of view. The fault in this analysis is that it only looks at one tax at a time. A more detailed analysis should show that a decrease in income taxes (particularly for those who tend to invest excess income) leads to significant growth in capital gains tax revinues. Reductions in capital gains tax rates have also shown increases in capital gains tax revinues along with growth in the economy. Saying, "so what, the economy grew" is really BS, because economies grow because people have more money to spend and invest in productive enterprises and personal consumption, rather than on wasteful government programs that don't increase economic productivity or expand the consumer economy. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From max at maxmore.com Thu Mar 10 19:05:28 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:05:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Good application of GMO In-Reply-To: <20050310153209.21476.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050310153209.21476.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050310130410.05193c88@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I have a paragraph in a recently completed chapter of my book that's relevant to this: -------------------------------------- Talking of dead bodies, if the precautionary principle is used to block genetic modification of insects and bacteria, bodies killed by Chagas? disease will continue to pile up. This disease (accompanied by a resurgence of malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever) has erupted in Latin America, infecting 12 million to 18 million people out of the 90 million in the area. Once infected with the protozoa Trypanosoma cruzi, carried by several species of insects, between 10 and 30 percent of people develop chronic, life-threatening maladies such as heart failure. Already, 50,000 people die from invasion by this organism each year. No vaccine or cure exists for Chagas? disease. That could change if the precautionary principle is kept at bay. Scientists hope to augment conventional public health measures with genetically modified insects and bacteria. They want to use the ?sterile-insect technique? to combat Chagas? disease ? but will governments mouthing the precautionary principle allow the release of these genetically modified bugs? -------------------------------------- Max At 09:32 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: > >From the Wikipedia: >"In most female mosquitoes, the mouth parts form a long proboscis for >piercing the skin of mammals (or in some cases birds or even reptiles >and amphibians) to suck their blood. The females require protein for >egg development, and since the normal mosquito diet consists of nectar >and fruit juice, which has no protein, most must drink blood to get the >necessary protein. Males differ from females, with mouth parts not >suitable for blood sucking. Oddly females of one genus of mosquitoes, >Toxorhynchites, never drinks blood. The larvae of the large mosquito >are predatory on other mosquito larvae." > >It seems to me that genetically engineering other mosquito species to >live by a Toxorhynchites lifestyle would go a long way to mitigating >mosquito borne diseases around the world, malaria most of all, which is >making a resurgence around the world as drug resistance increases as is >population. > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 10 19:48:21 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:48:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Good application of GMO In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050310130410.05193c88@pop-server.austin.rr.co m> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050310153209.21476.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050310130410.05193c88@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050310134527.01d610b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:05 PM 3/10/2005 -0600, Max wrote: >Scientists hope to augment conventional public health measures with >genetically modified insects and bacteria. They want to use the >?sterile-insect technique? to combat Chagas? disease ? but will >governments mouthing the precautionary principle allow the release of >these genetically modified bugs? I'm pretty sure the general attitude will be: better the (limited) devil we know--and besides, it's happening *there* not *here*--than the (perhaps catastrophic and relentlessly, unstoppably advancing) devil we don't. How can anyone assure people that the unknown devil will *not* be catastrophic? Very difficult... Damien Broderick From max at maxmore.com Thu Mar 10 20:43:25 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:43:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimizing decision making Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050310093955.05119170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I have a new article out, looking at how to apply the best available knowledge to each step of the decision making process: Decision Decision: The Essential Steps Between Problem and Solution http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO223052327765 Just click on "View" next to the title to get the PDF of the whole paper. I'd be grateful for feedback on this, especially any questions or suggestions that would help me refine another version of this for a chapter of my book (the chapter preceding the one on the Proactionary Principle). Onward! Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Mar 10 21:53:20 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:53:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> I can agree with all your points. But conversely, it is cheaper for a person to drive a tractor trailer across country than a robot. We need to get that relationship with space. Also - it's not just engineering. There is a great deal science to be done. Look at breakthrough propulsion physics - we're not getting out of this system without something real and new. Has anyone considered that this is an affirmation of some sort? Why the push for manned exploration? Why so many countries saying so? I think the secret is out. In next 50 years, people are going to stop dying. And they know it. Wouldn't that be nice? Bret K On Mar 9, 2005, at 5:42 PM, BillK wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:34:28 -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: >> >> Crew Exploration Vehicle and Prometheus? >> I heard flight testing for 2008 and 2010 respectively. >> >> NASA is ordering reactors from the US Navy. >> >> If getting humans to the orbit of Jupiter in 2 mos. travel time isn't >> doing science, I don't know what is. >> > > > Getting humans to Jupiter is engineering, not science. And they don't > 'plan' on even getting humans back to the Moon until 2015-2020. > > The American Physical Society is the world's largest professional body > of physicists, > representing over 45,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US > and > internationally. For more information: > > In Nov 2004 the APS issued a report on how they expected the Moon-Mars > project could seriously damage scientific research. The full pdf file > can be linked to from their home page. > > The Press release summary is:- > > NASA'S MOON-MARS INITIATIVE JEOPARDIZES IMPORTANT SCIENCE > OPPORTUNITIES, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY REPORT > > Washington, DC - November 22, 2004 - Shifting NASA priorities toward > risky, > expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most > promising space > science efforts, states the American Physical Society (APS) Special > Committee on NASA > Funding for Astrophysics, in a report released today. > > The committee points out that the total cost of NASA's ill-defined > Moon-Mars initiative > is unknown as yet, but is likely to be a substantial drain on NASA > resources. As currently > envisioned, the initiative will rely on human astronauts who will > establish a base on the > moon and subsequently travel to Mars. The program is in contrast to > recent, highly > successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the > Mars Rover, and > Explorer missions, which have revolutionized our understanding of the > universe while > relying on comparatively cheap, unmanned and robotic instruments. It > is likely that such > programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of much > more expensive > and dangerous manned space exploration, according to the committee. > > The following findings are among the most important points in the APS > report: > > * The recent spectacular successes of NASA's space telescopes and the > Mars Rovers > amply demonstrate that we can use robotic means to address many > important scientific > questions. > > > > > This is the toned-down official view of the APS. > But you can get an awful lot of telescopes and robotic missions for > the money that is going to be thrown at the man in space money pit. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 10 22:29:48 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:29:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation Message-ID: <20050310222948.154B057EE8@finney.org> I did a little research into the state of the art on wearable always-on recording devices. I found two types. There are digital audio recorders sold at "spy shops" designed primarily for investigative use. These can record typically about 24 hours of audio and then upload it to a computer. They often have voice-activated recording so they don't waste space on quiet times. However I'm not sure they timestamp the data as far as when they turn on and off. These are quite expensive, apparently made for professional spies. Here is one for $450, http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/midire8mireb.html. Here's another for 160 pounds, http://www.spy-equipment.co.uk/Digital_Recorder/digital_recorder.html. This one is primarily for phone recording, but also has a tie-clasp microphone, $280, http://store.yahoo.com/spytechagency/digmicrechou.html. The other class of devices do the same thing for video. However these are all research prototypes and don't yet exist for commercial sale. The closest commercial device is the Deja View Camwear 100, http://www.mydejaview.com/. This is an always-on video recorder that constantly records the last 30 seconds of video. When something interesting happens you press a button and it saves that data. However it only has a 4 hour battery life and it sounds like it can hold only an hour or so of video. It's $380 at Amazon. Research projects include HP Labs' Casual Photography, http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2004/jan-mar/casualcapture.html. This is more oriented towards taking still images but does capture video. Microsoft Research has something called the SenseCam, http://research.microsoft.com/research/hwsystems/. This is tied into their MyLifeBits project, http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mediapresence/MyLifeBits.aspx , which has gotten quite a bit of publicity. It is designed to let you store everything about your life, digitally. There was also a grad student's project in the MIT Media Lab's wearable computing lab. It is described in a Scientific American Frontiers video at http://www.pbs.org/saf/1309/video/watchonline.htm. It is the one called Never Forget A Face, and it's a little over halfway through the 15-minute video. You can also read the entire transcript in the pop-up menu on the web page. Scroll about 60% of the way down until Alan Alda says, "So far, we've been looking at wearable computers designed to help you with what you're doing. Brian Clarkson is wearing a computer that keeps its eyes on what he's already done." Clarkson spent 100 days wearing a backpack-based recorder he designed, with a camera on his chest and on his back. I'm guessing that the size of the backpack was largely due to battery issues. Interestingly, he met his girlfriend during that time period, and he talks about how he can go back and review their first meeting, see how he acted and what their first reactions were to each other. He plays it back for Alda in the segment, and they notice how the girl seems to be checking out some other guys in the restaurant when they go out to eat. There was a paper that came out last year by some Princeton students, Privacy Management for Portable Recording Devices, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/papers/wpes2004.pdf. It describes a cryptographic technique by which people could collectively give assent to be recorded and have some control over how the data would be recovered and viewed. I remember when this came out I thought there were some problems with their security model and crypto, though. Overall I think Brian Clarkson's MIT project was the most impressive of these, in terms of actually trying to live life with an always-on recorder and getting a feeling for what the issues are. Unfortunately it was apparently never written up as a formal paper. But hopefully in a few years his backpack-sized device will be something that everyone can wear. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 22:25:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050310222546.91196.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > I can agree with all your points. But conversely, it is cheaper for a > person to drive a tractor trailer across country than a robot. We > need to get that relationship with space. > > Also - it's not just engineering. There is a great deal science to be > done. Look at breakthrough propulsion physics - we're not getting out > of this system without something real and new. Well, on this note, some long time list members here may remember my long time affection for innovative 'propellantless' propulsion concepts. Well, it may be time for me to say "I told you so" (especially you Damien) as NASA is currently turning one of those concepts, which it earned a patent on, into a workable electric propulsion system needing no propellant (and it's not a sail). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 10 23:25:44 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:25:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: <20050310222546.91196.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050310222546.91196.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050310172324.01dd3e88@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:25 PM 3/10/2005 -0800, Mike wrote: > it may be time for me to say "I told you so" >(especially you Damien) as NASA is currently turning one of those >concepts, which it earned a patent on, into a workable electric >propulsion system needing no propellant (and it's not a sail). I only recall criticizing `Dean drive'-type speculations. What's the NASA patent about? It must be very frustrating that they patented it if you were the one who thought of it. Damien Broderick From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 11 00:38:35 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:38:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Distribution of wealth Message-ID: <005201c525d2$a95cd380$0100a8c0@kevin> An interesting article where the distribution of wealth is the same as the spread of atom energy in a gas. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7107 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Fri Mar 11 00:53:14 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:53:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> I have enjoyed the debate between Eliezer and Robin (which I think took place mostly on the wta-talk list), although I haven't been able to follow it as closely as I'd like. These long messages take a lot of time to get through. I wanted to make one comment on Eliezer's posting: > The modesty argument is important in one respect. I agree that when two > humans disagree and have common knowledge of each other's opinion (or a > human approximation of common knowledge which does not require logical > omniscience), *at least one* human must be doing something wrong. I'd put it a little differently. There's nothing necessarily wrong when two humans disagree and have common knowledge. You have to add one more ingredient. The people have to both be rational and honest, and, most importantly, they each have to believe that the other is rational and honest (and, I think, this has to be common knowledge). I would imagine that many cases of disagreement can be explained by each party privately concluding that the other is being irrational. They're just too polite to say so. When they say, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, they mean, you're being unreasonable and I don't want to argue with you any more because there's no point. But actually, we can sharpen Aumann's result. It doesn't require assumptions about two people. It is enough for one person to satisfy the conditions. Aumann basically says (neglecting the part about priors) that it is impossible for a rational person to believe that he has a persistent disagreement with another person whom he believes to be rational, where the other person also believes the first person is rational. Note that this says nothing about what the second person actually believes. It all has to do with what the first person believes about the world. It says that a certain combination of beliefs is impossible for a rational person to hold. This perspective frees us from the competitive aspect of meta-rationality, the "mine is bigger than yours" dynamic that sometimes arises in discussions of this issue. It's not a matter of one person being wrong in a disagreement, or one person being more meta-rational than another. Aumann is giving us a non-obvious piece of logic which we can follow in our own thought processes, independent of what anyone else does. I can't fool myself into believing that I can agree to disagree with another person, while respecting him as a rational and honest person who offers the same respect towards me. For me to hold this set of beliefs is a logical contradiction. That's the lesson I draw from this set of results. In a way, then, Aumann can be read as giving you license to feel contempt for others. He's saying that it is mental hypocrisy (if that means anything!) to try to adopt that generous and polite stance I just described. When we try to convince ourselves that we really believe this noble fiction (that the other person is rational and honest), we are lying to ourselves. It's another case of self-deception. The truth is, we don't respect the other person as rational and honest. If we did, we wouldn't be ignoring his beliefs! We think he's a fool or a knave. Probably both. We're not so damn nice as we try to pretend to be, as we try to convince ourselves we are. Hal From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 11 01:53:38 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:53:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> References: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <4230FA22.6030607@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > >>The modesty argument is important in one respect. I agree that when two >>humans disagree and have common knowledge of each other's opinion (or a >>human approximation of common knowledge which does not require logical >>omniscience), *at least one* human must be doing something wrong. > > I'd put it a little differently. There's nothing necessarily wrong > when two humans disagree and have common knowledge. You have to add one > more ingredient. The people have to both be rational and honest, and, > most importantly, they each have to believe that the other is rational > and honest (and, I think, this has to be common knowledge). Suppose that one party is not rational. I would call this, "doing something wrong". We presume that both parties are honest because otherwise they are not "disagreeing" in the sense that I mean it, i.e., assigning different truth values. Suppose that one party is rational and the other party fails to realize this. Then the second party has failed to arrive to the correct answer on a question of fact. Again, "something wrong". If they just haven't figured it out yet, then they aren't necessarily doing something wrong. They may be doing something right that takes time to accumulate evidence and computationally process it. If they take too long or demand too much evidence, the beisutsukai sensei shouts "Too slow!" and whacks them on the head with a stick. Speed matters in any martial art, including rationality, the martial art of thinking. > I would imagine that many cases of disagreement can be explained by > each party privately concluding that the other is being irrational. > They're just too polite to say so. When they say, I guess we'll have > to agree to disagree, they mean, you're being unreasonable and I don't > want to argue with you any more because there's no point. > > But actually, we can sharpen Aumann's result. It doesn't require > assumptions about two people. It is enough for one person to satisfy > the conditions. > > Aumann basically says (neglecting the part about priors) that it is > impossible for a rational person to believe that he has a persistent > disagreement with another person whom he believes to be rational, where > the other person also believes the first person is rational. I am not sure this is correct. Maybe there is an extension of Aumann that says this, but it's not in Aumann's original result, which presumes rationality (i.e., irrationality is not considered as an option). Aumann-ish results, as far as I can see, tend to be about Bayesians treating other Bayesian's opinions as bearing a specific evidential relationship to the question at hand - the signals wouldn't have to be beliefs; they could as easily be flags that waved with a certain likelihood ratio. In fact, what else is a Bayesian's belief, but a kind of cognitive flag that waves at only the right time? > Aumann is giving us a non-obvious piece of logic which we can follow in > our own thought processes, independent of what anyone else does. I can't > fool myself into believing that I can agree to disagree with another > person, while respecting him as a rational and honest person who offers > the same respect towards me. For me to hold this set of beliefs is a > logical contradiction. That's the lesson I draw from this set of results. I agree. But I regard rationality as quantitative, not qualitative. I can respect an above-average rationalist while still occasionally wanting to shout "Too slow!" and whack him with a stick. > In a way, then, Aumann can be read as giving you license to feel > contempt for others. He's saying that it is mental hypocrisy (if that > means anything!) to try to adopt that generous and polite stance I just > described. When we try to convince ourselves that we really believe > this noble fiction (that the other person is rational and honest), we are > lying to ourselves. It's another case of self-deception. The truth is, > we don't respect the other person as rational and honest. If we did, > we wouldn't be ignoring his beliefs! We think he's a fool or a knave. > Probably both. We're not so damn nice as we try to pretend to be, > as we try to convince ourselves we are. Or you think that he's good and you're better. That is also a self-consistent position to hold. And if that is your position, you'd best not hide it from yourself - though based on my experience so far, I can't claim there will be any benefits forthcoming from public honesty about it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 01:54:45 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:54:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> References: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e05031017545fa332c5@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:53:14 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > In a way, then, Aumann can be read as giving you license to feel > contempt for others. He's saying that it is mental hypocrisy (if that > means anything!) to try to adopt that generous and polite stance I just > described. When we try to convince ourselves that we really believe > this noble fiction (that the other person is rational and honest), we are > lying to ourselves. For reference, anytime I say something to the effect of "I respect that you're not being irrational, but I still disagree with you", or something that implies such, I am not lying to either myself or the person I'm talking to - I'm simply holding the position that Aumann (if he's saying what you represent him as saying) is full of shit. - Russell From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 11 05:24:46 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:24:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Good application of GMO In-Reply-To: <20050310153209.21476.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503110523.j2B5MxE00624@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: [extropy-chat] Good application of GMO > > >From the Wikipedia: > ... The larvae of the large mosquito > are predatory on other mosquito larvae." > > It seems to me that genetically engineering other mosquito species to > live by a Toxorhynchites lifestyle would go a long way to mitigating > mosquito borne diseases around the world, malaria most of all, which is > making a resurgence around the world as drug resistance increases as is > population. Mike Lorrey Oh to breed mosquitoes that devour other mosquitoes, that would be just too good. No wait, that would be too kind a fate for the wretched bastards. We need to create mosquitoes that seek out other mosquitoes and buzz incessantly around the other mosquitoes ears as they try to sleep, and keep it up until the other mosquitoes go mad! We need to make them to where they don't actually slay and devour the other mosquitoes, but rather just bite the other mosquitoes! Repeatedly! Until they itch themselves raw! It would warm the cockles of my backpacker's heart so good to see two mosquitoes biting each other simultaneously, especially if one had malaria and the other had herpes, muhaaahahahahahaaaa. I dislike mosquitoes. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Mar 11 13:08:28 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:08:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal Teeth In-Reply-To: <001701c5254a$4824b520$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <001701c5254a$4824b520$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050311070634.0333c190@pop-server.austin.rr.com> This one caught me by surprise. Sounds good, although I bet many people will want to have their new teeth reprogramed to come in straight, strong and white. At 02:22 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: >... may soon be an option after the (first set of) "permanent" teeth give out: > >http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005030915220002763240&dt=20050309152200&w=RTR&coview= > >Olga > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 14:05:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:05:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:25 PM 3/10/2005 -0800, Mike wrote: > > > it may be time for me to say "I told you so" > >(especially you Damien) as NASA is currently turning one of those > >concepts, which it earned a patent on, into a workable electric > >propulsion system needing no propellant (and it's not a sail). > > I only recall criticizing `Dean drive'-type speculations. > > What's the NASA patent about? It must be very frustrating that they > patented it if you were the one who thought of it. Well, your speculations were without scientific merit, as Sasha and John Cramer have both commented the concept works if the working mass is changing velocity in the near-relativistic range, because the frame dragging phenomenon plays a trick on inertia and Mach's Principle. While this isn't possible for purely mechanical devices, it is possible for devices which either use lower values for c or which use particles which are easier to manipulate in the desired velocity range. I had previously commented about the work of TT Brown and the Biefeld Brown Effect (Biefeld was his professor at Stanford) observed with assymetric capacitors, which led to a number of patents for Brown and significant top secret research by the Rand Corporation in the 1950's which dissapeared into a black hole of bureaucracy. Brown's work has recently resurfaced in the form of the following patent by NASA: http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US6317310&ID=US+++6317310B1+I+ Which describes the following devices which have been replicated by a French researcher: http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/act/html/omptv1.htm While this concept has in the past been disparaged as solely due to 'ion wind', the following paper disproves this argument: http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc and demonstrates that ion wind can only account for a small fraction of the observed thrust from such devices. I have shown in the past how all devices described essentially work to relativistically cheat Mach's Principle. Despite this, I have gotten nothing but scorn from this list, such that eight years later, NASA is finally starting to do what I could have been developing as a private space enterprise back then. But I let the voices here, who all professed to be much more educated and wise than I, tell me I was a fool. THis is the real reason this list has gone mundane: it is no longer a center of extropy, it is a center of cynical entropy. People here abandoned 'dynamic optimism' for 'practicality' long ago and as a result ExI and the list, have become further irrelevant. I once described this list as the biggest bunch of do-nothings I've ever seen. Since then I went out and started doing things in the political scene, but this list hasn't really changed at all. Especially you, Damien, whose job in life is supposed to be imagining "what if" to be as cynical as you've been to me, is IMHO terrible. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 11 15:15:28 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:15:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Space Odyssey Explained Message-ID: This is a wonderful 'explanation' of the key features of the classic Kubrick 2001 movie. A Flash movie in your native language. Sit back in a darkened room with the volume UP. http://www.kubrick2001.com/ P.S. on the agenda this year from the above developers is Dr. Strangelove. Can't wait! Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Sometimes it takes a few more days due to customs clearance." -- computer vendor to Amara From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Mar 11 16:25:48 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:25:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal Teeth References: <001701c5254a$4824b520$6600a8c0@brainiac> <6.2.1.2.2.20050311070634.0333c190@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <007c01c52656$fc6222e0$0100a8c0@kevin> It reminded me of an article I read about a possible vaccine being developed that will prevent tooth decay altogether. http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/01026.html http://www.healthmantra.com/ypb/jan2002/caries.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Immortal Teeth This one caught me by surprise. Sounds good, although I bet many people will want to have their new teeth reprogramed to come in straight, strong and white. At 02:22 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: ... may soon be an option after the (first set of) "permanent" teeth give out: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005030915220002763240&dt=20050309152200&w=RTR&coview = Olga _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 11 17:19:58 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:19:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311110932.03a434d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:05 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > What's the NASA patent about? It must be very frustrating that they > > patented it if you were the one who thought of it. > >I have shown in the past how all devices described essentially work to >relativistically cheat Mach's Principle. Despite this, I have gotten >nothing but scorn from this list, such that eight years later, NASA is >finally starting to do what I could have been developing as a private >space enterprise back then. But I let the voices here, who all >professed to be much more educated and wise than I, tell me I was a >fool. As I recall you were circulating a document under strict provisions of confidence that described this proposal. If you had it documented prior to NASA's patent, maybe that allows you to claim priority and a slice of the action? [not a patent lawyer] >http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US6317310&ID=US+++6317310B1+I+ > >Which describes the following devices which have been replicated by a >French researcher: >http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/act/html/omptv1.htm As far as I can see, this nice little machine makes things go around and around, not leap into the air and up into the sky. Conservation of this & that, you know. [not a physicist] However. the Purdue university paper at http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc seems to be saying that it *will* generate a thrust as well as a rotation: However however, frustratingly, Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 11 17:33:25 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:33:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) Message-ID: (originally I gave: http://www.cea2.mdx.ac.uk/lceaSite/gallery/zengarden/index.htm ) kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote: >Way overrated. Maybe, but I do think it was sweet. >I think the bigger question is why Amara is having such a difficult >time finding things to smile about. See below >Amara, life is both beautiful and ugly. Yes... I know. I said something similar on another list some weeks back ("Of course the world is a lousy mess, but it's a beautiful lousy mess.") >When you find yourself feeling like this, you have been spending far >too much time looking at the ugly. Take some time out and look at the >beauty and try not to think about the ugly for a bit. :-) For the last two months, I could do very little of my science work (with impact on colleagues) because I was without my main working computer from January 17 until March 9. In some sense since January 17, I experienced a collusion of the worst parts of United States Postal Service, Poste Italiane, CNR (Italian research) science funding, and more ... well you decide. When my main work computer broke (my ancient Mac G3 laptop), there was no money at my institute to buy me a computer, so I borrowed money, got on ebay, won my auction for a very nice one-year-old Mac laptop from a "Power Seller" vendor in California, I paid for fast mail, and it was put in the mail USPS Global Express ("3-5 days to Europe") January 30. For the next three weeks the box disappeared. United Postal Service says it entered Europe February 2, but their web tracking system says it entered February 17. My computer either partied in the Caribbean or in Sardinia, and from its drunken stupor I suppose, it emerged on the 19th of February in the Milano dogono (Customs) of the Poste Italiano, where it had another holiday. Since the vendor of my computer didn't write my phone or fax number on the box, the usual procedure with customs in Italy is for the customer to receive a card in the mail in a few days listing their questions, which one should answer and fax back to them, and then you receive your package. I never received a card (still) and so after one week, I started asking my Italian friends to find me the fax number of the Customs in Milano. They succeeded first with office numbers; of which they got ten numbers, eight phone number were never picked up, and two were always busy, so if you try for a few hours, you might get through, which they did. The first couple of Customs people were angry for me trying to speed up their normal procedure and refused to give us the fax number and 'how did I know that my box was in their office?'. They said that it was a 'secret' fax number that one cannot get unless one sees it on the card/fax that one has received from them. The last Poste Italiano person was a friendly guy, who willingly gave the number when he heard the story of the american astronomer who doesn't have her computer to do her job because it is sitting in his Customs office. And he gave this story to try to explain the situation in his office: The US Postal Service since January has been (over)shipping many tens of thousands of packages into the Italian postal system. They alerted the Poste Italiano system last winter saying they would have an 'increase' in packages of a few hundred extra per day, and instead it was a few thousand extra per day. The Poste Italiano system opened up another (private) department to try to handle it, but it was not enough and they are buried in boxes. Why the sudden extra shipping? Because I'm intrigued with this exotic twist to my box story, I asked my more knowledgeable friends in foreign matters about this situation, who hypothesize that the US military has rerouted their shipping to MidEast troops, away from Germany and now through Italy. In any case, I suggest not to send packages through the United States Postal Service to Italy, if you must, use DHL or UPS or another courier. Six days after I faxed to the Milano Customs the information that they wanted, my computer arrived. I needed to make a leap in operating systems to one seven years after the one I was using previously, but after a day of transferring many Gb of files and data and trying my most valuable programs, I'm delighted to discover that 95% of my software works, even alot of software that dates back to my first Macintosh in 1986. That's amazing to me. This story _does_ have a happy ending, even though I'm now very *late* with all my commitments.... Amara P.S. I would willing give ten computers for the missing box of Christmas gifts from my family ("a box of love"). I suppose I should feel happy if it arrives in time for my birthday/easter late March....... -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Sometimes it takes a few more days due to customs clearance" -- computer vendor to Amara From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 11 18:14:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:14:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Space Odyssey Explained In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311120552.03a19e18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:15 PM 3/11/2005 +0100, Amara wrote: >This is a wonderful 'explanation' of the key features of the classic >Kubrick 2001 movie. It's a nifty interpretation, Amara. Arthur Clarke would have a cow, I suspect. What struck me with surprise was how close the allegorization is to my own reworking of the Oedipus myth (see below) 30 years ago in the story `Growing Up', an extract from my novel THE JUDAS MANDALA. Damien Broderick ========================= [Beth] speaks in chomsky, the basic language she shares with Sriyanie and the other Frees: the syntax of her utterance provides its own unassailable conviction. Above [Sriyanie], the sun moves toward noon in the improbably clear sky. She has put it there. Sweat springs from her skin, trickles in her armpits. The wine is clean and tart on her tongue; she puts down her glass and shades her eyes, glorying in the universe she has hewn with Beth. "Let me tell you a story," her Other says, turning over and digging her elbows in the sand. "It's a very old tale, one of the oldest we know. Have you heard of Oedipus, the Swollen-Footed King?" "I don't think so. Greek?" "One of the mythic figures of the archaic Hellenic culture." Both says. "His father was King Laius, the Left-sided; his grandfather, Labdakos, the Lame. Laius is banished from his city of Thebes and develops a homosexual bond with the charioteer Chrysippus, his patron's son. In time he regains his throne, marries Jocasta, but refrains from heterosex because an oracle has revealed that her son will kill him. During a fertility rite, though, Laius grows drunk and lustful, and Oedipus is conceived. "The baby is consigned for execution to a herdsman and staked by his foot to a chilly mountaintop. Before Oedipus can perish from exposure, however, a peasant finds him and rears him in secrecy. "Years later, the adult Oedipus returns to Thebes in a chariot and meets Laius on his way to the Delphic oracle. During an argument over right of precedence on the road, Laius causes his son's horse to be slain. In fury, and ignorant of their relationship, the young man kills his father. "Subsequently the road to Thebes is terrorized by the Sphinx, a monster. To win the widowed Queen's hand, which is the most direct path to political advancement available to him, Oedipus meets the monster in contest. He is riddled: 'What creature goes in the morning on four feet, at noon on two, and in the evening on three?' He answers correctly: 'Man.' In mortification the Sphinx takes her own life." Sriyanie has been listening with keen interest, playing sand through her fingers. She smiles. "For many years," Beth says, "Oedipus reigns in Thebes, fathering children by Jocasta, his all-unknown mother. As you can see, the chronology is somewhat strained; the ancient Greeks had no antiagathic drugs. Well, at last Thebes is afflicted with plague and famine. An oracle reveals that the cause is royal incest and the parricide that made it possible. Jocasta commits suicide and Oedipus goes mad, tearing out his eyes. He leaves the city once again, attended only by his daughter Antigone, and eventually attains supernatural insight." Beth falls silent. Sriyanie gazes at the dazzling waves, musing. "It's lovely, Beth," she says. "Austere and terribly somber. I think I'll suggest it for a Being-Them." She sucks at her lip. "I guess Antigone came back to Thebes and took the throne?" "No. Oedipus had sons also?it was very rare for women to rule." "Oh. Then I imagine the rightful heir was driven out and came back eventually to seize the crown." "Something like that. If I remember properly, Eteocles banished Polynices, who brought back an army, and both the contending brothers were killed. You see something cyclical, then?" "Beth, it's so rich in resonances I don't know which harmonic to start with. It taps right into the grammar structures. But, look, if it's a myth it can't stand by itself. It's just one element in a huge redundant cultural mosaic, and anything I see must be so partial?" "Naturally. But, Sri, myth is also cellular, holonic. Within the larger context, each part has its own integrity. Tell me what you got." "Well, right, the basic structure's cyclical, but it's also paradoxical. And there are strong cybernetic features: the road to Thebes is obviously part of a primary information circuit, a model for data flow and decisions, and the Sphinx catapults that up to a metalevel. I mean, roadways are the most blatant symbol any low-mobility culture can use to work out their problems with internal and external dynamics. There's also that beautiful loop where the Urban child is menaced by the Pastoral intermediary, and saved by the Agrarian benefactor, and comes back to master the town, and ends up transfigured again in the Rural domain." Beth considers her through a mesh of lashes. "Low-mobility cultures also placed great store by kinship regulations." "Oh sure," the girl says dismissively. "There's that whole strident incest thing, with Laius symbolically fucking his son, and Oedipus actually fucking his mother, and their town getting the pox. That's only a surface reading, I'm sure?though I daresay the old storytellers did plenty of winking and nudging. What fascinates me is the deep resonance. You know, it's extraordinary: the whole thing's about us and the ull. The dreadful road to high technology. Where it leads, and the way out. Maybe the way out." "You understood the meaning of the Sphinx's riddle?" Sriyanie preens. "I've heard of walking sticks. And chariots. Yes, Beth. Man begins as an animal, passes through the bipedal state of hunter-gatherer culture, freeing his hands to use tools, and finally leans so heavily on his technology that it's completely introjected. Actually," she says with surprise, "I guess there's a sense in which that's true of individuals, too: crawling on all fours as babies... " She trails off and immense shock shows in her face. Abruptly she jumps to her feet and runs to the sea, discarding her robe, and splashes wildly in the ebbing tide. Waist deep, she submerges, comes up coughing, light glinting from her pale body. The water lifts her like an aninertial field, tugs her gently toward the long dark line of the horizon. Shrieking in delight, she turns, paddling clumsily, forges to the shore, races in a dog-legged curve of deep footprints back to Beth. "It's all about me", she gasps, out of breath, flat on her back. "Me and Pause and that weird thing that happened. Ummy, you are sly! It's a myth of the steps in the development of personality." "Bravo!" applauds Both. "Don't give me too much credit for ingenuity, though. The old psychologists recognized as much thousands of years ago, as far back as Jean Piaget. Some of them even used it to denominate the principal stages of individuation: the Oedipus Nexus." "Yes! Yes!" Sriyanie cries. "So, to incorporate the metalevels lots of the details convey the exact opposite of what they actually mean. Old Swollen-Foot begins in the sensorimotor stage?so one limb is crippled! He develops through magic omnipotence, climaxing his journey through the preoperational stage with the ultimate magical act of killing his father. What's the next bit? Why, yes, to attain adult estate he's obliged to deal at the concrete operational level with a riddle?and the riddle, of course, is a rebus for the entire myth, mapping individual onto cultural development. And when he finally passes into the formal operational stage of adulthood, his insight into the kinship crime represented by his incestuous marriage hurls him into mystical consciousness. It's all elided and compressed, but it's all there." She is fairly bouncing with delight. "Oedipus tears out his eyes because they are the organs of guilty perception. And that loops right back to his crime, since a baby's first social transaction is with her mother, through their mutual gaze. And mystical insight requires a new metalevel anyway, going beyond rigorous formal operations into antinomies and paradox. I'm devastated, Beth. How sublimely those old savages captured it all!" Her drying hair clings to her scalp like pale fronds. Beth musses it and gets to her feet. All trace of their repast is gone. "They weren't really savages, Sri. They were at the very beginning of the path leading to the industrial cities, to the thinking machines. They had no inkling of Pause, though, I imagine. That had to wait until metrodynamic discontinuity, though some of the scholars disagree with me on that. Why do you think the story is about you?" They climb the sand hills, away from the beach. Insects buzz among the flowering grasses, the tropical trees. "Well, this virtual matrix we're in was built up the same way. I knew you were with me, but I felt omnipotent... and lost. Then the phylogenetic codes came snapping in, one by one, and everything sort of... crystallized." From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Mar 11 18:25:06 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:25:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Space Odyssey Explained Message-ID: <135230-22005351118256481@M2W033.mail2web.com> Thanks Amara! N Original Message: ----------------- From: Amara Graps amara at amara.com Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:15:28 +0100 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] The Space Odyssey Explained This is a wonderful 'explanation' of the key features of the classic Kubrick 2001 movie. A Flash movie in your native language. Sit back in a darkened room with the volume UP. http://www.kubrick2001.com/ P.S. on the agenda this year from the above developers is Dr. Strangelove. Can't wait! Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Sometimes it takes a few more days due to customs clearance." -- computer vendor to Amara _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 11 18:32:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:32:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] philanthropist funds Harvard Aging Research Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311123106.03a4bff0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/hms-ppf031105.php Philanthropist Paul F. Glenn launches labs for aging research at Harvard Medical School Five year, five million dollar commitment with goal of leveraging larger initiative BOSTON, MA--Seeking to accelerate the pace of research into the molecular mechanisms that govern aging, philanthropist Paul F. Glenn, an alumnus of Harvard Law School and founder of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research in Santa Barbara, California, has committed $5 million to Harvard Medical School over five years to launch the Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biological Mechanisms of Aging. The new resources will serve as a magnet to attract additional support for the potential creation of a larger Institute for Aging Research at Harvard Medical School. "We are proud to be teaming up with Mr. Glenn and the Glenn Foundation," said HMS aging researcher David Sinclair, PhD, associate professor of pathology, who will direct the lab. "Like us, Paul is dedicated to finding the molecular answers to the aging process so we can understand the mechanisms of normal aging and develop interventions to delay its onset and decline, thereby extending the healthful years of human life." To attract talented investigators to this field and the Glenn Laboratories, a significant portion of the resources will be used to recruit two additional faculty members focused on aging research and to build out the labs with advanced research technology and animal models. Additionally, research pilot grants will be awarded by a steering committee to investigators wanting to investigate novel areas of molecular research addressing critical questions in the normal aging process. These pilot grants will produce data that can be used to attract larger government grants. The resources will also be used to foster collaboration by pulling together aging researchers from around the world for an annual Paul F. Glenn Symposium on the Molecular Biology of Aging to be held at Harvard Medical School. "We structured this partnership in a way that recognizes the key drivers in the scientific process, so that the resources would be positioned to push aging research forward more quickly and to new levels of knowledge," said Mr. Glenn. "In pursuing the underlying molecular mechanisms involved in the aging process, the Glenn Laboratories will be supporting the broad mission of the school," said Nancy Andrews, MD, PhD, Dean for Basic Sciences and Graduate Studies. "The school and the Glenn Laboratories research team thank Mr. Glenn and the Glenn Foundation for their leadership in this area of science." Research into extending lifespan is not new. For more than 70 years, a calorie restricted diet has been known to increase the lifespan of mice and rats 40 percent by preventing them from getting diseases of aging such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and even cataracts. The hypothesis is that within each of our cells lies an evolutionarily ancient defense program that can be activated by so-called "longevity genes" which ameliorate the cellular damage that causes death and disease. Activation of these genes in genetically altered worms and flies has been shown to produce healthier, longer lives. Buoyed by calorie restriction animal tests, research teams in this small field have been pursuing the molecular pathways that mimic calorie restriction. In the summer of 2003, Sinclair's team showed in a paper published in Nature that a compound found in red wine called resveratrol could stimulate this pathway in yeast cells. The yeast cells lived as much as 60 percent longer, and in human cells tested in vitro, resveratrol activated a similar pathway. It enabled 30 percent of the treated human cells to survive gamma radiation, compared to 10 percent of untreated cells. In a Nature paper published in July 2004, Sinclair's team showed that resveratrol had a similar impact in higher organisms: worms and flies. In worms, lifespan was extended up to 15 percent. In flies, lifespan was extended up to 29 percent. Another key finding with flies was that there was no loss of fertility, which can be seen in severe calorie restricted diets. In a 2004 study published in the journal Science, Sinclair's group found that a key longevity gene called SIRT1 is switched on in rats that are subjected to calorie restriction, which then increased the lifespan of the rat's cells. In an interesting twist, the research team used the blood of these long-lived rats to grow human cells in the culture dish, and the human cells also lived longer, suggesting that the blood might have contained a life-giving molecule that could one day be given to people. Although there has been much interest in the SIRT1 gene, humans actually possess seven SIRT genes, known as SIRT1-7. It is suspected that many, if not all, of these genes control aspects of the aging process. Sinclair's group is testing whether these genes can forestall the aging process and increase the heathspan of mice. He has also identified a master controller of the SIRT genes, which he calls PNC1 in yeast and is called PBEF in mammals. Experiments to test whether mice that overproduce PBEF live longer, as his yeast cells did, are in progress. Mr. Glenn's interest in biology of aging began as a teenager, as he observed the decline in health and death of his grandparents. While a senior at Princeton in 1951, he met Dr. Thomas Gardner, a research scientist at pharmaceutical company, Hoffman-LaRoche, who explained that aging is a complex set of biochemical processes which can be understood only at the molecular level, and that the tools of molecular biology were just beginning to be developed. In 1965 Mr. Glenn founded the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research with a mission to extend the healthy productive human lifespan through research on the biological mechanisms of aging. This mission has been served through direct sponsorship of research grants and awards programs and through important relationships with other institutions focused on understanding the molecular biology of aging and mechanisms that govern the pace at which normal individuals experience physiological decline and disease. "As we mark our 40th anniversary, we are very excited to establish this important relationship with Harvard Medical School and look forward to accelerating research into this important area" said Mark R. Collins, President of the Glenn Foundation. Historically financial support for research into the biological mechanisms of aging and efforts to extend the healthy lifespan has been spotty. The pharmaceutical industry's support of basic aging research is hindered due to the fact that there are no generally accepted biomarkers for aging that would allow the FDA to approve a drug designed to slow the aging process. Although Congress supplemented scarce aging research dollars by establishing the National Institute on Aging in 1974, that money has predominately gone to disease specific research, such as Alzheimer's disease, or towards the behavioral aspects of aging. "Instead of addressing individual age related diseases, we are looking at the bigger picture. Being able to extend the normal healthy lifespan has huge societal impact including decreasing associated healthcare costs and increasing the productive lifespan. By understanding the basic mechanisms of aging, we hope to altogether avoid or mitigate the onset of age related diseases as demonstrated by the research in caloric restriction," said Mr. Glenn. "Recent discoveries of longevity genes by Dr. Sinclair and others have persuaded me that aging includes the phenomenon of a small group of genes controlling the expression of a much larger group of genes, including those which activate cellular defense mechanisms such as DNA repair. As we learn to control expression of specific genes, we may be able to prolong healthy cell life without a complete understanding of the biochemical pathways involved." In addition to funding these important initiatives through the creation of the Paul F. Glenn Laboratories at Harvard Medical School, it is the hope of Mr. Glenn, the Glenn Foundation and HMS that this initiative will serve as a catalyst for attracting new investigators and donors to support this important field of research. "We are very hopeful that during this five year commitment we are able to build on the momentum we have generated and spur the creation of an Institute at Harvard Medical School devoted to the biology of aging, to which the Glenn Foundation has expressed possible additional support," said Mr. Collins. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 18:38:28 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:38:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050311183828.74379.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Neil Halelamien quiried: > Does anybody have any recommendations regarding > drugs, nutritional supplements, and other methods > for cognitive/concentration enhancement? Have any > of you tried such items or know people who tried > them? I'm particularly interested in how effective > they are, their cost-effectiveness, and any side > effects. While Natasha's sage advice defines the front-line effort in the battle for cognitive maximization, [1] there are additional resources worth considering. I've found specific amino acids to be effective enhancers of cognition and concentration, especially the amino acids tyrosine and taurine. While I hate to pitch a product, there is a very effective cognitive enhancer on the market called 5-Hour Energy that utilizes those amino acids. [2] I tried it after several friends raved(!) about it and I found it to be effective too. Red Bull is a popular energy drink and 5HE is like a concentration of RB's contents [3] with additional ingredients like acetyl-l-tyrosine (a very stable form of tyrosine) and the amino acid phenylalanine, which can improve mood. Those aminos are precursors to neurotransmitters such as dopamine and neuropinephrine which can improve cognition. You can acquire those aminos for much less than the per-dose cost of 5HE and RB. Another natural aid to cognition may be creatine, which is a popular product for athletic performance: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci (2003): "Creatine supplementation had a significant positive effect (p < 0.0001) on both working memory (backward digit span) and intelligence (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices), both tasks that require speed of processing." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14561278 Here are a few studies on Red Bull I found on PubMed.com: Amino Acids (2000): "The findings clearly indicate that the mixture of three key ingredients of Red Bull Energy Drink used in the study (caffeine, taurine, glucuronolactone) have positive effects upon human mental performance and mood." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11140366 Psychopharmacology (2001): "Moderate doses of caffeine and taurine can improve information processing in individuals who could not have been in caffeine withdrawal." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11713623 Amino Acids (2001): "The effects of Red Bull Energy Drink, which includes taurine, glucuronolactone, and caffeine amongst the ingredients, were examined over 3 studies in a total of 36 volunteers. [...] Significant improvements in mental performance included choice reaction time, concentration (number cancellation) and memory (immediate recall), which reflected increased subjective alertness. These consistent and wide ranging improvements in performance are interpreted as reflecting the effects of the combination of ingredients." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11665810 [1] http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014136.html [2] http://www.chaserenergy.com/About.asp [3] http://www.redbull.com/extras/ingredients.jsp Hope that helps! http://IanGoddard.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 19:49:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:49:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050311194921.29452.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:05 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > What's the NASA patent about? It must be very frustrating that > they > > > patented it if you were the one who thought of it. > > > >I have shown in the past how all devices described essentially work > to > >relativistically cheat Mach's Principle. Despite this, I have gotten > >nothing but scorn from this list, such that eight years later, NASA > is > >finally starting to do what I could have been developing as a > private > >space enterprise back then. But I let the voices here, who all > >professed to be much more educated and wise than I, tell me I was a > >fool. > > As I recall you were circulating a document under strict provisions > of confidence that described this proposal. If you had it documented > prior to NASA's patent, maybe that allows you to claim priority and > a slice of the action? [not a patent lawyer] Nope. However, if NASA tries to keep others from using the technology, they have a very serious prior art problem wrt the patented work of Townsend Brown. > > > As far as I can see, this nice little machine makes things go around > and > around, not leap into the air and up into the sky. Conservation of > this & that, you know. [not a physicist] Nope. The video was to illustrate that it (each cone-shaped device) produced thrust. Conservation would have occured if the devices had produced a counter-rotational current of air, and would have indicated an ion-wind effect, rather than a Lorentz force field effect. > > However. the Purdue university paper at > http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc > seems > to be saying that it *will* generate a thrust as well as a rotation: > > of voltage applied across the capacitor, the surface area of the > electrodes, distance between electrodes, material between > electrodes, and the geometry of the electrodes. All of these > factors, except the applied voltage, create a non-linear electric > field gradient, which is believed to be an underlying principle that > describes this effect. It is also believed that what is being > observed might be a coupling between electricity and gravity, > similar to that between electricity and magnetism. > > > However however, frustratingly, > > since the observed and experimental currents are off by orders of > magnitude and not enough to produce any meaningful effect during > Electrokinetic Propulsion experiments. > I don't know why you'd be frustrated. They found no need to do vacuum experiments because it was so very clear that the amount of ion wind produced was totally insufficient (by orders of magnitude) to account for the thrust observed. The 'rotation' was simply two thrusters set up to produce angular motion. JL Naudin has done a very impressive number of experiments he has documented on video on his site with a large variety of device designs. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 19:58:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050311195804.23129.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > In some sense since January 17, I experienced a collusion of the > worst > parts of United States Postal Service, Poste Italiane, CNR (Italian > research) science funding, and more ... well you decide. Don't feel alone. The company I work for has consistently been dealing with 3rd world levels of service with our regular USPS shipments. Overnight packages everywhere taking 3-8 days to arrive. On time arrivals being the exception rather than the rule. I have on my desk an express envelope of paychecks which the post office never scanned into the system until they showed up at my local post office (the package was coming from our HQ in florida) and the package appeared as if someone had used it as a cushion for a week. We've had packages disappear entirely, show up way late and damaged, or merely so late that the time-sensitive legal documents we ship lost relevancy and we had to restart the process. I have never been more in favor of the total privatization of the postal service as I am now. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 11 20:38:11 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:38:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ References: <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301c5267a$3eff46f0$f8b11b97@administxl09yj> On the B.B. effect there is something here http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htm and here http://suzuki-t.hp.infoseek.co.jp/pdf/bbe.pdf and perhaps also here (but I cannot open it) http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-213082.pdf From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Mar 11 20:55:01 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:55:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal Teeth References: <001701c5254a$4824b520$6600a8c0@brainiac><6.2.1.2.2.20050311070634.0333c190@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <007c01c52656$fc6222e0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <008101c5267c$986d3060$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: kevinfreels.com To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:25 AM It reminded me of an article I read about a possible vaccine being developed that will prevent tooth decay altogether. http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/01026.html http://www.healthmantra.com/ypb/jan2002/caries.htm Interesting. My two adult children (in their 30s now) have *never* had one cavity and have "model" straight teeth. However, life has a way of delivering blows to those teeth, nevertheless. My daughter chipped one of her teeth on a *coffee* cup not long ago, and my son suffered a bigger chip (when he was "horsing around") to one of his front teeth when he was seven. I recently read how *smoking* can really damage gums around the teeth - and I've never heard of this aspect until recently (having heard about teeth getting stained as a result of smoking, yes). Gum damage in smokers is much more serious, and can lead to serious loss of teeth. Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 21:05:50 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:05:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recommendations for cognitive enhancement drugs? In-Reply-To: <20050311183828.74379.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050311183828.74379.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:38:28 -0800 (PST), Ian Goddard wrote: > Neil Halelamien quiried: > > > Does anybody have any recommendations regarding > > drugs, nutritional supplements, and other methods > > for cognitive/concentration enhancement? Have any > > of you tried such items or know people who tried > > them? I'm particularly interested in how effective > > they are, their cost-effectiveness, and any side > > effects. Thanks for all the responses, and sorry about the delay! Natasha's comments reminded me that I -really- need to clean up my room and get rid of the (larger number of) distractions in my work environment. I've also started reading more about some of the supplements that have been suggested. Thanks again! -- Neil From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 21:36:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:36:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050311213657.65282.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > On the B.B. effect there is something here > > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htm This study was apparently written by someone who doesn't know what they are writing about and is depending on the assertions of others. In one section, they claim there is viable possibility with devices that use assymetrical field effects, while in another, it claims the BBE (an assymetric field effect) thrust is totally explained by ion wind, despite the literature saying that this is not the case, that ion wind explainable thrust is magnitudes less than that observed. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 11 21:39:34 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:39:34 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: <000301c5267a$3eff46f0$f8b11b97@administxl09yj> References: <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000301c5267a$3eff46f0$f8b11b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311153733.01d13530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:38 PM 3/11/2005 +0100, S. wrote: >On the B.B. effect there is something here > >http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htm Hang on, the NASA researchers say (as Mike has noted with annoyance): <3.2.7. Biefeld-Brown and Variants. In 1928 a device was patented for creating thrust using high-voltage capacitors [50]. Since then, a wide variety of variants of this "Biefeld-Brown" effect, such as "Lifters" and "Asymmetrical Capacitors" have claimed that such devices operate on an "electrostatic antigravity" or "electrogravitic" effect. One of the most recent variants was patented by NASA-MSFC [51]. To date, all rigorous experimental tests indicate that the observed thrust is attributable to ion wind [52-54]. Vacuum tests currently underway, sponsored through an additional Congressional earmark to the West Virginia Institute for Scientific Research, also indicate that this effect is not indicative of new propulsion physics. These tests are now assessing the more conventional performance of such devices [55]. These "Biefeld-Brown," "Lifter" and "Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters" are not viable candidates for breakthrough physics propulsion. > From hal at finney.org Fri Mar 11 22:28:06 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050311222806.3177857EE9@finney.org> Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. I don't see any way these devices can work unless they are pushing on air or some other material medium. I can't see a role for Mach's Principle or any other exotic relativistic physics. Is something moving at relativistic speeds here? I don't see it. I have to admit that I'm surprised that NASA has patented this. The only thing I can imagine is that maybe it could be used in low earth orbit, where the vacuum is not completely hard and there is some ambient ionized gas which could be used for thrust. Maybe this device could provide extremely low thrusts over a long period of time, sufficient for station keeping and stabilization. As far as Naudin's experiments at http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/act/html/omptv1.htm , that is nice work but he doesn't rule out air thrust. What I would like to see is the experiment done with something enclosing each of the thrusters. That would rule out ion wind. He has another page, http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/html/lifteriw.htm using a different thruster design, where he uses a bag to enclose a lifter but still finds that its weight decreases when he turns on the power. The problem there is that there is considerable material in the vicinity of the lifter, the balance and such, and it's possible there are some induced electric effects in that equipment that could distort the results. If he put baggies around his thrusters and kept them well off the table and away from other structures, that would be a good test. I'll bet they wouldn't turn. Do you think Naudin would publish such a result? With regard to http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc , it's not clear how good Stein's experimental techniques are so I don't see how this can be regarded as conclusively ruling out air thrust. If you read the paper closely you will see that he did in fact do experiments in a hard vacuum and still got thrust, although of 0.31 mN compared to 2.38 mN in air. He had calculated that he could only get 3e-4 mN in vacuum, so this was supposed to show that it was not air thrust. But this result is suspicious, because he supposedly measured it at 1e-5 torr, which is like 1 100-millionth of atmospheric pressure. Yet in these two lifter experiments, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html and http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm , by two different people, they could not get lifting below about 70% of atmospheric pressure. They attributed the difficulty to ionization and sparking, but for whatever the reason, the lifters didn't lift when deprived of air. And the first study found that as they dropped from 100% down to 70% air pressure, that the necessary voltage increased, which would also be consistent with an ion wind theory. These guys can't decrease pressure by a factor of 30% and still get lift, yet Stein succeeded at a hundred million times harder vacuum? Something isn't right. I can't help thinking that this is yet another case of the phenomenon I wrote about recently, where we attempt to think independently and get sucked into crackpot theories. Now, you can argue that there's a social benefit to have people out there, working on the fringes, who might get lucky and stumble across something. That's fine, and I don't necessarily want to discourage that. But for the person who is not actually pursuing research, the most sensible course is to look at what mainstream science says about the issue. In this case I think it's clear that 99% of physicists would say that applying 20 kV to a couple of funny-shaped electrodes is not going to violate Newton's third law and produce uncompensated thrust. That's a well explored regime and not where any kind of exotic physics would be expected. Hal From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Mar 11 22:38:06 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation In-Reply-To: <20050310222948.154B057EE8@finney.org> References: <20050310222948.154B057EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050311171449.02d0cf40@mail.gmu.edu> At 05:29 PM 3/10/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >I did a little research into the state of the art on wearable always-on >recording devices. I found two types. There are digital audio recorders >sold at "spy shops" designed primarily for investigative use. These can >record typically about 24 hours of audio and then upload it to a computer. >They often have voice-activated recording so they don't waste space on >quiet times. However I'm not sure they timestamp the data as far as >when they turn on and off. >These are quite expensive, apparently made for professional spies. Here >is one for $450, http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/midire8mireb.html. >Here's another for 160 pounds, >http://www.spy-equipment.co.uk/Digital_Recorder/digital_recorder.html. >This one is primarily for phone recording, but also has a tie-clasp >microphone, $280, http://store.yahoo.com/spytechagency/digmicrechou.html. Many MP3 players come with a voice recording capability, and these usually hold much more for a comparable price than specialized voice recorders. I've been using a MPIO FY200: http://www.mpio.de/site_eng/fp_FY200_02.html but then switched to an Olympus DS2200: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=25&bc=11&product=1081&fl=4 Not sure it is really better though, and thinking of switching back. MPIO is very compact, records more bits/sec, but is not robust and has terrible instructions and support. The Olympus lasts twice as long before replacing batteries, and has a stereo mike, but that busted after a few months. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 11 23:08:46 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:08:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] good news for women Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311170811.01ceba48@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12519357,00.html Fetal test takes needle blues away Clara Pirani, Medical reporter 12mar05 SCIENTISTS have developed an alternative test to the amniocentesis procedure which means older women will be able to avoid one of the most invasive and stressful moments of pregnancy. A routine Pap smear taken at six weeks' gestation can detect the same fetal abnormalities - such as cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome - as an amniocentesis. Australian researchers believe the Pap smear using DNA technology can replace the diagnostic procedure that is performed by inserting a hollow needle through the abdominal wall into the uterus at 18 weeks. The new test also avoids the 1 per cent risk of miscarriage the amniocentesis procedure carries. "It's certainly less frightening for women than having a big needle inserted into their belly," lead researcher Ian Findlay said. "This test is really going to revolutionise pre-clinical diagnosis as we know it," said Professor Findlay, chief scientific officer at Gribbles Molecular Science in Brisbane. "It has several advantages because it's done at six weeks instead of the amniocentesis that is done at 18 weeks. "It's been tried on several hundred women over the last year, with 100 per cent accuracy." Last year, about 9000 women in Australia had an amniocentesis, which is recommended for pregnant women over the age of 35. Professor Findlay's test, which can be performed by a GP, uses DNA fingerprinting to screen fetal cells taken during Pap smears. "Women living in remote and regional towns won't need to go to a major city for the test because the GP can do the test ... and you can get the results back in 24 hours." Professor Findlay said the DNA technology was discovered about 20 years ago but had never been applied to fetal cells. "We're hoping that we can launch the service by the middle of this year, but that will depend on getting the many more samples for this clinical trial." Melbourne IVF chairman John McBain said the procedure was a breakthrough in clinical testing. "This is absolutely original, groundbreaking work. "There's no risk of fetal loss and it's done very early." From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 11 22:40:57 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:40:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050311194921.29452.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050311194921.29452.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311163354.01cef698@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:49 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Mike L wrote: > > However however, frustratingly, > > > > <...not enough to produce any meaningful effect during > > Electrokinetic Propulsion experiments. > > >I don't know why you'd be frustrated. They found no need to do vacuum >experiments because it was so very clear that the amount of ion wind >produced was totally insufficient (by orders of magnitude) to account >for the thrust observed. You're right, I misread that, sorry. It's very interesting to see their linking of EM effects directly with gravitation, in view of Haisch's and Puthoff's work in the vacuum field, rather than spacetime curvature, derivation of gravitation. If this gadget can be scaled up to hold a test device hovering in the air, we could all start getting really excited. Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Mar 12 01:44:44 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:44:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] good news for women In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311170811.01ceba48@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311170811.01ceba48@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: What a fine thing! Very impressive. The very idea of having a big needle thrust into any part of me makes me want to puke. I cannot imagine having one inserted into my belly! (shudder) Regards, MB On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12519357,00.html > > Fetal test takes needle blues away > Clara Pirani, Medical reporter > 12mar05 > > SCIENTISTS have developed an alternative test to the amniocentesis > procedure which means older women will be able to avoid one of the most > invasive and stressful moments of pregnancy. > > A routine Pap smear taken at six weeks' gestation can detect the same fetal > abnormalities - such as cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome - as an > amniocentesis. [...] From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 02:29:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:29:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050312022938.54526.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. I don't see > any way these devices can work unless they are pushing on air or some > other material medium. I can't see a role for Mach's Principle or > any other exotic relativistic physics. Is something moving at > relativistic speeds here? I don't see it. You aren't supposed to see it, it is a field effect. > > I have to admit that I'm surprised that NASA has patented this. The > only thing I can imagine is that maybe it could be used in low earth > orbit, > where the vacuum is not completely hard and there is some ambient > ionized gas which could be used for thrust. Maybe this device could > provide extremely low thrusts over a long period of time, sufficient > for station keeping and stabilization. The question remains, I posted a link to a paper that showed that ion wind can only explain a small percent of the actual thrust observed, contrary to NASA claims. Given the sort of performance Naudin has shown, he should also be showing some rather significant ion wind to generate that kind of thrust, something that would be quite detectable and measurable. > > As far as Naudin's experiments at > http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/act/html/omptv1.htm , that is > nice work but he doesn't rule out air thrust. What I would like > to see is the experiment done with something enclosing each of > the thrusters. That would rule out ion wind. He has another page, > http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/html/lifteriw.htm using a different > thruster design, where he uses a bag to enclose a lifter but still > finds that its weight decreases when he turns on the power. The > problem there is that there is considerable material in the > vicinity of the lifter, the balance and such, and it's possible > there are some induced electric > effects in that equipment that could distort the results. If he put > baggies around his thrusters and kept them well off the table and > away from other structures, that would be a good test. I'll bet they > wouldn't turn. Do you think Naudin would publish such a result? He does have a page showing that he separated the electrodes entirely. If it were ion wind, it wouldn't travel through the barrier he imposed between the electrodes. > > With regard to > http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc , > it's not clear how good Stein's experimental techniques are so I > don't see how this can be regarded as conclusively ruling out air > thrust. If you read the paper closely you will see that he did in > fact do experiments in a hard vacuum and still got thrust, although > of 0.31 mN compared to 2.38 > mN in air. He had calculated that he could only get 3e-4 mN in > vacuum, so this was supposed to show that it was not air thrust. The air acts not as a reactive mass, but as a dielectric material to expand the field so that its effects, Lorentz-wise, are increased. With less dielectric you naturally get less thrust. What he also showed is that the device gets more efficient with less atmosphere, i.e. more thrust per watt. > > But this result is suspicious, because he supposedly measured it at > 1e-5 torr, which is like 1 100-millionth of atmospheric pressure. > Yet in these two lifter experiments, > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html and > http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm , by two different > people, they could not get lifting below about 70% of atmospheric > pressure. They attributed the difficulty to ionization and sparking, > but for whatever the reason, the lifters didn't lift when deprived of > air. Because the thrust drops below their mass. So what? The charts show that the thrust that remains increases in efficiency with less air. > And the first study found that as they dropped from 100% down to 70% > air pressure, that the necessary voltage increased, which would also > be consistent with an ion wind theory. These guys can't decrease > pressure > by a factor of 30% and still get lift, yet Stein succeeded at a > hundred million times harder vacuum? Something isn't right. Were they using the same devices? Sure the necessary voltage would increase, but that isn't important, what is important is looking at the current and power demanded. One significant difference between the two, as Naudin found out, is that pulsed DC is more efficient than steady DC. > > I can't help thinking that this is yet another case of the phenomenon > I wrote about recently, where we attempt to think independently and > get sucked into crackpot theories. Now, you can argue that there's > a social benefit to have people out there, working on the fringes, > who might get lucky and stumble across something. That's fine, and I > don't necessarily want to discourage that. But for the person who is > not actually pursuing research, the most sensible course is to look > at what mainstream science says about the issue. In this case I > think it's clear that 99% of physicists would say that applying 20 > kV to a couple > of funny-shaped electrodes is not going to violate Newton's third law > and produce uncompensated thrust. That's a well explored regime and > not where any kind of exotic physics would be expected. It depends on what you mean by 'uncompensated thrust'. Conservation of energy doesn't make this illegal, because you are putting a significant amount of power (i.e. work) into creating this Lorentz field effect. I would say that for the amount of power expended, it may be considered rather inefficient, power wise, compared to more conventional methods. Nor would I say that it ultimately violates conservation of momentum or Newton's laws, it merely uses a field effect to do work within the same regieme. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 05:07:54 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:07:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) [postal privatization tag] In-Reply-To: <20050311195804.23129.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050311195804.23129.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4232792A.3040206@mindspring.com> Post offices Pulling the envelope Jan 20th 2005 From The Economist print edition Technology and competition are putting huge pressure on the world's postal systems TO GET a sense of the future of postal systems around the world, look no further than a bottle of milk. Last year, TNT Mail, the packet-delivery unit of TPG, the Netherlands' national post office, began using a dairy company to carry packages to people's doorsteps. At a time when the milkman already seems a vestige of a bygone era?and the postman is struggling to avoid the same fate?this might seem an unlikely alliance. But what makes the arrangement particularly revealing is that it is not happening in the Dutch hinterland, but in Britain, where TPG and the lactose-logistics specialists, Express Dairies, are vying to compete against Royal Mail. RELATED ITEMS From The Economist Japan's giant post office Sep 2nd 2004 Postbank's IPO May 13th 2004 Personal loans from Britain's Post Office Apr 1st 2004 Websites The Postal Directive and reports by WIK-Consult are available on the European Commission?s website. See also TNT Mail, TPG Post, Royal Mail, UPS, Fedex, Business Post Group, Deutsche Post, La Poste and the Universal Postal Union. This is just one symptom of how the post is changing. Few industries are as inherently global (mail goes to every corner of the planet), yet at the same time as tightly national (operators are still mainly state-run monopolies). Michael Critelli, boss of Pitney Bowes, a mail-equipment maker, says, ?The big, all-in-one model works well if you believe that all the mail is about is standardised delivery of a standardised product and high volumes? with no innovation or customisation. But the market is not like that. Pressured by new technologies and by emerging competition, what were once seamless operations that made it meaningful to talk of a postal sector have increasingly fractured into separate activities?parcels, letters, freight, specialised logistics and so on. Established operators in rich countries are responding by trying to reshape their businesses. It is not easy. Some operators have long relied on cross-subsidies from activities such as banking to help cover other costs, particularly those of delivering letters six days a week under the aegis of a so-called universal service obligation?a national duty to collect and deliver mail for a uniform price no matter where it is posted. Others with strong monopolies have transferred profits from their protected letters franchises to battle in the more competitive parcels business. Now these complicated economic ties are being broken, sometimes by regulators, but also by competitors, which have been growing ever bolder about challenging post offices' monopoly rights. The accepted goal of most big postal systems is that the letter post should be financially self-sufficient. Increasingly, however, the postal service is being run as a profit-seeking business in which each activity must be economic in its own right. The postal service that most people come into contact with is only a tiny fraction of the mail, package and freight-delivery operations upon which economies depend. More than 80% of letter mail is from businesses, not individuals (see chart). Of that, over half is monthly bills and statements. (These are slowly moving away from the physical post towards customers' online accounts, which explains the roughly 2% annual drop in mail volumes since 2000 in many countries.) One-quarter of letter volume is junk mail which, alas, is growing. Meanwhile, parcels and express delivery services have become more important: e-commerce could not function without them. Globalisation has placed greater emphasis on logistics and freight delivery, as companies manage complex supply chains. In short, although what happens at the high-street post office is important, it will be developments in the less visible areas of business mail and other deliveries that will ultimately shape tomorrow's postal systems. ?Ten years from now, my bet is that the ?post' as a word will disappear,? says Isabelle Segni, a specialist in postal reform at the World Bank. That prospect represents a challenge for governments and postal managers alike. The traditional postal operators play an important role in developed economies, representing roughly 1% of the labour force and about 1% of gross domestic product. Where the market is open to some sort of competition, the postal-services sector indirectly plays an even greater role in the economy because business customers tend to make more use of innovative services such as speciality printing, targeted direct mail, or pre-paid return labels for mail-order goods. National postal systems globally account for over $250 billion in revenue and employ 5m people, 1m fewer than in the early 1990s. In some countries, the post is also one of the biggest financial institutions: Japan's, for instance, is the world's biggest financial institution, with around $3.4 trillion in assets. Postal operators everywhere are facing the same challenges, but they are responding differently and at different speeds. Essentially they are caught in a pincer movement. From below, new technologies are altering long-established industry standards. From above, market liberalisation is opening the way for new competitors who are free of the expensive infrastructure that shackles the incumbents. Getting it sorted Among the more important technological changes are advances in automated sorting equipment. Today's state-of-the-art machines can read most addresses and then place the mail in the precise order for the letter carrier to deliver door-to-door. Electronic barcodes on the mail allow operators to ?track-and-trace? each item, to provide service guarantees of when the mail was sorted and delivered. As this type of cost-saving equipment has become available, new firms have entered postal markets. Andrew Beh of ING Financial Markets estimates that some competitors can operate at half the cost of national posts. New technology improves their work processes, and they also benefit because they lack the strong trade-union culture of incumbents. These are among the reasons why Britain's privately run Business Post Group has been able to compete effectively against Royal Mail. But perhaps the biggest technological change has been the arrival of ?electronic substitution?. This refers to the shift of what was once sent by physical mail to other media. For instance, bulky financial prospectuses can now be posted on the internet (and downloaded and printed at the reader's expense) rather than sent by mail. Postal operators have long been used to fat profits from deliveries of monthly bills, statements, mail-order catalogues and so on. These have begun a gradual shift towards delivery by internet. And although direct marketing and e-commerce fulfilment with parcels is on the rise, it does not compensate for the drop in letter volume because, to the dismay of national operators, these are the two categories that are generally open to competition in places where the market is partially liberalised. The result is that in the very area where post offices might be able to recoup lost letter revenues?namely, parcel delivery?they face the stiffest competition. Alongside new technologies, postal operators must deal with political pressure to reduce financial losses and accept market liberalisation. In America, which accounts for almost half of the world's letter volume and over a quarter of its postal revenue, the post is constrained from engaging in non-core activities such as banking. Aggressive logistics companies such as UPS and Fedex have become powerful competitors in express mail, parcels and freight delivery. Indeed, the rise to global prominence of such firms is the clearest evidence of the struggle facing big operators. ?We have to make money delivering the mail,? says Jack Potter, Postmaster General, who began his postal career as a mail clerk. That is demanding wrenching changes, as the US Postal Service, which was in crisis before Mr Potter took the top job in 2001, tries to modernise its operations. With some success Mr Potter has overseen swingeing cost cuts and has lobbied to reduce the postal system's pension burden. He argues that it helps that the system is focused only on post, but accepts that without modernisation the government-run system risks becoming irrelevant. Political oversight is onerous: a presidential commission in 2003 called for ongoing change, including more market liberalisation. In Japan, Junichiro Koizumi has made reforming the national postal operator a major policy goal. Last year, the prime minister unveiled a plan to privatise the post, starting in 2007 by splitting today's monolith into four distinct units: delivery, post-office branches, savings and insurance. But the government has also proposed meddling with elements of the universal service obligation. That brought opprobrium: the post office itself described the idea of reducing service in rural areas as ?degrading?. Some of the biggest changes have been happening in Europe. By the end of this decade, if all goes as planned, there will be more than one postal operator per country, at least in the big four markets?France, Britain, the Netherlands and Germany?that account for around 70% of all mail volume in the European Union and 80% of all parcels. The national post, long the daily face of the state, will no longer be run by the government and may well be partially owned by another company or have publicly traded shares (as is already the case in the Netherlands and Germany). There will be fewer post offices, though many of the things that they offer will probably be available at alternative outlets, such as supermarkets and petrol stations. And the much-vaunted six-day mail delivery may well be reduced to five days a week. These changes are not happening without a fight. The Postal Directive, issued by the European Commission in 1997 and updated in 2002, laid out a (non-binding) timetable for the full liberalisation of the EU's postal market. Most EU countries have modified their laws and changed the status of the national post from a government department to a corporate entity. But few have treated postal liberalisation as a priority. Nearly all have established national postal regulatory agencies, as required by the directive, but the independence of these is sometimes in doubt. The French exception Big countries, notably France, have fought doggedly against the commission's efforts to speed up market opening. In 2003, after bitter wrangling, the legally permissible postal monopoly in the EU on letters dropped from 350 grams to 100 grams, which opened up 11% of the letters business in the EU to competition. In 2006, the monopoly on weight is set to drop again, to 50 grams, opening up a further 7% of mail. However, roughly three-quarters of letters weigh less than 50 grams, which explains why incumbents have shed only a small share of the overall letters market. Under the timetable set by the directive, in 2007 the EU's member countries will discuss opening their markets completely by 2009. Norway, not an EU member, plans to open its market in 2007; Sweden, Finland and Estonia already are open. But few believe that many others will be, or will want to be, ready. Of the countries undergoing liberalisation, only Germany, Britain and the Netherlands have agreed to open their markets fully before 2009. France stands somewhat apart. La Poste says it will meet the directive's recommended 2009 date. However, analysts think it is more likely that La Poste will try to keep its domestic stranglehold for as long as it can, meanwhile entering markets abroad, as France's other utilities have done in the water and electricity sectors. The company rejects this criticism. In fact, with the exception of Britain's Royal Mail, which has been preoccupied with domestic restructuring to reverse huge losses, Europe's big postal operators have responded to the threat of market liberalisation by seeking to expand into new businesses and new markets. Between 1998 and June 2004, they have acquired or franchised more than 120 companies, in activities as diverse as mail preparation, express-delivery, freight forwarding and intra-city unaddressed mail delivery. In some instances, the logic has been to take on greater volumes, thereby extracting better value from the sunk costs represented by existing infrastructure, such as staff, sorting equipment and delivery vehicles. Empires of the mail The Dutch and Germans have been both the most aggressive and the most global in their strategies. In the Netherlands, TPG acquired the express operator TNT in 1996, and expanded