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 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317042607.59388.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > 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. Oh Waaah. You've hardly been a font of civility. Here's some more for you: "The mazimum rate of conversion will occur for real a(sub o) when v=0. At zero velocity the conversion rate is Ymax = a(0)C and no conversion is possible at v - c. This means that no charge particles can be created that have velocities v -c. The result is that infinities arising in self-energy calculations, corresponding to infinite kinetic energy sof r virtual particles are avoided." As for the Dean Drive, imagine this astronomical anamoly: "An interesting effect that may find use in propulsion is that theories with (a(3) +Epsilon(2)) |=| 0 predict that the center of mass of a binary system may self accelerate in the direction of the system's periastron. This acceleration has been given by Will(20) as: a = (pi*m1*m2(m1-m2)e/(Pm^3.2*a^3/2*(1-e)^3/2))(x3-Epsilon2)n where n is a unit vector directed from the center of mass to the point of periastron of m(most distant part of orbit). Current experiments place an upper limit on x3 as <2*10^-5 and a weak limit of Epsilon2 as <100. There is no fully developed theory with Epsilon2 |=|0." The paper proposes testing this with observations of binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, looking at the period and Doppler shift of the pulsar binary or other suitable pair for an extended time of a few decades. It could also be possible to test this by observing thermoelectric potentials in gravity fields (such as the Earth-Moon pair), that could explain the Earth's electromagnetic field accurately as an artifact of tidal drag. "The goal of an advanced propulsion unit is to achieve the maximum integrated thrust over the life of the mission. Since chemical and nuclear systems are rapidly reaching their theoretical mamimum performance values any advanced system must perform in ways that exceed such assumed theoretical limits to performance. Just as engineers must continually "push the envelope" in development we must push the theoretical envelop in the hope of locating where advances may be made. The limits to most propulsion systems can be traced to our present understanding of the physical conservation laws. These laws are the foundations of modern physics and cannot belightly discarded. Instead we must come to an understanding as to their theoretical origins before we can hope to find ways around them. They are normally never questioned but instead assumed 'a priori'. The only successful attempts to derive the conservation have been by symmetry studies and it is there that we must turn for our investigation. We later see that if the symmetry of a system can be broken there may be a theoretical rationale to consider departures from the familiar conservation laws." With respect to conservation of momentum: "The conservation of momentum for an isolated system depends on the homogeneity of space. Consider a region in space removed from other objects. Now enclose the region with a box and conduct a virtual displacement of the box (transform space coordinates with delta t = 0). There is no experiment confined to the box that can reveal its new location without making references outside the box." This explains why a propulsion device that reacts agains the entire universe cannot be said to violate traditional conservation of momentum equations, because it is impossible to reveal conservation references between original and new locations of 'the box' and the experiment inside without making reference to a point outside the universe. This was demonstrated by Emmy Noether wrt points in space and the principle is extended to momentum. "Conservation of momentum is seen to be intimately related to the symmetry of space. This will be valid as long as space is homogenous or the system is totally isolated. if the system is near an external object then homogeneity islost and momentum can be 'relayed' ebtween the objects (for example, gravity assisted spacecraft trajectory techniques). Also if material or radiation are absorbed or emitted by the region, momentum can be altered (for example, photon, EM systems)." Note, that in the gedankenexperiment of a hypotehtical solar powered electric spacecraft being discussed previously, momentum is altered specifically by the absorption of photon radiation, just as with a Bussard Ramjet, momentum is altered by the absorption of cosmic hydrogen, its fusion and emission. Thus the ramjet suffers from the same issues of claimed over-unity performance as Dirk claims about my proposals. Both spacecraft are limited by relativity. Furthermore, Cravens notes that the assumed isotropy of space is wrong, thus calling conservation of angular momentum into question. Microwave studies show a small anisotopy in the radiation background of about 1% departure. Being in our local galaxy also shows that our local space is not isotropic, with a net angular momentum in reference to the observable distant galaxies. This is thus a distinguishable axis. He shows that given this, by least action, m(r*r1)=r*mv=L, so the total angular momentum is a constant. only if the center of mass is at rest with respect ot the origin that angular momentum will be independent of the point of reference. While it is very difficult to determine absolute time, position, or velocity, absolute rotation is quickly determined, ergo departing from conservation of angular momentum is possible, and space symmetry is easily broken. Nor is conservation of parity valid, as Feynman helped prove, and the Co-60 beta decay experiment demonstrated that emission is biased to the spin axis of the nucleus but not in both directions. He shows that em energy terms like H^2 and E^2 are scalars by E*H are pseudovectors and conservation doesn't apply in all cases. Cravens clearly states conditions for circumventing conservation theorems, where such attempts should involve two or more fundamental forces, posess broken symmetry (odd parity), involve the use of pseudovectors, or aling the axis of broken symmetry with inversion characteristics of the pseudovector. "The conservation of angular momentum is a deep-seated physical principle of great use. It can be shown that, although energy and linear momentum are true tensors, both parity and angular momentum are pseudotensors. Angular momentum is thus not required to be conserved under inversions and in non-inertial reference frames. Careful high accuracy experiments are needed to be undertaken to check the validity of angular momentum conservation since it apparently stands as a separate postulate. The conservation theorems are at the very heart of modern physical theories. The conservation of charge, energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, isospin, etc are oftent the tools to show reason and utility among competing theories. Often they are treated as unassailable but occasionally a return to the foundations leads to unexpected revision of theories." Cravens seems to have learned the same lesson I did from Feynman: go back to first principles and question the validity or accuracy of them based on new evidence. Cravens questions whether angular momentum should be treated any different from parity. Because angular momentum is a pseudotensor and not a real tensor, then relativity may not apply to it. "In fact the cross product of any two true vectors is a pseudovector. The difference between the two kinds of vectors can be seen in improper rotation or in pure inversions of cooordinate systems. Consider: C = A * B where Ci = Aj*Bk-Ak*Bi Upon an inversion of the coordinate system, both A and B change sign which means C does not change sign. The entire cross product changes sign as we go from a right hand to a left hand coordinate system. The angular momentum of a particle is usually expressed as the cross product of the particle's momentum p with the radius vector r from the origin: L = p*r and by convention we use a right hand rule to determine the sign of the pseudovector. In fact, a series of infinitesimal rotations can be expressed only by pseudovectors, but finate rotations cannot be expressed in that form. Thus, angular momentum can be expressed only as a pseudovector. Often complex systems cannot be expressed as pseudovectors owing to the noncommunitivity of finite rotations.... ... For example, if a force is velocity dependent both space (real) and time (imaginary) components can enter the transformation leading to inversion-like effects....." CONDITIONS FOR NONCONSERVATION Emmy Noether said conservation of energy could be recovered verifying that the action integral was dependent only on relative time differences and not absolute time. Ergo, you must have symmetry of time to get conservation of energy. Conservation of linear momentum depends on homogeneity of space and angular momentum on isotropy of space. Conservation of energy depends on homogeneity of time. STRING THEORY: Ten dimensional string theories readily compactify into 5-D space, while they are hard to get into 4 dimensions. MACHS PRINCIPLE Here Cravens agrees with me: " [according to Newton] Essentially, the inertial forces on a particle arise from an interaction of the particle with the rest of the matter in the Universe.... There is much controversy over the precise formulation of the Mach principle within general relativity. It is even questionable whether or not general relativity is compatible with the concept. Sometime the principle is used to set boundary conditions. Somtimes for entirely new formulation of relativity. This has led to confusion." He goes on to provide some bi-metric formulations to describe Einstein's predictions. EXPERIMENTS: "Veritay Technology, Inc. has been conducting research under the SBIR program for the USAF (AF87-192). The goal is to verify an to quantify the conversion of electrostatic energy directly ito propulsive force in vacuum experiments. They ahve approached the problem by using charged capacitors as did Brown in hsi original work. They ahve tried to isolate the effect from ion winds by placing an asymmetric capacitor within a vacuum. Further they have studied the effect as a function of pressur within their vacuum chambvers. They worked over a range of pressure from 10 torr to 10^-1 torr and voltages up to 1.5 kilovolts. Below 1 torr the forces were seen to be independent of the pressures. The force upon the capacitor was found to be F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722, where F is the force expressed in newtons and V is the voltage in kilovolts. The input power of 0.4 milliwatt generated a thrust of 10^-7 newton for a thrust to power ratio of 2.5 x 10^-4 newton/watt (56 micropound per watt)." Within the Dynamic Theory, a divergence in charge current flow is required to produce a flow in mass. This thus requires a current flow to produce a propulsive force, i.e. a torsion bar experiment on a vertical axis needs pulsed power, not static DC to produce thrust via the 5-D theory. The weakness of this test is that it is capable of seeing impulses but not changes in inertial mass, which requires a horizontal axis. 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 05:10:03 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:40:03 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4238F6E4.6040009@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> <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503162110327f2d0d@mail.gmail.com> Ouija has been around for a while; anyone done any serious scientific research into it? Emlyn On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:17:56 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 05:32:37 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:32:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317053238.75662.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > 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. Is this the funky giant capacitor type thruster? I thought over unity machines were thermodynamically forbidden. Would not the power supply and wiring heat up and radiate energy into space? I know from Ohm's Law (current = voltage / resistance) and (power = voltage * current). By combining the two you get (power = voltage ^2 / resistance) so the higher the resistance of the wires and power supply and other components the less power would be available to accelerate the thruster. I also seem to remember that as a conductor heats up, the resistance rises causing, yet more energy to be lost as heat. I would be very surprised if the thing didn't heat up and stop accelerating before reaching unity. Unless of course thermodynamics doesn't apply in a vacuum or the power supply and wires were composed of high-temp superconductors. But hell I am just a microbiologist so I am not a physics expert. Isn't Scerir a physicist? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 07:35:42 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:35:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317073542.19358.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Let's take one random example of the naturally selective judgement of freemarketers. They clearly see that smokers have a right to smoke however they generally ignore the right of gays to legal marriage, and they usually rationalise their bias in economic terms. At best they bring up slippery slope political arguments, e.g. "allowing gays to marry will bring up questions such as should polygamy be legal? group marriage? non-reproducing sibling marriage?" IMO smokers ought to be permitted to smoke almost anywhere. The exceptions? Perhaps smoking should never be permitted in a restaurant next to a table where a mother is holding an infant. It goes without saying smoking will never be allowed in nursery schools and kindergartens. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 17 08:44:25 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:44:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050317084425.65CF057EBA@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > Fine, now use the same equations to show how a Bussard Ramjet is also > over unity by your definition. Let's not get distracted. The issue is not a Bussard Ramjet, it is whether a space drive which produces a certain acceleration for a certain power level violates conservation of energy. Please stay focused! (I do know why the ramjet is different, but I won't get sucked into that topic.) > 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. I'm using the power figures from the top chart at . That is his measured power and should take into consideration the phase differences. And those figures are with straight DC. Later on the page he claims that pulsed DC produces 4 times greater thrust! But I was conservative and didn't assume that. With a higher thrust we just go over unity even faster. Time to over-unity is inversely proportional to acceleration squared, as a matter of fact. With 4 times greater thrust it would happen in 15 days rather than 60. > Try these equations: > F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722 > where F is newtons and V is kilovolts Where the heck does that equation come from? Do you realize that to produce a force of 0.3 Newtons, as Naudin measured in his lab (see the link above, raising 35 grams takes 0.3 Newtons), you'd need V = 4 billion?! If V is kilovolts then we're talking about 4 teravolts to power Naudin's lifter. You're off by 8 orders of magnitude. Notice that I didn't pull figures out of a hat for my analysis. I showed exactly where they came from - the thrust in air from Naudin, and the derating for vacuum from Stein, both references that you cited. Now you come up with some numbers and some formulas from out of nowhere. Why should I trust those figures rather than ones that at least some experimenters claim to have observed? Your formula doesn't even make sense. > 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). That's close to what I assumed. My analysis was for a thrust of 0.039 N with 132.9 Watts, which is .00030 newtons per watt. I built some leeway in with the solar panel, which can produce 167 Watts. That can cover some inefficiency in the power conversion. But so what if you maybe need twice as big a solar panel? We can easily assume that technology will soon let us make a solar panel that weighs a lot less than 50 pounds, so we're right back to the same acceleration. You can't base your objection on little factors of 2 or 3. That's not going to change the fundamental problem, which is that kinetic energy increases as the square of time. And that's in the low-energy realm; if you look at my relativistic analysis, KE is proportional to cosh(t) which is asymptotically e^t as you get into the relativistic regime. So things are even worse then; instead of KE as the square of time, it goes as the exponential of time, with constant thrust. Meanwhile energy in is linear with time. No matter how you tweak the numbers, square wins over linear eventually, and exponential wins over both. You'll always go over unity eventually. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 17 09:16:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:16:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238D2B3.8080202@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238D2B3.8080202@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: Aren't all religions engineered? Since every religion seeks to find and spread a Way to human salvation and or greater well-being along some parameters it appears that "engineering" is always present. Christianity was engineered, for instance, for some 1600 years before the supposed "revealed word of God" as we know it in the ever popular king James version was produced. The faith is still be engineered to this day and must be if it has any real life left in it. Christianity is no stranger to contrived legends and prophecies. Jesuit? Bene Gesserit? Hmm. - samantha On Mar 16, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > xxxxxxtxxxxxxxxxxxxjohn-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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 17 09:48:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:48:49 +0100 Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map) In-Reply-To: <4238F926.5000208@neopax.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> <4238F926.5000208@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050317094849.GV17303@leitl.org> Dirk (and a couple of others): you're overposting. Way overposting. On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:27:34AM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu Mar 17 10:04:40 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:04:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust References: <20050317053238.75662.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <013d01c52ad8$d3c80210$88b01b97@administxl09yj> From: "The Avantguardian" > Isn't Scerir a physicist? No, he *was* a *mundane* semi-physicist. His opinion is that the physics of those "lifters" is unknown (if there is a real physical effect, in the void!). So it is difficult to make arguments about unknown physics. The nature of conservation principles is essentially logical, and then also experimental, of course. But, as Bohr pointed out many times, conservation is not a dogma. Should I say here that in physics there are, in example, and unfortunately, nonlocal "vector potentials"? And "Aharonov-Bohm" effects? Should I say there are HUPs and measurements? And even cosmological "fluctuations"? - E.P. Tryon, Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?, Nature, 246 (1973) 396 - E.P. Tryon, What Made the World?, New Scientist, 101 (March 1984) 14 - A. Brout et al., The Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Phenomenon, Annals of Physics, 115 (1978) 78 - D. Atzkin, H. Pagels, Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunnelling Event, Physical Review, D, 25 (1982) 2065 - A. Vilenkin, Creation of Universes from Nothing, Physics Letters, 117-B (1982) 25 - E. Farhi, A. Guth, An Obstacle to Creating a Universe in the Laboratory, Physics Letters, 183-B (1987) 149. [According to Einstein (1947), and then Wheeler, the reason why there is not a Machian physics is that in modern gravitation theory there are masses *and* fields. Sometimes there are just fields, no masses. And it is difficult to build a truly Machian gravitation theory with *fields*. Fields are abstract "objects". This is the so called Mach-12 interpretation of the "Mach principle"]. About those "lifters" or rotating capacitors. Let us try to use them to get some *heat*. This is the only way to know if they are over-unity machines :-) s. "Now, there isn't really a story to tell about what the total energy in individual universes is during that whole process. Because the universes are not autonomous during it. But one thing's for sure, there is no way of construing it so that the energy in each particular universe is conserved, for the simple reason that the whole system starts out the same on each run of the experiment (before the non-sharp state is created), and ends up different". - David Deutsch From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 13:25:00 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:25:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4238F946.6020609@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> <4238F946.6020609@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4239852C.2070007@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > 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. > Actually, very little. Even so, it doesn't matter what the WTA *claims*, it's what is going to happen that counts. The WTA FAQ (and that of the Extropians) is merely an attempt to engineer the meme to the liking of those running the show at present. Transhumanism, and its definitions, are far from a done deal. Which is one reason why Hughes effectively forced me off their list for undermining his POV. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 13:30:40 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:30:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0503162110327f2d0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050303205107.61215.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005f01c5206e$366a1360$0100a8c0@kevin> <4227E96D.5070505@neopax.com> <4229317A.4070301@humanenhancement.com> <4229C4FB.6070302@neopax.com> <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <710b78fc0503162110327f2d0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42398680.9080400@neopax.com> Emlyn wrote: >Ouija has been around for a while; anyone done any serious scientific >research into it? > > > As far as I can discover, almost none at all. Which is surprising given the nature of the phenomenon. After all, what defines a Ouija game? One could claim (as I do) that *any* organisation creates these gestalts albeit more slowly and more covertly. 'Company spirit' is more than just a feeling. This is also interesting, particularly as it seems nobody in the past 30yrs has bothered to even try and replicate it (according to several people I have talked to in the SPR). http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 13:36:25 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:36:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <013d01c52ad8$d3c80210$88b01b97@administxl09yj> References: <20050317053238.75662.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> <013d01c52ad8$d3c80210$88b01b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <423987D9.4070804@neopax.com> scerir wrote: >About those "lifters" or rotating capacitors. >Let us try to use them to get some *heat*. >This is the only way to know if they are >over-unity machines :-) > > A couple of points. In GTR global energy conservation is rather vague, so maybe there is a loophole there. As for turning a lifter into a generator to test for over unity, it should not be difficult. Use the lifter on a very low friction massive rotor arm and allow to spin up in vacuum - as figures show, it should soon become apparent if this effect exists. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 17 14:33:58 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:33:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters was [Science and Fools] In-Reply-To: <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:33 PM 16/03/05 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Hal wrote: snip >>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. Ralph Merkle put it this way. We are engaged in a medical experiment. The people who are frozen are one group, those who die and are burned or buried are in the other (control). We wait some time, 100 years (though that seems long to me) and see what percentage of each group are walking around. The information gained from this experiment is interesting but not useful for making present day decisions. So the question is which group you would like to be in? snip >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? I think you have in mind some rapid process to come to a present day agreement about "cryonics can work." You obviously hold a strong opinion about the subject so you feel "cryonics can't work." I must state that I had a similar opinion at one time, liking a frozen person to a frozen tomato, looks great, but turns to mush when thawed out. Eric Drexler had the same opinion prior to thinking about what could be done with molecular scale machines. I wasn't an easy sell, it took 5 or 6 years from starting to hear about nanotechnology before my family signed up. I was eventually backed into an intellectual corner where I could find no reason for cryonics not to work at the technical level. Of course I had a fairly deep science background of how molecular biology had developed over the previous 30 years. I am increasingly confident over the last 20 years that the technical level of cryonics is sound. I wonder what evidence you cite to support your opinion? Keith Henson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 15:16:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:16:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317151614.414.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Mike Lorrey writes: > > Fine, now use the same equations to show how a Bussard Ramjet is > also > > over unity by your definition. > > Let's not get distracted. The issue is not a Bussard Ramjet, it is > whether a space drive which produces a certain acceleration for a > certain > power level violates conservation of energy. Please stay focused! > (I do > know why the ramjet is different, but I won't get sucked into that > topic.) > > > 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. > > I'm using the power figures from the top chart at > . That is his > measured > power and should take into consideration the phase differences. And > those > figures are with straight DC. Later on the page he claims that > pulsed > DC produces 4 times greater thrust! But I was conservative and > didn't > assume that. With a higher thrust we just go over unity even faster. > Time to over-unity is inversely proportional to acceleration squared, > as a matter of fact. With 4 times greater thrust it would happen in > 15 days rather than 60. > > > Try these equations: > > F= 3.55x10^-8 V^0.722 > > where F is newtons and V is kilovolts > > Where the heck does that equation come from? Do you realize that to > produce a force of 0.3 Newtons, as Naudin measured in his lab (see > the link above, raising 35 grams takes 0.3 Newtons), you'd need V = > 4 billion?! If V is kilovolts then we're talking about 4 teravolts > to power Naudin's lifter. You're off by 8 orders of magnitude. These numbers are from research done under USAF contract and mentioned in Cravens study. This equation is for vacuum. Naudins numbers are all at 1 atm. The study he cites a thrust that is for a low pressure, but not a vacumm. I am not sure what thruster configuration this pertains to though. > > But so what if you maybe need twice as big a solar panel? We can > easily > assume that technology will soon let us make a solar panel that > weighs a > lot less than 50 pounds, so we're right back to the same > acceleration. > You can't base your objection on little factors of 2 or 3. That's > not > going to change the fundamental problem, which is that kinetic energy > increases as the square of time. You have a good point there, but it isn't a point that doesn't cause problems also for a Bussard Ramjet, worse yet because the ramjet performs better at higher velocity. As Cravens noted, you can't talk about 'conservation of momentum' with a field thruster like this if it is thrusting against the entire universes inertial frame, because you have no external point of reference to base such a judgement on. The best you can do is divvy the KE in half, because the universe is being pushed equally in the opposite direction, a division that generally isn't used with rocket engines because it is only accelerating a small amount of mass and where the observer isn't part of the equation. When you do that, your actual KE drops below the power put in, and conservation does in fact exist. WRT this device, the problem we run into is that we've never tested it at ANY sort of velocity but a lab test bench, so there is not any sort of sufficient experimental database upon which to even extrapolate what sort of attenuation law might apply in higher velocity ranges. Until that happens, making arguments like yours to justify dismissing this technology are tantamount to excuses why heavier-than-air flight was impossible prior to the wright brothers. 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 Thu Mar 17 17:59:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:59:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <20050317154043.91799.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050317154043.91799.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4239C570.7070101@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >>From his website: >"Dr. Hughes also founded and edited the internationally distributed >zine, EcoSocialist Review, a publication dedicated to encouraging >dialogue between social justice activists and ecological activists." > >Given his socialism and pedantry, I have long considered him some sort >of Fabian entryist into the movement. His whole strategy is to drag >ExI, by WTA competition, out of the libertarian territory into the >middle ground of unprincipled compromise. > > > I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists who are not Libertarians. Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public is not having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all-encompassing and global. Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name slightly to correct this. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 18:19:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:19:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317181917.45942.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Let's take one random example of the naturally > selective judgement of freemarketers. They clearly see > that smokers have a right to smoke however they > generally ignore the right of gays to legal marriage, > and they usually rationalise their bias in economic > terms. At best they bring up slippery slope political > arguments, e.g. You are making false assumptions. I don't think anybody ignores the right of gays to whatever contractual relationship they want. What you are ignoring is that free marketers want government out of marriage altogether. Just because government offers one group a special contract doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it, or that they should waste more money on it. > > "allowing gays to marry will bring up questions such > as should polygamy be legal? group marriage? > non-reproducing sibling marriage?" It isn't a question. Polygamy should be legal, and Vermont's civil unions law HAD to make incestuous civil unions legal to make gay civil unions legal. > > IMO smokers ought to be permitted to smoke almost > anywhere. The exceptions? Perhaps smoking should never > be permitted in a restaurant next to a table where a > mother is holding an infant. It goes without saying > smoking will never be allowed in nursery schools and > kindergartens. Business owners should be free to set their own smoking policies. The rights of the smoker doesn't enter into it, we are talking about the rights of business owners and homeowners to dictate how they use their own property. Nursery schools and kindergartens owned by the state are the property of the state and the state can set whatever policies it wants for those buildings. 