into freight delivery and contract logistics in Europe and Asia. In Germany, Deutsche Post embarked on the most grandiose acquisition drive, purchasing DHL, an express firm, between 1998 and 2002, among numerous other assets, mostly in Europe but also in Asia. Since postal reform began in 1990, the portion of Deutsche Post's earnings made overseas has risen from 2% to 50%. Both companies were relatively early in their efforts to restructure their core businesses. TPG began in 1993; Deutsche Post in 1991, when it needed to integrate the postal systems inherited from formerly communist East Germany. Both operators have also floated on the stock exchange, which gave them shares that they could use as currency for their acquisitions. By contrast, France's La Poste says it seeks to be a key European player, but not a global one, although it has acquired some companies and formed an alliance with FedEx, America's second-largest logistics firm after UPS. UPS is thought to want to enter the European market for bulk business mail, taking on the national post offices?but only after the letters market has been further opened to competition. La Poste, along with TPG and Deutsche Post, is considering buying a minority stake in Belgium's La Poste when shares are offered for sale; TPG and Deutsche Post are already vying to acquire a stake in Post Danmark when the Danish government sells 25% later this year. The shape of domestic deregulation differs in each of the four countries, and has been an area of controversy. Germany has a tariff structure that discourages competitors from consolidating mail volumes (this is currently being challenged before competition authorities). The Netherlands allows companies to place pre-sorted mail into TPG's network and also allows, but does not mandate, discounts for large-volume customers. Britain retains the Royal Mail's monopoly on the last-mile delivery for daily mail volumes under 4,000 items (Express Dairies got its delivery licence because its volume is above the monopoly threshold). Alternatively, rivals may hand over mail to the national operator for final delivery, akin to the last-mile connection that gives new entrants access to existing telecoms infrastructure. France has not yet specified the rules for market deregulation; indeed, just this week the legislature began what will be a lengthy debate on the shape of new laws, which prompted postal workers to go on strike. Small wonder that there have been complaints that these domestic responses amount to anti-competitive behaviour. There have been some clear infractions. Deutsche Post, for example, was fined by the European Commission in 2001 for abusing its monopoly by allowing its global parcels business to receive big subsidies from its letters franchise. It was forced to ring-fence its parcels business. There is also a view that the large number of acquisitions made by the big operators has, ironically, caused the postal sector to become more than ever dominated by states. A report prepared for the commission last year by WIK-Consult, a consultancy, warned that there is some risk ?of ?governmentalising? the private sector instead of privatising the public sector.? In combination, these changes are challenging the post's identity and legacy in ways that are only just starting to become apparent. One problem is managing labour relations, for with modernisation comes big job losses. In countries that have undergone reform and liberalisation, such as Sweden, as much as 25% of postal jobs have disappeared. Ten years after its post became a corporation in 1987, New Zealand's system had reduced its staff by 40%, but the employees handled 20% more business. Moreover, the price of a letter remained constant in nominal terms, representing a big price reduction in real terms. Checks on the post Also controversial are branch closures. Even before deregulatory reforms were begun, between 1998 and 2002 post-office branches were closed at an average rate of about 2.4% per year across Europe. Historically, branches have acted as the central nervous system of many communities, used to receive social security and pensions, tax forms and the like. People fight to keep their local outlets. What is clear is that postal operators will have to continue to expand into new services. Some posts have offered certified e-mail using encryption techniques to time-stamp electronic communications, though with little success to date. This might get a boost now that there are plans for the Universal Postal Union, an international treaty organisation more than a century old that co-ordinates global postal activities, to manage a specialised internet address extension, .post. Most posts are looking at expanding direct-mail operations and selling ?hybrid mail?, whereby large mailers such as financial institutions or utilities merely provide data to the post, which takes responsibility for printing the documents and delivering them. Some plans are more radical. This month, Britain's Royal Mail said it would start to sell telephone services to compete with BT, more than two decades after the post and telecoms were split in preparation for privatisation of the latter. America's postal service is forging new programmes such as allowing customers to book a time for a parcel delivery or pick-up and providing customers with delivery guarantees even for regular first-class mail. Whether such efforts will succeed remains to be seen. As competition increases so will pressure on incumbent operators to become even leaner and fitter. As broadband internet and mobile phones become ever more ubiquitous, as electronic substitution grows and as demand increases for flexible deliveries and differential pricing, the justification for maintaining the universal service obligation and the monopoly that accompanies it will diminish, and it will come to be seen as an expensive anachronism. But, like other changes in the industry, and with so much employment, national prestige and other interests at stake, this may happen by slow coach rather than post haste. Politics, if nothing else, will probably see to that. ***** Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Amara Graps wrote: > >> In some sense since January 17, I experienced a collusion of the worst >> parts of United States Postal Service, Poste Italiane, CNR (Italian >> research) science funding, and more ... well you decide. > > > Don't feel alone. The company I work for has consistently been dealing with > 3rd world levels of service with our regular USPS shipments. Overnight > packages everywhere taking 3-8 days to arrive. On time arrivals being the > exception rather than the rule. I have on my desk an express envelope of > paychecks which the post office never scanned into the system until they > showed up at my local post office (the package was coming from our HQ in > florida) and the package appeared as if someone had used it as a cushion for > a week. > > We've had packages disappear entirely, show up way late and damaged, or > merely so late that the time-sensitive legal documents we ship lost relevancy > and we had to restart the process. I have never been more in favor of the > total privatization of the postal service as I am now. > > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is > the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of > tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: > http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - > Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at m... > Alternate: < fortean1 at m... > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Mar 12 07:08:53 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:08:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] futurepundit, marginal revolution on transhumanism... In-Reply-To: <4232792A.3040206@mindspring.com> Message-ID: ...and velociraptors, happiness, etc. Lots of fun, albeit mostly well-intentioned, misapprehensions about the way the future will likely happen. There will probably still be velociraptors, though. Go read the pages below; I'm not going to excerpt since this format isn't kind to heavily belinked documents. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002657.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/03/identity_and_tr .html Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From scerir at libero.it Sat Mar 12 16:20:18 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:20:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <20050312022938.54526.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000401c5271f$62bfe5e0$16bb1b97@administxl09yj> Army Research Laboratory Tech Report No. ARL-TR-3005, June 2003 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0211001 Dr.Tajmar does not like the B&B effect, or it seems so http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/ http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207123v1 Btw, how to define a (conservation of) momentum it is not an easy task in case of em fields and dielectric media (sometimes the medium goes or turns around, etc.) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0406222 From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Mar 12 16:18:36 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:18:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> References: <20050311005314.492DA57EE8@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050311181248.02c92a18@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:53 PM 3/10/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >Aumann basically says (neglecting the part about priors) that it is >impossible for a rational person to believe that he has a persistent >disagreement with another person whom he believes to be rational, where >the other person also believes the first person is rational. Note that >this says nothing about what the second person actually believes. It all >has to do with what the first person believes about the world. It says >that a certain combination of beliefs is impossible for a rational person >to hold. This is true, given that "rational" means "perfectly rational". And of course this is why Aumann's initial result seemed so easy to dismiss -- of course we are not sure that they are sure that we are sure that ... we are both perfectly rational. But more recent results are harder to dismiss this way. For example, this paper of mine, For Bayesian Wannabes, Are Disagreements Not About Information? Theory and Decision 54(2):105-123, March 2003, allows for arbitrary deviations from perfect rationality. It says that if you both are reasonably confident that you both satisfy a few easy to compute belief constraints, then you have to each believe that the other person is biased in a certain direction *on average*, while each person believes themselves to be unbiased. >This perspective frees us from the competitive aspect of meta-rationality, >the "mine is bigger than yours" dynamic that sometimes arises in >discussions of this issue. It's not a matter of one person being wrong >in a disagreement, or one person being more meta-rational than another. Well, but it is in part. Most dimensions of "bigger" are not directly relevant. It is not directly about who knows more or thinks faster or makes fewer cognitive errors. It is only directly about calibration and arrogance - who on average better adjusts their estimates to account for the fact that other people might be more right than they. How various mental "bigger" dimensions correlate with calibration remains an open question to me. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Mar 12 17:53:50 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:53:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> Eliezer, you are just writing far too much for me to comment on all of it. If you give me an indication of what your key points are, I will try to respond to those points. For now, I will just make a few comments on specific claims. At 06:40 PM 3/9/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >The modesty argument uses Aumann's Agreement Theorem and AAT's extensions >as plugins, but the modesty argument itself is not formal from start to >finish. I know of no *formal* extension of Aumann's Agreement Theorem >such that its premises are plausibly applicable to humans. Then see: For Bayesian Wannabes, Are Disagreements Not About Information? Theory and Decision 54(2):105-123, March 2003. >you say: "If people mostly disagree because they systematically violate >the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for others, then >we will say that their disagreements are dishonest." (I would disagree >with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* they might be >self-deceived. ... I was taking self-deception to be a kind of dishonesty. >... if Aumann's Agreement Theorem is wrong (goes wrong reliably in the >long run, not just failing 1 time out of 100 when the consensus belief is >99% probability) then we can readily compare the premises of AAT against >the dynamics of the agents, their updating, their prior knowledge, etc., >and track down the mistaken assumption that caused AAT (or the extension >of AAT) to fail to match physical reality. ... This actually seems to me rather hard, as it is hard to observe people's priors. >... You attribute the great number of extensions of AAT to the following >underlying reason: "His [Aumann's] results are robust because they are >based on the simple idea that when seeking to estimate the truth, you >should realize you might be wrong; others may well know things that you do >not." >I disagree; this is *not* what Aumann's results are based on. >Aumann's results are based on the underlying idea that if other entities >behave in a way understandable to you, then their observable behaviors are >relevant Bayesian evidence to you. This includes the behavior of >assigning probabilities according to understandable Bayesian cognition. The paper I cite above is not based on having a specific model of the other's behavior. >So A and B are *not* compromising between their previous positions; their >consensus probability assignment is *not* a linear weighting of their >previous assignments. Yes, of course, who ever said it was? >... If this were AAT, rather than a human conversation, then as Fred and I >exchanged probability assignments our actual knowledge of the moon would >steadily increase; our models would concentrate into an ever-smaller set >of possible worlds. So in this sense the dynamics of the modesty argument >are most unlike the dynamics of Aumann's Agreement Theorem, from which the >modesty argument seeks to derive its force. AAT drives down entropy >(sorta); the modesty argument doesn't. This is a BIG difference. AAT is *not* about dynamics at all. It might require a certain dynamics to reach the state where AAT applies, but this paper of mine applies at any point during any conversation: Disagreement Is Unpredictable. Economics Letters 77(3):365-369, November 2002. >The AATs I know are constructive; they don't just prove that agents will >agree as they acquire common knowledge, they describe *exactly how* agents >arrive at agreement. Again, see my Theory and Decision paper cited above. >>... people uphold rationality standards that prefer logical consistency... > >Is the Way to have beliefs that are consistent among themselves? This is >not the Way, though it is often mistaken for the Way by logicians and >philosophers. ... Preferring consistency, all else equal, is not the same as requiring it. Surely you also prefer it all else equal. >... agree that when two humans disagree and have common knowledge of each >other's opinion ... *at least one* human must be doing something wrong. ... >One possible underlying fact of the matter might be that one person is >right and the other person is wrong and that is all there ever was to it. This is *not* all there is too it. There is also the crucial question of what exactly one of them did wrong. >Trying to estimate your own rationality or meta-rationality involves >severe theoretical problems ... "Beliefs" ... are not ontological parts of >our universe, ... if you know the purely abstract fact that the other >entity is a Bayesian reasoner (implements a causal process with a certain >Bayesian structure),... how do you integrate it? If there's a >mathematical solution it ought to be constructive. Second, attaching this >kind of *abstract* confidence to the output of a cognitive system runs >into formal problems. I think you exaggerate the difficulties. Again see the above papers. >It seems to me that you have sometimes argued that I should foreshorten my >chain of reasoning, saying, "But why argue and defend yourself, and give >yourself a chance to deceive yourself? Why not just accept the modesty >argument? Just stop fighting, dammit!" ... I would not put my advice that way. I'd say that whatever your reasoning, you should realize that if you disagree, that has certain general implications you should note. >It happens every time a scientific illiterate argues with a scientific >literate about natural selection. ... How does the scientific literate >guess that he is in the right, when he ... is also aware of studies of >human ... biases toward self-overestimation of relative competence? ... I >try to estimate my rationality in detail, instead of using unchanged my >mean estimate for the rationality of an average human. And maybe an >average person who tries to do that will fail pathetically. Doesn't mean >*I'll* fail, cuz, let's face it, I'm a better-than-average >rationalist. ... If you, Robin Hanson, go about saying that you have no >way of knowing that you know more about rationality than a typical >undergraduate philosophy student because you *might* be deceiving >yourself, then you have argued yourself into believing the patently >ridiculous, making your estimate correct You claim to look in detail, but in this conversation on this the key point you continue to be content to just cite the existence of a few extreme examples, though you write volumes on various digressions. This is what I meant when I said that you don't seem very interested in formal analysis. Maybe there are some extreme situations where it is "obvious" that one side is right and the other is a fool. This possibility does not justify your just disagreeing as you always have. The question is what reliable clues you have to justify disagreement in your typical practice. When you decide that your beliefs are better than theirs, what reasoning are you going through at the meta-level? Yes, you have specific arguments on the specific topic, but so do they - why exactly is your process for producing an estimate more likely to be accurate than their process? In the above you put great weight on literacy/education, presuming that when two people disagree the much more educated person is more likely to be correct. Setting aside the awkward fact of not actually having hard data to support this, do you ever disagree with people who have a lot more literacy/education than you? If so, what indicators are you using there, and what evidence is there to support them? A formal Bayesian analysis of such an indicator would be to construct a likelihood and a prior, find some data, and then do the math. It is not enough to just throw out the possibility of various indicators being useful. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 12 20:27:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:27:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanman!! Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312142351.01cd50c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> That's what we need, thrilling DVD adventures of the Uber-uploadguy! Here's an exciting model from the team playing the other corner (well, one of them): http://www.bibleman.com/bibleman/store.jsp#temptation for example: Bibleman faces his greatest challenge and his greatest adversary, the shifty Primordius Drool, in this thrilling cliff hanger. When the townspeople begin to rely too heavily on our holy superhero, Bibleman is tricked into thinking he must quit in order for the people to put their faith in God, instead of him. In the exciting conclusion, Bibleman is lured into a showdown with Primordius Drool ? if Bibleman is defeated the Biblecave will be sealed forever and Drool?s wicked scheme to turn every believer into an atheist will succeed. In the action-packed finale Cypher and Biblegirl come to the rescue and put their faith on the line to overcome Primoridius Drool, Inter-Galactic Desperado and Despot of Evil. and so on... From bret at bonfireproductions.com Sun Mar 13 00:01:52 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:01:52 -0500 Subject: Bush nominates Mike Griffin (was Re: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........) In-Reply-To: <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <58f02c3c71586ac4819b45524723b87f@bonfireproductions.com> Given Bush's nomination of Griffin, I thought I would send along some of the information surrounding his nomination: Some bio information: http://planetary.org/news/2005/nasa_griffin_031105.html Report he co-team lead in 2004 that people are referring to: Extending Human Presence into the Solar System http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf Of course one of the more savory bits is his being former COO of In-Q-Tel. And another article relating to our earlier discussion about the crew exploration vehicle: CEV: A different approach http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1 Cheers, BretK -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 981 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 13 00:55:28 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:55:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Bush nominates Mike Griffin In-Reply-To: <58f02c3c71586ac4819b45524723b87f@bonfireproductions.com> References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> <58f02c3c71586ac4819b45524723b87f@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312185449.01cac468@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Here's Zubrin's take: Statement of Mars Society President Robert Zubrin on the Selection of Dr. Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator Mike Griffin is a superb choice for NASA Administrator. I have known Mike for more than a decade. He is a real leader who is technically brilliant, highly creative, open minded to new ideas, well- experienced, and deeply committed for many years to the success of the American space program - emphatically including the new vision of reaching for human exploration of the Moon and Mars. The Bush administration is to be commended for this inspired selection. There is literally no one better qualified to lead the new space initiative than Mike Griffin. For the job of 11th NASA Administrator, Mike is the right man, in the right place, at the right time. As President of the Mars Society, I offer him our full support. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 01:06:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:06:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bush nominates Mike Griffin (was Re: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050313010654.38568.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > And another article relating to our earlier discussion about the crew > > exploration vehicle: > CEV: A different approach > http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1 This is a very interesting idea, though I'm peeved these bureaucrats still think an SRB CEV launcher will cost $100 million per launch. Insane. Rather than a disposable second stage, wrap it in a reentry shell with a couple fins and you've got a fully reusable two stage system. The plan for human exploration I think is a good one. Scientists can gripe, but really, I have to ask: what is the point of collecting all that science about what is out there if we never go out there to use that knowledge for something. We've been doing science on the solar system for 30 years. I think we know enough by now to justify expanding human presence there if we are ever going to do it. If NASA had the Stargate, they'd spend 30 years sending MALPs through it, sitting behind their little screens, never sending SG-1. "It detracts from the science" they would say. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 13 03:37:56 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:37:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gresham's Law Message-ID: <00d601c5277e$0c1b3780$b9893cd1@pavilion> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=selgin.gresham.law From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 13 05:57:32 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:57:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > Eliezer, you are just writing far too much for me to comment on all of > it. Yes. I know. You don't have to comment on all of it. I just thought I should say all of it before you wrote your book, rather than afterward. I don't think that this issue is simple - you did say you wanted to write a book on it - so I don't think that the volume of discussion is inappropriate to the question. I understand that your time is constrained, as is mine. If you allege that I don't seem interested in the math, you have to expect a certain probability of a long answer. > If you give me an indication of what your key points are, I will > try to respond to those points. If I had to select out two points as most important, they would be: 1) Just because perfect Bayesians, or even certain formally imperfect Bayesians that are still not like humans, *will* always agree; it does not follow that a human rationalist can obtain a higher Bayesian score (truth value), or the maximal humanly feasible score, by deliberately *trying* to agree more with other humans, even other human rationalists. 2) Just because, if everyone agreed to do X without further argument or modification (where X is not agreeing to disagree), the average Bayesian score would increase relative to its current position, it does not follow that X is the *optimal* strategy. > For now, I will just make a few > comments on specific claims. > > At 06:40 PM 3/9/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >> The modesty argument uses Aumann's Agreement Theorem and AAT's >> extensions as plugins, but the modesty argument itself is not formal >> from start to finish. I know of no *formal* extension of Aumann's >> Agreement Theorem such that its premises are plausibly applicable to >> humans. > > Then see: For Bayesian Wannabes, > Are Disagreements Not About Information? > Theory and Decision > 54(2):105-123, March 2003. (I immediately notice that your proof of Lemma 1 describes a Bayesian Wannabe as wishing to minimize her expected squared error. Orthodox statisticians minimize their expected squared error because, like, that's what orthodox statisticians do all day. As described in TechExp, Bayesians maximize their expectation of the logarithm of the probability assigned to the actual outcome, which equates to minimizing expected squared error when the error is believed to possess a Gaussian distribution and the prior probability density is uniform. I don't think this is really important to the general thrust of your paper, but it deserves noting.) On to the main issue. These Bayesian Wannabes are still unrealistically skilled rationalists; no human is a Bayesian Wannabe as so defined. BWs do not self-deceive. They approximate their estimates of deterministic computations via guesses whose error they treat as random variables. I remark on the wisdom of Jaynes who points out that 'randomness' exists in the map rather than the territory; random variables are variables of which we are ignorant. I remark on the wisdom of Pearl, who points out that when our map sums up many tiny details we can't afford to compute, it is advantageous to retain the Markov property, and hence humans regard any map without the Markov property as unsatisfactory; we say it possesses unexplained correlations and hence is incomplete. If the errors in BWs computations are uncorrelated random errors, the BWs are, in effect, simple measuring instruments, and they can treat each other as such, combining their two measurements to obtain a third, more reliable measurement. If we assume the computation errors follow a bell curve, we obtain a constructive procedure for combining the computations of any number of agents; the best group guess is the arithmetic mean of the individual guesses. How long is the Emperor of China's nose? >> you say: "If people mostly disagree because they systematically >> violate the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for >> others, then we will say that their disagreements are dishonest." (I >> would disagree with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* >> they might be self-deceived. ... > > I was taking self-deception to be a kind of dishonesty. Life would be so much simpler if it were. Being honest is difficult and often socially unrewarding, but halting self-deception is harder. >> ... if Aumann's Agreement Theorem is wrong (goes wrong reliably in the >> long run, not just failing 1 time out of 100 when the consensus belief >> is 99% probability) then we can readily compare the premises of AAT >> against the dynamics of the agents, their updating, their prior >> knowledge, etc., and track down the mistaken assumption that caused >> AAT (or the extension of AAT) to fail to match physical reality. ... > > This actually seems to me rather hard, as it is hard to observe people's > priors. Is it hard to observe the qualitative fact of whether or not humans' priors agree? Well, yes, I suppose, as humans, not being Bayesians, possess no distinguished priors. But it is a relatively straightforward matter to tell whether humans behave like Aumann agents. They don't. Similarly, I think it would be a relatively straightforward matter to sample whether Aumann agents indeed all had the same priors, as they believed, if they had agreed to disagree and therefore the premises stood in doubt. Since Aumann agents know their priors and can presumably report them. >> ... You attribute the great number of extensions of AAT to the >> following underlying reason: "His [Aumann's] results are robust >> because they are based on the simple idea that when seeking to >> estimate the truth, you should realize you might be wrong; others may >> well know things that you do not." >> I disagree; this is *not* what Aumann's results are based on. >> Aumann's results are based on the underlying idea that if other >> entities behave in a way understandable to you, then their observable >> behaviors are relevant Bayesian evidence to you. This includes the >> behavior of assigning probabilities according to understandable >> Bayesian cognition. > > The paper I cite above is not based on having a specific model of the > other's behavior. The paper you cite above does not yield a constructive method of agreement without additional assumptions. But then the paper does not prove agreement *given* a set of assumptions. As far as I can tell, the paper says that Bayesian Wannabes who agree to disagree about state-independent computations and who treat their computation error as a state-independent "random" variable - presumably meaning, a variable of whose exact value they are to some degree ignorant - must agree to disagree about a state-independent random variable. >> So A and B are *not* compromising between their previous positions; >> their consensus probability assignment is *not* a linear weighting of >> their previous assignments. > > Yes, of course, who ever said it was? If two people who find that they disagree immediately act to eliminate their disagreement (which should be "much easier"), what should they compromise on, if not a weighted mix of their probability distributions weighted by an agreed-upon estimate of relative rationality on that problem? >> ... If this were AAT, rather than a human conversation, then as Fred >> and I exchanged probability assignments our actual knowledge of the >> moon would steadily increase; our models would concentrate into an >> ever-smaller set of possible worlds. So in this sense the dynamics of >> the modesty argument are most unlike the dynamics of Aumann's >> Agreement Theorem, from which the modesty argument seeks to derive its >> force. AAT drives down entropy (sorta); the modesty argument >> doesn't. This is a BIG difference. > > AAT is *not* about dynamics at all. It might require a certain dynamics > to reach the state where AAT applies, but this paper of mine applies at > any point during any conversation: > > Disagreement Is Unpredictable. > Economics Letters > 77(3):365-369, November 2002. I agree that rational agents will not be able to predict the direction of the other agent's disagreement. But I don't see what that has to do with my observation, that human beings who attempt to immediately agree with each other will not necessarily know more after compromising than they started out knowing. >> The AATs I know are constructive; they don't just prove that agents >> will agree as they acquire common knowledge, they describe *exactly >> how* agents arrive at agreement. > > Again, see my Theory and Decision paper cited above. As far as I can see, this paper is not constructive, but that is because it does not start from some set of premises and prove agent agreement. Rather the paper proves that if Bayesian Wannabes treat their computation errors as state-independent random variables, then if they agree to disagree about computations, they must agree to disagree about state-independent random variables. So in that sense, the paper proves a non-constructive result that is unlike the usual class of Aumann Agreement theorems. Unless I'm missing something? >>> ... people uphold rationality standards that prefer logical >>> consistency... >> >> Is the Way to have beliefs that are consistent among themselves? This >> is not the Way, though it is often mistaken for the Way by logicians >> and philosophers. ... > > Preferring consistency, all else equal, is not the same as requiring > it. Surely you also prefer it all else equal. No! No, I do not prefer consistency, all else equal. I prefer *only* that my map match the territory. If I have two maps that are unrelated to the territory, I care not whether they are consistent. Within the Way, fit to the territory is the *only* thing that I am permitted to consider. Michael Wilson remarked to me that general relativity and quantum mechanics are widely believed to be inconsistent in their present forms, yet they both yield excellent predictions of physical phenomena. This is a challenge to find a unified theory because underlying reality is consistent and therefore there is presumably some *specific* consistent unified theory that would yield better predictions. It is *not* a problem because I prefer 'all else being equal' that my map be consistent. >> ... agree that when two humans disagree and have common knowledge of >> each other's opinion ... *at least one* human must be doing something >> wrong. ... >> One possible underlying fact of the matter might be that one person is >> right and the other person is wrong and that is all there ever was to it. > > This is *not* all there is too it. There is also the crucial question > of what exactly one of them did wrong. Okay. >> Trying to estimate your own rationality or meta-rationality involves >> severe theoretical problems ... "Beliefs" ... are not ontological >> parts of our universe, ... if you know the purely abstract fact that >> the other entity is a Bayesian reasoner (implements a causal process >> with a certain Bayesian structure),... how do you integrate it? If >> there's a mathematical solution it ought to be constructive. Second, >> attaching this kind of *abstract* confidence to the output of a >> cognitive system runs into formal problems. > > I think you exaggerate the difficulties. Again see the above papers. I think I need to explain the difficulties at greater length. Nevermind. >> It seems to me that you have sometimes argued that I should >> foreshorten my chain of reasoning, saying, "But why argue and defend >> yourself, and give yourself a chance to deceive yourself? Why not >> just accept the modesty argument? Just stop fighting, dammit!" ... > > I would not put my advice that way. I'd say that whatever your > reasoning, you should realize that if you disagree, that has certain > general implications you should note. Perhaps we disagree about what those general implications are? >> It happens every time a scientific illiterate argues with a scientific >> literate about natural selection. ... How does the scientific >> literate guess that he is in the right, when he ... is also aware of >> studies of human ... biases toward self-overestimation of relative >> competence? ... I try to estimate my rationality in detail, instead of >> using unchanged my mean estimate for the rationality of an average >> human. And maybe an average person who tries to do that will fail >> pathetically. Doesn't mean *I'll* fail, cuz, let's face it, I'm a >> better-than-average rationalist. ... If you, Robin Hanson, go about >> saying that you have no way of knowing that you know more about >> rationality than a typical undergraduate philosophy student because >> you *might* be deceiving yourself, then you have argued yourself into >> believing the patently ridiculous, making your estimate correct > > You claim to look in detail, but in this conversation on this the key > point you continue to be content to just cite the existence of a few > extreme examples, though you write volumes on various digressions. This > is what I meant when I said that you don't seem very interested in > formal analysis. I don't regard this as the key point. If you regard it as the key point, then this is my reply: while there are risks in not foreshortening the chain of logic, I think that foreshortening the reasoning places an upper bound on predictive power and that there exist alternate strategies which exceed the upper bound, even after the human biases are taken into account. To sum up my reply, I think I can generate an estimate of my rationality that is predictively better than the estimate I would get by substituting unchanged my judgment of the average human rationality on the present planet Earth, even taking into account the known biases that have been discovered to affect self-estimates of rationality. And this explains my persistent disagreement with that majority of the population which believes in God - how do you justify this disagreement for yourself? The formal math I can find does not deal at all with questions of self-deceptive reasoning or the choice of when to foreshorten a chain of reasoning with error-prone links. Which is the formal analysis that you feel I am ignoring? > Maybe there are some extreme situations where it is "obvious" that one > side is right and the other is a fool. How do these extreme situations fit into what you seem to feel is a mathematical result requiring agreement? The more so, as, measuring over Earth's present population, most cases of "obviousness" will be wrong. Most people think God obviously exists. > This possibility does not > justify your just disagreeing as you always have. I started disagreeing differently after learning that Bayesians could not agree to disagree, though only when arguing with people I regarded as aspiring rationalists who had indicated explicit knowledge of Aumann-ish results. Later I would launch a project to break my mind of the habit of disagreeing with domain experts unless I had a very strong reason. Perhaps I did not adjust my behavior enough; I do not say, "See, I adjusted my behavior!" as my excuse. Let the observation just be noted for whatever the information is worth. > The question is what > reliable clues you have to justify disagreement in your typical > practice. When you decide that your beliefs are better than theirs, > what reasoning are you going through at the meta-level? Yes, you have > specific arguments on the specific topic, but so do they - why exactly > is your process for producing an estimate more likely to be accurate > than their process? Sometimes it isn't. Then I try to substitute their judgment for my judgment. Then there isn't a disagreement any more. Then nobody remembers this event because it flashed by too quickly compared to the extended disagreements, and they call me stubborn. I do reserve to myself the judgment of when to overwrite my own opinion with someone else's. Maybe if someone who knew and understood Aumann's result, and knew also to whom they spoke, said to me, "I know and respect your power, Eliezer, but I judge that in this case you must overwrite your opinion with my own," I would have to give it serious consideration. If you're asking after specifics, then I'd have to start describing the art of specific cases, and that would be a long answer. The most recent occasion where I recall attempting to overwrite my own opinion with someone else's was with an opinion of James Rogers's. That was a case of domain-specific expertise; James Rogers is a decent rationalist with explicit knowledge of Bayesianity but he hasn't indicated any knowledge of Aumannish things. Maybe I'll describe the incident later if I have the time to write a further reply detailing what I feel to be the constructive art of resolving disagreements between aspiring rationalists. Michael Raimondi and I formed a meta-rational pair from 2001 to 2003. We might still be a meta-rational pair now, but I'm not sure. > In the above you put great weight on literacy/education, presuming that > when two people disagree the much more educated person is more likely to > be correct. In this day and age, people rarely go about disagreeing as to whether the Earth goes around the Sun. I would attribute the argument over evolution to education about a simple and enormously overdetermined scientific fact, set against tremendous stupidity and self-deception focused on that particular question. It's not a general rule about the superiority of education - just one example scenario. If you want an art of resolving specific disagreements between rationalists, or cues to help you estimate how likely you are to be correct on a particular question, then the art is specific and complicated. That said, I do indeed assign tremendous weight to education. Degree of education is domain-specific; an educated biologist is not an educated physicist. The value of education is domain-specific; not all education is equally worthwhile. If a physicist argues with a biologist about physics then the biologist's opinion has no weight. If a clinical psychologist argues with a physicist about psychology then, as far as any experimental tests have been able to determine, the clinical psychologist has no particular advantage. > Setting aside the awkward fact of not actually having hard > data to support this, do you ever disagree with people who have a lot > more literacy/education than you? Define "literacy". I strive to know the basics of a pretty damn broad assortment of fields. *You* might (or might not) have greater breadth than I, but most of your colleagues' publication records haven't nearly your variety. > If so, what indicators are you using > there, and what evidence is there to support them? When I disagree with an 'educated' person, it may be because I feel the other person to be ignorant of specific known results; overreaching his domain competence into an external domain; affected by wishful thinking; affected by political ideology; educated but not very bright; a well-meaning but incompetent rationalist; or any number of reasons. Why are the specific cues important to this argument? You seem to be arguing that there are mathematical results which a priori rule out the usefulness of this digression. > A formal Bayesian analysis of such an indicator would be to construct a > likelihood and a prior, find some data, and then do the math. It is not > enough to just throw out the possibility of various indicators being > useful. I lack the cognitive resources for a formal Bayesian analysis, but my best guess is that I can do better with informal analysis than with no analysis. As the Way renounces consistency for its own sake, so do I renounce formality, save in the service of arriving to the correct answer. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Mar 13 07:16:47 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:16:47 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0a3d01c5279c$9eb28c10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Eliezer wrote: >>> you say: "If people mostly disagree because they systematically violate >>> the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for others, >>> then we will say that their disagreements are dishonest." (I would >>> disagree with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* they might >>> be self-deceived. ... Robin replied: >> I was taking self-deception to be a kind of dishonesty. Eliezer again: > Life would be so much simpler if it were. Being honest is difficult and > often socially unrewarding, but halting self-deception is harder. FWIW. I also have some trouble with this use of the term dishonesty Robin. Perhaps disingenuous rather than dishonest is the appropriate term. A person may be unwittingly or unconsciously self-favoring in their own biases and still able to spot and dislike self-favoring biases in others and object to them without being what I'd normally consider dishonest. I think your definition of dishonesty would catch a larger class of persons than most peoples ordinary definintion of dishonesty would. I wonder if the your paper Are Disagreements Honest? Might not be better entitled Are Disagreements Sincere? And accordingly if your test might not be better as a sincerity test rather than as an honesty test. Just a thought. Brett Paatsch From hal at finney.org Sun Mar 13 08:48:40 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050313084840.C488557EBA@finney.org> Brett writes: > A person may be unwittingly or unconsciously self-favoring in their own > biases and still able to spot and dislike self-favoring biases in others and > object to them without being what I'd normally consider dishonest. It's easier to see the mote in another's eye than the beam in your own, as Jesus reminds us. Hal From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 13 12:42:52 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:42:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Announcement: Join The Cryonics Society Today Message-ID: <4234354C.6060601@humanenhancement.com> I'm not involved with this group yet, but it does seem a worthwhile idea. Joseph -------- Original Message -------- From: "Cryonics Society" Subject: Announcement: Join The Cryonics Society Today Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:27:35 -0500 Throughout its history, cryonics has faced a problem that has crippled its hopes and aspirations and that could still put an end to the cryonics movement and the lives of everyone who supports it. A new organization has been formed that hopes to solve that problem - and your help is needed to make it succeed. The new organization is the Cryonics Society. Its goal is to end the distorted negative presentation of cryonics that the media sends to the public and to replace it with positive information and positive support. We don't have to tell you why such an effort is needed. People in cryonics have been saying for years that we need to put a better and more positive message about cryonics before the public. They're right. Cryonics is consistently misrepresented and sensationalized by the media. Government agencies and legislators have treated it with harshness and interference and regulation. Perhaps even worse is what cryonics has suffered because of the lack of popular support. If cryonics organizations had received a tiny fraction of the donations and grants many charities receive, millions in funds might be available right now for research and development and patient care. Cryonics as we envision it might be a reality today, instead of a dream. The general public has not rejected cryonics because they're foolish. They've rejected cryonics because they're constantly being given a biased and inaccurate picture of cryonics that invites rejection. Give them a true and accurate and inspiring picture and they'll react as cryonics members have - with acceptance and support. If cryonics is going to fulfill its promise, if cryonics is going to survive at all, it needs acceptance and support from the general public and the scientific community. To get it, a systematic professionally-run campaign to change public opinion has to be undertaken by an organization whose main focus is to turn this situation around. The Cryonics Society is that organization. The Cryonics Society does not perform suspensions or maintain patients. It's here to be a credible voice bringing an optimistic message about the compassionate humane possibilities of cryonics to people that so far may only have been exposed to alienating distortions. The Cryonics Society was founded and is led by communications professionals who have over fifty years experience between them in the fields of marketing, advertising, direct mail, and public communications. It's a team that has a long successful track record of getting results - and everyone on the leadership team is a cryonics member. Not outsiders, but people who belong to Alcor, the Cryonics Institute, and to other cryonics organizations. We all know that professionally promoted products and services sell. Professional promotional techniques have even gotten people to buy things that are harmful and destructive, from cigarettes and alcohol to worse. If the public can be sold on death, it can be sold on life. But only people with seasoned skills and experience can be expected to promote cryonics effectively. We all have the deepest respect for existing cryonics organizations and the way they've kept cryonics alive since its beginnings. But existing cryonics service providers have to focus their time, staff, and funds on member and patient care. The Cryonics Society could significantly help them in the area of public perceptions. Should a member of an existing cryonics organization join the Cryonics Society? Yes. Of course. The Cryonics Society's goals are to get every legitimate cryonics organization more members, more research funding, more public support. We're here to help, and helping us will help them. And such help is needed. Existing organizations have done the best they could, and perhaps the best anyone could do under the circumstances. But the facts are plain. The way cryonics has been presented to the public to date simply has not worked. Forty years of business as usual has not gotten us the results we want. Some of us can't wait another forty years. If we want things to be different, we have to do something new. The Cryonics Society thinks it's time to take action. It's already done so. Already the Cryonics Society has sent an outreach letter to over ten thousand individuals. You can read it yourself at http://www.CryonicsSociety.org/outreachletter.html. The letter generated members, requests for information and updates, and donations. But what most encouraged and surprised us was that the Society received not one hostile or critical remark from the public. We've gotten into the habit of thinking that the public is anti-cryonics. But what we've found out so far is that the public responds positively - to a positive approach. And isn't that great news for us all? The Cryonics Society plans to send many such future mailings, and hopes to do so on a regular basis. But mailings and similar outreach efforts have to be paid for. To do that, we need continuing support. We need continuing help in the form of memberships and volunteer support and donations. The Cryonics Society mailing was made possible only because of a generous donation. We need more such contributions if our efforts are to continue. We need the kind of help that only you can give. Because if the people already committed to cryonics won't help, who will? Is getting an optimistic and supportive message out to the public the only benefit the Cryonics Society has to offer? The Society offers more than that. In a field that is sometimes marked by divisive arguments and factionalism, the Cryonics Society can offer a haven where all supporters of cryonics can come together in friendship and unity and work toward our common goals. In a field where there are many legitimate disagreements, the Cryonics Society can provide a neutral and objective voice. To a world that normally sees cryonics organizations presented as being in conflict with regulators or performing controversial surgical procedures, the Cryonics Society offers a picture of a fresh new organization working purely in support of scientific research and public education and life. To members, the Cryonics Society already offers a number of special benefits as well, including a free subscription to the Society newsletter, FutureNews. Membership also includes member assistance in obtaining a treatment provider, an emergency hot-line, and more. And to people interested in cryonics or in becoming Cryonics Society members, we provide news and information and updates at no charge. Would you like to get mailings from CS, or let a friend interested in cryonics know about us? Then go to http://www.CryonicsSociety.org/addressform.html and type in a mailing or email address and stay informed. How much is Basic membership in the Cryonics Society? Only $20. Yes, you can join online using Visa or other major credit cards. Yes, the Society can take donations online too -- and every dollar you contribute now towards the CS outreach program will send a positive message about cryonics to at least three people who may never have heard a single good or true thing about it. Help them find out. Help your own chances for survival, and all our chances. Learn more about what we're trying to accomplish, and why it could have a direct impact on your own hopes and chances for survival. Visit our web site. Subscribe to FutureNews at http://www.CryonicsSociety.org/futurenews/index.php, and hear about what we're doing. Join us. We believe that getting wider public support is the most important issue facing cryonics today. Until we present a better picture to the public, cryonics will remain under-funded, under-staffed, and facing the threat of being shut down. We can turn this around. But we can't do it without you. So become a member. Contribute. Tell your friends. Help us make a difference. The future of cryonics depends on you. David Pascal Public Relations Director The Cryonics Society http://www.CryonicsSociety.org P.S. Next month the Cryonics Society will be putting a fresh new series of public outreach letters in the mail. How many people will be reading those letters? It depends on you. Your membership and your contribution will directly enable us to send out a greater number of positive messages about cryonics to more and more people. So if you want to see cryonics get the respect and support it deserves, contribute now, as generously as you can. You can contribute online at http://www.CryonicsSociety.org/helping.html. You can join online at http://www.CryonicsSociety.org/joining.html. What you do now can make a difference. Start by joining the Cryonics Society today. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 13 18:38:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:38:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] beams & motes In-Reply-To: <20050313084840.C488557EBA@finney.org> References: <20050313084840.C488557EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313122614.01c9e3f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:48 AM 3/13/2005 -0800, Hal wrote: >It's easier to see the mote in another's eye than the beam in your own, >as Jesus reminds us. Well, he was a carpenter so you'd expect him to know what he is talking about when it comes to workplace accidents with beams. But I'm not too sure. If you've got a plank stuck in your eye, that's going to make it hard to see anything, let alone a splinter in someone else's eye. True, the beam might be protruding from one eye, and you are examining the mote guy with the other. That's assuming he is going to let you anywhere near him. This is all a bit "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for my tastes. On the other hand, when I'm looking for a mote in someone else's eye, I always shine a beam in first. Frankly, I'd consult an ophthalmologist rather than a carpenter or a mystic. Damien Broderick From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 21:04:09 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:04:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Bush nominates Mike Griffin In-Reply-To: <200503131912.j2DJCmE30400@tick.javien.com> References: <200503131912.j2DJCmE30400@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: [here's a copy of a relevant post on this topic that I've made elsewhere] Griffin is currently head of the space department at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, At other times in his career he's been with a great many organizations, including JPL, In-Q-Tel (the CIA's interface with private industry), and the Strategic Defense Initiative (i.e. the much-ballyhooed "Star Wars" program). Here's an interesting quote from a space.com article on him: http://www.space.com/news/griffin_nasa_050311.html "Worden said that he believes Griffin will "make maximum use of the true private sector" in implementing the space exploration vision, heading one of the central recommendations of a blue ribbon panel Bush chartered last year to advise him turning the exploration goals into reality. "Stadd said some of the smaller, entrepreneurial firms vying for a role in NASA's new exploration plans ought to be very happy the White House picked Griffin. "'From an entrepreneurial standpoint he has someone who has actually experienced what it is like to be on the other side of the table dealing with the government,' he said. "We haven't had that before.'" -- Last year he also gave testimony to Congress on the future of human spaceflight. There were a number of good quotes (especially the first one): http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683 "So, recognizing that others may differ, for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible." "What the U.S. gains from a robust, focused program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along with the inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system. Is this valuable? The answer must depend on one's worldview, I suppose. But consider a map of the world today, and notice the range of nations in which English is spoken as a primary language, and in which variations on British systems of justice, politics, culture, and economics thrive today. Was the centuries-long development of the British Empire, based upon Britain's primacy in the maritime arts, a misguided use of resources? I believe not. ... Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? I think so, and I think our descendants will consider it to have been worth twenty cents per day." "The necessary requirements of human expansion into the solar system cannot be met without a greatly increased program of unmanned scientific exploration. This can only be seen as a "win-win" for all those involved in any aspect of space exploration. In the end, it comes down to letting robots and humans each do what they do best." "For interplanetary flight, something more than chemical propulsion is clearly needed for other than return to the moon or, possibly, the first expeditions to Mars. Nuclear propulsion makes the most sense to me; several options are available, including both nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric concepts. We once had an operating, ground-tested (though not flight-tested) nuclear-thermal upper stage intended for use on the Saturn V. The program was cancelled thirty years ago, when it became clear that a Mars mission was not in the nation's immediate future. Numerous nuclear fusion concepts potentially applicable to space propulsion exist, most notably those involving electrostatic confinement of the nuclear core, but none of these is receiving more than token funding. There also exist a number of promising approaches to electric propulsion, notably the Vasimir engine concept. In the long run, some form of nuclear-electric propulsion is likely to offer the best combination of efficiency and packaging capability for interplanetary flight." "I have alluded above to some of the technical hurdles that we face in a commitment to a permanent program of human space exploration. Broadly, the tools necessary for this enterprise include: * Heavy-lift launch capability, in the 100 metric ton to LEO class or greater. * Reliable, efficient, and cost effective transportation to LEO for moderate size payloads. * Compact space qualified nuclear power systems. * Nuclear and nuclear-electric upper stage vehicles for application to interplanetary flight. * Space and planetary surface habitat and human suit technology. * Technology and systems for utilizing the in situ resources of the moon, Mars, and asteroids. * Reliable and routine Earth-to-LEO crew transfer systems." "I will repeat only briefly my remarks above concerning ISS; we should do what is necessary to bring the program to an orderly completion while respecting our international partnership agreements, obtaining where possible as much scientific value as we can from the enterprise while accommodating ourselves to the fact that such value is inevitably limited." "Regarding the Space Shuttle, I have previously offered my opinion to this Committee that we should move to replace this system with all deliberate speed. While the Shuttle's capabilities are extensive and varied, it has proven to be extremely expensive to use, unreliable in its logistics, and operationally fragile. It is extremely risky for the crews who fly it because, while its mission reliability is no worse than other launch vehicles, there is seldom any possibility of crew escape in the event of an anomaly. The shuttle has met none of its original goals, despite the best efforts of some of our nation's best engineers to achieve those goals. Neither NASA nor the nation as a whole saw, or could see, these problems looking forward in 1972, when the shuttle program was approved. But, three decades later, I think we must admit to ourselves that it is time to move on." I'm somewhat less enthusiastic about this quote: "On the engineering side, the first order of business is largely to restore capabilities that we once had, and then to make them more reliable and cost effective. It may not be impossible to consider returning to the moon, or going to Mars, without a robust heavy-lift launch capability, but it is certainly silly. Our last Saturn V was launched thirty years ago, and while I do not necessarily advocate resurrecting an outdated design, this is the class of capability which is needed for the human space flight enterprise." From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 23:41:28 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:41:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] beams & motes In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313122614.01c9e3f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050313084840.C488557EBA@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313122614.01c9e3f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:38:32 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:48 AM 3/13/2005 -0800, Hal wrote: > > >It's easier to see the mote in another's eye than the beam in your own, > >as Jesus reminds us. > > Well, he was a carpenter so you'd expect him to know what he is talking > about when it comes to workplace accidents with beams. But I'm not too sure. > > If you've got a plank stuck in your eye, that's going to make it hard to > see anything, let alone a splinter in someone else's eye. True, the beam > might be protruding from one eye, and you are examining the mote guy with > the other. That's assuming he is going to let you anywhere near him. This > is all a bit "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for my tastes. > > On the other hand, when I'm looking for a mote in someone else's eye, I > always shine a beam in first. > > Frankly, I'd consult an ophthalmologist rather than a carpenter or a mystic. > Nice bit of wordplay. :) You do realise that the 'Sermon on the Mount' was cobbled together by early Xtian writers and attributed to their Jesus persona? (Who may or may not have been a carpenter). The original of every verse can be found in the Jewish Old Testament or in the Talmud. Some original verses were hacked about more than others before being listed in the Sermon on the Mount. Talmud, Arakin 16b || Rabbi Tarfon said: "...for if one says to him: 'Remove the speck from between your eyes,' he would answer: 'Remove the beam from between your eyes!' " In the New Testament you find a sort of philosophical mishmash, with many similarities to other widely known sources (at that time) such as the Jewish Essene documents and the Hellenistic sayings of the wandering Cynic preachers. More information is still coming to light as research continues. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 13 23:41:51 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:41:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on transhumanism on the leading Italian weekly magazine Panorama In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c52050309063376db0699@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309110733.01e1b030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c5205030910227caa3dc9@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050309130509.01d14b60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mar 9, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:22 PM 3/9/2005 +0100, GP wrote: > >> No rational argument against [uploading], more like a subliminal >> appeal to >> reacting instiictively against, but the article is not that bad you >> know. > > Okay, but what I'm wondering is *what* they mean by `uploading the > mind', and why they disapprove? Is the `Yuck' factor--`Oh, how creepy, > a brain in a vat!' Well, I would at least ask some questions before signing up. I would want at least some guarantees of being fully myself in all ways not dependent on having a physical body. Next i would want to know what rights with what guarantees are enforced (or somehow self-enforceable). The perfection of oppression and of endless torture and other approximations of hell might too easily await me once uploaded if unscrupulous persons or AIs gained control. I doubt i would be the first volunteer. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 13 23:56:59 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:56:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <20050310091931.34117.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050310091931.34117.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6c6e811a7d618f255223c1d36f33aaba@mac.com> On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:19 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Why is it important whether we live in a sim or not: if we live in a > sim, then there is the possibility of life beyond the sim, and of life > beyond the sim for those who were born in the sim. By definition there is life beyond the sim or at least automated hardware running it. > Reconciling this > issue I think is of immense importance in reconciling transhumanism > with the theist majority, such that we are able to construct a > constructive, productive, and peaceful future, and not one riven by > transhuman/luddite strife and misery. I still don't see how this (likely being in a sim) makes any such difference. There are too many possible sim scenarios that do not support any notion of a god much less one near that of most theists. So precisely how does this follow? I can and have construct sim-inclusive arguments that do do a reasonable job of supporting a God but not one very similar at all to what most theist claim. So even having done some number of iterations of such speculative theology I still don't see where you/we get the benefit you are suggesting. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 14 00:03:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:03:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ In-Reply-To: <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> References: <20050308221409.51708.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0ed02de94472c53e270117ea760d4fb2@bonfireproductions.com> <3baf450ec1bd59f81dd554366c1651c8@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > I can agree with all your points. But conversely, it is cheaper for a > person to drive a tractor trailer across country than a robot. We need > to get that relationship with space. Well yeah, people are cheaper in the environment people evolved to handle. elsewhere in the solar system this is not the case. Either reengineer humans or pay very high costs to support the meat. - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 14 01:04:51 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:04:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] beams & motes In-Reply-To: References: <20050313084840.C488557EBA@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313122614.01c9e3f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313190329.01c768b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:41 PM 3/13/2005 +0000, BillK wrote: >In the New Testament you find a sort of philosophical mishmash That's midrash. :) Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Mon Mar 14 02:41:21 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:41:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050311163354.01cef698@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050311194921.29452.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050311163354.01cef698@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4234F9D1.8040301@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:49 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Mike L wrote: > > >> > However however, frustratingly, >> > >> > <...not enough to produce any meaningful effect during >> > Electrokinetic Propulsion experiments. > >> >> I don't know why you'd be frustrated. They found no need to do vacuum >> experiments because it was so very clear that the amount of ion wind >> produced was totally insufficient (by orders of magnitude) to account >> for the thrust observed. > > > You're right, I misread that, sorry. > > It's very interesting to see their linking of EM effects directly with > gravitation, in view of Haisch's and Puthoff's work in the vacuum > field, rather than spacetime curvature, derivation of gravitation. > > If this gadget can be scaled up to hold a test device hovering in the > air, we could all start getting really excited. > I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do. The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur experimentation for decades. Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no lift detected. I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of 'breakthrough'. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 07:10:07 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:10:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Taps Hopkins Physicist to Lead NASA Message-ID: <470a3c52050313231025f61f60@mail.gmail.com> Prior to taking over the space department at Johns Hopkins, Michael Griffin was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a CIA-bankrolled venture-capital organization. Earlier in his career, Griffin worked at NASA as chief engineer and as deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. Last year, Griffin joined other experts to assess the president's new exploration initiative for NASA, which involves retiring the shuttle by 2010, sending astronauts to the moon by 2020, and then mounting human expeditions to Mars and beyond. The report pushed for an even quicker retirement of the shuttle in order to accelerate work on a spaceship that could carry astronauts to the international space station and ultimately to the moon. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/41336.html From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 07:12:03 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:12:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hopes raised for nerve disease cure within ten years Message-ID: <470a3c5205031323126b857977@mail.gmail.com> The Times - A TREATMENT for a common form of motor neuron disease could be available within ten years using a new technique that can switch off the faulty genes responsible in mice, scientists said yesterday. Genetic forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the wasting condition that afflicts Professor Stephen Hawking, could be treatable using an advanced gene-silencing technique called RNA interference (RNAi), new research on mice has suggested. At present there is no cure for any form of motor neuron disease, in which the nerve cells that control the muscles degenerate and die. About 5,000 patients in Britain are affected by it, most of whom die within two to five years of diagnosis. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1524858,00.html From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 07:16:18 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:16:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] We, robot: the future is here Message-ID: <470a3c5205031323165fdca580@mail.gmail.com> Saya isn't even human. But in a country where robots are changing the way people live, work, play and even love, that doesn't stop Saya the cyber-receptionist from defending herself from men who are out of line. With voice recognition technology allowing 700 verbal responses and an almost infinite number of facial expressions from joy to despair, surprise to rage, Saya may not be biological - but she is nobody's fool. "I almost feel like she's a real person," said Kobayashi, an associate professor at the Tokyo University of Science and Saya's inventor. Having worked at the university for almost two years now, she's an old hand at her job. "She has a temper ... and she sometimes makes mistakes, especially when she has low energy," the professor said. Saya's wrath is the latest sign of the rise of the robot. Analysts say Japan is leading the world in a new generation of consumer robots. The latest models, such as Saya, will be demonstrated at the World Expo opening just outside Nagoya on March 25. Some scientists are calling the wave a technological force poised to change human lifestyles more radically than the advent of the personal computer or the mobile phone. http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/We-robot-the-future-is-here/2005/03/13/1110649061137.html From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 11:43:36 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:43:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal Message-ID: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> It is very good that a popular mainstream tv soap helps introducing viewers to cryonics. Perhaps the episode can be downloaded. Episode of "Boston Legal" aired on March 13 - Multi-Emmy Award winner Carl Reiner guest-stars as Milton Bombay, a client of Schmidt and Crane, who is an old adversary and legal legend wishing to be frozen and stored in a cryonics institute. Meanwhile, Alan Shore and Chelina Hall represent a high school student who is seeking an injunction to reverse the policy of his principal, Steven Harper (Chi McBride, reprising his "Boston Public" role), who has banned a particular news network from school grounds on the basis that it is biased and incendiary. http://abc.go.com/primetime/bostonlegal/episodes/2004-05/16.html There is a complete PDF transcript at http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/wp-images/Boston.Legal-Let.Freedom.Ring-Story7016-REVISED.pdf From dwish at indco.net Mon Mar 14 13:59:11 2005 From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:59:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <200503141354.j2EDsHNX002897@br549.indconet.com> Allow me a chance to add to this topic. First, programmed beliefs are largely an environment factor that determines the "faith" in those beliefs. If as a child you are taught that others are stupid and you are smart then you will be predisposed to treating those you deal with as morons. Not that you are smarter than they, but that you are told that you are. That seems to me the basics of your argument, what you are taught is right. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:54 AM To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; sl4 at sl4.org; ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Eliezer, you are just writing far too much for me to comment on all of it. If you give me an indication of what your key points are, I will try to respond to those points. For now, I will just make a few comments on specific claims. At 06:40 PM 3/9/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >The modesty argument uses Aumann's Agreement Theorem and AAT's extensions >as plugins, but the modesty argument itself is not formal from start to >finish. I know of no *formal* extension of Aumann's Agreement Theorem >such that its premises are plausibly applicable to humans. Then see: For Bayesian Wannabes, Are Disagreements Not About Information? Theory and Decision 54(2):105-123, March 2003. >you say: "If people mostly disagree because they systematically violate >the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for others, then >we will say that their disagreements are dishonest." (I would disagree >with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* they might be >self-deceived. ... I was taking self-deception to be a kind of dishonesty. >... if Aumann's Agreement Theorem is wrong (goes wrong reliably in the >long run, not just failing 1 time out of 100 when the consensus belief is >99% probability) then we can readily compare the premises of AAT against >the dynamics of the agents, their updating, their prior knowledge, etc., >and track down the mistaken assumption that caused AAT (or the extension >of AAT) to fail to match physical reality. ... This actually seems to me rather hard, as it is hard to observe people's priors. >... You attribute the great number of extensions of AAT to the following >underlying reason: "His [Aumann's] results are robust because they are >based on the simple idea that when seeking to estimate the truth, you >should realize you might be wrong; others may well know things that you do >not." >I disagree; this is *not* what Aumann's results are based on. >Aumann's results are based on the underlying idea that if other entities >behave in a way understandable to you, then their observable behaviors are >relevant Bayesian evidence to you. This includes the behavior of >assigning probabilities according to understandable Bayesian cognition. The paper I cite above is not based on having a specific model of the other's behavior. >So A and B are *not* compromising between their previous positions; their >consensus probability assignment is *not* a linear weighting of their >previous assignments. Yes, of course, who ever said it was? >... If this were AAT, rather than a human conversation, then as Fred and I >exchanged probability assignments our actual knowledge of the moon would >steadily increase; our models would concentrate into an ever-smaller set >of possible worlds. So in this sense the dynamics of the modesty argument >are most unlike the dynamics of Aumann's Agreement Theorem, from which the >modesty argument seeks to derive its force. AAT drives down entropy >(sorta); the modesty argument doesn't. This is a BIG difference. AAT is *not* about dynamics at all. It might require a certain dynamics to reach the state where AAT applies, but this paper of mine applies at any point during any conversation: Disagreement Is Unpredictable. Economics Letters 77(3):365-369, November 2002. >The AATs I know are constructive; they don't just prove that agents will >agree as they acquire common knowledge, they describe *exactly how* agents >arrive at agreement. Again, see my Theory and Decision paper cited above. >>... people uphold rationality standards that prefer logical consistency... > >Is the Way to have beliefs that are consistent among themselves? This is >not the Way, though it is often mistaken for the Way by logicians and >philosophers. ... Preferring consistency, all else equal, is not the same as requiring it. Surely you also prefer it all else equal. >... agree that when two humans disagree and have common knowledge of each >other's opinion ... *at least one* human must be doing something wrong. ... >One possible underlying fact of the matter might be that one person is >right and the other person is wrong and that is all there ever was to it. This is *not* all there is too it. There is also the crucial question of what exactly one of them did wrong. >Trying to estimate your own rationality or meta-rationality involves >severe theoretical problems ... "Beliefs" ... are not ontological parts of >our universe, ... if you know the purely abstract fact that the other >entity is a Bayesian reasoner (implements a causal process with a certain >Bayesian structure),... how do you integrate it? If there's a >mathematical solution it ought to be constructive. Second, attaching this >kind of *abstract* confidence to the output of a cognitive system runs >into formal problems. I think you exaggerate the difficulties. Again see the above papers. >It seems to me that you have sometimes argued that I should foreshorten my >chain of reasoning, saying, "But why argue and defend yourself, and give >yourself a chance to deceive yourself? Why not just accept the modesty >argument? Just stop fighting, dammit!" ... I would not put my advice that way. I'd say that whatever your reasoning, you should realize that if you disagree, that has certain general implications you should note. >It happens every time a scientific illiterate argues with a scientific >literate about natural selection. ... How does the scientific literate >guess that he is in the right, when he ... is also aware of studies of >human ... biases toward self-overestimation of relative competence? ... I >try to estimate my rationality in detail, instead of using unchanged my >mean estimate for the rationality of an average human. And maybe an >average person who tries to do that will fail pathetically. Doesn't mean >*I'll* fail, cuz, let's face it, I'm a better-than-average >rationalist. ... If you, Robin Hanson, go about saying that you have no >way of knowing that you know more about rationality than a typical >undergraduate philosophy student because you *might* be deceiving >yourself, then you have argued yourself into believing the patently >ridiculous, making your estimate correct You claim to look in detail, but in this conversation on this the key point you continue to be content to just cite the existence of a few extreme examples, though you write volumes on various digressions. This is what I meant when I said that you don't seem very interested in formal analysis. Maybe there are some extreme situations where it is "obvious" that one side is right and the other is a fool. This possibility does not justify your just disagreeing as you always have. The question is what reliable clues you have to justify disagreement in your typical practice. When you decide that your beliefs are better than theirs, what reasoning are you going through at the meta-level? Yes, you have specific arguments on the specific topic, but so do they - why exactly is your process for producing an estimate more likely to be accurate than their process? In the above you put great weight on literacy/education, presuming that when two people disagree the much more educated person is more likely to be correct. Setting aside the awkward fact of not actually having hard data to support this, do you ever disagree with people who have a lot more literacy/education than you? If so, what indicators are you using there, and what evidence is there to support them? A formal Bayesian analysis of such an indicator would be to construct a likelihood and a prior, find some data, and then do the math. It is not enough to just throw out the possibility of various indicators being useful. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 14:23:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:23:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050314142341.36276.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do. > The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur experimentation > for decades. > Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no > lift detected. > > I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of 'breakthrough'. > "Last I heard"? Is that some sort of statement of scientific accuracy? I just posted replicatable papers showing the opposite. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From brian at posthuman.com Mon Mar 14 16:56:49 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:56:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal In-Reply-To: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4235C251.9040908@posthuman.com> The judge has some good lines near the end: JUDGE BILLMEYER: Mr. Bombay, it seems ironic, if not indecent, that the state's interest in preserving life... should mandate that you die a wrenching and painful death, rather than be frozen in the hopes of finding a cure. But that's the law as it stands today. We live in a country that celebrates individual liberties and personal autonomy. But when it comes to controlling your own destiny... this is a freedom that does not yet ring. I will pray for you. But I cannot grant you your request. Your motion is denied. After that, Mr Bombay doesn't give up, and decides to go to Arizona to pursue his case. Pretty good episode for mainstream TV. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 14 17:05:38 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:05:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <200503141354.j2EDsHNX002897@br549.indconet.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <200503141354.j2EDsHNX002897@br549.indconet.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050314120244.02d42bf8@mail.gmu.edu> At 08:59 AM 3/14/2005, Dustin Wish wrote: >Allow me a chance to add to this topic. First, programmed beliefs are >largely an environment factor that determines the "faith" in those beliefs. >If as a child you are taught that others are stupid and you are smart then >you will be predisposed to treating those you deal with as morons. Not that >you are smarter than they, but that you are told that you are. That seems to >me the basics of your argument, what you are taught is right. The pattern is so ubiquitous that it seems hard to believe there isn't a large genetic component. It would be extremely hard to raise people from birth so that they did *not* think that they and their group are more reliable sources than others. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From dirk at neopax.com Mon Mar 14 18:01:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:01:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050314142341.36276.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050314142341.36276.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4235D166.2080300@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do. >>The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur experimentation >>for decades. >>Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no >>lift detected. >> >>I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of 'breakthrough'. >> >> >> > >"Last I heard"? Is that some sort of statement of scientific accuracy? >I just posted replicatable papers showing the opposite. > > > I've spend quite a bit of time over the years tracking down these claims, even talking to Naudin before he hit the headlines. I do not intend to run over the same old ground yet again for a new bunch of fans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect Like I said, this is all far from new. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 14 18:44:50 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:44:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Enhancing Our Truth Orientation Message-ID: <20050314184450.B1C0D57EBA@finney.org> Slashdot had an article last night about a guy using a wearable video camera to take footage of the big CeBit electronics show, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/028207. The page with the videos is http://cebit.150.dk/. He has BitTorrent links to download them, but the one I downloaded didn't play on my Mac. They're quite large, 20-300 MB, but there are a zillion people seeding them today so it is an easy download with BT. I'll try some of the others. (While writing this I downloaded another one and it worked OK.) He's using a "Pocket Media Assistant", the Archos PMA430. This is an interesting gadget, primarily a portable video player crossed with a PDA. It's very expensive, $760 at amazon.com. It has a 30 GB hard disk drive and can play and record videos and mp3s, capable of holding up to 120 hours of video. It can sync to a PC using either USB2 or 802.11b wireless, so it would be pretty fast to upload video periodically; in fact, he did it from one of the manufacturer's booths at the show. The PMA430 runs Linux so you can actually load many kinds of free software onto the device which would make it useful for experimenting with. The person who had it at the show, Charbax, used an inexpensive head mounted surveillance type color video camera connected by cable to the handheld PMA430. He said running the video recorder constantly used up a battery in about 5 hours, so he had to switch batteries once during his day at the show. This device is surprisingly close to a practical always-on wearable video recorder. It just needs a bigger battery. Then if the price comes down in a few years it will be practical for widespread use. Hal From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Mar 14 18:40:31 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:40:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal In-Reply-To: <4235C251.9040908@posthuman.com> References: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> <4235C251.9040908@posthuman.com> Message-ID: Being in MA, I find this painfully relevant - I did not see the episode, but are the rumors of legal issues in this state adversely effecting one's suspension true? Anyone with a fact out there? ]3 On Mar 14, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Brian Atkins wrote: > The judge has some good lines near the end: > > JUDGE BILLMEYER: > Mr. Bombay, it seems ironic, if not > indecent, that the state's interest > in preserving life... should mandate > that you die a wrenching and painful > death, rather than be frozen in the > hopes of finding a cure. But that's > the law as it stands today. We > live in a country that celebrates > individual liberties and personal > autonomy. But when it comes to > controlling your own destiny... > this is a freedom that does not yet > ring. I will pray for you. But I > cannot grant you your request. > Your motion is denied. > > After that, Mr Bombay doesn't give up, and decides to go to Arizona to > pursue his case. Pretty good episode for mainstream TV. > -- > 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 hal at finney.org Mon Mar 14 19:06:34 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:06:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050314190634.599AB57EBA@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. I don't see > > any way these devices can work unless they are pushing on air or some > > other material medium. I can't see a role for Mach's Principle or > > any other exotic relativistic physics. Is something moving at > > relativistic speeds here? I don't see it. > > You aren't supposed to see it, it is a field effect. I'm not supposed to see something moving at relativistic speeds, we agree? Do you or don't you think that relativistic effects are present here? > The question remains, I posted a link to a paper that showed that ion > wind can only explain a small percent of the actual thrust observed, > contrary to NASA claims. Are you talking about http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc ? Or some other paper? If that one, he only shows what you claim with respect to a 1e-5 torr vacuum. He doesn't make any such claims with respect to operation in air. Do you agree? If not, please point me to where that is said. And this depends crucially on what the actual thrust observed is in such a hard vacuum, that this must be greater than his calculations based on air movement. But he doesn't provide any details of his experimental methodology. What kind of vacuum pump did he use? What was his experimental setup? How did he measure thrust? The paper says nothing about this. How seriously can we take his claim of such strong thrusts in a hard vacuum, when other researchers have failed to detect thrust in a vacuum (according to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect , thanks, Dirk). > Given the sort of performance Naudin has > shown, he should also be showing some rather significant ion wind to > generate that kind of thrust, something that would be quite detectable > and measurable. I agree. > He does have a page showing that he separated the electrodes entirely. > If it were ion wind, it wouldn't travel through the barrier he imposed > between the electrodes. Which page is that? ... > It depends on what you mean by 'uncompensated thrust'. Conservation of > energy doesn't make this illegal, because you are putting a significant > amount of power (i.e. work) into creating this Lorentz field effect. I > would say that for the amount of power expended, it may be considered > rather inefficient, power wise, compared to more conventional methods. And where is this work supposed to be going? What is it acting on? What gains energy when this device loses energy, as is required if energy is conserved? > Nor would I say that it ultimately violates conservation of momentum or > Newton's laws, it merely uses a field effect to do work within the same regieme. If the gadget starts going forward and there's nothing else that starts going backward, by definition that violates conservation of momentum, right? If this thing starts out stationary in empty space, and you turn it on and after a while it is moving, then its momentum has changed. Unless there's something else moving in the opposite direction, as with a rocket, you are violating conservation of momentum. All such "space drives" including your Lorrey Drive, violate conservation of momentum, as far as I can see. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 14 19:53:26 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:53:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050314190634.599AB57EBA@finney.org> References: <20050314190634.599AB57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050314133934.01da8598@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:06 AM 3/14/2005 -0800, Hal wrote: >If the gadget starts going forward and there's nothing else that starts >going backward, by definition that violates conservation of momentum, >right? If this thing starts out stationary in empty space, and you turn >it on and after a while it is moving, then its momentum has changed. >Unless there's something else moving in the opposite direction, as with >a rocket, you are violating conservation of momentum. Every time metal starts spinning when you switch an electromagnet on and off, you are making something move that was stationary. I assume the equal and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the floor and hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. (I do realize this is physics 001 territory.) For the same reason, I assume nobody would wish to be cushioning a rail gun against his shoulder when he switches it on. Or am I missing something elementary here? Damien Broderick [still not a physicist] From brian at posthuman.com Mon Mar 14 19:57:27 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:57:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> <4235C251.9040908@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4235ECA7.1080609@posthuman.com> It is only an issue (in all states I think) if you want to pick your own time and method of death like the character in the episode wanted. If you wait the whole process out until you die naturally then that makes the state happy. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From dirk at neopax.com Mon Mar 14 20:02:13 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:02:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050314191759.63274.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050314191759.63274.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4235EDC5.3060001@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>--- Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I guess most people here don't read as much crank physics as I do. >>>>The so-called BB Effect has been a staple of amateur >>>> >>>> >>experimentation >> >> >>>>for decades. >>>>Also, last I heard was that a lifter *was* tested in vacuum and no >>>>lift detected. >>>> >>>>I don't hold out much hope for this being any kind of >>>> >>>> >>'breakthrough'. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>"Last I heard"? Is that some sort of statement of scientific >>> >>> >>accuracy? >> >> >>>I just posted replicatable papers showing the opposite. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I've spend quite a bit of time over the years tracking down these >>claims, even talking to Naudin before he hit the headlines. >>I do not intend to run over the same old ground yet again for a new >>bunch of fans. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect >>Like I said, this is all far from new. >> >> > >The paper I cited clearly demonstrated that the electrohydrodynamic >effects, the ion-wind, were quite significantly less than the actual >observed thrust. I built a lifter myself in 1990 when I was in the >USAF. I used to fly it around my barracks dorm room (leading to rumors >in the unit that I'd stolen top secret Area 51 UFO technology). The >amount of wind generated by the device was clearly far less than would >have been needed to lift the entire mass of the lifter. Naudin has >clearly shown, by putting, alternatively, each electrode in separate >containers, yet still shown lift, so no hydrodynamic effects are >possible, no ion-wind is possible to have generated such lift. > > > Therefore no current flow. Sounds like perpetual motion - thrust without energy expenditure. >I would not doubt that in a perfect vacuum, the lack of gaseous >dielectric material to help maintain the field effect would cause >little or no thrust to be generated. Outer space, however, is not a >perfect vacuum. It has a very significant plasma content. What has been >shown is that thrust does not perfectly track with atmospheric >pressure. > > I would not expect it to. Nevertheless, I do think there are any new, or useful, physics involved. >Nor, btw, do I consider Wikipedia to be any sort of authority. In my >experience, wikipedia is a tool for promulgating consensus delusion and >propaganda rather than actual truth. > >The ongoing discussion about truth on this list should demonstrate that >wikipedia is not capable of determining the actual truth. > > > > You asked for references on the failure to lift in vaccum and they are listed in Wikipedia -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From sentience at pobox.com Mon Mar 14 20:00:15 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:00:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050314120244.02d42bf8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <200503141354.j2EDsHNX002897@br549.indconet.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050314120244.02d42bf8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4235ED4F.4000709@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 08:59 AM 3/14/2005, Dustin Wish wrote: > >> Allow me a chance to add to this topic. First, programmed beliefs >> are largely an environment factor that determines the "faith" in >> those beliefs. If as a child you are taught that others are stupid >> and you are smart then you will be predisposed to treating those >> you deal with as morons. Not that you are smarter than they, but >> that you are told that you are. That seems to me the basics of your >> argument, what you are taught is right. > > The pattern is so ubiquitous that it seems hard to believe there > isn't a large genetic component. It would be extremely hard to raise > people from birth so that they did *not* think that they and their > group are more reliable sources than others. I don't think the correct term for this is "genetic component" - that would imply a large variance between humans attributable to genetic differences. You're talking about evolutionary psychology, not behavioral genetics. The correct phrasing would probably be, "it seems hard to believe this doesn't arise from our species psychology" or "it seems hard to believe there isn't a specific adaptation", depending on which of these propositions you meant. Anyway... Once upon a time I believed I was right and others wrong about a certain issue, even though I was only five years old, even though I was surrounded by people older and wiser than me, who said to me: you'll understand when you're older, and meanwhile do as we tell you. So very arrogant was I, that I dared to defy them, and listen to the voice of my own reason which said that the adults' proposition was ridiculous. I suppose I could go back and try to rebuild my psychology from scratch by reversing that five-year-old decision, since it is, after all, quite absurd to suppose that a lone five-year-old could face down full adult intelligences and win. Is it not arrogant of me to believe, as I still believe even today, that I know so much better than my parents who have decades more of life experience? But the Jewish religion still seems to me ridiculous, including that particular proposition to which I objected at the age of five, the requirement to pray in Hebrew when I didn't understand Hebrew. Sabine Atkins once hypothesized to me that this childhood experience, my rejecting Judaism in the face of all adult assurance and then turning out to be right, had warped my entire psychology. Perhaps so! But this thing happened in the real world, and it is therefore appropriate to treat it as information. I do think I originally learned the wrong lesson. Up until around, oh, 2002 or so, I thought the lesson was that intelligence was the most important thing in the universe. For that my parents and rabbis had said to me: you may be intelligent, but experience is more important than intelligence; listen to us, when we tell you that the Jewish religion is right, and you'll understand when you're older. I therefore concluded that sheer, raw intelligence was far more powerful than experience, that intelligence was the most important thing in the world - a conclusion that would later influence my beliefs about Artificial Intelligence, when in 1996 I first declared the quest for the Singularity. In retrospect, I learned the wrong lesson. I acted as if, just because my parents and rabbis said "experience is greater than intelligence", I could arrive to the truth simply by reversing their mistake. I was foolish to let foolish people define my question for me. The truth is very hard to find. Other people's mistakes have no power to tell you where the truth hides, even if you reverse the mistakes. You cannot attain the precise dance of the Way by reversing someone else's randomly wandering error. But human nature is to say "Nay" where your opponent says "Yea", to let yourself be defined by the positions you oppose... When I was five years old, I was probably not more intelligent than my parents; my brain was not that mature. Even when I was thirteen years old, my parents could have used their greater life experience to defeat me - had my parents actually *used* their intellects, instead of searching for rationalizations for their birth religion. The lesson was not that intelligence defeated experience, but that rationality defeated rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself. One five-year-old's lone common sense defeated all those adult intellects, not because they were that stupid, nor because I was that smart, but because my five-year-old brain was actually processing the question instead of rationalizing a fixed answer. As a five-year-old I couldn't possibly have defeated a reasonably smart and scientifically literate adult, if the adult were uncertain of the question and using their intelligence and life experience to curiously seek out an answer. My parents could have defeated me handily, but they weren't in the game. But the life lesson still holds. I don't much credit the beliefs of people whom I don't think are applying their actual intellects to a question. Nor would the modesty argument have served me well. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 20:12:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050314201223.85581.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Mike Lorrey writes: > > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > > Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. I don't > see > > > any way these devices can work unless they are pushing on air or > some > > > other material medium. I can't see a role for Mach's Principle > or > > > any other exotic relativistic physics. Is something moving at > > > relativistic speeds here? I don't see it. > > > > You aren't supposed to see it, it is a field effect. > > I'm not supposed to see something moving at relativistic speeds, we > agree? > Do you or don't you think that relativistic effects are present here? I think that if you argue that Mach's principle, that inertia is caused by the gravity of all the mass in the universe acting forward in time then back again to the instant you accelerate something, and since it has been shown that electromagnetic and electrostatic fields can effect the speed of light (and thus the passage of time) it follows that an asymmetric electrostatic field could cause a differential in the effect of inertia and thus create a sort of field tractor effect, in which such a device is using the mass of the entire universe as a reaction mass, via the field effect. > > > The question remains, I posted a link to a paper that showed that > > ion wind can only explain a small percent of the actual thrust > > observed, contrary to NASA claims. > > Are you talking about > http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc ? > Or some other paper? > > If that one, he only shows what you claim with respect to a 1e-5 torr > vacuum. He doesn't make any such claims with respect to operation in > air. Do you agree? If not, please point me to where that is said. Naudin shows a chart of thrust vs torr. > > And this depends crucially on what the actual thrust observed is in > such a hard vacuum, that this must be greater than his calculations > based on air movement. But he doesn't provide any details of his > experimental methodology. What kind of vacuum pump did he use? > What was his experimental setup? How did he measure thrust? The > paper > says nothing about this. How seriously can we take his claim of such > strong thrusts in a hard vacuum, when other researchers have failed > to detect thrust in a vacuum (according to the Wikipedia article > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect , thanks, Dirk). > > > Given the sort of performance Naudin has > > shown, he should also be showing some rather significant ion wind > > to generate that kind of thrust, something that would be quite > > detectable and measurable. > > I agree. yet none of his videos show such wind effects. > > > He does have a page showing that he separated the electrodes > > entirely. If it were ion wind, it wouldn't travel through the > > barrier he imposed between the electrodes. > > Which page is that? Go looking through his "Lifter Project" pages. he shows some videos where he puts the lower electrode in a glass/plexiglass box and holds the small electrode above it. The lower electrode lifts when voltage is applied to the upper electrode. > ... > > > It depends on what you mean by 'uncompensated thrust'. Conservation > of > > energy doesn't make this illegal, because you are putting a > significant > > amount of power (i.e. work) into creating this Lorentz field > effect. I > > would say that for the amount of power expended, it may be > considered > > rather inefficient, power wise, compared to more conventional > methods. > > And where is this work supposed to be going? What is it acting on? > What gains energy when this device loses energy, as is required if > energy is conserved? The ground field, as is the case whenever any electronic device does work. Not all electrical energy winds up as heat. > > > Nor would I say that it ultimately violates conservation of > momentum or > > Newton's laws, it merely uses a field effect to do work within the > same regieme. > > If the gadget starts going forward and there's nothing else that > starts > going backward, by definition that violates conservation of momentum, > right? If this thing starts out stationary in empty space, and you > turnit on and after awhile its moving, then its momentum has changed. > Unless there's something else moving in the opposite direction, as > with a rocket, you are violating conservation of momentum. All such > "space drives" including your Lorrey Drive, violate conservation of > momentum, as far as I can see. If it is a field effect that is working against whatever field it is that causes inertia via a Lorentz translation (whether you follow Mach's Principle or Puthoff's ZPF theory is immaterial), then the 'reaction mass' is the mass of the entire universe. Ergo, no violation of conservation, unless you count the phenomenon of inertia itself as a violation of conservation. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Mar 14 21:15:31 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:15:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal In-Reply-To: <4235ECA7.1080609@posthuman.com> References: <470a3c520503140343337ac53@mail.gmail.com> <4235C251.9040908@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050314154107.04f7eb40@unreasonable.com> The episode was an interesting rehash of David E. Kelley's last pass at this topic, in "The Good Human Bar" episode of L. A. Law, aired 4 Jan 1990. There's a partial transcript at http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics9002.txt and discussion of what we'd thought of it at the time. Both treatments were sympathetic, but it's sad to see that 15 years later, Kelley still felt he had to write the same court outcome. At least the new one refers to "cryonics," instead of "cryogenics." Brian Atkins wrote: >It is only an issue (in all states I think) if you want to pick your own >time and method of death like the character in the episode wanted. If you >wait the whole process out until you die naturally then that makes the >state happy. Except that the state reserves the right to negate your suspension wishes by autopsy, a procedure that won't leave much intact to suspend. You can reduce the likelihood of an autopsy through pre-mortem action, but you can't eliminate the threat altogether. -- David Lubkin. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 21:39:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:39:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050314213943.72779.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Atkins wrote: > It is only an issue (in all states I think) if you want to pick your > own > time and method of death like the character in the episode wanted. If > you wait the whole process out until you die naturally then that > makes the state happy. An interesting question is if you can find a 'natural' way of dying relatively painlessly that doesn't puree your brain, and simply 'get infected'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 14 23:19:36 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:19:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050311222806.3177857EE9@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050314180430.034adc10@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:28 PM 11/03/05 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. snip Me too. Also conservation of energy. And unidirectional thrust, if it is not velocity dependent (and reference frames are supposed to all be the same) can be shown to violate the conservation of energy by a simple thought experiment. Just suspend the gadget at the end of a long arm in a vacuum, let it accelerate to some arbitrary velocity such that you can lower a wheel with a generator (or tap the hub of the suspension system) and make more power than it takes to generate the thrust. I am not opposed to unidirectional thrust devices, would love to see one (bought the Dean Drive patent from the PO when I was in high school) but folks really should be aware that it isn't just conservation of momentum that gets lost if you can make one. Keith Henson From dirk at neopax.com Mon Mar 14 23:58:52 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:58:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050314201223.85581.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050314201223.85581.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4236253C.4020808@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey writes: >> >> >>>--- Hal Finney wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. I don't >>>> >>>> >>see >> >> >>>>any way these devices can work unless they are pushing on air or >>>> >>>> >>some >> >> >>>>other material medium. I can't see a role for Mach's Principle >>>> >>>> >>or >> >> >>>>any other exotic relativistic physics. Is something moving at >>>>relativistic speeds here? I don't see it. >>>> >>>> >>>You aren't supposed to see it, it is a field effect. >>> >>> >>I'm not supposed to see something moving at relativistic speeds, we >>agree? >>Do you or don't you think that relativistic effects are present here? >> >> > >I think that if you argue that Mach's principle, that inertia is caused >by the gravity of all the mass in the universe acting forward in time >then back again to the instant you accelerate something, and since it >has been shown that electromagnetic and electrostatic fields can effect >the speed of light (and thus the passage of time) it follows that an >asymmetric electrostatic field could cause a differential in the effect >of inertia and thus create a sort of field tractor effect, in which >such a device is using the mass of the entire universe as a reaction >mass, via the field effect. > > > I severely doubt that, even more if the fields are static. The best argument I have seen for such a device is that of Woodward, which does not seem to have gone anywhere. At the time I tried to test his theory by two different methods and failed. Seems even he has conceded that his initial positive results were experimental error (other sites) http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/summ.htm If you are interested in less prestigious stuff there's always http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/sk1.htm -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 00:01:45 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:01:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Judge: Ca. Can't Uphold State Heterosexual Marriage Monopoly Message-ID: <20050315000145.80132.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote. The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law. The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution. Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor. Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court. A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dgc at cox.net Tue Mar 15 00:53:46 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:53:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <6c6e811a7d618f255223c1d36f33aaba@mac.com> References: <20050310091931.34117.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6c6e811a7d618f255223c1d36f33aaba@mac.com> Message-ID: <4236321A.2070508@cox.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I still don't see how this (likely being in a sim) makes any such > difference. There are too many possible sim scenarios that do not > support any notion of a god much less one near that of most theists. > So precisely how does this follow? > > I can and have construct sim-inclusive arguments that do do a > reasonable job of supporting a God but not one very similar at all to > what most theist claim. So even having done some number of iterations > of such speculative theology I still don't see where you/we get the > benefit you are suggesting. > I'm very confused, as usual. Is there any detectable difference between living in a sim and living in a universe constructed or controlled by "God?" "God" is simply another name for "sysop." Different religions use different names for god and ascribe different qualities to their particular god. It should be possible to create a list of attributes that are ascribed to gods by each religion (sect, faith, or other theist grouping) and then ask each religion to declare for each attribute whether or not it applies to their god. those who think we live in a sim can agree or disagree that each attribute describes the sim environment/sysop. For each religion there is a corresponding simulation environment. This reductionist approach applies only to religions that agree that at least some attributes of their god are "public knowledge." That is that at least some attributes of the god can be described reliably in words. For myself, each of these descriptions of my universe falls into one three categories: 1) inconsistent 2) consistent but contradicted by observation of the universe 3) consistent but no contradicted buy observation of the universe. I reject 1 and 2. Of all religions in category 3, only one is unique: That is the one in which there is no unobservable attributes. For any religion that ascribes unobservable attributes to god, I can construct an infinity of additional religions by adding additional unobservable attributes. I choose to "believe: in the one unique "religion." I am an atheist. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 01:00:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:00:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315010031.43585.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 02:28 PM 11/03/05 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: > > >Personally I'm a big fan of conservation of momentum. > > snip > > Me too. Also conservation of energy. > > And unidirectional thrust, if it is not velocity dependent (and > reference > frames are supposed to all be the same) can be shown to violate the > conservation of energy by a simple thought experiment. No, it doesn't. It neither violates conservation of energy or momentum. To violate conservation of energy, you would need to show that the amount of energy expended was in excess of the amount of kinetic energy gained by the work done. This is not the case. Nor would it violate conservation of momentum if it does tweak inertia through the asymmetric field geometry and power pulsing. I think the harder thing to believe is that inertia is caused by the gravity of all the other mass in the universe when gravity is a speed of light phenomenon. > > Just suspend the gadget at the end of a long arm in a vacuum, let it > accelerate to some arbitrary velocity such that you can lower a wheel > with > a generator (or tap the hub of the suspension system) and make more > power than it takes to generate the thrust. Your false assumption is in thinking that I or anyone else is claiming it does more work than it uses in energy. It is not an overunity device, nobody but you ever claimed it was, and given this misunderstanding, your opinion is suspect. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Mar 15 01:28:43 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:28:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology Message-ID: <42363A4B.2000605@humanenhancement.com> Unfortunately, the segment is only available as an audio file; I don't see a full transcript on the website. I heard it this morning, and remember that it was absolutely fascinating (paralyzed guy controls a computer cursor with brainwaves; they want to hook it up to a robotic arm next), but naturally it ended with the usual vague-but-ominous "there are places mankind was not meant to tread" crap. Joseph http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4533546 "Scientists make it possible for quadriplegics to control a television, play simple computer games and check e-mail... by just thinking about it. Commentator David Ewing Duncan contemplates the age of the neuro-cyborg." From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Mar 15 01:28:43 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:28:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology Message-ID: <42363A4B.2000605@humanenhancement.com> Unfortunately, the segment is only available as an audio file; I don't see a full transcript on the website. I heard it this morning, and remember that it was absolutely fascinating (paralyzed guy controls a computer cursor with brainwaves; they want to hook it up to a robotic arm next), but naturally it ended with the usual vague-but-ominous "there are places mankind was not meant to tread" crap. Joseph http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4533546 "Scientists make it possible for quadriplegics to control a television, play simple computer games and check e-mail... by just thinking about it. Commentator David Ewing Duncan contemplates the age of the neuro-cyborg." From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 15 04:43:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:43:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050314133934.01da8598@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200503150441.j2F4fGE13430@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > > Every time metal starts spinning when you switch an electromagnet on and > off, you are making something move that was stationary. I assume the equal > and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the floor and > hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. (I do > realize this is physics 001 territory.) For the same reason, I assume > nobody would wish to be cushioning a rail gun against his shoulder when he > switches it on. Or am I missing something elementary here? > > Damien Broderick [still not a physicist] The earth moves back the other way. Not very much of course, being as it is 6E24 kg, but it reacts the same way any mass would. Momentum is conserved. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 15 05:32:53 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:32:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <200503150441.j2F4fGE13430@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200503150531.j2F5UuE19119@tick.javien.com> > > ... I assume the equal > > and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the floor and > > hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact... > > switches it on. Or am I missing something elementary here? > > > > Damien Broderick [still not a physicist] > > The earth moves back the other way. Not very much of > course, being as it is 6E24 kg, but it reacts the same > way any mass would. Momentum is conserved. > > spike On second thought, I could be wrong. Thought experiment: take a 1 kg ball and toss it upward 6 meters into the air. When the ball reaches its apex, the Earth has traveled about 1e-24 meters in the opposite direction. But one might argue that since this distance is more than 6 orders of magnitude less than a Planck radius (1.6e-18 meters) that there is only one chance in 1.6 million that the earth moved at all. Some physics wonk might jump in here. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 15 05:22:47 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:22:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <200503150441.j2F4fGE13430@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050314133934.01da8598@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200503150441.j2F4fGE13430@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050314231757.01d2a610@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:43 PM 3/14/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >[I sez:] the equal > > and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the floor and > > hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. > >The earth moves back the other way. Not very much of >course, being as it is 6E24 kg, but it reacts the same >way any mass would. Momentum is conserved. Quite so. But the point Mike wants to assert, I gather, is that his favorite gadget kicks against the entire unimaginably massive Machian frame of the universe, thereby extracting momentum and having its way with it. More fashionably, perhaps one might imagine doing this magic against the bulk brane substrate of M Theory (or something equally audacious). The proponents cited by Mike do use such wishful phrases as `electrogravitational coupling'... Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 06:47:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:47:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:43 PM 3/14/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > > >[I sez:] the equal > > > and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the > floor and > > > hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. > > > >The earth moves back the other way. Not very much of > >course, being as it is 6E24 kg, but it reacts the same > >way any mass would. Momentum is conserved. > > Quite so. But the point Mike wants to assert, I gather, is that his > favorite gadget kicks against the entire unimaginably massive Machian > frame of the universe, thereby extracting momentum and having its > way with it. > More fashionably, perhaps one might imagine doing this magic against > the bulk brane substrate of M Theory (or something equally > audacious). The proponents cited by Mike do use such wishful phrases > as `electrogravitational coupling'... You've got it. This is the mechanism we need to not only claim the solar system but the stars as well. Virtually 100% of the propulsion engineers out there are 100% rooted in strictly newtonian mechanics and generally lack a clue in applying Maxwell's equations or relativity to actual technological mechanisms that do physical work without turning back again to Newton. If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed dependent, thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when you push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship against the entire universe in return. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 15 07:31:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:31:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology In-Reply-To: <42363A4B.2000605@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <200503150729.j2F7TLE32431@tick.javien.com> > Joseph Bloch ... > ... but naturally it ended with the usual vague-but-ominous > "there are places mankind was not meant to tread" crap. > > Joseph Please let us examine this closely and question everything we think we know. I see exactly what you are referring to but I want to make sure I understand it. I came from a memetic background where this "mankind is not meant to tread" notion is absent, but I recognize that mine is an unusual background. The early Seventh Day Adventists heard this a lot; they were accused of going into areas that humans were not meant to study. SDA pioneer John Harvey Kellogg, with his radium inhalers, advocacy of exercise, low calorie diet, etc. was an early life extension proponent who suggested that the human lifespan could be extended beyond 90 years. He lived to almost 92 and perished while exercising. When accused of playing god, the brethren pointed out that when mankind fell from grace, god took away both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge from the Garden of Eden. The line of reasoning then follows that it is physically impossible for humans to discover a technology that god did not intend for humans to master. So we cannot play god, even if we want to. The notion follows that god specifically and unambiguously spelled out exactly what humans were not to do. If any activity is not on that list, then that activity is fair game. Just as Kellogg did some really wacky medical experiments (anticipating organ transplants for instance, which carried a major squick factor at the time) a modern Seventh Day Adventist hospital is a good place to go if you want to do something edgy today, such as a head transplant, or cross species organ transplant. This whole "turf upon which mankind is not meant to tread" meme may kill us. I want to understand where it comes from. With that information, we might have a chance of defeating it. So who decides what technologies mankind is not meant to have? On what grounds? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 15 07:35:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:35:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503150733.j2F7XCE00428@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:48 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust ... > > If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe > resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed dependent, > thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when you > push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship against > the entire universe in return. > > Mike Lorrey If this drive works, then AC Clarke's disappointing ending to his otherwise excellent Rendezvous with Rama suddenly makes a lot of sense. spike From es at popido.com Tue Mar 15 08:08:53 2005 From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:08:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology Message-ID: <200503150808.j2F88rOm003981@mail-core.space2u.com> On 2005-03-15 spike wrote: >This whole "turf upon which mankind is not meant to tread" >meme may kill us. I want to understand where it comes >from. With that information, we might have a chance of >defeating it. So who decides what technologies mankind >is not meant to have? On what grounds? Pandora's box is often used as a metaphor for this meme. As you know, it stems from greek mythology. The box contained diseases, sorrows and misfortunes that the gods imprisoned to keep away from mankind. In case it was opened, the gods also kept a brighter spirit amongst the evil ones - hope. Erik framtidstanken.com From amara at amara.com Tue Mar 15 09:45:43 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:45:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Manifesto: "The Infrastructure of Democracy" Message-ID: This 'manifesto' was presented last week by a group of well-known cyberspace people (John Perry Barlow, Joichi Ito, John Gage, Dan Gillmor, David Weinberger, Ethan Zuckerman, Marc Rotenberg, Andrew Mclaughlin, Rebecca MacKinnon,...) at the following conference in Madrid The International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism, and Security. http://english.safe-democracy.org/ The Infrastructure of Democracy Strengthening the Open Internet for a Safer World March 11, 2005 I. The Internet is a foundation of democratic society in the 21st century, because the core values of the Internet and democracy are so closely aligned. 1. The Internet is fundamentally about openness, participation, and freedom of expression for all -- increasing the diversity and reach of information and ideas. 2. The Internet allows people to communicate and collaborate across borders and belief systems. 3. The Internet unites families and cultures in diaspora; it connects people, helping them to form civil societies. 4. The Internet can foster economic development by connecting people to information and markets. 5. The Internet introduces new ideas and views to those who may be isolated and prone to political violence. 6. The Internet is neither above nor below the law. The same legal principles that apply in the physical world also apply to human activities conducted over the Internet. II. Decentralized systems -- the power of many -- can combat decentralized foes. 1. Terrorist networks are highly decentralized and distributed. A centralized effort by itself cannot effectively fight terrorism. 2. Terrorism is everyone's issue. The internet connects everyone. A connected citizenry is the best defense against terrorist propaganda. 3. As we saw in the aftermath of the March 11 bombing, response was spontaneous and rapid because the citizens were able to use the Internet to organize themselves. 4. As we are seeing in the distributed world of weblogs and other kinds of citizen media, truth emerges best in open conversation among people with divergent views. III. The best response to abuses of openness is more openness. 1. Open, transparent environments are more secure and more stable than closed, opaque ones. 2. While Internet services can be interrupted, the Internet as a global system is ultimately resilient to attacks, even sophisticated and widely distributed ones. 3. The connectedness of the Internet - people talking with people - counters the divisiveness terrorists are trying to create. 4. The openness of the Internet may be exploited by terrorists, but as with democratic governments, openness minimizes the likelihood of terrorist acts and enables effective responses to terrorism. IV. Well-meaning regulation of the Internet in established democracies could threaten the development of emerging democracies. 1. Terrorism cannot destroy the internet, but over-zealous legislation in response to terrorism could. Governments should consider mandating changes to core Internet functionality only with extraordinary caution. 2. Some government initiatives that look reasonable in fact violate the basic principles that have made the Internet a success. 3. For example, several interests have called for an end to anonymity. This would be highly unlikely to stop determined terrorists, but it would have a chilling effect on political activity and thereby reduce freedom and transparency. Limiting anonymity would have a cascading series of unintended results that would hurt freedom of expression, especially in countries seeking transition to democratic rule. V. In conclusion we urge those gathered here in Madrid to: 1. Embrace the open Internet as a foundation of 21st Century democracy, and a critical tool in the fight against terrorism. 2. Recognizing the Internet's value as a critical communications infrastructure, invest to strengthen it against attacks and recover quickly from damage. 3. Work to spread access more evenly, aggressively addressing the Digital Divide, and to provide Internet access for all. 4. To protect free speech and association, endorse the availability of anonymous communications for all. 5. Resist attempts at international governance of the Internet: It can introduce processes that have unintended effects and violate the bottom-up democratic nature of the Net. -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Sometimes it takes a few more days due to customs clearance" -- computer vendor to Amara From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue Mar 15 12:50:46 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:50:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <200503150733.j2F7XCE00428@tick.javien.com> References: <200503150733.j2F7XCE00428@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, spike wrote: >> If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe >> resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed dependent, >> thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when you >> push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship against >> the entire universe in return. >> >> Mike Lorrey > > >If this drive works, then AC Clarke's disappointing ending to >his otherwise excellent Rendezvous with Rama suddenly makes >a lot of sense. > >spike I don't see how such a propulsion system must be wrong a priori. The so called "vacuum" has a dielectric constant, has a lot of weird spacetime and quantum properties, now maybe it's full of dark energy pushing galaxies far from each other. If there was some way to push against it that wouldn't surprise me at all. Alfio From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 15:06:57 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:06:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4236FA11.3090601@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Damien Broderick wrote: > > >>At 08:43 PM 3/14/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>[I sez:] the equal >>> >>> >>>>and opposite force goes into the magnet which is bolted to the >>>> >>>> >>floor and >> >> >>>>hence doesn't move because the entire earth takes up the impact. >>>> >>>> >>>The earth moves back the other way. Not very much of >>>course, being as it is 6E24 kg, but it reacts the same >>>way any mass would. Momentum is conserved. >>> >>> >>Quite so. But the point Mike wants to assert, I gather, is that his >>favorite gadget kicks against the entire unimaginably massive Machian >>frame of the universe, thereby extracting momentum and having its >>way with it. >>More fashionably, perhaps one might imagine doing this magic against >>the bulk brane substrate of M Theory (or something equally >>audacious). The proponents cited by Mike do use such wishful phrases >>as `electrogravitational coupling'... >> >> > >You've got it. This is the mechanism we need to not only claim the >solar system but the stars as well. Virtually 100% of the propulsion >engineers out there are 100% rooted in strictly newtonian mechanics and >generally lack a clue in applying Maxwell's equations or relativity to >actual technological mechanisms that do physical work without turning >back again to Newton. > >If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe >resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed dependent, >thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when you >push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship against >the entire universe in return. > > > Then either: a) There is a preferred reference frame and relativity goes out the window, or b) This is a recipe for an over unity device. Take your pick. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 15 15:50:05 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:50:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <200503150733.j2F7XCE00428@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000701c52976$a9076100$abc51b97@administxl09yj> Alfio: > The so called "vacuum" has a dielectric constant, > has a lot of weird spacetime and quantum properties, > now maybe it's full of dark energy pushing galaxies > far from each other. If there was some way to push > against it that wouldn't surprise me at all. You mean to store energy in a rubber band between receding galaxies? The universal expansion might stretch it [1][2]. But to extract energy from such a long rubber band, you need to re-shorten it. And that could be dangerous [3][4] :-) [1] Unless, during the expansion, the space itself, and the rubber band, would be essentially expanded too (?). [2] The tension in the rubber band contributes to the stress-energy tensor. [3] The galaxies will eventually cross an event horizon, and the rubber band will inevitably break, ouch! [4] A too strong rubber band would cause a sudden big crunch, or very fast blue-shifting. (Dunno if the link below is about cosmological rubber bands, it seems so) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104349 From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 15 16:02:56 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:02:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501c52978$73fa1230$abc51b97@administxl09yj> Mike: > If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe > resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed dependent, > thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when you > push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship against > the entire universe in return. "Acceleration can only be defined as relative acceleration of a point relative to other bodies. This circumstance indicates that it is meaningless to ascribe to a body a resistance relative to acceleration as such (inertial resistance of bodies in the sense of classical mechanics); much rather, it must be required that the appearence of an inertial resistance be tied to the relative acceleration of the considered body relative to other bodies. It must be required that the inertial resistance of a body can be increased by bringing unaccelerated ponderable masses into the neighborhood of the body." - A.Einstein (1913) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 16:23:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:23:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315162342.31022.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, spike wrote: > > >> If Mach's Principle is true, and inertia is the whole universe > >> resisting your acceleration (when gravity is light speed > dependent, > >> thus must have a time travel component to resist your push when > you > >> push), there has to be a way to use it to lever one's spaceship > against > >> the entire universe in return. > >> > >> Mike Lorrey > > > > > >If this drive works, then AC Clarke's disappointing ending to > >his otherwise excellent Rendezvous with Rama suddenly makes > >a lot of sense. > > > >spike > > I don't see how such a propulsion system must be wrong a priori. The > so called "vacuum" has a dielectric constant, has a lot of weird > spacetime and quantum properties, now maybe it's full of dark > energy pushing galaxies far from each other. If there was some way > to push against it that wouldn't surprise me at all. It is good to see at least one or two scientific types here who are objective enough to openly consider what is going on. See also: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY In the conclusion, after doing their best to destroy the concept, they say, "But What If ?... There are, however, still some unresolved issues. Specifically, during the Talley tests (referenced above), anomalous forces were observed during the on/off transients -- anomalies that were never resolved." This is what Naudin has shown: constant high voltage thrust is much lower, while pulsed power, creating a constant stream of transient voltage changes, seems to create a lot more thrust that is harder to dismiss with the old 'ion wind' canard. Space does have a dielectric constant. The "ion wind" phenomenon, which masks the real field effect thrust, consumes far more energy per newton than the field effect does because the molecules provide a transport medium for electron leakage. As Maxwell showed in the 19th century, energy is stored in a capacitor not in the plates, but in the dielectric medium, by putting stress upon the dielectric material. If space has a dielectric constant, it also must have a 'material' for the energy put into it to stress. Thus, space isn't a vacuum with respect to field mechanics. One of my own theories, in how such a device would bias inertia, is that the field shapes the probabilities of the orbits of the electrons in the plates in an asymmetric manner such that the electrons orbit in a way similar to the masses in the Dean Drive, but they do so further up into the near-relativistic velocity range, and as a result, the masses of these electrons change as they go through their orbits, thus changing the reaction of inertia against their change in angular momentum. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From jonkc at att.net Tue Mar 15 16:59:00 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:59:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........ References: <20050311140517.42653.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c52980$562141e0$76ff4d0c@hal2001> "Mike Lorrey" > While this concept has in the past been > disparaged as solely due to 'ion wind', > the following paper disproves this argument: > http://www.geocities.com/ekpworld/doc/EKP_satellite_maneuvering.doc I confess I have not read this, partly because I have better things to do but mostly because I did not wish to download a windows doc file from somebody's personal web site who I know nothing about except that they are almost certainly a crackpot. I could be wrong of course, perhaps in a few years we'll all be taking weekend trips to Uranus in our handy dandy Honda unidirectional spaceship and I'll be proven to be a fool, but I'm willing to take that chance. > THis is the real reason this list has gone mundane If this list has gone mundane it is because too many naively think a ASCII sequence or a doc file some unknown bozo uploads to his blog can prove or disprove any physical concept; only an experiment repeated by someone you know and respect can do that. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 17:32:46 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:32:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315173246.28518.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Even I'm interested. Wouldn't the amount of potential energy be negligible? >One of my own theories, in how such a device would bias inertia, is >that the field shapes the probabilities of the orbits of the electrons >in the plates in an asymmetric manner such that the electrons orbit in >a way similar to the masses in the Dean Drive, but they do so further >up into the near-relativistic velocity range, and as a result, the >masses of these electrons change as they go through their orbits, thus >changing the reaction of inertia against their change in angular >momentum. >Mike Lorrey --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 15 18:28:02 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:28:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to destroy the earth Message-ID: <20050315182802.B4BE157EBA@finney.org> As if you didn't have enough to worry about... http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html is an interesting page on how to destroy the earth. The author, Sam Hughes, takes a tongue in cheek approach to one of the favorite goals of super-villains. His mission statement: "For the purposes of what I hope to be a technically and scientifically accurate document, I will define our goal thus: by any means necessary, to render the Earth into a form in which it may no longer be considered a planet. Such forms include, but are most definitely not limited to: two or more planets; any number of smaller asteroids; a quantum singularity; a dust cloud." Of course Extropians have often considered how to destroy the earth, with the intention of having something (more) useful left over. Hughes also has a page on how to move the earth, http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/moving.html. He includes an analysis of the classic idea of getting everyone on the planet to jump at the same time, similar in spirit to the one Spike offered (for a single person's jump) yesterday: "Which means the distance the Earth moves when everybody jumps will be one trillionth of the distance that all the people jumped: that is to say, 10-11 metres, or about half the radius of a hydrogen atom." At least that's better than the Planck length. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 18:27:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:27:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315182710.31469.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > Then either: > a) There is a preferred reference frame and relativity goes out the > window, or > b) This is a recipe for an over unity device. > > Take your pick. No, Dirk. You don't know what over unity is. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 18:40:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:40:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315184050.98615.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The mass of an electron is incredibly small, no doubt, but the velocities we are talking about are very significant. This likely will not get us high fraction of 1 g accelerations by any stretch of the imagination but it will give us, IMHO, a way to dump a lot of energy into propulsion without wasting mass. (and no, Dirk, doing so is not over unity if the work done is less than the amount of energy put in, please go back and read your physics textbooks). Once stable long term fusion power plants are available, this propulsion tech would make interstellar travel feasible and affordable for generational flights. The thrust these devices produce is in the order of ion engines, without the fuel loss. --- Al Brooks wrote: > Even I'm interested. > Wouldn't the amount of potential energy be negligible? > > > > >One of my own theories, in how such a device would bias inertia, is > >that the field shapes the probabilities of the orbits of the > electrons > >in the plates in an asymmetric manner such that the electrons orbit > in > >a way similar to the masses in the Dean Drive, but they do so > further > >up into the near-relativistic velocity range, and as a result, the > >masses of these electrons change as they go through their orbits, > thus > >changing the reaction of inertia against their change in angular > >momentum. > > >Mike Lorrey > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 19:13:05 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:13:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315182710.31469.