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 Thu Mar 17 18:18:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:18:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200503171821.j2HILAE13642@tick.javien.com> Amara Graps ... > 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... Amara A math friend in England tells me that computers are not as readily available there as they are here. He sometimes travels to the states to pick up computer gear although France would be much closer. Question: is there not an equivalent of Fry's Electronics in Italy, Germany, France? If not, who is responsible, and cannot they be hurled from office head first? This inquiry is not a criticism of Europe, I just want to know. I don't see how they could be offering relevant education to the young without heaping piles of computers. Clearly in Amara's case, weeks of work my have been delayed for want of a computer that would be traded for three to five days of average wages. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 18:21:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:21:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317182103.46681.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Transhumanism can't be a religion, otherwise someone would be able to > show me whose making all the money... Life insurance salesmen. 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 pgptag at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 18:37:01 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:37:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <4239C570.7070101@neopax.com> References: <20050317154043.91799.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4239C570.7070101@neopax.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205031710373a398848@mail.gmail.com> I believe what Mike calls "the middle ground of unprincipled compromise" is the same thing that I might call "the domain of rationality and critical thought". I had a few issues with my neighbour over something related to the garden, and over the last few months we have patiently worked out a middle ground of agreement. But perhaps I should have gone ahead and shot him. Or he might have shot me. Now we both would be either dead or in jail without a garden. But we should not restart this eternal debate. Come on guys, there have been libertarians and socialists in the transhumanist movement yesterday, there are libertarians and socialists in the transhumanist movement today, and there will be libertarians and socialists in the transhumanist movement tomorrow. This is a fact, better learn how to live with it. G. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:59:12 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >>From his website: > >"Dr. Hughes also founded and edited the internationally distributed > >zine, EcoSocialist Review, a publication dedicated to encouraging > >dialogue between social justice activists and ecological activists." > > > >Given his socialism and pedantry, I have long considered him some sort > >of Fabian entryist into the movement. His whole strategy is to drag > >ExI, by WTA competition, out of the libertarian territory into the > >middle ground of unprincipled compromise. > > > > > > > I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists who > are not Libertarians. > Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public is not > having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all-encompassing and > global. > > Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name slightly to > correct this. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 18:50:42 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:50:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: <20050317181917.45942.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050317181917.45942.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050317105048014fcc@mail.gmail.com> >From a smoker: Even here in Europe we have more and more restrictions on smoking in public places, and it is easy to see that in some years smoking will be banned in all public places. The result? I will still go to smokeless business meetings, but when I want to have some good time with my friends I will go less often to smokeless pubs and invite more often my friends at home. This will hurt pub owners, unless they develop a side takeaway or delivery business of course. I agree with Mike on this specific issue, it is a decision that should be left to the pub owners. If nonsmokers are 80% market dynamics would force 80% of pub owners to go nonsmoker anyway. I acknowledge that smoking in public can hurt others. So I do support some restriction. Gay marriage is different because it does not hurt anyone. G. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:19:16 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Al Brooks wrote: > > Let's take one random example of the naturally > > selective judgement of freemarketers. They clearly see > > that smokers have a right to smoke however they > > generally ignore the right of gays to legal marriage, > > and they usually rationalise their bias in economic > > terms. At best they bring up slippery slope political > > arguments, e.g. > > You are making false assumptions. I don't think anybody ignores the > right of gays to whatever contractual relationship they want. What you > are ignoring is that free marketers want government out of marriage > altogether. Just because government offers one group a special contract > doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it, or that they should waste more > money on it. > > > > > "allowing gays to marry will bring up questions such > > as should polygamy be legal? group marriage? > > non-reproducing sibling marriage?" > > It isn't a question. Polygamy should be legal, and Vermont's civil > unions law HAD to make incestuous civil unions legal to make gay civil > unions legal. > > > > > IMO smokers ought to be permitted to smoke almost > > anywhere. The exceptions? Perhaps smoking should never > > be permitted in a restaurant next to a table where a > > mother is holding an infant. It goes without saying > > smoking will never be allowed in nursery schools and > > kindergartens. > > Business owners should be free to set their own smoking policies. The > rights of the smoker doesn't enter into it, we are talking about the > rights of business owners and homeowners to dictate how they use their > own property. > > Nursery schools and kindergartens owned by the state are the property > of the state and the state can set whatever policies it wants for those buildings. > > 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 From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 17 18:51:22 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:51:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4238F6E4.6040009@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> <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > 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... More likely, you (or someone you were playing with) was moving the planchette, consciously or unconsciously. Your subconscious does not an "emergent phenomenon" deity make. 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 Thu Mar 17 18:51:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:51:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: <20050317181917.45942.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503171853.j2HIrjE17533@tick.javien.com> > --- Al Brooks wrote: > > Let's take one random example of the naturally > > selective judgement of freemarketers. They clearly see > > that smokers have a right to smoke however they > > generally ignore the right of gays to legal marriage... Ja, this is clearly absurd. I don't have to breathe other people's homosexuality. Let them marry, but make them smoke outdoors, heteros too. spike From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 18:59:58 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:59:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4239D1AA.5080105@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> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4239D3AE.1040805@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> 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... > > > > More likely, you (or someone you were playing with) was moving the > planchette, consciously or unconsciously. > *OF COURSE IT GETS MOVED UNCONSCIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* - that's the whole point. It's called the ideomotor response. And how likely is it that in *every* game of Ouija ever played someone was *always* cheating? > Your subconscious does not an "emergent phenomenon" deity make. > Mine doesn't - on its own. But it does when many are involved in a cooperative enterprise. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 17 19:15:00 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:15:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050317191500.6F6FC57EBA@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes, quoting me: > > Where the heck does that equation come from? Do you realize that to > > produce a force of 0.3 Newtons, as Naudin measured in his lab (see > > the link above, raising 35 grams takes 0.3 Newtons), you'd need V = > > 4 billion?! If V is kilovolts then we're talking about 4 teravolts > > to power Naudin's lifter. You're off by 8 orders of magnitude. > > These numbers are from research done under USAF contract and mentioned > in Cravens study. This equation is for vacuum. Naudins numbers are all > at 1 atm. The study he cites a thrust that is for a low pressure, but > not a vacumm. I am not sure what thruster configuration this pertains > to though. Okay, I found that formula on page 87 of the report by D.L. Cravens, . This comes from work at Veritay Technology, an experiment by R. Talley, "Twenty-First Century Propulsion Concept." I found several references to Talley's report, but the document itself does not seem to be online. It's a little confusing because some references to the report indicate that it did not observe steady thrust in vacuum, but that Talley did see some anomalous transient effects as the voltage was switched on and off. However this reference seems to claim that Talley observed a steady thrust in a vacuum. In doing this search I found a new report on the NASA web site from within the past 6 months, doing more experiments on lifters in vacuum, , "Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion", October, 2004. Here is how they characterize Talley's report: "Robert Talley of Veritay Technology 5 performed tests of ACTs in a vacuum in the late 1980's under Air Force contract. The tests did not let the ACTs spin, but instead suspended it from a torsion wire. This gave him the sensitivity to be able to measure small forces. His report is the only written report we have found from the last half-century that describes a measurement of a force while in a vacuum chamber. Talley ultimately attributed the force that he observed to the electrostatic interaction between the chamber and the device. Talley wrote, 'Direct experimental results show that under high vacuum conditions... no detectable propulsive force was electrostatically induced by applying a static potential difference... between test device electrodes...' Talley concluded (page 91 of his report 5), 'If such a force still exists and lies below the threshold of measurements in this program, then the force may be too small to be attractive for many, if not most, space propulsion applications.' While this work makes a strong case against the ability of these devices to produce a force in a vacuum, it did not address the use of asymmetrical capacitors in the atmosphere." Here is what the new NASA study observed: "After several days of tests, we found that no device showed signs of rotation at a pressure less than 300 Torr, with one exception. When Device 2 wired according to Circuit A was placed in the chamber and immediately pumped down to a pressure of 5.5E-5 Torr, something interesting happened. The voltage on it was increased to 44 kV, and through the viewing port a large arc was observed. At that same moment, the device was seen to move about an eighth of a rotation and stop. "The large arc that was observed suggests that this movement was most likely caused by material being ejected from the device. This material might be either the copper on the plates or it might be water vapor." So aside from this one arcing event, they failed to observe any thrust in even a very mild vacuum of 300 Torr (normal air pressure is 760 Torr). And according to them, Talley also did not claim to see thrust in a vacuum in a steady state that could not be explained by electrostatic attraction to the walls. I don't know why Cravens characterizes Talley's result so differently. In any case the formula F = 3.55e-8 * V^0.722 does not make sense as a general guideline, because F will depend not just on V, it will depend on the size and design of the device. Presumably by making the device bigger we can increase the thrust even with constant voltage. It makes more sense for thrust to depend on power. Cravens goes on to quote Talley with the other figure you gave, .00025 N/W. That one makes more sense and as I pointed out is, coincidentally or not, almost exactly the one I used (.00030 N/W) in my calculation. > You have a good point there, but it isn't a point that doesn't cause > problems also for a Bussard Ramjet, worse yet because the ramjet > performs better at higher velocity. I'll go ahead and explain about the ramjet in another message, just to put the issue to bed. > As Cravens noted, you can't talk > about 'conservation of momentum' with a field thruster like this if it > is thrusting against the entire universes inertial frame, because you > have no external point of reference to base such a judgement on. Physics is local. That's the lesson from general relativity. The sun doesn't reach out across space and pull on the earth, let alone the distant stars. The sun warps space locally, right next to itself. That warpage then warps the space out a little farther. Each bit of space warps the bit next to it, and eventually we get out to where the earth is. The curvature of space manifests itself in the orbital path of the earth. You can't thrust against an inertial frame. Such a frame is merely a mathematical convention for analyzing motions. It's like suggesting that you will climb up onto your roof using a ladder made out of the Y axis. Now, if you wanted to claim that this device is reaching out to the distant stars, physically grabbing onto them and pulling them backwards as it goes forwards, at least that would not violate conservation of momentum. But it does violate the principle of locality of physics, which is related to the principle of relativity - that there is no absolutely preferred rest frame. This is all mainstream physics. And be reasonable - could a dinky little piece of aluminum foil with a tiny little kilovolt electric field really reach out and pull on the distant galaxies, billions of light years away? That's not at all credible. > The > best you can do is divvy the KE in half, because the universe is being > pushed equally in the opposite direction, a division that generally > isn't used with rocket engines because it is only accelerating a small > amount of mass and where the observer isn't part of the equation. When > you do that, your actual KE drops below the power put in, and > conservation does in fact exist. You're not being quantitative here. You were pretty pushy when I was doing my calculations - you even demanded that I supply an analysis based on relativistic mechanics! (For a device going 10 km/sec!) Let's see you supply a thrust and power scenario in as much detail as I did, where you can show that the device will never go over unity. > WRT this device, the problem we run into is that we've never tested it > at ANY sort of velocity but a lab test bench, so there is not any sort > of sufficient experimental database upon which to even extrapolate what > sort of attenuation law might apply in higher velocity ranges. Until > that happens, making arguments like yours to justify dismissing this > technology are tantamount to excuses why heavier-than-air flight was > impossible prior to the wright brothers. I'm not saying we should dismiss it. I'm saying that any such device either violates conservation of energy or the principle of relativity. It if keeps thrusting through the 10 km/sec regime then it violates conservation of energy. If it stops working at that speed, then someone who was moving past the device at 10 km/sec would disagree about whether it should be working or not. Heck, the earth's orbital velocity around the sun is 30 km/sec! If there is really a preferred rest frame of the universe that this device interacts with, and if moving 10 km/sec will make it stop working, then it should be extremely sensitive to the earth's motion. Whether the device works or not should depend on the time of year. And what are the odds that the sun is at rest relative to this magical universal frame? The sun is moving around the galactic center at 220 km/sec. Who knows how fast the galaxy is moving. We add 30 km/sec for the earth, 220 km/sec for the sun, something more for the galaxy and larger structures... the chances are basically zero that we are anywhere close to being at rest with regard to the average motion of the universe. If this device really did only achieve thrust with regard to such a universal rest frame, such that moving 10 km/sec relative to that frame would make it stop working, then it would never work here on earth, because we're already moving far faster than 10 km/sec relative to that frame. This whole line of explanation just doesn't work. Frankly, if you want to cling to the idea that this thing works, my advice is to explain away the extra energy. You're already invoking this mysterious rest frame to explain where the momentum comes from, so why not the energy? There's always zero point, the catch-all energy source for every perpetual motion machine inventor. Or maybe you're extracting energy from the distant stars. That doesn't sound much harder than grabbing onto them and giving them a push. I don't understand why you're so willing to excuse the obvious violation of conservation of momentum but so reluctant to accept the problems with energy balance. To me, they're equally bad. Hal From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 19:19:21 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:19:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: <200503171821.j2HILAE13642@tick.javien.com> References: <200503171821.j2HILAE13642@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> spike wrote: >Amara Graps >... > > >>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... Amara >> >> > > >A math friend in England tells me that computers >are not as readily available there as they are >here. He sometimes travels to the states to pick >up computer gear although France would be much closer. > > > That's just BS. I could go to my local supermarket and buy one for under ?500, with s/w, screen, speakers etc and printer bundle Anything more specialist and one goes to PC World (although its premium prices). Otherwise if you're willing to wait a week go mailorder for just about anything. I live in a smallish town (pop 120k) and I know of at least ten places selling computers. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 19:19:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:19:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317191926.12470.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists who > are not Libertarians. > Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public is > not having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all- > encompassing and global. > > Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name slightly > to correct this. Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. 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 Thu Mar 17 19:29:18 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:29:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <20050317191926.12470.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050317191926.12470.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4239DA8E.2090201@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists who >>are not Libertarians. >>Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public is >>not having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all- >>encompassing and global. >> >>Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name slightly >>to correct this. >> >> > >Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is >self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. > > > Half the population is below average intelligence but they still get the same vote as you or me. PR rules. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 19:49:19 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:49:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317194919.40543.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> (No conflict here concerning state sanctioned full marriage-- just please admit you want a heterosexual marriage monopoly providing perqs such as filing joint tax returns). Permitting smokers in private establishments to smoke close to infants is really extreme, it is beyond the pale to allow smoke of any sort near infants whether in a private or public buildings. >Business owners should be free to set their own smoking policies. The >rights of the smoker doesn't enter into it, we are talking about the >rights of business owners and homeowners to dictate how they use their >own property. >Nursery schools and kindergartens owned by the state are the property >of the state and the state can set whatever policies it wants for those buildings. Mike Lorrey --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Mar 17 19:51:43 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:51:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes Message-ID: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com> Hi Dirk and everyone, Just got back in town and saw this post. First, ExI is not a Libertarian organization. Second, WTA is not trying to damage ExI by making it mainstream. Third ExI is a global meme, and we do not need to have the word World in front of ExI. This world has been a real albatross for WTA because it is not an umbrella organization. It is quite the same as ExI in that it is world-wide and ExI holds the role of developing the ideas of transhumanism. This should be a known fact. WTA does not need to compete with WTA, so let us move beyond this meme. WTA might be doing the wrong thing by trying to make transhumanism a socialist ideology, but this does not compromise ExI. ExI is supportive of a transpolitical viewpoint, inclusive of the ideas and policies that help assist in the realization of our goals. We do not align ourselves with any political organization, party or belief. Lastly, ExI has been involved in environmental issues for decades. I was just giving a 1 1/2 hour talk on transhumanist ideas to a packed audience at the "Building Energy Conference 2005" in Boston at the World Trade Center. I was the only transhumanist there. We should be supportive of one another unless and until they derail transhumanism. My best to you all - Natasha Natasha Vita-More President, Extropy Institute Original Message: ----------------- From: Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:59:12 +0000 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes Mike Lorrey wrote: >>From his website: >"Dr. Hughes also founded and edited the internationally distributed >zine, EcoSocialist Review, a publication dedicated to encouraging >dialogue between social justice activists and ecological activists." > >Given his socialism and pedantry, I have long considered him some sort >of Fabian entryist into the movement. His whole strategy is to drag >ExI, by WTA competition, out of the libertarian territory into the >middle ground of unprincipled compromise. > > > I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists who are not Libertarians. Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public is not having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all-encompassing and global. Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name slightly to correct this. -- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 20:01:34 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:01:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317200135.43159.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Agreed. However you *must* also agree that no one should be permitted to smoke right next to infants in any buildings, it makes no difference whether the buildings are public or private. Of course there are exceptions to every rule; if a large restaurant has a smoking section far from where infants are located then the risk would be too low to be concerned with, since automotive exhaust outdoors would be considered as much of a risk to an infant's health as second hand smoke indoors but removed from an infant's presence. Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >From a smoker: Even here in Europe we have more and more restrictions on smoking in public places, and it is easy to see that in some years smoking will be banned in all public places. The result? I will still go to smokeless business meetings, but when I want to have some good time with my friends I will go less often to smokeless pubs and invite more often my friends at home. This will hurt pub owners, unless they develop a side takeaway or delivery business of course. I agree with Mike on this specific issue, it is a decision that should be left to the pub owners. If nonsmokers are 80% market dynamics would force 80% of pub owners to go nonsmoker anyway. I acknowledge that smoking in public can hurt others. So I do support some restriction. Gay marriage is different because it does not hurt anyone. G. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:19:16 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Al Brooks wrote: > > Let's take one random example of the naturally > > selective judgement of freemarketers. They clearly see > > that smokers have a right to smoke however they > > generally ignore the right of gays to legal marriage, > > and they usually rationalise their bias in economic > > terms. At best they bring up slippery slope political > > arguments, e.g. > > You are making false assumptions. I don't think anybody ignores the > right of gays to whatever contractual relationship they want. What you > are ignoring is that free marketers want government out of marriage > altogether. Just because government offers one group a special contract > doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it, or that they should waste more > money on it. > > > > > "allowing gays to marry will bring up questions such > > as should polygamy be legal? group marriage? > > non-reproducing sibling marriage?" > > It isn't a question. Polygamy should be legal, and Vermont's civil > unions law HAD to make incestuous civil unions legal to make gay civil > unions legal. > > > > > IMO smokers ought to be permitted to smoke almost > > anywhere. The exceptions? Perhaps smoking should never > > be permitted in a restaurant next to a table where a > > mother is holding an infant. It goes without saying > > smoking will never be allowed in nursery schools and > > kindergartens. > > Business owners should be free to set their own smoking policies. The > rights of the smoker doesn't enter into it, we are talking about the > rights of business owners and homeowners to dictate how they use their > own property. > > Nursery schools and kindergartens owned by the state are the property > of the state and the state can set whatever policies it wants for those buildings. > > 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 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 17 20:36:41 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:36:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com> References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4239EA59.5090301@neopax.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Hi Dirk and everyone, > >Just got back in town and saw this post. > >First, ExI is not a Libertarian organization. Second, WTA is not trying to >damage ExI by making it mainstream. Third ExI is a global meme, and we do >not need to have the word World in front of ExI. This world has been a >real albatross for WTA because it is not an umbrella organization. It is > > It just appears as one to reporters etc. >quite the same as ExI in that it is world-wide and ExI holds the role of >developing the ideas of transhumanism. This should be a known fact. WTA >does not need to compete with WTA, so let us move beyond this meme. > > > I would say that it *does* compete - certainly for influence, and probably for funding. And the fact that it *appears* to be an umbrella org is certainly relevent when opinion formers wish to get more info on Transhumanism. Type in 'transhumanism to google and see who comes up first. In fact, ExI does not appear in the top 20 listings from google, it's No. 21. If I knew nothing of our little world I would think the WTA is the main body and ExI a mere 'faction'. >WTA might be doing the wrong thing by trying to make transhumanism a >socialist ideology, but this does not compromise ExI. ExI is supportive of > > Really? I suspect that if you asked the WTA (Hughes) would not claim that the WTA promotes a 'socialist ideology' - at least, no more than ExI promotes a libertarian ideology. >a transpolitical viewpoint, inclusive of the ideas and policies that help >assist in the realization of our goals. We do not align ourselves with any >political organization, party or belief. > > > Neither does the WTA -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 21:18:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:18:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317211813.21396.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dirk did not have permission to copy that private communication to the list. --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I believe what Mike calls "the middle ground of unprincipled > compromise" is the same thing that I might call "the domain of > rationality and critical thought". I had a few issues with my > neighbour over something related to the garden, and over the last few > months we have patiently worked out a middle ground of agreement. But > perhaps I should have gone ahead and shot him. Or he might have shot > me. Now we both would be either dead or in jail without a garden. > But we should not restart this eternal debate. Come on guys, there > have been libertarians and socialists in the transhumanist movement > yesterday, there are libertarians and socialists in the transhumanist > movement today, and there will be libertarians and socialists in the > transhumanist movement tomorrow. This is a fact, better learn how to > live with it. > G. > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:59:12 +0000, Dirk Bruere > wrote: > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > >>From his website: > > >"Dr. Hughes also founded and edited the internationally > distributed > > >zine, EcoSocialist Review, a publication dedicated to encouraging > > >dialogue between social justice activists and ecological > activists." > > > > > >Given his socialism and pedantry, I have long considered him some > sort > > >of Fabian entryist into the movement. His whole strategy is to > drag > > >ExI, by WTA competition, out of the libertarian territory into the > > >middle ground of unprincipled compromise. > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to agree, although there has to be orgs for Transhumanists > who > > are not Libertarians. > > Where the Extropy meme *might* lose out in the eyes of the public > is not > > having the word 'world' up front to make it seem all-encompassing > and > > global. > > > > Hence the Extropy Institute might consider changing its name > slightly to > > correct this. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 21:55:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:55:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050317191500.6F6FC57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050317215553.35307.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > Frankly, if you want to cling to the idea that this thing works, my > advice is to explain away the extra energy. You're already invoking > this mysterious rest frame to explain where the momentum comes from, > so why not the energy? There's always zero point, the catch-all > energy source for every perpetual motion machine inventor. Or maybe > you're extracting energy from the distant stars. That doesn't sound > much harder than grabbing onto them and giving them a push. I don't > understand why > you're so willing to excuse the obvious violation of conservation of > momentum but so reluctant to accept the problems with energy balance. > To me, they're equally bad. The problem with the relativistic 'space warp' idea is that it makes perfectly circular orbits possible, which aren't in this universe. Nor can you say that the Sun's 'warp' causes inertia, because if it did, then inertia would only exist when you thrust away from the Sun. As I've said before, I do believe that Mach's Principle is involved here. If inertia is the distant stars reaching out gravitically through space and time (requiring that gravity to go forward in time then back so as to resist your push when you push), then it is entirely possible to do the same back, because this inertia theory demands that time is symmetrical both ways. Physicists can't have their cake and eat it. Space that you talk about warping exists because mass exists. If there were no mass, there would be no space. I'd suggest looking into Cravens 5-D mathwork a bit more. 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 Thu Mar 17 22:16:27 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:16:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317221627.97750.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> but, say, a name such as "Galactic Extropians" would be getting too far ahead of yourselves. We'll be 'old men' before there are humans/h+ living on the moon. Mike Lorrey wrote: Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 17 22:57:30 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:57:30 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <032701c52b44$b2a4c340$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Keith Henson wrote: >>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? > > I think you have in mind some rapid process to come to a present > day agreement about "cryonics can work." > > You obviously hold a strong opinion about the subject so you feel > "cryonics can't work." > > I must state that I had a similar opinion at one time, liking a frozen > person to a frozen tomato, looks great, but turns to mush when > thawed out. > > Eric Drexler had the same opinion prior to thinking about what >could be done with molecular scale machines. I wasn't an easy sell, > it took 5 or 6 years from starting to hear about nanotechnology > before my family signed up. I was eventually backed into an > intellectual corner where I could find no reason for cryonics not > to work at the technical level. Of course I had a fairly deep science > background of how molecular biology had developed over the > previous 30 years. > > I am increasingly confident over the last 20 years that the technical > level of cryonics is sound. > > I wonder what evidence you cite to support your opinion? At present I don't try to cite evidence to support my opinion on cryonics I just collect it when I come across it. My reason for this is that I think that what originally draws people to explore cryonics (myself included) is not truth-seeking but hope. When people use their reasoning skills to fortify their hopes rather than to try and find out what is true "evidence" tends to be looked at as an obstacle to be gotten around not something to be weighted. Its possible that most cryonics supporters may not be able to dispassionately weight "evidence" in the absence of an emotionally favourable alternative solution. I don't know that. Until there is a framework into which evidence and arguments for and against can be evenly weighted I don't want to feed a rationalisation process. It takes too much time to do that and I don't get any return on time invested. I'm mortal, I value my time. Damien doesn't seem to be around at present but what I was hoping to explore was whether it would be possible for people on opposite sides of the "can cryonics work?" issue to advance-agree on any sort of third-party judging process. Robin has put an enormous amount of time and effort into finding ways of enhancing our truth seeking orientation and through his notion of idea futures I think he may be onto something very powerful. I'm still probing for weaknesses and limits in idea futures and its mainly out of interest in that that I am looking at the cryonics question. If people whose views on cryonics are as different as Hal's and Robin's from mine and Damien's (as I perceive them) could agree on a judging process that would yield more truth than we each currently have then that would be an important vindication of some key ideas. And if we can't then that might be informative too. I see the stakes as much higher (potentially) than the single issue of cryonics. "Can cryonics work?" might not be the easiest thing to set up a bet on. In his paper _Could Gambling Save Science?_ Robin states: "Presumably we want as much progress as possible per effort invested, at least in situations where the following notion of "progress" makes sense. Consider a well-posed question, such as "Is the Earth basically spherical?", with a handful of possible answers (such as "No, it's flat"). Experience indicates that, with enough study and evidence, one of the answers will eventually stand out as best to most anyone who considers the question carefully. At least this seems to happen for most questions that have been traditionally labelled "scientific"; questions about the morality of abortion or the nature of God may not fare as well." Now I can readily see that the question "Can cryonics work?" could legitimately contain subquestions such as whether revival from update would constitute "working" and might necessarily involve a judgement on what constitutes identity. I don't see that the existence of valid subquestions makes the main question unjudgeable however. I don't know if "what is identity?" is outside judgement informed by the best scientific evidence and the most careful consideration of logical argument though. Brett Paatsch From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 23:40:21 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:40:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050317234021.62960.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Dirk Bruere wrote:nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Hi Dirk and everyone, > >Just got back in town and saw this post. > >First, ExI is not a Libertarian organization. Second, WTA is not trying to >damage ExI by making it mainstream. Third ExI is a global meme, and we do >not need to have the word World in front of ExI. This world has been a >real albatross for WTA because it is not an umbrella organization. It is > > It just appears as one to reporters etc. >quite the same as ExI in that it is world-wide and ExI holds the role of >developing the ideas of transhumanism. This should be a known fact. WTA >does not need to compete with WTA, so let us move beyond this meme. > > > I would say that it *does* compete - certainly for influence, and probably for funding. And the fact that it *appears* to be an umbrella org is certainly relevent when opinion formers wish to get more info on Transhumanism. Type in 'transhumanism to google and see who comes up first. In fact, ExI does not appear in the top 20 listings from google, it's No. 21. If I knew nothing of our little world I would think the WTA is the main body and ExI a mere 'faction'. >WTA might be doing the wrong thing by trying to make transhumanism a >socialist ideology, but this does not compromise ExI. ExI is supportive of > > Really? I suspect that if you asked the WTA (Hughes) would not claim that the WTA promotes a 'socialist ideology' - at least, no more than ExI promotes a libertarian ideology. >a transpolitical viewpoint, inclusive of the ideas and policies that help >assist in the realization of our goals. We do not align ourselves with any >political organization, party or belief. > > > Neither does the WTA -- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 23:43:22 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:13:22 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Athiesm in decline In-Reply-To: <4239852C.2070007@neopax.com> References: <200503162321.j2GNKvE25433@tick.javien.com> <4238C735.3090806@neopax.com> <4238D2FE.6010409@humanenhancement.com> <4238E352.1090305@posthuman.com> <4238F946.6020609@humanenhancement.com> <4239852C.2070007@neopax.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05031715431240e030@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:25:00 +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Actually, very little. > Even so, it doesn't matter what the WTA *claims*, it's what is going to > happen that counts. > The WTA FAQ (and that of the Extropians) is merely an attempt to > engineer the meme to the liking of those running the show at present. > Transhumanism, and its definitions, are far from a done deal. > Which is one reason why Hughes effectively forced me off their list for > undermining his POV. *GASP* ... you mean you are not wowed by the idea of socialist transhumanism? Shame on you, Dirk! :-) <- explicitly flagging ironic tone for statement above. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 17 23:49:26 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say Message-ID: <20050317234926.5670.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Let's just say for brevity's sake while WTA might err on the side of social democracy/socialism, Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. One thing you can say about libertarians-- they are never boring. How embarrassing: while reading Dirk's response to Natasha I pressed 'Send' rather than 'Delete', so Dirk's post was re-sent. __________________________________________________ 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 18 00:08:32 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:08:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050317191500.6F6FC57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050317185824.034bcbd0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:15 AM 17/03/05 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: snip > I don't understand why >you're so willing to excuse the obvious violation of conservation of >momentum but so reluctant to accept the problems with energy balance. >To me, they're equally bad. And (as you demonstrated) equivalent. It's too bad, but we are probably stuck with the universe as we know it. I used to think FTL was required to get around in the universe, but after understanding that nanotechnology should be able to keep you healthy for a million years at least, slower than light travel will do. And it has some advantages. Government requires timely feedback. If you don't care for being under a government, a few light years takes care of that problem. Keith Henson From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 00:09:04 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:39:04 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <4239D3AE.1040805@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> <422A004A.5030601@humanenhancement.com> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> <4239D3AE.1040805@neopax.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.com> > > More likely, you (or someone you were playing with) was moving the > > planchette, consciously or unconsciously. > > > *OF COURSE IT GETS MOVED UNCONSCIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* - > that's the whole point. > It's called the ideomotor response. > And how likely is it that in *every* game of Ouija ever played someone > was *always* cheating? > > > Your subconscious does not an "emergent phenomenon" deity make. > > > Mine doesn't - on its own. > But it does when many are involved in a cooperative enterprise. > > -- > Dirk > This is starting to become more interesting, Dirk. I think the religious rhetoric that you usually use, with the caveats of it being metaphor, have made it hard to grasp what you are saying. The above, however, seems to be a very straightforward statement about a belief that groups of minds (literally) create epiphenomenal consciousnesses which can then be physicially interacted with, via media such as Ouija. Care to expound on it a little more? Also, if Damien is out there reading this, does any of your research into psi phenomenon overlap with this contention of Dirk's? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 00:33:54 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:33:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Passing of the Torch Message-ID: <423A21F2.7020605@mindspring.com> Seeing the arrogant suppression of free thought by establishment doctrine (even on this List), which is so common today - these thoughts arise:- It's becoming evident that cultures have their "day in the sun" - when intellectual discovery and real science enables the building of empire. But it's also clear that each empire, once vested interests take a grip on power, begins to suppress free inquiry. This heralds collapse of empire - the torch will be taken up by a more vigorous culture. And a more vigorous culture always _does_ appear, to begin again the search for intellectual and scientific truth. So we saw ancient China producing sound theoretical science 2,000 years ago. ["the astronomer Qi Meng is said to have promoted (or rejuvenated) a cosmic theory that had the planets, the Sun and stars floating freely in `infinite, empty space' and which said these bodies were all `condensed from vapor'."] Then, for a brief period when Greece was democratic and "hands-on", the Ionians had real science, paving the way for combined Greco-Roman empire. However the growth of usury and aristocracy (eternal bedfellows) soon made science ridiculous in Greece and non-existent in Rome. Later Arab culture took up the Torch - "the lead, in this as in all scientific matters, passed ... to the East for the millennium 400 to 1400 AD" http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html#s64 After "dark age" culminating in the burning to death of Giordano Bruno, Europe finally began thinking again and eventually stepped into the breech. Western thought has lasted for little more than 300 years, and I fear its time is already passing. Signs of Western decay? The sciences are now State monopolies "owned" by vested interests who want no further progress [privileged elites _never_ want progress - why would they?]. The same elites control the media in the West, and indirectly dominate establishment religion [know any christian bishops who "live as the poor"?]