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315182710.31469.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423733C1.8040709@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Then either: >>a) There is a preferred reference frame and relativity goes out the >>window, or >>b) This is a recipe for an over unity device. >> >>Take your pick. >> >> > >No, Dirk. You don't know what over unity is. > > > And you do not understand the implications of 'thrust against the vacuum, fixed stars' etc If we consider a 1kg model car (thrust against the earth) we can convert (neglecting friction and air resistance) say 1MJ of onboard energy to KE resulting in an eventual speed of around 1400 m/s Let's assume that we have a really good motor that can do all this in ten seconds, for a power input of 100kW. Now, the acceleration is *not uniform* over this time - it starts high and then tails off as the deltaKE increases Mean acceleration over the first second is going from 0 to 447 m/s for an expenditure of 100kJ ie 447 m/s^2 Clearly, if it accelerated at this rate for ten sec then its final velocity would be 4470 m/s, and it would have a KE some 10MJ - but it doesn't because we have a fixed reference against which we are pushing - the Earth. Now let's translate that to the magic motor that thrusts against space/universe/whatever. It still accelerates to 447 m/s in the first second, but... why should it not continue at that acceleration? According to relativity one bit of space is the same as another - no preferred frame. So after ten sec with an expenditure of 1MJ we have a KE (if it hits something in our reference frame from which we launched it) of 10MJ Sounds pretty over unity to me. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 15 19:20:27 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:20:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001501c52978$73fa1230$abc51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <000b01c52994$0c250ae0$a7c51b97@administxl09yj> > "Acceleration can only be defined > as relative acceleration of a point > relative to other bodies. This circumstance > indicates that it is meaningless to ascribe > to a body a resistance relative to acceleration > as such (inertial resistance of bodies > in the sense of classical mechanics); much rather, > it must be required that the appearence of > an inertial resistance be tied to the relative > acceleration of the considered body relative to > other bodies. It must be required that the inertial > resistance of a body can be increased by bringing > unaccelerated ponderable masses into the > neighborhood of the body." > - A.Einstein (1913) There is something more specific, about the Mach-(Mike) principle, that Einstein also wrote in 1913. [Mass A, and masses B,C, ... in its neighborhood. What if masses B,C,... are not still but they are accelerated together with the mass A? In this case the increase of the inertial resistance in A, surrounded by B,C,..., should be overcompensated by the acceleration of B,C,... This is the issue.] "The acceleration of the masses B,C,... must induce an accelerating force on [mass] A that is in the same direction as the acceleration. One sees in this way that the extra accelerating force must overcompensate the increase of the inertia caused by the mere presence of B,C,..., since in accordance with the relation between energy and inertia of systems the system A,B,C,... as a whole must have a smaller inertia the smaller is its gravitational energy." Btw, in the literature it is possible to find between 10 and 20 different Mach principles. Of course possible Machian 'effects' are not independent of these many and different Machian principles. Mach-1: Newton's gravitational constant G is a dynamical field (Brans-Dicke Theory) Mach-2: an isolated body in otherwise empty space has no inertia Mach-3: local inertial frames are affected by the cosmic motion and distribution of matter Mach-4: the universe is spatially closed Mach-5: the total energy, angular, and linear momentum of the universe are zero Mach-6: inertial mass is affected by the global distribution of matter Mach-7: take away all matter, there is no more space Mach-8: '4 pai rho G T^2' is a definite number of order unity (T is the Hubble time, rho is the mean density of the universe) Mach-9: the theory contains no absolute elements (general covariance) Mach-10: overall rigid rotations and translations of a system are unobservable Mach-11: there is a 'dual' Mach principle, it is about the relativity of time From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 19:46:41 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:46:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315184050.98615.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315184050.98615.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42373BA1.7020108@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >The mass of an electron is incredibly small, no doubt, but the >velocities we are talking about are very significant. This likely will >not get us high fraction of 1 g accelerations by any stretch of the >imagination but it will give us, IMHO, a way to dump a lot of energy >into propulsion without wasting mass. (and no, Dirk, doing so is not >over unity if the work done is less than the amount of energy put in, >please go back and read your physics textbooks). Once stable long term > > It's you who should do more reading. In space with no universal reference frame a constant energy input translating to constant acceleration can produce arbitrarily large amounts of energy. It is only with respect to a fixed reference frame that energy is conserved - in which case SR and GTR are history. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 19:47:57 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:47:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology In-Reply-To: <200503151800.j2FHxrE04892@tick.javien.com> References: <200503151800.j2FHxrE04892@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:00:16 -0700, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org Joseph Bloch wrote: > Unfortunately, the segment is only available as an audio file; I don't > see a full transcript on the website. I heard it this morning, and > remember that it was absolutely fascinating (paralyzed guy controls a > computer cursor with brainwaves; they want to hook it up to a robotic > arm next), but naturally it ended with the usual vague-but-ominous > "there are places mankind was not meant to tread" crap. More details on the work of John Donoghue (the researcher mentioned in the segment) are available on his lab's web site: http://donoghue.neuro.brown.edu/ Donoghue's work, which records motor signals from primary motor cortex, is certainly cool, but I'm personally biased towards the work of Richard Andersen's lab, which records cognitive-level reach goals from posterior parietal cortex. Here are links to a presentation and overview paper on the topic: http://www.vis.caltech.edu/neural_prosthetics/index.html http://www.vis.caltech.edu/PDFs%20of%20journal%20articles/Trends_cognitive_neurosci/2004%2011-01%20TICS%20Cognitive%20Neural%20Prosthetics.pdf Andersen's lab has also been collaborating with the robotics and micro-electromechanical labs here to put together movable probes which automatically seek out neurons and adjust themselves when the signal degrades. Very neat stuff. -- Neil From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 15 20:11:28 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:11:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> A meta point on this thread. It's interesting to engage in this kind of discussion in the context of the results Robin has been writing about regarding the nature of disagreement. I have become self-conscious about my reasoning processes. I am always surprised now when I find myself disagreeing with someone. It rocks me back on my heels, mentally, when someone says something I strongly disagree with. What's going on here? How could they believe that, in the face of all the evidence that brought me to my contrary belief? They must have some reason! Is it possible that there's an enormous body of evidence that I am unaware of which lends support to their position? Maybe I'm wrong about my belief! But then I think, what about all the other people who believe as I do? They have good reasons for their beliefs as well. If I change to this new position, I will be contradicting those others. So it makes sense to hold to my current views. But then it turns again; surely the other guy, who is advocating this crazy position, is also aware of the many people who share my view. Their evidence hasn't been enough to persuade him! So again, I am back to the possibility that this guy really does know something so convincing that it outweighs the enormous mass of expert wisdom which informs my view. So I do have to think seriously about it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't just think that lightly, or formally. I really mean it. Maybe I really am wrong. Maybe I don't understand electrostatic phenomena as well as I think. Maybe I don't understand the nature of mass and inertia. Maybe I don't understand conservation of energy. But of course that's not enough. I am confident that my positions are consistent with mainstream physics. I believe that Mike would agree. That means I have to consider that the conventional understanding of these physical phenomena have major holes in them, such that a simple arrangement of aluminum foil and a few tens of kilovolts will violate Newton's third law. In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities. Which is more likely: that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves? And I have to fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect the conventional wisdom of science. Yes, scientists make mistakes. But so do non-scientists! And science has mechanisms for self-correction which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. What about the disagreement? I cast my lot with science, but what about the fact that Mike continues to advocate unconventional physics? I still face the fact that we disagree. Here is where Robin's results have their bite. If I believed that Mike was rational and honest and that he accorded me and other skeptics the same courtesy, I could not disagree with him. But I do disagree. And so I have to admit that I don't believe these traits apply to Mike. He has a creative and energetic mind, but from my perspective, Mike is crazy. He has all these wild beliefs that seem to have little support, and his explanations and justifications don't make sense to me. Now, I don't meant this as an insult. Probably many successful people in science and in the world would also be considered crazy in the same sense. Some people can fight the conventional wisdom and win, and the world is better off because of those people. It's good to have some crazy people around. But in this case, it explains why I am able to disagree without contradicting myself. Hal From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 15 20:04:40 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:04:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <20050315064745.199.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4236FA11.3090601@neopax.com> Message-ID: <001601c5299a$39601df0$a7c51b97@administxl09yj> > There is a preferred reference frame > and relativity goes out the window [...] There is a paper by Reginald Cahill about that. (Who sponsored the idea of a cosmic preferred reference frame was, of course, David Bohm.) http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf (about 60 pages) Conclusions. We have shown here that seven experiments, so far, have clearly revealed experimental evidence of absolute motion. As well these are all consistent with respect to the direction and speed of that motion. This clearly refutes the fundamental postulates of the Einstein reinterpretation of the relativistic effects that had been developed earlier by Lorentz and others. Indeed these experiments are consistent with the Lorentzian interpretation of the special relativistic effects in which reality displays both absolute motion and relativistic effects. It is absolute motion that actually causes these relativistic effects. Data from the Michelson interferometer fringe-shift experiments had never been properly analysed until now. That analysis requires that the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect be taken into account, as well as the effect of the gas on the speed of light in the interferometer. Only then does the fringe-shift data from air and helium interferometer experiments become consistent, and then also consistent with the two RF coaxial cable travel-time experiments. The seasonal changes in the Miller fringe-shift data reveal the orbital motion of the earth about the sun, as well as an in-flow of space past the earth into the sun. These results support the new theory of gravity. As well the large cosmic velocity of the solar system is seen to be different to the velocity associated with the Cosmic Microwave Background, which implies another gravitational in-flow, this time into the Milky Way. The fringe-shift data has also indicated the presence of turbulence in these gravitational in-flows, and this amounts to the detection of gravitational waves. These are waves predicted by the new theory of gravity, and not those associated with the Hilbert-Einstein theory of gravity. As noted in [2] the Newtonian theory of gravity is deeply flawed, as revealed by its inability to explain a growing number of gravitational anomalies, but which are explained by the new theory. In particular the borehole g anomaly and the rotation velocity curves of spiral galaxies, together with the absence of this e.ect in ordinary elliptical galaxies, have been explained. These flaws arose because the solar system was too special, because of its high spherical symmetry, to have revealed the full range of phenomena that is gravity. General Relativity 'inherited' these flaws, and so is itself flawed. As discussed in [2] the clear-cut checks of General Relativity were actually done in systems also with high spherical symmetry. More papers in the 'Absolute Motion' page http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/ From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 21:03:05 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:03:05 +0000 Subject: FW: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <1D68577DAAE6304A89E3C8BC896262A46EBCE3@w2k3exch01.UNICOM-INC.CORP> References: <1D68577DAAE6304A89E3C8BC896262A46EBCE3@w2k3exch01.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <42374D89.2000602@neopax.com> Christopher Healey wrote: >Wouldn't the constant acceleration be damped sufficiently by losses due to Unruh radiation? > >Didn't think this merited mention on-list, but I remember hearing this mentioned somewhere recently on some Hawking radiation thread I encountered. > > > Only at truly vast accelerations. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 21:58:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:58:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> References: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <42375A85.9070407@neopax.com> Hal Finney wrote: >A meta point on this thread. It's interesting to engage in this kind >of discussion in the context of the results Robin has been writing about >regarding the nature of disagreement. I have become self-conscious about >my reasoning processes. I am always surprised now when I find myself >disagreeing with someone. It rocks me back on my heels, mentally, when >someone says something I strongly disagree with. What's going on here? >How could they believe that, in the face of all the evidence that brought >me to my contrary belief? They must have some reason! Is it possible >that there's an enormous body of evidence that I am unaware of which >lends support to their position? Maybe I'm wrong about my belief! > >But then I think, what about all the other people who believe as I do? >They have good reasons for their beliefs as well. If I change to this >new position, I will be contradicting those others. So it makes sense to >hold to my current views. But then it turns again; surely the other guy, >who is advocating this crazy position, is also aware of the many people >who share my view. Their evidence hasn't been enough to persuade him! >So again, I am back to the possibility that this guy really does know >something so convincing that it outweighs the enormous mass of expert >wisdom which informs my view. > >So I do have to think seriously about it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't >just think that lightly, or formally. I really mean it. Maybe I really >am wrong. Maybe I don't understand electrostatic phenomena as well as I >think. Maybe I don't understand the nature of mass and inertia. Maybe I >don't understand conservation of energy. But of course that's not enough. >I am confident that my positions are consistent with mainstream physics. >I believe that Mike would agree. That means I have to consider that the >conventional understanding of these physical phenomena have major holes >in them, such that a simple arrangement of aluminum foil and a few tens >of kilovolts will violate Newton's third law. > >In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities. Which is more likely: >that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the >community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves? And I have to >fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect >the conventional wisdom of science. Yes, scientists make mistakes. >But so do non-scientists! And science has mechanisms for self-correction >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. > >What about the disagreement? I cast my lot with science, but what >about the fact that Mike continues to advocate unconventional physics? >I still face the fact that we disagree. Here is where Robin's results >have their bite. If I believed that Mike was rational and honest and >that he accorded me and other skeptics the same courtesy, I could not >disagree with him. But I do disagree. And so I have to admit that >I don't believe these traits apply to Mike. He has a creative and >energetic mind, but from my perspective, Mike is crazy. He has all >these wild beliefs that seem to have little support, and his explanations >and justifications don't make sense to me. Now, I don't meant this as >an insult. Probably many successful people in science and in the world >would also be considered crazy in the same sense. Some people can fight >the conventional wisdom and win, and the world is better off because of >those people. It's good to have some crazy people around. But in this >case, it explains why I am able to disagree without contradicting myself. > > > My position is somewhat simpler. I have looked at the implications of such devices as the Woodward drive, and even done some expts in that direction. If an expt is successful then either conservation of energy goes or the equivalence of inertial frames. OTOH my experience over the years with such claims leads me to believe that it is extremely unlikely new physics is being uncovered. Maybe I'm wrong. Time will tell. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 15 14:46:47 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:46:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315010031.43585.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050315092936.034cb080@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:00 PM 14/03/05 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: snip >Your false assumption is in thinking that I or anyone else is claiming >it does more work than it uses in energy. It is not an overunity >device, nobody but you ever claimed it was, and given this >misunderstanding, your opinion is suspect. I don't hold any opinion so strongly that a good argument or better, experimental evidence, won't get me to change my mind. I think something like this would be very cool, not to mention extremely useful. I am not even welded to conservation of energy if anyone figures out how to get around it. But if the device works as you indicate, how does it sense velocity? Obviously you could get a lot more power out of a device going like a bat out of hell than one moving slowly. So for higher velocities does it take more power to operate at constant thrust? And in what reference frame? Best wishes, Keith Henson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 23:34:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:34:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050315233423.13338.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > >No, Dirk. You don't know what over unity is. > > > And you do not understand the implications of 'thrust against the > vacuum, fixed stars' etc > If we consider a 1kg model car (thrust against the earth) we can > convert (neglecting friction and air resistance) say 1MJ of onboard > energy to KE resulting in an eventual speed of around 1400 m/s > > Let's assume that we have a really good motor that can do all this in > ten seconds, for a power input of 100kW. Now, the acceleration is > *not uniform* over this time - it starts high and then tails off as > the deltaKE increases > > Mean acceleration over the first second is going from 0 to 447 m/s > for an expenditure of 100kJ ie 447 m/s^2 > Clearly, if it accelerated at this rate for ten sec then its final > velocity would be 4470 m/s, and it would have a KE some 10MJ - but it > doesn't because we have a fixed reference against which we are > pushing - the Earth. > > Now let's translate that to the magic motor that thrusts against > space/universe/whatever. > It still accelerates to 447 m/s in the first second, but... why > should it not continue at that acceleration? According to relativity > one bit of space is the same as another - no preferred frame. So > after ten sec with > an expenditure of 1MJ we have a KE (if it hits something in our > reference frame from which we launched it) of 10MJ > > Sounds pretty over unity to me. I don't suppose I have to explain to everyone else how wrong you are. A Joule being equal to 1 kg m2 s-2, or 1/4.184 of a calorie, is a unit that involves a time term, ergo 100 kJ for 10 seconds is 1 MJ. No over unity, Dirk, just bad math and a misunderstanding by you of energy and work. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Tue Mar 15 23:59:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:59:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050315233423.13338.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315233423.13338.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423776C8.1030304@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >>>No, Dirk. You don't know what over unity is. >>> >>> >>> >>And you do not understand the implications of 'thrust against the >>vacuum, fixed stars' etc >>If we consider a 1kg model car (thrust against the earth) we can >>convert (neglecting friction and air resistance) say 1MJ of onboard >>energy to KE resulting in an eventual speed of around 1400 m/s >> >>Let's assume that we have a really good motor that can do all this in >>ten seconds, for a power input of 100kW. Now, the acceleration is >>*not uniform* over this time - it starts high and then tails off as >>the deltaKE increases >> >>Mean acceleration over the first second is going from 0 to 447 m/s >>for an expenditure of 100kJ ie 447 m/s^2 >>Clearly, if it accelerated at this rate for ten sec then its final >>velocity would be 4470 m/s, and it would have a KE some 10MJ - but it >>doesn't because we have a fixed reference against which we are >>pushing - the Earth. >> >>Now let's translate that to the magic motor that thrusts against >>space/universe/whatever. >>It still accelerates to 447 m/s in the first second, but... why >>should it not continue at that acceleration? According to relativity >>one bit of space is the same as another - no preferred frame. So >>after ten sec with >>an expenditure of 1MJ we have a KE (if it hits something in our >>reference frame from which we launched it) of 10MJ >> >>Sounds pretty over unity to me. >> >> > >I don't suppose I have to explain to everyone else how wrong you are. A >Joule being equal to 1 kg m2 s-2, or 1/4.184 of a calorie, is a unit >that involves a time term, ergo 100 kJ for 10 seconds is 1 MJ. No over >unity, Dirk, just bad math and a misunderstanding by you of energy and >work. > > > And what has that to do with the above math which proves you wrong? Force = mass.accel Energy = force.distance Energy = m.v^2/2 That is all I have used above I'm afraid it is you who don't understand the imlications of your claim. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 00:14:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:14:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316001429.86872.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote:. > > What about the disagreement? I cast my lot with science, but what > about the fact that Mike continues to advocate unconventional > physics? The disagreement is not what you think it is, is the problem. I don't believe in 'unconventional physics', I believe this thruster technology completely and totally obeys Mach's Principle and the work of Lorentz and Maxwell. I do not claim, nor do I believe, that this technology violates conservation of momentum or energy. It is not an over-unity device. It consumes energy, and at some percent of efficiency south of 100%, it does work with that energy via a field effect upon the mass of the universe with no violation of conservation of momentum. It pushes or pulls one way, the universe goes the other. I believe that those who think that I think otherwise are the ones who are crazy, because their believes clearly contradict my real beliefs as well as my own statements. I also believe that most people who are trained in newtonian mechanics, then relativity, generally only learn this physics of material objects and don't really GET physics of fields. I mean, a field is.... a field.... it isn't matter, or photons, or whatever, its just.... there. It isn't electromagnetic energy, it is electrostatic energy. People confuse the two and think they are the same when they are not. If you look at the MKS equations for the permittivity and permeability of free space, you'll see there are newtons in there to be gotten... http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzInvariant.html In the charge equation, you have p, the charge density. This is where it gets interesting, because we are talking about asymmetrically shaped capacitors, ergo they have different charge densities on opposite sides of the capacitor. The Lorentz invariant assumes that the charge density remains the same in all dimensions, such as a symmetrical capacitor. This isn't the case with the sort of device we are discussing. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 00:16:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316001655.23114.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >The mass of an electron is incredibly small, no doubt, but the > >velocities we are talking about are very significant. This likely > will > >not get us high fraction of 1 g accelerations by any stretch of the > >imagination but it will give us, IMHO, a way to dump a lot of energy > >into propulsion without wasting mass. (and no, Dirk, doing so is not > >over unity if the work done is less than the amount of energy put > in, > >please go back and read your physics textbooks). Once stable long > term > > > > > It's you who should do more reading. > In space with no universal reference frame a constant energy input > translating to constant acceleration can produce arbitrarily large > amounts of energy. > It is only with respect to a fixed reference frame that energy is > conserved - in which case SR and GTR are history. I believe scirer posted a link showing that Einstein was off. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 00:18:57 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:18:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Male Obesity Higher In Some European Countries In-Reply-To: <20050315220331.14555.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050316001857.92006.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> JENNA PAYNE, Associated Press Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium >In a group of nations from Greece to Germany, the proportion of >overweight or obese men is higher than in the U.S., experts > said Tuesday in a major analysis of expanding girth > on the European continent. > "The time when obesity was thought to be a problem > on the other side of the Atlantic has gone by," said > Mars Di Bartolomeo, Luxembourg's Minister of Health. > In Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, > Greece, Malta and Slovakia, a higher percentage of > men are obese or overweight than the estimated 67 > percent of men in the United States, according to a > report from the International Obesity Task Force, a > coalition of researchers and institutions. > The analysis was released as the 25-nation European > Union (news - web sites) announced an initiative to > enlist the food and marketing industries in the > fight against fat. > Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean > countries, underscoring concerns that people in the > southern region are turning away from the > traditional diet of fish, fruits and vegetables to > fast food high in fat and refined carbohydrates. > In Greece, for example, 38 percent of women are > obese, compared with 34 percent in the United > States, the group said. > Even in countries with low rates of obesity, > troubling trends are emerging. In France, obesity in > women rose from 8 percent in 1997 to 11.3 percent in > 2003, and from 8.4 percent to 11.4 percent in men. > The change in diets, which the obesity task force > said has occurred over the past two decades, affects > children most because it is reflected in school > lunches. > The task force estimated that among the EU's 103 > million youngsters the number of those overweight > rises by 400,000 each year. More than 30 percent of > children ages 7 to 11 are overweight in Italy, > Portugal, Spain and Malta, it said. > That matches estimates for American children. Among > American adults, about two-thirds are overweight or > obese; nearly one-third qualify as obese. > The International Obesity Task Force, which is > advising the European Union, had estimated in 2003 > that about 200 million of the 350 million adults > living in what is now the European Union may be > overweight or obese. > However, a closer evaluation of the figures in the > latest analysis indicated that may be an > underestimate, according to the group. > To counter the worsening trend, the EU is pushing a > united effort from the food and marketing > industries, consumer groups and health experts. > "The industry is being challenged to demonstrate, > transparently, that it is going to be part of the > solution," Philip James, chairman of the IOTF said > in a telephone interview after the launch of the > program in Brussels. > "They have to say how much more money they will add > to help solve the obesity problem. They have to put > forward a plan on how exactly they are going to > contribute year by year, and their contribution has > to get bigger every year," he added. > The food industry says it will better inform > consumers with detailed nutrition labels. The EU > office also wants tastier healthy foods to compete > with high-calorie, non-nutritious fare. > Studies have shown that being overweight can > dramatically increase the risk of certain diseases, > such as diabetes. Obesity is also linked to heart > disease, high blood pressure, strokes, respiratory > disease, arthritis and some types of cancer. > "We can have disastrous effects from (obesity) on > health and the national economy," EU Health > Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 16 00:19:18 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) In-Reply-To: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> References: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315190555.02e98018@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:11 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities. Which is more likely: >that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the >community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves? And I have to >fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect >the conventional wisdom of science. Yes, scientists make mistakes. >But so do non-scientists! And science has mechanisms for self-correction >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists. Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really. "Established academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better. Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor. If most people who are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics reject a position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong. But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with most established experts on a topic? Like cryonics for example. Of course established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've found one? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 16 00:48:27 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:48:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <4235ED4F.4000709@pobox.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <200503141354.j2EDsHNX002897@br549.indconet.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050314120244.02d42bf8@mail.gmu.edu> <4235ED4F.4000709@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315191959.01f036c8@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:00 PM 3/14/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>The pattern is so ubiquitous that it seems hard to believe there isn't a >>large genetic component. > >I don't think the correct term for this is "genetic component" ... The >correct phrasing would probably be, "it seems hard to believe this doesn't >arise from our species psychology" ... I'll accept your correction. >Once upon a time I believed I was right and others wrong about a certain >issue, even though I was only five years old, even though I was surrounded >by people older and wiser than me, who said to me: you'll understand when >you're older, ... But the Jewish religion still seems to me ridiculous, >... this thing happened in the real world, and it is therefore appropriate >to treat it as information. And you never ever disagreed with your parents except on this one occasion, when you were later proven right? Might there not be other occasions which don't come quite as gleefully to your recall, because you were later proven wrong? Even the most rational estimators are wrong sometimes. We should prefer to infer bias from patterns of error, rather than from individual cases. >my parents could have used their greater life experience to defeat me - >had my parents actually *used* their intellects, ... The lesson ... that >rationality defeated rationalization. ... I don't much credit the beliefs >of people whom I don't think are applying their actual intellects to a >question. But the key question is: in ordinary practice how can you tell whether someone is reasoning or rationalizing, applying or not applying their intellect? I agree that something like this is basically what I use informally to justify my disagreements. But it bothers me greatly that I find it hard to be clear about what exactly are the clues that indicate this, and what is my evidence that such clues correlate as I claim. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 01:02:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:02:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316001655.23114.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316001655.23114.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42378592.8010901@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>The mass of an electron is incredibly small, no doubt, but the >>>velocities we are talking about are very significant. This likely >>> >>> >>will >> >> >>>not get us high fraction of 1 g accelerations by any stretch of the >>>imagination but it will give us, IMHO, a way to dump a lot of energy >>>into propulsion without wasting mass. (and no, Dirk, doing so is not >>>over unity if the work done is less than the amount of energy put >>> >>> >>in, >> >> >>>please go back and read your physics textbooks). Once stable long >>> >>> >>term >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>It's you who should do more reading. >>In space with no universal reference frame a constant energy input >>translating to constant acceleration can produce arbitrarily large >>amounts of energy. >>It is only with respect to a fixed reference frame that energy is >>conserved - in which case SR and GTR are history. >> >> > >I believe scirer posted a link showing that Einstein was off. > > > > That will come as news to the people over in sci.physics.research It's a *very* minority view and the whole field of relativity is infested by cranks who cannot give up the Ether theories. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 16 01:18:08 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:18:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050316011808.DC51E57EBA@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > I don't suppose I have to explain to everyone else how wrong you are. A > Joule being equal to 1 kg m2 s-2, or 1/4.184 of a calorie, is a unit > that involves a time term, ergo 100 kJ for 10 seconds is 1 MJ. No over > unity, Dirk, just bad math and a misunderstanding by you of energy and > work. I thought Dirk was wrong at first, in fact I had a message all typed up, but then I thought... what if I'm wrong? And then I decided that I *was* wrong! I think Dirk's analysis is correct. Let me make it more concrete. Let's suppose a lifter will work in outer space. We'll use a photovoltaic panel and some kind of DC-to-DC pulsed transformer to get the 30 kV we need. Looking at the first chart on the lifter page at , he can lift about 35 grams with Lifter v4.0, for 132.9 Watts. That's a force of .035 kg times 9.8 m/s/s or about .3 Newtons. A random solar panel, , can generate 167 Watts and weighs 16 kg. We'll add 4 kg for the transformer (this is all hand-wavey) and get a 20 kg device that we can shoot into space and it will start accelerating all by itself. .3 Newtons over 20 kg is about .015 m/s/s acceleration that our device will deliver. It's small, but it builds up. After 1 day, it's going over a kilometer per second! And velocity increases by a km/s every day. Meanwhile we are putting in 132.9 Watts the whole time, which is 132.9 J/s times 86400 s/day or 11.5 MJ per day. Well, after two days we are at 2 km/s so our kinetic energy is m*v*v/2 or 40 MJ. But we've only used 2 * 11.5 MJ or 23 MJ. So Dirk is right, we are over unity already, even with a primitive lifter like Naudin has designed. And it gets worse every day. It's interesting to compare this with a rocket. The difference is that with a rocket, most of the energy goes into the exhaust, which constantly decreases the mass of the rocket. The result is that there's a limit to how much delta V you can get, depending on your exhaust velocity and the mass ratio of fuel to payload. But these lifters, or any such "space drive", don't have exhaust shooting out, so they can go on forever, constantly increasing their kinetic energy as the square of the velocity. As Dirk says, eventually they will go over unity, and as this example shows, it could happen suprisingly quickly. Hal From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 16 01:19:43 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:19:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315195121.01ee09a0@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:57 AM 3/13/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>Eliezer, you are just writing far too much for me to comment on all of it. > >Yes. I know. You don't have to comment on all of it. I just thought I >should say all of it before you wrote your book, rather than afterward. I >don't think that this issue is simple I probably won't even get started on the book until this summer, and it will probably take me at least a year to write it. So no particular rush here. I do thank you for engaging me on the topic, and helping me to think about it. And I agree that it is not at all simple. >If I had to select out two points as most important, they would be: >1) Just because perfect Bayesians, or even certain formally imperfect >Bayesians that are still not like humans, *will* always agree; it does not >follow that a human rationalist can obtain a higher Bayesian score (truth >value), or the maximal humanly feasible score, by deliberately *trying* to >agree more with other humans, even other human rationalists. >2) Just because, if everyone agreed to do X without further argument or >modification (where X is not agreeing to disagree), the average Bayesian >score would increase relative to its current position, it does not follow >that X is the *optimal* strategy. These points are stated very weakly, basically just inviting me to *prove* my claims with mathematical precision. I may yet rise to that challenge when I get more back into this. >>>I know of no *formal* extension of Aumann's Agreement Theorem such that >>>its premises are plausibly applicable to humans. >>Then see: For Bayesian Wannabes, Are >>Disagreements Not About Information? >>Theory and Decision >>54(2):105-123, March 2003. > >These Bayesian Wannabes are still unrealistically skilled rationalists; no >human is a Bayesian Wannabe as so defined. BWs do not self-deceive. They >approximate their estimates of deterministic computations via guesses >whose error they treat as random variables. >I remark on the wisdom of Jaynes who points out that 'randomness' exists >in the map rather than the territory; random variables are variables of >which we are ignorant. I remark on the wisdom of Pearl, who points out >that when our map sums up many tiny details we can't afford to compute, it >is advantageous to retain the Markov property, ... If the errors in BWs >computations are uncorrelated random errors, the BWs are, in effect, >simple measuring instruments, and they can treat each other as such, >combining their two measurements to obtain a third, more reliable measurement. But Bayesian Wannabes *can* self-deceive. The phrase "random variable" is a standard phrase in statistics - it just means any state function. A real-valued random variable, which I use in that paper, is just a function that assigns a real number to each state. I made no assumptions about independence or Markov properties. Surely you believe that your error can be described with a state function. >>>>His [Aumann's] results are robust because they are based on the simple >>>>idea that when seeking to estimate the truth, you should realize you >>>>might be wrong; others may well know things that you do not. >>>I disagree; this is *not* what Aumann's results are based on. >>>Aumann's results are based on the underlying idea that if other entities >>>behave in a way understandable to you, then their observable behaviors >>>are relevant Bayesian evidence to you. This includes the behavior of >>>assigning probabilities according to understandable Bayesian cognition. >>The paper I cite above is not based on having a specific model of the >>other's behavior. > >The paper you cite above does not yield a constructive method of agreement >without additional assumptions. But then the paper does not prove >agreement *given* a set of assumptions. As far as I can tell, the paper >says that Bayesian Wannabes who agree to disagree about state-independent >computations and who treat their computation error as a state-independent >"random" variable - presumably meaning, a variable of whose exact value >they are to some degree ignorant - must agree to disagree about a >state-independent random variable. ... So in that sense, the paper proves >a non-constructive result that is unlike the usual class of Aumann >Agreement theorems. Unless I'm missing something? I do think you are misreading the paper. *Given* that such agents are unwilling to disagree about topics where information is irrelevant, *then* such agents cannot disagree about *any* topic. Which is another way to say they agree. More some other day. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 01:57:16 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:57:16 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315190555.02e98018@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050315201128.A388E57EBA@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050315190555.02e98018@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4237927C.3070002@neopax.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 03:11 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >> In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities. Which is more likely: >> that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the >> community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves? And I have to >> fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect >> the conventional wisdom of science. Yes, scientists make mistakes. >> But so do non-scientists! And science has mechanisms for >> self-correction >> which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. > > > I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists. > Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really. "Established > academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better. > Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor. If most > people who > are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics > reject a > position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong. > > But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with > most established experts on a topic? Like cryonics for example. Of > course > established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've > found one? IMO the only real justification is experiment. Theories are ten a penny and every crank has one. Naudin et al are probably wrong, but its worth taking a closer look simply because they are claiming experimental justification. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 03:14:44 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:14:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316031444.94927.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> What worries me concerning cryonics is that the longer someone is suspended, the odds of an 'accident' increase. There's no way to plan for all 'accident' scenarios: windstorms; burglary/vandalism; riots; large-scale fire in a city; a McVeigh with a truck bomb... >how can you ever justify disagreeing with most established experts on a topic? Like cryonics for example. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 16 03:54:19 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:54:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) Message-ID: <20050316035419.7800F57EBA@finney.org> Robin writes: > At 03:11 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities. Which is more likely: > >that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the > >community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves? And I have to > >fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect > >the conventional wisdom of science. Yes, scientists make mistakes. > >But so do non-scientists! And science has mechanisms for self-correction > >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. > > I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists. > Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really. "Established > academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better. > Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor. If most people who > are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics reject a > position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong. You might have missed my paeans to science from last year, and . >From the latter: "Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly. The reason is because our errors of rationality are so pervasive and seductive that we are more likely to be wrong than is the scientific consensus. "This is not an easy principle to follow! It feels like an abdication of responsibility, like an abandonment of critical thinking. But when I look within, these feelings do not come from the part of me that loves truth, they come from the part of me that loves myself. They are a manifestation of ego. They come from an emotional desire to be the master of my fate, which means making my own decisions about what to believe and what not to believe. Delegating these matters to any outside social institution, even one whose track record in approaching the truth is greater than anything mankind has ever developed, goes against powerful mental instincts. Nevertheless I claim that this is what we have to try to do." > But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with > most established experts on a topic? Like cryonics for example. Of course > established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've found one? Cryonics is a hard case for me. I have been signed up for 15 years now, my whole family, my wife and two kids. At this point, though, I am much more doubtful about its chances of working. It seems clear that the consensus of experts on freezing tissue is that it is a terribly damaging procedure. And the consensus of experts on nanotech is that the Drexlerian vision is not the most plausible course for the future. Putting these together it seems doubtful that people being frozen today will ever be revived with their memories and personalities intact. On the other hand, I've gotten so used to the knowledge that this is what will happen when I die, it is a real source of comfort to me. Just knowing that there is a possibility, even a remote one, of resurrection and immortality is highly reassuring. Cryonics plays the role, for me, of religion, in terms of the emotional comfort and security it provides. That makes it worthwhile even if it is objectively a long shot. The idea of being without that protection is disturbing and frightening. Now, there might be alternatives. I could become a Christian, accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and hope for the same thing, resurrection and immortality. It would probably cost about the same, maybe a little more if I got serious about it. The question is, which is more likely to lead to immortality: signing up for cryonics, or becoming a Christian? Obviously, most people would say that being Christian was more likely to succeed. But the general public is not necessarily expert on the question. I'm not sure who the best experts would be. It would be interesting to ask the community of non-religious cryobiologists that question. I honestly don't know what they would say. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 04:11:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316041143.61039.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > I thought Dirk was wrong at first, in fact I had a message all typed > up, but then I thought.what if I'm wrong? And then I decided that I > *was* wrong! I think Dirk's analysis is correct. Let me make it more > concrete. > > Let's suppose a lifter will work in outer space. We'll use a > photovoltaic > panel and some kind of DC-to-DC pulsed transformer to get the 30 kV > we need. > > Looking at the first chart on the lifter page at > , he can lift about > 35 grams with Lifter v4.0, for 132.9 Watts. That's a force of > .035 kg times 9.8 m/s/s or about .3 Newtons. A random solar panel, > , > can generate 167 Watts and weighs 16 kg. We'll add 4 kg for the > transformer (this is all hand-wavey) and get a 20 kg device that we > can shoot into space and it will start accelerating all by itself. > .3 Newtons over 20 kg is about .015 m/s/s acceleration that our > device will deliver. It's small, but it builds up. After 1 day, it's > going over a kilometer per second! And velocity increases by a km/s > every day. Meanwhile we are putting in 132.9 Watts the whole time, > which is 132.9 J/s times 86400 s/day or 11.5 MJ per day. Well, after > two days we are at 2 km/s so our kinetic energy is m*v*v/2 or 40 > MJ. But we've only used 2 * 11.5 MJ or 23 MJ. So Dirk is right, we > are over unity already, even with a primitive lifter like Naudin > has designed. And it gets worse every day. The error you start off with is that you are using the thrust it demonstrates at atmospheric pressure, using atmosphere as the dielectric medium. Try first adjusting the thrust to that predicted by the dielectric value for vacuum. Fix that error and you wind up well within the realm of mundane sub-unity efficiency.... lets try again. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 16 04:39:52 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:39:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4236321A.2070508@cox.net> References: <20050310091931.34117.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6c6e811a7d618f255223c1d36f33aaba@mac.com> <4236321A.2070508@cox.net> Message-ID: <0dd25f27e68bbc1a2d90662b1191ea20@mac.com> On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> I still don't see how this (likely being in a sim) makes any such >> difference. There are too many possible sim scenarios that do not >> support any notion of a god much less one near that of most theists. >> So precisely how does this follow? >> >> I can and have construct sim-inclusive arguments that do do a >> reasonable job of supporting a God but not one very similar at all to >> what most theist claim. So even having done some number of >> iterations of such speculative theology I still don't see where >> you/we get the benefit you are suggesting. >> > I'm very confused, as usual. Is there any detectable difference > between living in a sim and living in a universe constructed or > controlled by "God?" "God" is simply another name for "sysop." That depends on what aspects you are looking at. There could be accidental sims, school project sims, sims with the creator[s] poking their noses in or not, sims where the creators felt compassion toward any intelligent beings within the sim or not and so on. The sim may or may not be "controlled". The creator[s] may or may not still be around and interested in the sim. Thus it is a big jump from considering being in a sim likely to extrapolating what that means re notions of God and such. > > Different religions use different names for god and ascribe different > qualities to their particular god. It should be possible to create a > list of attributes that are ascribed to gods by each religion (sect, > faith, or other theist grouping) and then ask each religion to declare > for each attribute whether or not it applies to their god. those who > think we live in a sim can agree or disagree that each attribute > describes the sim environment/sysop. This would be a pointless speculative exercise but interesting/amusing as such exercises go. > > For each religion there is a corresponding simulation environment. If you wish. > > This reductionist approach applies only to religions that agree that > at least some attributes of their god are "public knowledge." That is > that at least some attributes of the god can be described reliably in > words. it is fairly certain that present humans are unable to understand much about significantly advanced intelligences. Ineluctability may be a simple statement of fact. > > For myself, each of these descriptions of my universe falls into one > three categories: > 1) inconsistent > 2) consistent but contradicted by observation of the universe > 3) consistent but no contradicted buy observation of the universe. > > I reject 1 and 2. Of all religions in category 3, only one is unique: > That is the one in which there is no unobservable attributes. For any > religion that ascribes unobservable attributes to god, I can construct > an infinity of additional religions by adding additional unobservable > attributes. > > I choose to "believe: in the one unique "religion." I am an atheist. > Nice for you. However, ti is quite possible to lack sufficient intelligence or knowledge to grasp that what appears inconsistent is not necessarily inconsistent at all. On (2) it is difficult to get a contradiction within a sim for the possibility of being in a sim. there are many religions and religious sects that either have no theistic component or assign no particular attributes to God. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 16 04:57:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:57:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking is doing with Cyborg Technology In-Reply-To: <200503150729.j2F7TLE32431@tick.javien.com> References: <200503150729.j2F7TLE32431@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mar 14, 2005, at 11:31 PM, spike wrote: >> Joseph Bloch > ... >> ... but naturally it ended with the usual vague-but-ominous >> "there are places mankind was not meant to tread" crap. >> >> Joseph > > Please let us examine this closely and question everything > we think we know. I see exactly what you are referring to > but I want to make sure I understand it. I came from a > memetic background where this "mankind is not meant to > tread" notion is absent, but I recognize that mine is an > unusual background. I think there are places that humans cannot thread without becoming more/other than human. I think there is a larger set of places that humans cannot non-catastrophically thread without overcoming many of their human limitations. This does not mean i can point out such places in particular. - samantha From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 16 06:26:58 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:26:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050316062658.6626957EE7@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > The error you start off with is that you are using the thrust it > demonstrates at atmospheric pressure, using atmosphere as the > dielectric medium. Try first adjusting the thrust to that predicted by > the dielectric value for vacuum. Fix that error and you wind up well > within the realm of mundane sub-unity efficiency.... lets try again. Fine, but it's not going to matter. Suppose constant power leads to constant thrust, as the principle of relativity would imply. Constant power implies that total energy used will be proportional to time; but constant acceleration makes velocity proportional to time, and kinetic energy is proportional to v^2, which means it is proportional to time squared. Any time you have input energy proportional to time while output energy is proportional to time squared, it should be clear that you will go over unity after enough time. But if you want some specific figures, I need to know what value to use for the vacuum thrust. I looked at and , both of which described lifter experiments in vacuum (it didn't lift) but couldn't get any thrust values there. Or if you want, I could use that document you pointed to, . He reported a thrust of 2.38 mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum, with his setup (much smaller than the one used by Naudin). That would imply that vacuum thrust is 1/8 that in atmosphere. Do you want me to do it that way? Use 1/8 the thrust I did before? Instead of 0.3 N, about 0.038 N? It will still go over unity, but it will take more time. Just give me the vacuum thrust figure, I'll work it out for you. I assume you are interested in learning whether this device will violate conservation of energy? How will that affect your opinions about it? Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 16 07:23:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) References: <20050316035419.7800F57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <012101c529f9$10973e30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > Cryonics is a hard case for me. I have been signed up for 15 years now, > my whole family, my wife and two kids. At this point, though, I am > much more doubtful about its chances of working. It seems clear that > the consensus of experts on freezing tissue is that it is a terribly > damaging procedure. And the consensus of experts on nanotech is that > the Drexlerian vision is not the most plausible course for the future. > Putting these together it seems doubtful that people being frozen today > will ever be revived with their memories and personalities intact. > > On the other hand, I've gotten so used to the knowledge that this is > what will happen when I die, it is a real source of comfort to me. Just > knowing that there is a possibility, even a remote one, of resurrection > and immortality is highly reassuring. Cryonics plays the role, for me, > of religion, in terms of the emotional comfort and security it provides. > That makes it worthwhile even if it is objectively a long shot. The idea > of being without that protection is disturbing and frightening. > > Now, there might be alternatives. I could become a Christian, accept > Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and hope for the same thing, > resurrection and immortality. It would probably cost about the same, > maybe a little more if I got serious about it. The question is, which is > more likely to lead to immortality: signing up for cryonics, or becoming > a Christian? > > Obviously, most people would say that being Christian was more likely > to succeed. But the general public is not necessarily expert on > the question. I'm not sure who the best experts would be. It would > be interesting to ask the community of non-religious cryobiologists > that question. I honestly don't know what they would say. I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien and I to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that would judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that we did not disagree after it had been judged. Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and Damien (if I am not mistaken [1]) and I hold that it is not feasible. I think all of us would agree that the question is important. I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet. All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and language are the relevant domains and that there are English speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge things in these domains under some circumstances. I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining "the truth". And if we could not, I wonder why not. Regards, Brett Paatsch [1] http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014237.html " Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer-- `That's not Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* Kenny!' (I'd go along with that one, usually.) " From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 07:38:08 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:38:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo launches Idea Furures market Message-ID: <470a3c5205031523381a9967f9@mail.gmail.com> >From John Battelle's blog: Over at its Research Labs, Yahoo today announced The Tech Buzz Game, in conjunction with O'Reilly Media. This is a search-driven marketplace creates a futures market of sorts predicting the popularity of various technologies. Very cool. You can even win prizes for best predictions. http://battellemedia.com/archives/001326.php The Tech Buzz Game is at: http://buzz.research.yahoo.com/bk/index.html The Tech Buzz Game is a fantasy prediction market for high-tech products, concepts, and trends As a player, your goal is to predict how popular various technologies will be in the future. Popularity or buzz is measured by Yahoo! Search frequency over time. Predictions are made by buying virtual stock in the products or technologies you believe will succeed, and selling stock in the technologies you think will flop. In other words, you "put your play money where your mouth is." I just opened an account, got 10.000 bucks in fake cash and started playing. My first move was buying 100 dollars of del.icio.us stock. I will play more with Tech Buzz today and try understanding how it works. From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 16 07:52:00 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:52:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) In-Reply-To: <20050316035419.7800F57EBA@finney.org> References: <20050316035419.7800F57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050316021810.02df0358@mail.gmu.edu> At 10:54 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > >... science has mechanisms for self-correction > > >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community. > > > > I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists. > > Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really. "Established > > academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better. > > Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor. If most > people who > > are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics > reject a > > position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong. > >You might have missed my paeans to science from last year, > and >. I did miss them. Thanks for pointing them out. There you write: >Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific >consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly. ... Delegating these >matters to any outside social institution, even one whose track record in >approaching the truth is greater than anything mankind has ever developed, ... It seems to me that your arguments there would have the same force if you just used the phrase "intellectual consensus" and dropped adding "science" modifiers. The specific mechanism you praise is criticism, but this is mostly just what happens to intellectual experts in general. Now perhaps in some areas criticism is stronger than in others. It is not at all clear that this would be due to differing social institutions, rather than to other differing factors. But regardless of the exact reason for the difference, should one prefer experts from the stronger-criticism areas? You said: >the minute you start deciding for yourself which scientists >should be counted in the consensus and which shouldn't, you're making >your own judgements. Now isn't preferring high-criticism experts just another way to decide which experts should be counted? If the experts in some area think they do just find with less criticism, why should you think they are wrong? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 16 09:05:51 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:05:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) Message-ID: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> Brett Paatsch writes: > I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien and I > to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that would > judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that we did > not disagree after it had been judged. > > Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and Damien > (if I am not mistaken [1]) and I hold that it is not feasible. Do you agree that it would be more accurate to say that I, and perhaps Robin, probably estimate the likelihood that cryonics can work to be higher than you, and perhaps Damien? > I think all of us would agree that the question is important. I don't see it as necessarily all that important. It's not something that I give a great deal of thought to. I do spend a few hundred dollars a year on it, probably about the same amount I spend on Atkins diet shakes. It's not like it's a major part of my life. On the other hand, as I said it does give me a sort of quasi-religious comfort and that is nice to have. > I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet. > > All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak > English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and > language are the relevant domains and that there are English > speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge > things in these domains under some circumstances. > > I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what > sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining > "the truth". > > And if we could not, I wonder why not. What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within, say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality. I would give this odds of about 1 in 100. I know, based on our earlier discussions, that you have particular views about the nature of identity which might make you question whether this is a useful definition of cryonics "working". You might be concerned that even if someone passed this kind of objective test on revival, that he wasn't really the same person. If you can come up with an alternative objective formulation, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'd also be curious to know what you think the odds are of it "working" according to my definition, even if you don't agree that it is a good definition. (And maybe I'm way off here and your objections are of a different form.) Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 16 11:33:56 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:33:56 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Hal wrote: > Brett Paatsch writes: >> I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien and I >> to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that would >> judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that we did >> not disagree after it had been judged. >> >> Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and Damien >> (if I am not mistaken [1]) and I hold that it is not feasible. > > Do you agree that it would be more accurate to say that I, and perhaps > Robin, probably estimate the likelihood that cryonics can work to be > higher than you, and perhaps Damien? I think your re-statement above is accurate. I don't know if its *more* accurate. Perhaps it is. [BTW I don't want to characterise you, or Robin or Damien as having views that you don't have.] I do think that you and Robin would estimate the probability that cryonics can work (for yourselves) as higher than I, and perhaps Damien would for ourselves). I don't think either you or Robin would place the probability as very high either. >> I think all of us would agree that the question is important. > > I don't see it as necessarily all that important. It's not something that > I give a great deal of thought to. I do spend a few hundred dollars a > year on it, probably about the same amount I spend on Atkins diet shakes. > It's not like it's a major part of my life. On the other hand, as I > said it does give me a sort of quasi-religious comfort and that is nice > to have. If any means of avoiding death were feasible I think that would be enough to *interest* each of us. (Whether it would interest us *today* or at any *particular* time or not might be a different question, one that might depend on what else is clamouring for our attentions at the time). I guess I'm saying, I think that we'd each acknowledge we have an *interest* in avoiding dying and in finding out if that is possible via some particular way or other. And I think that we'd each have an interest in making the truth on such questions as "can cryonics work?" better *known* (if such is possible) than they currently are. I don't mean that any of us are fanatical about our positions. I think none of us are fanatical. >> I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet. >> >> All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak >> English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and >> language are the relevant domains and that there are English >> speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge >> things in these domains under some circumstances. >> >> I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what >> sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining >> "the truth". >> >> And if we could not, I wonder why not. > > What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a > person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within, > say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality. > I would give this odds of about 1 in 100. Sure, that would be a line we could explore. I mean the way you are operationaling the bet is a way that I imagine you, Robin, Damien or I would each start to do with *some* skill if any of us were challenged to put our money where our mouths are. But perhaps before we even go down that path it is worth asking could each of us accept the judgement of *any* third party judging organisation however ideally configured with relevant expertise, (scientific, logical, linguistic etc) as being better than our own present judgement, and better than our own then, our future judgement (biased judgement) when such judgement is rendered? In practice, both now and then, there is only two practical choices in relation to cryonics for each of us: either we choose to sign up or we don't. > I know, based on our earlier discussions, that you have particular views > about the nature of identity which might make you question whether this is > a useful definition of cryonics "working". You might be concerned that > even if someone passed this kind of objective test on revival, that he > wasn't really the same person. If you can come up with an alternative > objective formulation, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'd also be > curious to know what you think the odds are of it "working" according > to my definition, even if you don't agree that it is a good definition. > > (And maybe I'm way off here and your objections are of a different form.) You're not way off. But you are getting into trying to answer the question. I'm wondering if you can see that there is no point to trying to answer the question unless at least two of us, one from either side of the proposition would be willing to accept the decision of a judging organisation. My purpose here is somewhat "meta". I'm interested in using cryonics as an example, and some slightly known to me different positions on it (yours, Robins, Damien's) as a sort of test to see if people whom I think respect each other yet hold different views can even in principle come up with a judgeable betting procedure on something like this. I'm interested in whether some matters ultimately cannot become matters for third party judging even in principle when two sides start out on the opposite sides of a question. We know judging can be imposed and begrudgingly accepted (without the need for us to agree with it) on some matters. I don't know if the likes of us can advance-accept the sort of judgement that would be made on "can cryonics work?" though. And if we can't advance-accept it, then we can't get to agree. Does that make sense? Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 13:20:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:20:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316132049.41646.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I would have thought you'd figure out that e=mc^2 describes the asymptotic limit and the only limits on acceleration are the dilation of mass as well as the acceleration vs. pulse frequency curve: i.e. the faster you go, the less acceleration you should get for the most efficient pulse frequency. I'm going to spend some time to come up with some charts on this. --- Hal Finney wrote: > Mike Lorrey writes: > > The error you start off with is that you are using the thrust it > > demonstrates at atmospheric pressure, using atmosphere as the > > dielectric medium. Try first adjusting the thrust to that predicted > by > > the dielectric value for vacuum. Fix that error and you wind up > well > > within the realm of mundane sub-unity efficiency.... lets try > again. > > Fine, but it's not going to matter. Suppose constant power leads to > constant thrust, as the principle of relativity would imply. > Constant > power implies that total energy used will be proportional to time; > but constant acceleration makes velocity proportional to time, and > kinetic energy is proportional to v^2, which means it is proportional > to time squared. Any time you have input energy proportional to time > while output energy is proportional to time squared, it should be > clear > that you will go over unity after enough time. > > But if you want some specific figures, I need to know > what value to use for the vacuum thrust. I looked at > and > , both of which > described lifter experiments in vacuum (it didn't lift) but couldn't > get > any thrust values there. > > Or if you want, I could use that document you pointed to, > . > He reported a thrust of 2.38 mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum, > with his setup (much smaller than the one used by Naudin). That > would > imply that vacuum thrust is 1/8 that in atmosphere. > > Do you want me to do it that way? Use 1/8 the thrust I did before? > Instead of 0.3 N, about 0.038 N? It will still go over unity, but it > will take more time. > > Just give me the vacuum thrust figure, I'll work it out for you. > > I assume you are interested in learning whether this device will > violate > conservation of energy? How will that affect your opinions about it? > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 13:50:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:50:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316132049.41646.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316132049.41646.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42383994.2040503@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >I would have thought you'd figure out that e=mc^2 describes the >asymptotic limit and the only limits on acceleration are the dilation >of mass as well as the acceleration vs. pulse frequency curve: i.e. the >faster you go, the less acceleration you should get for the most >efficient pulse frequency. > > > Faster you go *relative to what*? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 16 14:01:54 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:01:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316041143.61039.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050316085301.034a8690@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:11 PM 15/03/05 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > I thought Dirk was wrong at first, in fact I had a message all typed > > up, but then I thought.what if I'm wrong? And then I decided that I > > *was* wrong! I think Dirk's analysis is correct. Let me make it more > > concrete. > > > > Let's suppose a lifter will work in outer space. We'll use a > > photovoltaic > > panel and some kind of DC-to-DC pulsed transformer to get the 30 kV > > we need. > > > > Looking at the first chart on the lifter page at > > , he can lift about > > 35 grams with Lifter v4.0, for 132.9 Watts. That's a force of > > .035 kg times 9.8 m/s/s or about .3 Newtons. A random solar panel, > > >, > > can generate 167 Watts and weighs 16 kg. We'll add 4 kg for the > > transformer (this is all hand-wavey) and get a 20 kg device that we > > can shoot into space and it will start accelerating all by itself. > > .3 Newtons over 20 kg is about .015 m/s/s acceleration that our > > device will deliver. It's small, but it builds up. After 1 day, it's > > going over a kilometer per second! And velocity increases by a km/s > > every day. Meanwhile we are putting in 132.9 Watts the whole time, > > which is 132.9 J/s times 86400 s/day or 11.5 MJ per day. Well, after > > two days we are at 2 km/s so our kinetic energy is m*v*v/2 or 40 > > MJ. But we've only used 2 * 11.5 MJ or 23 MJ. So Dirk is right, we > > are over unity already, even with a primitive lifter like Naudin > > has designed. And it gets worse every day. > >The error you start off with is that you are using the thrust it >demonstrates at atmospheric pressure, using atmosphere as the >dielectric medium. Try first adjusting the thrust to that predicted by >the dielectric value for vacuum. Fix that error and you wind up well >within the realm of mundane sub-unity efficiency.... lets try again. Mike, it doesn't matter how small the thrust is, unless the thrust declines in a specific way with velocity, any such drive will go over unity eventually. Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if it did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is "wrong units." Unfortunately. Keith Henson From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 16 14:15:46 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:15:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> At 06:33 AM 3/16/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a >>person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within, >>say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality. >>I would give this odds of about 1 in 100. > >But perhaps before we even go down that path it is worth asking could >each of us accept the judgement of *any* third party judging organisation >however ideally configured with relevant expertise, (scientific, logical, >linguistic etc) as being better than our own present judgement, and better >than our own then, our future judgement (biased judgement) when such >judgement is rendered? I really don't think the judging organization is the problem. Dead vs. alive is usually a pretty wide gulf without that many borderline cases. I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but otherwise, sure I'd accept many third party judgements. Harder problems are making bets that pay interest over such a long time, and trusting the judges and folks holding the money to still be there when time comes to judge. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 15:08:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316150835.83298.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >I would have thought you'd figure out that e=mc^2 describes the > >asymptotic limit and the only limits on acceleration are the > dilation > >of mass as well as the acceleration vs. pulse frequency curve: i.e. > the > >faster you go, the less acceleration you should get for the most > >efficient pulse frequency. > > > > > > > Faster you go *relative to what*? Relative to local space of course. BTW: By your calcs, even a Bussard Ramjet is an overunity device as well. So I have to question your use of simple newtonian equations for a situation which should more properly be solved in a Lorentz frame. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 15:11:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316151103.87711.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if it > did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is > "wrong units." The problem is he is doing newtonian math on a problem that is properly solved using Lorentz equations, so of COURSE he is going to get an absurd answer. This is one more case of a person using, as I said before, 100% newtonian thinking in a problem which such thought is entirely inapplicable to. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 15:35:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:35:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316153517.39089.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robin Hanson wrote: > I really don't think the judging organization is the problem. Dead > vs. alive is usually a pretty wide gulf without that many borderline > cases. > I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but otherwise, > sure I'd accept many third party judgements. Harder problems are > making bets that pay interest over such a long time, and trusting > the judges and folks holding the money to still be there when time > comes to judge. This is IMHO the real risk: trusting that no individual or group is going to collude to steal your assets or destroy your corpse between now and then. When it comes to governments, I wouldn't put anything past them. As for individuals, I think it pays to trust those who share the same goals. Determining whether a person honestly shares your goals is the real kicker. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 15:35:43 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:35:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316150835.83298.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316150835.83298.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4238524F.3020403@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>I would have thought you'd figure out that e=mc^2 describes the >>>asymptotic limit and the only limits on acceleration are the >>> >>> >>dilation >> >> >>>of mass as well as the acceleration vs. pulse frequency curve: i.e. >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>faster you go, the less acceleration you should get for the most >>>efficient pulse frequency. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Faster you go *relative to what*? >> >> > >Relative to local space of course. > > Hence SR and GTR go out the window. BTW, which *bit* of local space? >BTW: By your calcs, even a Bussard Ramjet is an overunity device as >well. So I have to question your use of simple newtonian equations for >a situation which should more properly be solved in a Lorentz frame. > > > No, because the energy comes from the inflow and burning of hydrogen and the inflow is limited by the speed of light. There are no such limits on the kind of lifter you envisage. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 16:15:46 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:15:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316151103.87711.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316151103.87711.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42385BB2.1060500@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Keith Henson wrote: > > >>Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if it >>did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is >>"wrong units." >> >> > >The problem is he is doing newtonian math on a problem that is properly >solved using Lorentz equations, so of COURSE he is going to get an >absurd answer. This is one more case of a person using, as I said >before, 100% newtonian thinking in a problem which such thought is >entirely inapplicable to. > > > At the speeds we did the analysis eg a few km/s, Lorenz correction is negligible. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 16:47:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:47:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316164704.63525.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > No, because the energy comes from the inflow and burning of hydrogen > and the inflow is limited by the speed of light. > There are no such limits on the kind of lifter you envisage. Well, then I know you are smoking something. For instance, if, for instance, our device is relying on solar power, it naturally loses power as it recedes from the sun, however even if we were to assume some panels that could convert power from starlight, there would be a reduction in power given redshift as the incoming light redshifted outside the range of the receiver panels sensitivity. Secondly, all mass is subject to relativistic limits on accelerating mass, requiring increased power to maintain acceleration because mass increases as speed does toward C. Additionally, there is significant drag from hard radiation, gas, plasma, and dust strike the vehicle at high velocity, in addition to electrical inductive resistance by the galactic lines of force, a CEMF that will impede acceleration. Your objections to the Bussard Ramjet not being overunity apply equally well to this technology as well. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 16:48:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:48:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316164821.64003.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >--- Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > >>Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if > it > >>did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is > >>"wrong units." > >> > >> > > > >The problem is he is doing newtonian math on a problem that is > properly > >solved using Lorentz equations, so of COURSE he is going to get an > >absurd answer. This is one more case of a person using, as I said > >before, 100% newtonian thinking in a problem which such thought is > >entirely inapplicable to. > > > > > At the speeds we did the analysis eg a few km/s, Lorenz correction is > negligible. You are assuming. And, as I showed, the assumptions by which you looked at a few km/s were faulty. > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 17:52:15 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:52:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316164704.63525.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316164704.63525.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4238724F.3080404@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>No, because the energy comes from the inflow and burning of hydrogen >>and the inflow is limited by the speed of light. >>There are no such limits on the kind of lifter you envisage. >> >> > >Well, then I know you are smoking something. For instance, if, for >instance, our device is relying on solar power, it naturally loses >power as it recedes from the sun, however even if we were to assume >some panels that could convert power from starlight, there would be a >reduction in power given redshift as the incoming light redshifted >outside the range of the receiver panels sensitivity. > > > We are only talking about a couple of day's flight from NEO at a few km/s Redshift doesn't come into it yet we are still MJ in the plus. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 17:53:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:53:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316164821.64003.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316164821.64003.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42387286.2090109@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>--- Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if >>>> >>>> >>it >> >> >>>>did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is >>>>"wrong units." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The problem is he is doing newtonian math on a problem that is >>> >>> >>properly >> >> >>>solved using Lorentz equations, so of COURSE he is going to get an >>>absurd answer. This is one more case of a person using, as I said >>>before, 100% newtonian thinking in a problem which such thought is >>>entirely inapplicable to. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>At the speeds we did the analysis eg a few km/s, Lorenz correction is >>negligible. >> >> > >You are assuming. And, as I showed, the assumptions by which you looked >at a few km/s were faulty. > > You are simply wrong on that one, and others agree with me. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 17:54:17 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:54:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316164821.64003.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316164821.64003.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423872C9.3070108@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>--- Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Mind you, I *wish* such a thing existed and would be delighted if >>>> >>>> >>it >> >> >>>>did. But energy to thrust doesn't work--another way to put it is >>>>"wrong units." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The problem is he is doing newtonian math on a problem that is >>> >>> >>properly >> >> >>>solved using Lorentz equations, so of COURSE he is going to get an >>>absurd answer. This is one more case of a person using, as I said >>>before, 100% newtonian thinking in a problem which such thought is >>>entirely inapplicable to. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>At the speeds we did the analysis eg a few km/s, Lorenz correction is >>negligible. >> >> > >You are assuming. And, as I showed, the assumptions by which you looked >at a few km/s were faulty. > > You are simply wrong on that one, and others agree with me. Show us the calculations as to how constant enery input producing constant thrust, hence constant accel does *not* lead to over unity. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 16 18:29:03 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:29:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) Message-ID: <20050316182903.BEA8557EBA@finney.org> Brett writes: > I guess I'm saying, I think that we'd each acknowledge we have an > *interest* in avoiding dying and in finding out if that is possible via some > particular way or other. And I think that we'd each have an interest in > making the truth on such questions as "can cryonics work?" better > *known* (if such is possible) than they currently are. I don't mean that > any of us are fanatical about our positions. I think none of us are > fanatical. Fair enough. > I'm wondering if you can see that there is no point to trying to answer the > question unless at least two of us, one from either side of the proposition > would be willing to accept the decision of a judging organisation. > > My purpose here is somewhat "meta". I'm interested in using cryonics > as an example, and some slightly known to me different positions on it > (yours, Robins, Damien's) as a sort of test to see if people whom I think > respect each other yet hold different views can even in principle come > up with a judgeable betting procedure on something like this. I think what you're saying is, the disagreement is not so much about the probability that a cryonics revivee could pass some such objective test. The disagreement is more fundamental, and is about the very nature of the cryonics question - is it one which can be answered by an objective test even in principle? With this kind of difference, you could imagine two people who would agree about every objective, third-party-measurable experiment that could be made regarding the issue; yet they would still have a disagreement about what was going on, a disagreement which would lead to their taking different actions. If this is what you're getting at, I agree that these kinds of differences do exist among people. It's not just questions of the philosophy of consciousness, as in this case, but we also see such disagreements on matters of religion and spirituality. Damien has pointed to sophisticated versions of religion which don't require miracles in the sense of exceptions to the laws of physics, but which nevertheless recognize a role for a divine presence. A believer in such a religion might agree with an atheist on every question of measurement in the physical world, yet they could have serious disagreements that would lead to very different actions. One way to analyze this situation is in the context of decision theory. Decision theory says that we make decisions to maximize the expected utility of the resulting world. Utility is a measure of how much we like the outcome, and expected utility is a probabilistic, weighted average over the possible outcomes of our actions and the utility of each such outcome. We take the action which is most likely to lead to the outcome with the best utility, averaged over all the possible outcomes of our actions. In this context, a disagreement of this type is one where the parties agree about the physical facts, they agree about the probabilities, but they have different utility functions. They differ on how happy they are with various outcomes. It is these differences of utility, rather than disagreements on facts, which lead to different actions. The question then becomes, are these differences of utility estimates something to worry about, and to try to resolve? Or are they purely matters of taste, aspects of our individuality where we should welcome differences? Reason is a tool. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Reason helps you to estimate the probabilities and to improve understanding about the world. It guides you to the truth. But what you do with that truth is up to you. Reason can help you achieve your goals, but it does not create your goals, any more than a mathematical system creates its own axioms. Your utility function, your preferences, your tastes, exist outside of the framework of reason. Differences in these matters are not factual disagreements, and should not lead to the same kinds of questions and concerns as when people apply reason differently. Hal From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Wed Mar 16 18:51:22 2005 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:51:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <1D68577DAAE6304A89E3C8BC896262A46EBCEC@w2k3exch01.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Wouldn't relativistic mass increase negate constant acceleration, and asymptotically vanish acceleration toward zero? > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > You are simply wrong on that one, and others agree with me. > Show us the calculations as to how constant enery input producing > constant thrust, hence constant accel does *not* lead to over unity. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2489 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Mar 16 18:58:41 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:58:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Genes contribute to religious inclination Message-ID: <423881E1.3070401@humanenhancement.com> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147 Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time. Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness. But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age. Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane. Religious discussions The team gave questionnaires to 169 pairs of identical twins - 100% genetically identical - and 104 pairs of fraternal twins - 50% genetically identical - born in Minnesota. The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings. This was compared with when they were growing up and living with their families. Then, each participant answered the same questions regarding their mother, father, and their twin. The twins believed that when they were younger, all of their family members - including themselves - shared similar religious behaviour. But in adulthood, however, only the identical twins reported maintaining that similarity. In contrast, fraternal twins were about a third less similar than they were as children. "That would suggest genetic factors are becoming more important and growing up together less important," says team member Matt McGue, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota. Empty nests Michael McCullough, a psychologist at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, US, agrees. "To a great extent, you can't be who you are when you're living under your parents' roof. But once you leave the nest, you can begin to let your own preferences and dispositions shape your behaviour," he told New Scientist. "Maybe, ultimately, we all decide what we're most comfortable with, and it may have more to do with our own makeup than how we were treated when we were adolescents," says McGue. About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one's impulses. But McGue says the new work suggests that being raised in a religious household may affect a person's long-term psychological state less than previously thought. But he says the influence from this early socialisation may re-emerge later on, when the twins have families of their own. He also points out that the finding may not be universal because the research focused on a single population of US men. Journal reference: Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 19:14:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:14:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316191403.4549.