. Who's going to take over the torch? Correspondents from S. America, India, China and the Pacific Rim seem more motivated by intellectual honesty than are most western academics today [exceptions are maybe Penrose, Barrow, Smolin and a few others]. And there are many cultures with more vigor than seems to exist in a West increasingly dumbed-down and controlled by ignorant, arrogant men-in-suits. It might be a close thing but I personally think it's between India, Japan and China, with China perhaps looking a bit healthier. So, if you want honest research (fortean or otherwise) - maybe start learning Mandarin. cheers Ray D -- "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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Mar 18 00:48:42 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:48:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <20050317221627.97750.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050317221627.97750.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423A256A.8020401@humanenhancement.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 00:56:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:56:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318005640.99933.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Fabians started their program in the 19th century and expected it to take generations. I'm optimistic that I'll get the better end of the deal because I'll live to see the results of my work negating everything they did. --- Al Brooks wrote: > but, say, a name such as "Galactic Extropians" would be getting too > far ahead of yourselves. We'll be 'old men' before there are > humans/h+ living on the moon. > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is > self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Make Yahoo! your home page > _______________________________________________ > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 00:58:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318005854.77245.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. --- Al Brooks wrote: > (No conflict here concerning state sanctioned full marriage-- just > please admit you want a heterosexual marriage monopoly providing > perqs such as filing joint tax returns). > Permitting smokers in private establishments to smoke close to > infants is really extreme, it is beyond the pale to allow smoke of > any sort near infants whether in a private or public buildings. > > >Business owners should be free to set their own smoking policies. > The > >rights of the smoker doesn't enter into it, we are talking about the > >rights of business owners and homeowners to dictate how they use > their > >own property. > >Nursery schools and kindergartens owned by the state are the > property > >of the state and the state can set whatever policies it wants for > those buildings. > > Mike Lorrey > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.> _______________________________________________ > 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!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 18 01:11:48 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:11:48 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.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> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> <4239D3AE.1040805@neopax.com> <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423A2AD4.4060103@neopax.com> Emlyn wrote: >>>More likely, you (or someone you were playing with) was moving the >>>planchette, consciously or unconsciously. >>> >>> >>> >>*OF COURSE IT GETS MOVED UNCONSCIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* - >>that's the whole point. >>It's called the ideomotor response. >>And how likely is it that in *every* game of Ouija ever played someone >>was *always* cheating? >> >> >> >>>Your subconscious does not an "emergent phenomenon" deity make. >>> >>> >>> >>Mine doesn't - on its own. >>But it does when many are involved in a cooperative enterprise. >> >>-- >>Dirk >> >> >> > >This is starting to become more interesting, Dirk. I think the >religious rhetoric that you usually use, with the caveats of it being >metaphor, have made it hard to grasp what you are saying. The above, >however, seems to be a very straightforward statement about a belief >that groups of minds (literally) create epiphenomenal consciousnesses >which can then be physicially interacted with, via media such as >Ouija. Care to expound on it a little more? Also, if Damien is out >there reading this, does any of your research into psi phenomenon >overlap with this contention of Dirk's? > > > OK - at the risk of 'going over the limit' for posts... but I'll be off-list for several days next week so I'm 'borrowing a bit' on my quota... The overlap is explored in an essay on my site which refers to an experiment carried out 30yrs ago. http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html I'm currently in the process of writing a far more detailed analysis and exposition of such group epiphenomena but that will not be completed for some time. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 18 01:38:09 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:38:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: James Hughes In-Reply-To: <20050317211813.21396.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050317211813.21396.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423A3101.2010408@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Dirk did not have permission to copy that private communication to the >list. > > > Sorry - I did not know it was a private email. Very often I get two copies of a post to this list when people copy me directly as well as indirectly. Typically the list posting can appear hours after the email arrives, so I tend to use the first I see. Until now I have assumed that nothing sent to me in reply to a list topic is private and that ExI stuff will appear in due course. The only solution if something is private is to state so in the email - something which people have done on rare occasions. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 18 01:54:57 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:54:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> Message-ID: <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> I asked about this. He complained about a Microsoft tax: he refuses to buy a machine that has any Billware already loaded. He lives out in the sticks too, I don't know if that is a factor. spike > Dirk Bruere ... > I could go to my local supermarket and buy one for under ?500, with s/w, > screen, speakers etc and printer bundle... > -- > Dirk From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 18 02:05:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:05:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050317234926.5670.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503180207.j2I27TE27883@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ Al Brooks: >Let's just say?for brevity's sake while?WTA might err on the side of social >democracy/socialism,? Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. Surely this is a contradiction in terms, for one cannot *err* on the side of *freedom*. Individual freedom is the negative of error. Individual freedom is the road ahead. Cheers for ExI for promoting it. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 02:30:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:30:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. I don't believe it is possible to err in siding with individual freedom. 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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 02:41:40 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:41:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers Message-ID: (x-posted to slashdot) Researchers at the University of Bath are developing a rapid prototyping machine capable of making copies of itself and other products, reminiscent of the Universal Constructor proposed by von Neumann. The so-called Replicating Rapid-Prototyper (or RepRap) would produce items from raw materials and small components like microchips. If successful, this could make rapid prototyping cheap enough for regular in-home usage, especially since the project's lead, Dr. Adrian Bowyer, will be releasing his project's designs under the GNU GPL. It's previously been proposed that a similar system would be useful for space exploration and industrialization. Relevant links: http://www.bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/replicating-machines.htm http://www.livescience.com/technology/050317_home_device.html http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/ http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASMIndex.html http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Constructor From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 03:48:47 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:48:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318034847.60643.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being involved.. Mike Lorrey wrote: If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Mar 18 06:16:02 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:16:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say Message-ID: <1111126562.6169@whirlwind.he.net> Al Brooks wrote: > Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. That is an error I would like to see more of out here in the real world. Please, oh please, throw me into the briar patch! j. andrew rogers From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Fri Mar 18 06:23:46 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:23:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] George Kennan Message-ID: <20050318062226.M99675@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Kennan just died. A repost of what I posted here last August. Amara "Mr. X Speaks: An Interview with George Kennan" (PDF) http://www.afsa.org/fsj/feb04/guldin.pdf George F. Kennan on the Web http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/future/kennan.html from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/future/kennan.html Portrait of Kennan by Ned Seidler Russil Wvong / History, politics, and the future / George F. Kennan {begin quote} George F. Kennan (b. 1904), a distinguished US diplomat and historian, was one of the primary architects of US strategy during the Truman Administration. He's Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Kennan is one of the most thoughtful and eloquent writers I've ever come across, not just on history, international politics, and US-Russian relations, but on American society, questions of personal and political philosophy, and contemporary problems such as nuclear weapons, the environment, population growth, and urbanization. For such a distinguished man, he's also remarkably humble. The role that Kennan played in shaping US postwar strategy?along with his colleagues, including George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Charles Bohlen, Loy Henderson, and John Paton Davies Jr.?makes his writings particularly fascinating. Before World War II, the US had the foreign policy of a "small, neutral nation." After World War II, with the collapse of the European powers, the US found itself confronting the Soviet Union, which set up puppet governments in occupied Eastern Europe and appeared to be threatening a shattered Western Europe as well. Kennan articulated the strategy of patient, long-term "containment" of the Soviet Union, and in particular, the re-establishing of a stable balance of power by rebuilding Western Europe and Japan. As first director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff from 1947 to 1950, under Marshall and Acheson, Kennan was responsible for long-term planning. He played a major role in both the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan, as well as overall US strategy towards the Soviet Union. Less laudably, Kennan also played a significant role in launching the CIA's covert operations, which he later described as "the greatest mistake I ever made." He didn't have much to say about policy towards the Third World, where he thought that in any case, the US could not do much to help; he advocated restraint, particularly in the case of China. (Wilson Miscamble's George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950 provides a detailed analysis of Kennan's influence on US policy decisions.) Over time, Kennan became increasingly pessimistic about the ability of the US to follow a realistic, sensitive, and discriminating foreign policy, and to maintain the basic health of US society. In Kennan's view, US foreign policy suffers to a deplorable degree from confusion, ignorance, narcissism, escapism, and irresponsibility. He left the State Department in the early 1950s and joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, hoping to educate the US public and US policymakers by illuminating the history of US-Soviet relations. He also spoke frequently on contemporary problems, particularly the nuclear arms race. Now that the Cold War has, astonishingly, ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kennan argues (e.g. in Around the Cragged Hill) that the US ought to limit its foreign policy to maintaining its alliances with Western Europe and Japan, and ought to focus on addressing its pressing domestic problems. {end quote} -------------- Take a look at the section: "2. Reports, articles, lectures, interviews" in particular, * the famous: 'X Paper' The political personality of Soviet power as we know it today is the product of ideology and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Soviet leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in Russia. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of official Soviet conduct, yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered. http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html and * the 'Long Telegram' February 22, 1946. Published in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, vol. VI. US policymakers had been hoping to continue their partnership with the Soviet Union after World War II, and were puzzled as to why the Soviet Union was being so uncooperative, even hostile. Kennan's Long Telegram from the Moscow Embassy explained the Soviet view of the world. It struck a chord and was widely distributed within the Truman Administration. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.ht m From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 18 06:29:16 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:29:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters In-Reply-To: <032701c52b44$b2a4c340$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:57 AM 18/03/05 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: snip >At present I don't try to cite evidence to support my opinion on >cryonics I just collect it when I come across it. My reason for this >is that I think that what originally draws people to explore cryonics >(myself included) is not truth-seeking but hope. >When people use their reasoning skills to fortify their hopes rather than >to try and find out what is true "evidence" tends to be looked >at as an obstacle to be gotten around not something to be weighted. >Its possible that most cryonics supporters may not be able to >dispassionately weight "evidence" in the absence of an emotionally >favourable alternative solution. I don't know that. I think it is more likely that emotional involvement at a level below what people are aware of prevents them from giving up making a virtue of something they could not do anything about in the past. Take a look at the typical arguments against cryonics and see how many of them are not rational. (People *should*) >Until there is a framework into which evidence and arguments for >and against can be evenly weighted I don't want to feed a >rationalisation process. It takes too much time to do that and I don't >get any return on time invested. I'm mortal, I value my time. >Damien doesn't seem to be around at present but what I was hoping >to explore was whether it would be possible for people on opposite >sides of the "can cryonics work?" issue to advance-agree on any sort >of third-party judging process. > >Robin has put an enormous amount of time and effort into finding >ways of enhancing our truth seeking orientation and through his >notion of idea futures I think he may be onto something very >powerful. I'm still probing for weaknesses and limits in idea futures >and its mainly out of interest in that that I am looking at the >cryonics question. Idea futures would work fine for cryonics. But it would not answer this question short of reviving a frozen person. >If people whose views on cryonics are as different as Hal's and Robin's >from mine and Damien's (as I perceive them) could agree >on a judging process that would yield more truth than we each >currently have then that would be an important vindication of some key >ideas. And if we can't then that might be informative >too. >I see the stakes as much higher (potentially) than the single issue >of cryonics. > >"Can cryonics work?" might not be the easiest thing to set up >a bet on. >In his paper _Could Gambling Save Science?