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > >>No, because the energy comes from the inflow and burning of > hydrogen > >>and the inflow is limited by the speed of light. > >>There are no such limits on the kind of lifter you envisage. > >> > >> > > > >Well, then I know you are smoking something. For instance, if, for > >instance, our device is relying on solar power, it naturally loses > >power as it recedes from the sun, however even if we were to assume > >some panels that could convert power from starlight, there would be > a > >reduction in power given redshift as the incoming light redshifted > >outside the range of the receiver panels sensitivity. > > > > > > > We are only talking about a couple of day's flight from NEO at a few > km/s > Redshift doesn't come into it yet we are still MJ in the plus. > Only because you are assuming absurdly high thrust based on atmospheric pressure of the dielectric, as I've already noted. Furthermore, you still have the EXACT same problem with any Bussard Ramjet, which you have not explained. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 19:14:58 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:14:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) In-Reply-To: <20050316182903.BEA8557EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050316191458.74828.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> I'm fanatical about cryonics because my attention span is defective and can only focus seriously on something if fanaticism comes into play. My defects are what led me to cryonics, otherwise would live for Now; drink beer, play cards, crochet doilies-- all the rest of the diversions. Aint Spock the logical Vulcan. > I don't mean that > > any of us are fanatical about our positions. I > think none of us are > > fanatical. > > Fair enough. > > > I'm wondering if you can see that there is no > point to trying to answer the > > question unless at least two of us, one from > either side of the proposition > > would be willing to accept the decision of a > judging organisation. > > > > My purpose here is somewhat "meta". I'm > interested in using cryonics > > as an example, and some slightly known to me > different positions on it > > (yours, Robins, Damien's) as a sort of test to see > if people whom I think > > respect each other yet hold different views can > even in principle come > > up with a judgeable betting procedure on something > like this. > > I think what you're saying is, the disagreement is > not so much about the > probability that a cryonics revivee could pass some > such objective test. > The disagreement is more fundamental, and is about > the very nature of > the cryonics question - is it one which can be > answered by an objective > test even in principle? > > With this kind of difference, you could imagine two > people who would > agree about every objective, third-party-measurable > experiment that could > be made regarding the issue; yet they would still > have a disagreement > about what was going on, a disagreement which would > lead to their taking > different actions. > > If this is what you're getting at, I agree that > these kinds of differences > do exist among people. It's not just questions of > the philosophy of > consciousness, as in this case, but we also see such > disagreements > on matters of religion and spirituality. Damien has > pointed to > sophisticated versions of religion which don't > require miracles in > the sense of exceptions to the laws of physics, but > which nevertheless > recognize a role for a divine presence. A believer > in such a religion > might agree with an atheist on every question of > measurement in the > physical world, yet they could have serious > disagreements that would > lead to very different actions. > > One way to analyze this situation is in the context > of decision theory. > Decision theory says that we make decisions to > maximize the expected > utility of the resulting world. Utility is a > measure of how much we > like the outcome, and expected utility is a > probabilistic, weighted > average over the possible outcomes of our actions > and the utility of > each such outcome. We take the action which is most > likely to lead > to the outcome with the best utility, averaged over > all the possible > outcomes of our actions. > > In this context, a disagreement of this type is one > where the parties > agree about the physical facts, they agree about the > probabilities, > but they have different utility functions. They > differ on how happy > they are with various outcomes. It is these > differences of utility, > rather than disagreements on facts, which lead to > different actions. > > The question then becomes, are these differences of > utility estimates > something to worry about, and to try to resolve? Or > are they purely > matters of taste, aspects of our individuality where > we should welcome > differences? > > Reason is a tool. It is a means to an end, not an > end in itself. Reason > helps you to estimate the probabilities and to > improve understanding > about the world. It guides you to the truth. But > what you do with > that truth is up to you. Reason can help you > achieve your goals, but it > does not create your goals, any more than a > mathematical system creates > its own axioms. Your utility function, your > preferences, your tastes, > exist outside of the framework of reason. > Differences in these matters > are not factual disagreements, and should not lead > to the same kinds of > questions and concerns as when people apply reason > differently. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 19:29:51 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:29:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <1D68577DAAE6304A89E3C8BC896262A46EBCEC@w2k3exch01.UNICOM-INC.CORP> References: <1D68577DAAE6304A89E3C8BC896262A46EBCEC@w2k3exch01.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <4238892F.9080402@neopax.com> Christopher Healey wrote: >Wouldn't relativistic mass increase negate constant acceleration, and asymptotically vanish acceleration toward zero? > > No, not according to onboard sensors. And any such effects would only appear close to the speed of light. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 19:31:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:31:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316193130.10073.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes it would. He is also using bogus high thrust numbers and several other errors that come from the fact he is hopelessly stuck in a Newtonian mind frame (along with his fascist politics). --- Christopher Healey wrote: > Wouldn't relativistic mass increase negate constant acceleration, and > asymptotically vanish acceleration toward zero? > > > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > You are simply wrong on that one, and others agree with me. > > Show us the calculations as to how constant enery input producing > > constant thrust, hence constant accel does *not* lead to over > unity. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 20:13:33 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:13:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] name your poison In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316201333.35332.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> To catch a few flies, I'd like to post more on fanaticism, being quite familiar with it. I read the Pearson-Shaw book 'Life Extension' then immediately started gobbling supplements like they were M&Ms, to hell with caution, wanted quickly to see what effect the minimum and maximum doses of each supplement had. Life Extension led to interest in transhumanism, then to serious interest in cryonics. If it had not been for fanaticism, if I hadn't swallowed a truckload of supplements over the years, wouldn't have glanced twice at cryonics. That's the way some people operate. If they aren't fanatical about throwing good money after bad to buy dubious supplements they might be fanatical about dumping money into an offering basket at a church, or whatnot. Taking supplements also made me realize what pigslop we ingest. You can renounce alcohol, coffee and caffeinated tea. You can renounce tobacco products, too much sodium, too much lipids. But for how long? Alcohol isn't really about kicks, it's a gross tranquilizer-- no prescription needed. What's the difference between too much caffeine on one hand, and amphetamines? Sugar to me is like heroin, after one serving of ice cream, cake or pie I want another. One serving doesn't bother me, but then another slice of vegan fat free German chocolate cake seems attractive, then maybe another if it is a festive occasion."Here's a dish of real-vanilla fat free ice cream, you only live once you know". But you die many times. You lie down with acid reflux because of one too many slices of organic fat free vegan cherry pie, in the morning you feel listless, almost intoxicated. Many dig their graves with their teeth. Christopher Healey wrote: Wouldn't relativistic mass increase negate constant acceleration, and asymptotically vanish acceleration toward zero? > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > You are simply wrong on that one, and others agree with me. > Show us the calculations as to how constant enery input producing > constant thrust, hence constant accel does *not* lead to over unity. > _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 21:20:15 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316193130.10073.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316193130.10073.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4238A30F.8070506@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Yes it would. He is also using bogus high thrust numbers and several >other errors that come from the fact he is hopelessly stuck in a >Newtonian mind frame (along with his fascist politics). > > > Ah... the ad hominem. I think that signals the close of the discussion. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 21:33:44 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:33:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A new low? Message-ID: <4238A638.3020808@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey: "...he is hopelessly stuck in aNewtonian mind frame (along with his fascist politics)." google groups "dirk bruere", hits sci.physics - 10,500 sci.physics.research - 580 alt.sci.physics.new-theories - 537 sci.electronics.design - 4090 sci.chem - 1650 I don't think in a single post of mine in a scientific argument have I ever indulged in such ad hominem. Seems that if Mike can't win the argument he hopes to sway the audience by claiming (falsely) that I'm a 'fascist'. You are still wrong Mike, even more so now. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 22:44:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:44:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316224450.41781.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.foldedspace.com/Electric%20Propulsion%20Study,%20Dr.Cravens%201989.pdf Dig in, and tell the USAF it is wrong. >From the introduction: "Conventional physics rules out any departure from the conservation of momentum. Recently, however, physics has seen a multitude ofnew theories that try to unify all of physics. One specific set of multidimensional theories has approached the unification problem by inductivly coupling the electromagnetic forces with gravitational forces. Inductive coupling means that a conversion between gravitational and electrical forces is possible. Inductively linked theories indicate that the interactions between the two forces may open methods for the interconversion of electric and gravitational events, just as magnetic and electric events are now interconverted. This means that inductively coupled theories may offer waysto convert charges into masses. This is similar to the way the fourth diension has supplied a method of converting mass into energy. The motivation for such a study is the most recent advances in unified field theories. Even thought here has been no singly accepted theory, several things are now clear. If the unification of fields is possible then interconversion is likely. It is only a matter of determineing the size of the coupling constant. Should such conversion be possible, the power density made available would be ten orders of magnitude beyond nuclear events. This conversion and inductive linkage of both charge and mass by the new theories may open whole new avenuse to propulsion." --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Christopher Healey wrote: > > >Wouldn't relativistic mass increase negate constant acceleration, > and asymptotically vanish acceleration toward zero? > > > > > No, not according to onboard sensors. > And any such effects would only appear close to the speed of light. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From john-c-wright at sff.net Wed Mar 16 23:20:33 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:20:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline Message-ID: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> Kevin Freels asks: >Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to change to >something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new >religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be created >that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? I might suggest something like "Adventism" appearing in HARVEST OF STARS by Poul Anderson. In that book, the inevitable supremacy of the Sophotects (as he called his artificial intelligences) was greeted with pleasure and anticipation by a politcal group devoted to the advent of a super-human mode of consciousness. One of the characters daydreams that one day his loyalty to the coming super-race of pure intelligences will be rewarded by an upload into an eternal computerized fiction of bliss and perfection: a robotic paradise. What is interesting here is that the author takes reasonable political faction, (the por-reason, pro-progress group) but shows how the natural human hunger for the lording it over others turns them into tyrants; and the natural human longing for the supernatural turns their political philosophy into a religion, complete with a promise of life eternal in the New Garden. Anderson makes his Adventists his black-hats, not necessarily, I suppose, because the author has anything against progress in artificial intelligence, but because any movement or any idea, even a reasonable one, when it becomes an idol to which one is willing to sacrifice other virtues and scruples, becomes all-consuming, and hence unreasonable. (The novel, by the way is a monumental work, the crowning triumph of a lifetime of work in the field, and it astonishes and disappoints me that this book is not more well known.) The idea of designing a religion to a deliberate purpose is an intriguing one, which has also been the topic of speculations in science fiction. GATHER DARKNESS by Fritz Leiber, or the "Great Galactic Spirit" of Asimov's FOUNDATION spring to mind, not to mention the more obscure SIXTH COLUMN by Robert Heinlein. I note that in these optimistic tales, the con men who fool the rubes with their made-believe religions win. DUNE by Frank Herbert is an exception; one of his themes is that the Messiah cannot control the events he sets in motion, the Jihad world-destroying he sparks cannot be stopped. Serious students of the matter might be advised to adapt Transhumanism to an existing faith, rather than invent one whole cloth. This has two advantages: one, God may spare you, despite your hubris, if you unwittingly do His work for Him. Two, you have a pre-sold market. Having said that, I am unsure which religion to recommend to the cause. Neopaganism or pantheism might be ripe for exploitation on this matter, since no Acquinas yet has risen among them to codify their beliefs. The belief in reincarnation, which some New Age types admire, could be used to promote the idea that the current human race has a duty to create a superior species of child-races, into which we will all one day be reborn. Oriental religions, with their otherworldliness and concept of reincarnation as an eternal trap, a wheel of punishment meant to be escaped, would not lend themselves easily to the enterprise. A puritan Christianity, whose members were convinced that working to better the state of men on earth and create a race of after-men to replace them, is possible, but unlikely, within the Christian world-view: a puritan work-ethic and a devotion to a higher cause, however, would be good allies. I am not sure how, if at all, Mohammadism could be suborned to the Transhumanist cause: the doctrine of fatalism and utter submission to God do not lend themselves to notions of progress toward uploaded immortality in the computerspace. John C. Wright From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 23:33:38 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:33:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] blame [...] In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050316233338.34800.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> If every statist magically disappeared from the earth the billions remaining would still vigorously oppose an extropian/h+ future. Are not 'right wing freemarketer' and 'tax and spend statist' basically bugbear designations? "My life isn't going the way I want-- I'm not wealthy, so blame right wing laissez faire imperialists" or "Blame tax & spend socialist commie pinko statists". --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 23:36:28 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:36:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <4238A30F.8070506@neopax.com> References: <20050316193130.10073.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4238A30F.8070506@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:15 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Ah... the ad hominem. > I think that signals the close of the discussion. > I thought this subject closed in 2002 when NASA ceased funding this research after no useful results were obtained. NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996-2002 to seek the ultimate breakthroughs in space transportation: The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project is managed by Marc Millis of the Glenn Research Center (GRC), and was sponsored by the Advanced Space Transportation Program (ASTP), managed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL. In the Summer of 2002, both the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project and the Revolutionary Propulsion Research Project, that were part of ASTP's "Revolutionary Research Investment Area," were removed from the ASTP. It is not certain if or when funding for such research will resume. BillK From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 16 23:54:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:54:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Kevin Freels asks: > > > >>Religion changes over time. Which religion would be the easiest to change to >>something more transhumanistic? Or would it be better to create a new >>religion? What would it take to do that? Can a set of beliefs be created >>that can meld any partivular religion into something more extropian? >> >> > >I might suggest something like "Adventism" appearing in HARVEST OF STARS by Poul >Anderson. In that book, the inevitable supremacy of the Sophotects (as he called >his artificial intelligences) was greeted with pleasure and anticipation by a >politcal group devoted to the advent of a super-human mode of consciousness. One >of the characters daydreams that one day his loyalty to the coming super-race of >pure intelligences will be rewarded by an upload into an eternal computerized >fiction of bliss and perfection: a robotic paradise. > >What is interesting here is that the author takes reasonable political faction, >(the por-reason, pro-progress group) but shows how the natural human hunger for >the lording it over others turns them into tyrants; and the natural human >longing for the supernatural turns their political philosophy into a religion, >complete with a promise of life eternal in the New Garden. > > > I suspect that we will be engineering ourselves genetically for quite some time before true AI appears, so there will be a considerable 'enhanced' faction ready to greet it. >... >Serious students of the matter might be advised to adapt Transhumanism to an >existing faith, rather than invent one whole cloth. This has two advantages: >one, God may spare you, despite your hubris, if you unwittingly do His work for >Him. Two, you have a pre-sold market. > > Well, I'd say that Transhumanism in itself could well become a religion. It has all the features of one. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 17 00:37:34 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:37:34 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: >>>What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a >>>person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within, >>>say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality. >>>I would give this odds of about 1 in 100. >> >>But perhaps before we even go down that path it is worth asking could >>each of us accept the judgement of *any* third party judging organisation >>however ideally configured with relevant expertise, (scientific, logical, >>linguistic etc) as being better than our own present judgement, and better >>than our own then, our future judgement (biased judgement) when such >>judgement is rendered? > > I really don't think the judging organization is the problem. Dead vs. > alive is usually a pretty wide gulf without that many borderline cases. > I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but otherwise, sure > I'd accept many third party judgements. But what if you couldn't be clear. What if whether uploading counts or not is a question that must be left in the hands of the judges. The judges are allowed to have regard to arguments for and against whether uploading counts. Anybody that wants to can make their best case for uploading. And the case that uploading should count if the judges think it does, but the judges get to decide what is and isn't germane to the question "can cryonics work?" > Harder problems are making bets > that pay interest over such a long time, and trusting the judges and folks > holding the money to still be there when time comes to judge. Quite so. Yet you, Hal, Damien and I each have to decide for ourselves "can cryonics work? " while we are still here to decide. In other words in a time period of decades or perhaps even years but certainly not centuries. If we think markets can inform us, we are likely to want to be informed in time for us to use the information. And if we want a payoff for being right in our lifetimes we might want to assemble the arguments and facts for the negative case (for judgement) so as to move the market in favour of our views whilst we are alive and so can profit while alive. Perhaps I, and/or Damien do have different ideas about what constitutes identity to yourself and Hal. And perhaps that is part of what has us in disagreement about "can cryonics work?" And perhaps we are wrong. But arguments about identity if they are germane to the question "can cryonics work?" may still be able to be considered by a judging organisation allowed to consider them. (It seems doubtful that personal identity can really be just a matter of taste). And they may be able to be considered before Damien and I are dead. I don't know if Damien would be willing to have the question of identity (including *his* identity, amongst other things) decided by a judging organisation even if he could have as much input as he wished into the expertise and composition of that judging organisation. Perhaps people who disagree want to control the terms of reference for any third-party judgement to much and not be willing to accept only that they get to configure the judging mechanism beforehand. I don't know this for a fact - I just wonder. Would you accept judgement without the uploading being explicitly included in the terms of reference? Would Damien accept judgement on questions that might include the issue of identity if that judgement presumes to apply to his notion of identity too? In both cases a higher degree of confidence seems required in the judges. Yet if the bet was broken down into separate ones stipulating stuff about uploading and identity it might make the question "can cryonics work?", which might have had appeal to the wider community, to esoteric and of to little interest. Brett Paatsch From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 17 00:43:31 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:43:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4238D2B3.8080202@humanenhancement.com> Excellent post, John; I would make only one comment... john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >I note that in these optimistic tales, the con men who fool the rubes with >their made-believe religions win. DUNE by Frank Herbert is an exception; one of >his themes is that the Messiah cannot control the events he sets in motion, the >Jihad world-destroying he sparks cannot be stopped. > > The theme of the engineered religion is actually approached in several places in the Dune series. I note specifically the idea that the Bene Gesserit seeded various worlds with messianic faiths that were specifically tied to the appearance of Bene Gesserit Mothers (the "Missionaria Protectiva"). As Sparknotes puts it (and I use that only because it is one of the first sites to come up in Google, and is a fair assessment of the topic): "The Bene Gesserit use the Missionaria Protectiva to spread contrived legends and prophecies to developing worlds. Bene Gesserit can exploit these legends to earn the respect of the native inhabitants, who believe in the contrived legends." (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dune/themes.html) Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 17 00:44:46 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:44:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Well, I'd say that Transhumanism in itself could well become a > religion. It has all the features of one. > Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and religion have in common? Not saying I disagree... just interested in hearing your take. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 17 00:50:39 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:50:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050316224450.41781.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050316224450.41781.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4238D45F.8050401@humanenhancement.com> Completely irrelevant to the topic, but a fun anecdote nonetheless... When I was in the USAF reserves, stationed at McGuire AFB, NJ, having completed my stint as a full-timer, I was frequently put up in a hotel that had been built just outside the base, at the Air Force's expense, of course. The reason was that the Pentagon forbade the base from building enough housing on-base to accomodate the large numbers of reservists that would be on-duty on the weekends. They could only have as many beds as the annual average required; not the number required at the maximum demand. This despite the fact that the base argued (correctly, as far as I can tell) that over the long-term the cost of putting us up in the hotels far exceeded the cost of building more dorms. So, yeah, I'll tell the USAF it's wrong. Maybe not on this specific topic, but they're hardly infallible. And don't even get me started on Rolling Thunder... ;-) Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Mike Lorrey wrote: >Dig in, and tell the USAF it is wrong. > From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 01:02:07 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:02:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4238D70F.2090200@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Well, I'd say that Transhumanism in itself could well become a >> religion. It has all the features of one. >> > > Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and > religion have in common? > > Not saying I disagree... just interested in hearing your take. > Original Sin (being Human), Salvation (technology), Apocalypse (Singularity), God (AI), Miracles (nanotech), Heaven (Posthumanity, uploading) "A Romantic longing for a lost world that never was, but which may yet be. A call from a Middle Earth that lies in the future, not the mythical past. A faith in the transformation of Humanity into something infinitely better. A world renewed and cleansed - becoming a celebration of life and Earth. The excitement of discovery and the adventure of magical technologies. An exploration stretching from the subatomic to the trans-galactic. Freedom from material constraints. Mind freed from matter. Imagination freed from necessity. The world made fluid and malleable. A new Heaven and a new Earth where all tears shall be wiped away." -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From brian at posthuman.com Thu Mar 17 01:54:26 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:54:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and > religion have in common? > Noooooooo... Not again please. This has been done to death several times in the past - see all those dead horses scattered around? This is one of them. I suggest reading the WTA FAQ: http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#53 and availing yourself of Google if you're unaware of the history here. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 02:03:33 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:33:33 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05031618034c0484ec@mail.gmail.com> I don't know what Dirk has in mind specifically, but here's a good/funny site about categorizing religions... http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/2R10.html Extropians would be categorised as 04T-3A1C, Transhumanists as 04S-1B1C. Note that I've used the Atheist's category for afterlife "no one goes anywhere", but there probably needs to be another entry instead for "no one dies, but if they do then they go nowhere". Also, both groups truly meet online I reckon. Not that I think Extropy or Transhumanism are religions ;-) Emlyn On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:44:46 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Well, I'd say that Transhumanism in itself could well become a > > religion. It has all the features of one. > > > > Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and > religion have in common? > > Not saying I disagree... just interested in hearing your take. > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: > http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 17 03:01:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:01:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050317030136.3813957EBA@finney.org> Now I will analyze this thrusting device using relativistic rather than Newtonian physics. A quick review. With uniformly accelerated motion, let the proper time as measured by the accelerating observer be t' ("t prime"). Let the acceleration by "a", and for convenience let us use geometric units where c is 1. Then velocities are dimensionless values which are interpreted as fractions of the speed of light, and accelerations have units of 1/time. The standard formulas are: x = 1/a * (cosh(a*t') - 1) t = 1/a * sinh(a*t') v = tanh(a*t') E = m * cosh(a*t') cosh, sinh and tanh are the standard hyperbolic functions. x, t, v, and E are position, time, velocity and energy as measured in the rest frame. The E term is in geometric units where c=1. It includes the rest energy of E=m (commonly written as E=mc^2 when using non-geometric units), so to get the kinetic energy we would subtract that: KE = m * (cosh(a*t') - 1) It remains to estimate the acceleration "a". Mike several times has pointed to a document, , which is the only one I have found which actually claimed to have measured lifter thrust in air and in vacuum. The author reported a thrust of 2.38 mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum, with his setup (much smaller than the one used by Naudin). That would imply that lifter vacuum thrust is 0.13 times that in atmosphere. So, instead of my previous analysis using Naudin's lifter which gave 0.3 Newtons of force, I will scale that down by this factor of 0.13 and take the force in vacuum as 0.039 N. With a 20 kg device that is an acceleration of .00195 m/s/s. To go to geometric units, we divide that acceleration by c and get an acceleration of 6.5E-12/sec. Let's see how things are cooking after 60 days of acceleration. This is 5.184 million seconds. Our device has been drawing 132.9 Watts, times 5.184 million seconds is about 690 MJ. That's how much power we've used. Meanwhile our velocity, from the formula above with a = 6.5E-12 and t' = 5.184 million, is 3.37E-5 in geometric units, meaning it is that fraction of the speed of light. Multiply by c to get the speed in regular units and it is 10.1 km/sec, a very modest speed, not even Earth escape velocity. And the distance travelled, x, is 87.34 from the formula, which in these geometric units is light-seconds. Multiply by c and get 26 million km, so you could stay near the sun and keep the power for your solar panels. In fact you could safely head towards the sun the whole time, it's 150 million km away. What we really want is the kinetic energy. From the KE formula above, it is 1.14E-8 kilograms, which we have to multiply by c^2 to return to regular units: 1.02 GJ, just over a gigajoule. So there you go. Energy in is 690 MJ, energy out is 1.02 GJ, after 60 days of acceleration. Over unity. You get out more energy than you put in. You're only going 10.1 km/sec at the end, having travelled 26 million km. Calculation done with relativistic, Lorentzian formulas. Using a figure from a document Mike pointed to as authoritative, for the power output from a lifter in a vacuum. Okay? Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 17 03:00:15 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:00:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] base housing In-Reply-To: <4238D45F.8050401@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <200503170302.j2H32UE14401@tick.javien.com> > Joseph wrote: > ...I was frequently put up in a hotel > that had been built just outside the base, at the Air Force's expense, > of course... So, yeah, I'll tell the USAF it's wrong... Another military anecdote Joseph, since you started it. The navy base at China Lake was a bit of an exception to the usual situation, since it was out in the middle of nowhere, so there was never sufficient housing for the civilians that supported the operations, i.e. the restaurants, the stores, the professional services in town. So in that case they allowed civilians to live on the base itself, even if no family members actually were in the military or were government employees. This made for a curious security situation, where civilians living on base were issued passes to get to their own homes. At the end of the US involvement in the Vietnam war, the Navy began manning down to peacetime personnel levels, which left large numbers of military housing vacant. A couple years later at the fall of Saigon, there were enormous numbers of legitimate political refugees; Uncle Sam had to figure out how to accommodate them. The base captain anticipated the intractable security nightmare that could be created by having perhaps hundreds of Vietnamese families living on a US military base. With little or no English skills and lacking the proper military socialization (every military guy knows *exactly* what I am talking about here) it just wouldn't work. He issued orders. The vacant housing was physically ripped out of the ground, scooped onto trucks and hauled out into the desert off base, south and east of Ridgecrest. According to local legend, the director of Housing and Urban Development called the captain a few days after the last unit was removed: HUD head: "Captain, I understand that China Lake NWC has several hundred vacant housing units." Captain: "No sir, that is not correct. As of last week we had 100% occupancy." As it turns out, I was down there just this past weekend on a motorcycle trip to Death Valley. Some of those houses are still out there where they were placed over 30 years ago. Things decay slowly in that environment. As an aside, perhaps you have heard that Death Valley is experiencing a century bloom. A few weeks ago they had nine straight days of rain, which resulted in the normally dead brown desert to look like a new lawn. I have been out there scores of times, but have never seen anything close to this. China Lake old timers say they have never seen anything like it either. http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/ca.html spike From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 03:08:44 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:08:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4238F4BC.60408@neopax.com> Brian Atkins wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> >> Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and >> religion have in common? >> > > > Noooooooo... Not again please. This has been done to death several > times in the past - see all those dead horses scattered around? This > is one of them. > > I suggest reading the WTA FAQ: > > http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#53 > > and availing yourself of Google if you're unaware of the history here. "Religious fanaticism, superstition, and intolerance are not acceptable among transhumanists." I like the moralising - another feature of religion. But then, that's why I'm here and not there. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 03:12:01 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:12:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05031618034c0484ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <710b78fc05031618034c0484ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4238F581.7060101@neopax.com> Emlyn wrote: >I don't know what Dirk has in mind specifically, but here's a >good/funny site about categorizing religions... > >http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/2R10.html > >Extropians would be categorised as 04T-3A1C, Transhumanists as >04S-1B1C. Note that I've used the Atheist's category for afterlife "no >one goes anywhere", but there probably needs to be another entry >instead for "no one dies, but if they do then they go nowhere". Also, >both groups truly meet online I reckon. > >Not that I think Extropy or Transhumanism are religions ;-) > > > I forgot Resurrection of the Dead (Cryonics). As for Transhumanism being a religion, if Asatru is a religion so is Transhumanism. BTW, the site cannot categorize Asatru -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 03:17:56 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:17:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> <4229C4FB.6070302@neopax.com> <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > > You say you "meet the gods" (which you already admit have no > independent existence, being mere psychological archetypes). I say you > experienced some interesting brain chemistry, resulting from a few > hundred thousand years of evolution that made such experiences a > survival trait. The fact that you interpreted those perfectly natural > impulses as "meeting the gods" is irrelevant to their actual nature. > You're watching the shadows on the wall, but not bothering to see the > light behind you. The fact that such experiences are all culturally > specific should tell you the origin is organic, not metaphysical. > The gestalt formed during a Ouija game is an emergent phenomenon arising from the group interaction and can certainly pass the Turing Test. Gods ditto. Of course, I could have been hallucinating when I thought I saw the planchette spelling stuff out... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 03:27:34 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:27:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307155232.01dde580@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200503041755.j24HtJB15037@tick.javien.com> <20050307211450.5879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050307155232.01dde580@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4238F926.5000208@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:14 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Adrian wrote: > >> More than one Eastern religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible >> with both >> advanced science and advanced tech. > > > A strong countervailing current is spiritual monism: the claim that > All is Consciousness, or rather Consciousness is Primordial, sometimes > these days based in interpretations of QT. While I find this > suggestion preposterous, and almost certainly due to the conceptual > pratfall of category mistake, it's worth looking at, for example: > > http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/vol06no2/bkrev62.htm > > That review, typically, includes such unpleasant absurdities as: > "Confronted with the genocidal horrors of our century, reason has > nothing to say." This denies the tentative answers offered by, say, > evolutionary and cognitive psychology without even attempting to > refute them. > > Still, Goswami and others like him (I don't include such dubious QT > hawkers as Deepak Chopra or Fred Allan Wolf) might be worth a few > days' attention, if only to counter their stance from an informed > position, rather than a priori dismissal. > > You omit Penrose and Hammeroff -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 17 03:28:06 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:28:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4238F946.6020609@humanenhancement.com> Actually, Brian, I know quite a bit about what the WTA FAQ has to say on the subject. Right now, in fact, I'm in the process of sending out hard-copies of them to new WTA members. I was curious as to what Dirk had to say on the subject, because of his particular religious background, which is similar to my own in many respects. Apologies if you find the subject tedious. I find it fascinating and potentially quite practical. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Brian Atkins wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> >> Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and >> religion have in common? >> > > > Noooooooo... Not again please. This has been done to death several > times in the past - see all those dead horses scattered around? This > is one of them. > > I suggest reading the WTA FAQ: > > http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#53 > > and availing yourself of Google if you're unaware of the history here. From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 03:29:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:29:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cute video about the future In-Reply-To: <20050307225913.A5EB357EBA@finney.org> References: <20050307225913.A5EB357EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <4238F999.6020209@neopax.com> Hal Finney wrote: >NTT DoCoMo has a cute 10-minute video showing the world of 201X, >at http://www.docomo-usa.com/vision2010/. It includes widespread use >of video phones, wireless electronic wallets and payments, and haptic >(remote touch) technology. Oh, yeah, the self-driving car. > >I had a few quibbles; one was the use of apparent "holographic" displays, >which aren't physically possible AFAIK. The other was the wrist video >phone concept, which I would think would make the camera wiggle around >too much (but maybe a wide field of view combined with video stabilizing >software would work). I also thought the haptic thing wasn't quite right, >you couldn't reach out and touch something unless you had someone at >the other end moving their gloves in synchrony with yours. > > > And we can all have a good laugh like we do with videos shot in the 1970s about what life will be like in the Year 2000 Those self driving cars have been a long time coming. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 03:58:43 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:28:43 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238F4BC.60408@neopax.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> <4238F4BC.60408@neopax.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503161958215271a6@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:08:44 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Brian Atkins wrote: > > > Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > >> > >> Can you expand on this? What sort of features do Transhumanism and > >> religion have in common? > >> > > > > > > Noooooooo... Not again please. This has been done to death several > > times in the past - see all those dead horses scattered around? This > > is one of them. > > > > I suggest reading the WTA FAQ: > > > > http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#53 > > > > and availing yourself of Google if you're unaware of the history here. > > "Religious fanaticism, superstition, and intolerance are not acceptable > among transhumanists." > I like the moralising - another feature of religion. > But then, that's why I'm here and not there. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Transhumanism can't be a religion, otherwise someone would be able to show me whose making all the money... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 04:06:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317040639.13607.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:15 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Ah... the ad hominem. > > I think that signals the close of the discussion. > > > > I thought this subject closed in 2002 when NASA ceased funding this > research after no useful results were obtained. NASA has a habit of closing and cancelling programs claiming they are dead ends, which is why it is the No Americans in Space Anymore. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 04:25:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:25:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317042555.25786.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Fine, now use the same equations to show how a Bussard Ramjet is also over unity by your definition. --- Hal Finney wrote: > Now I will analyze this thrusting device using relativistic rather > than Newtonian physics. A quick review. > > With uniformly accelerated motion, let the proper time as measured by > the accelerating observer be t' ("t prime"). Let the acceleration by > "a", and for convenience let us use geometric units where c is 1. > Then velocities are dimensionless values which are interpreted as > fractions of the speed of light, and accelerations have units of > 1/time. > > The standard formulas are: > > x = 1/a * (cosh(a*t') - 1) > t = 1/a * sinh(a*t') > v = tanh(a*t') > E = m * cosh(a*t') > > cosh, sinh and tanh are the standard hyperbolic functions. x, t, v, > and > E are position, time, velocity and energy as measured in the rest > frame. > The E term is in geometric units where c=1. It includes the rest > energy > of E=m (commonly written as E=mc^2 when using non-geometric units), > so to > get the kinetic energy we would subtract that: > > KE = m * (cosh(a*t') - 1) > > It remains to estimate the acceleration "a". Mike several times has > pointed to a document, > , > which is the only one I have found which actually claimed to have > measured > lifter thrust in air and in vacuum. The author reported a thrust of > 2.38 > mN in atmosphere and 0.31 mN in vacuum, with his setup (much smaller > than > the one used by Naudin). That would imply that lifter vacuum thrust > is > 0.13 times that in atmosphere. > > So, instead of my previous analysis using Naudin's lifter which gave > 0.3 Newtons of force, I will scale that down by this factor of 0.13 > and take the force in vacuum as 0.039 N. With a 20 kg device that is > an acceleration of .00195 m/s/s. To go to geometric units, we divide > that acceleration by c and get an acceleration of 6.5E-12/sec. > > Let's see how things are cooking after 60 days of acceleration. This > is 5.184 million seconds. Our device has been drawing 132.9 Watts, > times 5.184 million seconds is about 690 MJ. That's how much power > we've used. Other errors: you are applying fixed DC when you need to convert that to pulsed DC and correct for phase angle of the capacitor on the power factor. Try these equations: F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722 where F is newtons and V is kilovolts figure on a thrust to power ratio of 0.00025 newton per applied watt (not the same as solar panel watt, as turning 12 vdc into 10kv 70 hz pulsed dc or higher is not quite so easy, plus you need to deal with the phase angle). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 04:26:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:26:07 -0800 (PS