_ Robin states: > >"Presumably we want as much progress as possible per effort >invested, at least in situations where the following notion of "progress" >makes sense. Consider a well-posed question, such >as "Is the Earth basically spherical?", with a handful of possible >answers (such as "No, it's flat"). Experience indicates that, with >enough study and evidence, one of the answers will eventually >stand out as best to most anyone who considers the question >carefully. At least this seems to happen for most questions that >have been traditionally labelled "scientific"; questions about the >morality of abortion or the nature of God may not fare as well." >Now I can readily see that the question "Can cryonics work?" >could legitimately contain subquestions such as whether revival >from update update? >would constitute "working" and might necessarily >involve a judgement on what constitutes identity. >I don't see that the existence of valid subquestions makes the >main question unjudgeable however. >I don't know if "what is identity?" is outside judgement informed by the >best scientific evidence and the most careful >consideration of logical argument though. Simply reviewing what has already been said about the topic just since it started being discussed on the net would take much more than a normal human life span. Keith Henson From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 06:58:01 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:58:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318065801.93096.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Here's a National Geographic News article on the possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not mentioned therein is the recent possible discovery of a frozen ocean of water just below a surface blanket of dust on Mars. [2] It is suggested that blocks of ice formed when that ocean ostensibly froze can been seen on the Martian surface. If there is in fact a vast quantity of readily accessible pure (or purifiable) water on Mars, that would certainly be a tremendous boon to any colonization effort! [1] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0315_050315_marscolony.html [2] Frozen Sea Once Near Martian Equator? http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1455.html 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!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 07:15:13 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:15:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: <20050318005854.77245.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050318005854.77245.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205031723151729854@mail.gmail.com> I think we have to make a distinction between places where you *have* to go and places where you *choose* to go. So I agree with Mike's statement for a restaurant but not for an airport. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:54 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled > restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 18 09:13:01 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:13:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) Message-ID: spike, you have some strange assumptions. > >Question: is there not an equivalent of Fry's >Electronics in Italy, Germany, France? Media World (Italy), MediaMarkt (Germany) (the same chain). The Italian part doesn't carry Macs, I didn't check the German one. I would need to spend more for an American keyboard, if buying here too. >Clearly in Amara's case, weeks of work my have >been delayed for want of a computer that would be >traded for three to five days of average wages. My choice was spending 2-3 months of my salary for my work computer buying in Europe or 1-2 months of my salary buying in the U.S. so I chose the latter. Amara From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 18 10:02:48 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:02:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story (was: A Zen Garden) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050318100248.GW17303@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:13:01AM +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > My choice was spending 2-3 months of my salary for my work > computer buying in Europe or 1-2 months of my salary buying > in the U.S. so I chose the latter. The really sad part about it is that the local group did not have resources to provide that very essential tool Amara needed, or chose not to. Science is still starved for resources. More so now than a decade or two ago, in fact. Does this suck, or what? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 18 10:40:07 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:40:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters In-Reply-To: <032701c52b44$b2a4c340$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <032701c52b44$b2a4c340$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050318104007.GA17303@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:57:30AM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > At present I don't try to cite evidence to support my opinion on > cryonics I just collect it when I come across it. My reason for this > is that I think that what originally draws people to explore cryonics > (myself included) is not truth-seeking but hope. Of course. This is the reason why cryonics is in its current sorry state. There's no interest to drive the science behind it. We've been through here before, but I'm repeating the statements (because nobody reads the archives, anyway). The community is not supportive. It's not a business. > When people use their reasoning skills to fortify their hopes rather > than to try and find out what is true "evidence" tends to be looked > at as an obstacle to be gotten around not something to be weighted. There's no evidence. Because that'd take a few years of work, and a bit of money. Lacking a focused project, the progress is glacially slow (but progress there is). > Its possible that most cryonics supporters may not be able to > dispassionately weight "evidence" in the absence of an emotionally > favourable alternative solution. I don't know that. I notice your entire posts doesn't contain a single pointer to a single paper. Basically, you're just reiterating your opinions. You might want to read a few from http://www.21cm.com/abstracts.jsp (there's more in the works, by the way, stay tuned). > Until there is a framework into which evidence and arguments for > and against can be evenly weighted I don't want to feed a > rationalisation process. It takes too much time to do that and I don't > get any return on time invested. I'm mortal, I value my time. I've blown somewhere between 2-5 years of my life to figure out for me personally, whether cryonics is a question worth asking. I think it is. I don't consider these years wasted, though it sure damaged my career bigtime. If there is any lesson from this I have to give it's: don't let transhumanism get in the way of your career. Get on with the program, and work from inside the system. If you think it might be applicable to you: unsubscribe from this list immediately. And won't come back, you hear? At least, not until you're done. > Damien doesn't seem to be around at present but what I was hoping > to explore was whether it would be possible for people on opposite > sides of the "can cryonics work?" issue to advance-agree on any sort > of third-party judging process. Who's going to do the work? Who's going to pay for the work? Talk is cheap. > ... > I don't know if "what is identity?" is outside judgement > informed by the best scientific evidence and the most careful > consideration of logical argument though. There is no identity problem. Most people can't follow the argument line, though. Now here's an opportunity to waste oodles on time on angelic pinhead dance choreography. For somebody else, though. Preferrably, off-list. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Mar 18 11:40:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:40:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <044e01c52baf$401cfd40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Keith Henson wrote: > update? Sorry, I meant upload. Brett Paatsch From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 11:48:43 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:48:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> References: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:54:57 -0800, spike wrote: > I asked about this. He complained about a Microsoft tax: > he refuses to buy a machine that has any Billware already > loaded. He lives out in the sticks too, I don't know > if that is a factor. > You're all talking about different animals. Amara wants an Apple Mac laptop, Spike's friend wants a Linux box, Dirk is offering a Windows complete setup. The computer industry in UK is very competitive. You can get anything you want, but you get what you pay for. There is very little excess profit margin for suppliers. (Apple excepted - they live in their own little world). If you need a lot of handholding, (i.e. your first pc), you go to the big stores like PCWorld and buy a Windows setup with everything the salesman can talk you into. Say ?600 upwards. But you get (in theory) phone help, engineers that come round to your house, support desks in the store where you can bring stuff back to get it fixed, no problem swaps if something breaks, etc. If you can do it all yourself, (i.e. your 3rd or 4th pc) you go to one of the small shops who will assemble a box with no operating system, exactly as you specify. You are talking about ?200-?300 depending on how exotic your spec is. Insert one of the new Linux cds, like Xandros, and half an hour later you have a running Linux system. It is still hard work to avoid using Microsoft. You need to buy Linux magazines to find out where to get stuff, get to know your local Linux group, join Linux groups online, etc. i.e. you have to educate yourself to survive outside the cozy Windows cocoon. Laptops generally are still about 50% - 100% more than desktop boxes and Apple is more expensive still. And Linux tends to be a bit picky about which laptops it is completely happy to run on. Some laptops have specialised hardware that need their own Linux drivers written. Laptops for Linux is a favourite topic in Linux support groups. ;) At present Linux and Apple boxes are generally ignored by almost all the viruses and spyware that infest the Windows world. They still get flooded with spam emails tho! :) BillK From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Mar 18 13:05:49 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:05:49 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters Message-ID: <04c201c52bbb$3514ee10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Eugen Leitl wrote: > I notice your entire posts doesn't contain a single pointer to a single > paper. Basically, you're just reiterating your opinions. I was answering Keith's question. I was explaining why, at present, I am not citing "evidence" for my opinions on cryonics. If we could get a idea futures market up and make cryonics the subject of an appropriately worded bet on it, then there would be a motivating reason for people to bring in evidence to try to move the market price in the direction of their opinion and so profit by doing so. Do you see that? > > ... > > I don't know if "what is identity?" is outside judgement > > informed by the best scientific evidence and the most careful > > consideration of logical argument though. > There is no identity problem. Most people can't follow the argument line, > though. If you are right then perhaps it would be a relatively trivial matter to get a third-party judging organisation to judge the validity of the lines of reasoning in logical arguments presented. Keith notes that "simply reviewing what has already been said about the topic just since it started being discussed on the net would take much more than a normal human life span." Only what is logically essential matters for the purposes of judgement. Given a market, the best arguments pro and con might be distilled from the noise by those wishing to influence the price. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Mar 18 13:20:59 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:20:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] whose ox is gored In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205031723151729854@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050318005854.77245.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470a3c5205031723151729854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: IMHO the argument about secondhand smoke is a bit overblown. If it were as absolutely true as the doomsayers claim all of us would already be dead of smoke related problems. The fact that we aren't and that many are healthy indicates (to me) that more data needs to be examined. That said, I would not choose to smoke around an infant, nor would I want to smoke where it is obnoxious to others. At a restaurant I do not much care whether I sit in the smoking or non-smoking section, as it will be a short stay anyway. And there are other things in my lifestyle that will IMO have much more effect on my health. Bigger bang for the buck, so to speak. The hysterical nicotine-police types who fuss and cry and whine and scream at every opportunity make life stressful and unpleasant. Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour tends to spread to other areas. It takes on an puritanical and evangelical tinge - and *that* stresses me far more than limited tobacco smoke exposure. Regards, MB a non-smoker On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I think we have to make a distinction between places where you *have* > to go and places where you *choose* to go. So I agree with Mike's > statement for a restaurant but not for an airport. > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:54 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled > > restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 18 13:43:04 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:43:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters In-Reply-To: <04c201c52bbb$3514ee10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <04c201c52bbb$3514ee10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050318134304.GU17303@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 12:05:49AM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > If we could get a idea futures market up and make cryonics the subject > of an appropriately worded bet on it, then there would be a motivating > reason for people to bring in evidence to try to move the market price > in the direction of their opinion and so profit by doing so. > > Do you see that? How many implicit ifs are in above sentence? It's far easier to raise funds by talking to the right people. (Before you ask, I don't know any right people, and I really suck at selling). Don't let above deter anyone, though. Rehashing Suda with a modern vitrification procedure shouldn't be that hard and/or expensive. > > There is no identity problem. Most people can't follow the argument line, > > though. > > If you are right then perhaps it would be a relatively trivial matter to get a > third-party judging organisation to judge the validity of the lines of > reasoning in logical arguments presented. Who are you proposing for a third party, and why should that party be able to follow the argument line? It's not as if just being smart is enough. People have beliefs, and most of people can't extrapolate very far beyond these beliefs. It's enough to just deny what you've shown in robots (experimentally!) applies to people. Because people, you know, are pink and squishy. It's just animism in a modern guise. How do you argue with animists? You don't. It's a waste of time. > Keith notes that "simply reviewing what has already been said about > the topic just since it started being discussed on the net would take > much more than a normal human life span." Not really, the old archives are mostly gone. I think it might be something like a week to come up with a really good query, and go through hits, tops. > Only what is logically essential matters for the purposes of judgement. > Given a market, the best arguments pro and con might be distilled > from the noise by those wishing to influence the price. And if wishes were like horses, we'd always have a nice dead one to flog. Really. If you need real money you need to do real work talking to people. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 14:17:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:17:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318141742.98696.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is no ill intent on the part of the smoker. The role of the parents is obviously a case of depraved indifference, no different than a pregnant mother drinking, smoking, or getting high, as parents seek their own personal enjoyment at the expense of their kids. How significant an hour of second hand smoke impacts a kid is another question entirely. --- Al Brooks wrote: > ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or > one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a > crime? > 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a > helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being > involved.. > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled > restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. 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 aiguy at comcast.net Fri Mar 18 14:56:51 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:56:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: <20050318034847.60643.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503181457.j2IEvJE13111@tick.javien.com> > ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? > 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being involved.. Drunk driving is still considered a crime even though the drunk driver may not have any ill-intent of endangering a helpless person. Both act contribute statistically to the death of innocent individuals. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:49 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being involved.. Mike Lorrey wrote: If parents are so abusive as to bring their kids into a smoke filled restaurant, the crime is theirs, not the proprietors. _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Fri Mar 18 15:33:43 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:33:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: <200503181457.j2IEvJE13111@tick.javien.com> References: <200503181457.j2IEvJE13111@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <423AF4D7.40603@sasktel.net> Gary Miller wrote: >> ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or > one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? >> 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a > helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being > involved.. > Drunk driving is still considered a crime even though the drunk driver > may not have any ill-intent of endangering a helpless person. > > Both act contribute statistically to the death of innocent individuals. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > These would be civil matters which a child or person who determines that injury has occurred might seek damages of some sort for; if sufficient proof specific to the cause and effect in the injured party can be produced. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 15:59:46 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:59:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: <423AF4D7.40603@sasktel.net> References: <200503181457.j2IEvJE13111@tick.javien.com> <423AF4D7.40603@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <5844e22f050318075974f175f6@mail.gmail.com> No, drunk driving is indeed a criminal offense. For a broader class of relevant crimes (whereby an action is a crime even if there is no ill will or intent, but solely because the action, as Gary said, "contribute[s] statistically to the death of innocent individuals"), Google "criminal negligence." On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:33:43 -0600, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > Gary Miller wrote: > > > > ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or one > hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? > > 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a > helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being involved.. > > Drunk driving is still considered a crime even though the drunk driver may > not have any ill-intent of endangering a helpless person. > > Both act contribute statistically to the death of innocent individuals. > > ________________________________ > > These would be civil matters which a child or person who determines that > injury has occurred might > seek damages of some sort for; if sufficient proof specific to the cause > and effect in the injured party can be produced. > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 18 16:01:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:01:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423AFB48.70509@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Al Brooks wrote: > > >> Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. >> >> > >I don't believe it is possible to err in siding with individual freedom. > > > And hence private ownership of WMDs is of no concern. Put me down for a few litres of VX and some anthrax powder. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 18 16:02:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:02:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: <20050318065801.93096.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318065801.93096.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423AFB95.4090508@neopax.com> Ian Goddard wrote: >Here's a National Geographic News article on the >possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not > > A man on Mars by 1985! Where is Spiro when you really need him... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 17:14:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:14:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318171411.90600.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > >--- Al Brooks wrote: > >> Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. > >> > >I don't believe it is possible to err in siding with individual > >freedom. > > > And hence private ownership of WMDs is of no concern. > Put me down for a few litres of VX and some anthrax powder. There are many privately owned airliners in the world today. As 9-11 demonstrated, each and every one of them is a WMD. When do you start lobbying for state ownership of all airliners? When WMDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have WMDs. When those outlaws control government, the people become slaves. 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 aiguy at comcast.net Fri Mar 18 18:29:30 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:29:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike In-Reply-To: <423AF4D7.40603@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <200503181829.j2IITmE04838@tick.javien.com> >> These would be civil matters which a child or person who determines that injury has occurred might >> seek damages of some sort for; if sufficient proof specific to the cause and effect in the injured party can be produced. In the case of second hand smoke, the increased risk of health damage is statistically cumulative in each incident at each establishment they visit which allows the smoking to occur. The cost of a class action lawsuit against those establishments visited over the course of their lives would be very cost prohibitive and lead to a lack of legal recourse for the individual. It's interesting to think though that is was this type of class-action that the government brought against the tobacco industry to collect for monies that the state had to put up to pay medical costs for individuals damaged by direct smoking. So now that that precedent has been set. Why not go after establishments that cater to smokers in a similar suit to pay for medical expenses of people damaged by second hand smoking. Once a few such cases were won, the insurance companies and business owners would do the rest. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:34 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] forgive my pedantry, Mike Gary Miller wrote: > ...but are you conceding that exposing anyone, whether they be one or one hundred, to tobacco smoke could be considered any sort of a crime? > 'Crime' is a pretty strong word to describe tobacco smoke being in a helpless person's immediate environment without ill-intent being involved.. Drunk driving is still considered a crime even though the drunk driver may not have any ill-intent of endangering a helpless person. Both act contribute statistically to the death of innocent individuals. _____ These would be civil matters which a child or person who determines that injury has occurred might seek damages of some sort for; if sufficient proof specific to the cause and effect in the injured party can be produced. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 18:34:05 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:34:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318183405.4024.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> I'm cynical, nevertheless a cynic can be correct on some occasions. liberty is desirable, libertarianism is a valid construct-- but no more than that. We pursue self-ownership however few attain it, someone always owns a piece of the overwhelming majority of us. Even if the piece is very small it is like a small piece of turd in a punch bowl, we instinctively rebel against the thought of it no matter how small the piece may be. So except for the very few we're donkeys chasing the carrot-on-a-stick of self ownership. The very few, the justifiably proud , are a small number who do own themselves and do pursue or possess true liberty: sovereign individuals with billions to enable them to elude the clutches of others. So when you here obtain billions you can write on this list, "I own myself and can pursue liberty to my heart's content". I now respect and harbor no ill will towards the very wealthy, I'd rather wave hello to them as they pass by in their limousines than have any contact with the vengeful rabble in the street. Above all, time becomes more valuable than anything else because no matter how well you take care of yourself you can always die in an accident. No one can predict the future, predictions are a construct as well. Let's not take our predictions or ourselves too seriously. Whatever the future might hold, you & I might not be around. Mike Lorrey wrote: --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > >--- Al Brooks wrote: > >> Extropy errs on the side of individual freedom. > >> > >I don't believe it is possible to err in siding with individual > >freedom. > > > And hence private ownership of WMDs is of no concern. > Put me down for a few litres of VX and some anthrax powder. There are many privately owned airliners in the world today. As 9-11 demonstrated, each and every one of them is a WMD. When do you start lobbying for state ownership of all airliners? When WMDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have WMDs. When those outlaws control government, the people become slaves. 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 19:00:54 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:00:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318190054.37731.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> IMO individual freedom is a road ahead, not the road ahead. There's more of a grain of truth in "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". I became interested in libertarianism during the Me Decade. I traveled all over, worked any job, did any recreation. And it's fine when one is very young. But one is looking for meaning when there is no meaning; searching for purpose when there is no purpose. When we travel we feel free but we're merely moving from one point to another. It's not that the pursuit of freedom is not desirable, far from it, however the quarry is faster than you are. But by all means run after freedom, it's good exercise. >Surely this is a contradiction in terms, for one cannot >*err* on the side of *freedom*. Individual freedom is >the negative of error. Individual freedom is the road >ahead. Cheers for ExI for promoting it. spike _______________________________________________ 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 scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 18 19:21:48 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust References: <20050317191500.6F6FC57EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <000301c52bef$bba49230$7db51b97@administxl09yj> [Mike] ... you can't talk about 'conservation of momentum' with a field thruster like this if it is thrusting against the entire universes inertial frame, because you have no external point of reference to base such a judgement on. [Hal] Physics is local. That's the lesson from general relativity. [...] Now, if you wanted to claim that this device is reaching out to the distant stars, physically grabbing onto them and pulling them backwards as it goes forwards, at least that would not violate conservation of momentum. But it does violate the principle of locality of physics ... Good points. There have been (at least) two views on the origin of inertia (instantaneous opposition to acceleration, or to rotation, of a "material" object). Inertia has been assumed to be an essential property of "matter" or, according to Mach, a property that originates "externally", as a linkage among all the "matter" (_and fields?_) of the universe. According to Mach a single object, in an empty universe, should be devoid of inertia. And inertia is, according to Mach, a sort of asymptotic function of the surrounding matter, or of the gradually surrounding matter. According to Mach (if I remember well) an empty universe cannot exist, and a single object in an empty universe cannot accellerate, and cannot rotate. (According to GR empty and rotating universes do exist, they make sense. Taub, Goedel, that sort of universes.) According to Mach whether one regards acceleration (or rotation) as a motion of a specific object, or as a "counter" motion of the surrounding matter, is _arbitrary_. (As Mike was, perhaps, saying). The problem is, however, that inertia (as a reaction force to acceleration, or rotation) occurs at the same moment that acceleration, or rotation, is applied to the specific object. Thus, Mach principle should imply a sort of instantaneous back-reaction propagating field, from the distant stars to the specific object, involving superluminal velocities. (As Hal was, perhaps, meaning). Something like the advanced vs. retarded Dirac-Feynman-Wheeler radiation fields. Or something like the advanced vs. retarded actions between two photons, entangled in a singlet, according to Klyshko, or Shumacher, or Bennett, sometimes known as "ghost" effects. But it is late now. And I've lost what I was going to say (if anything). And I realize that the above is already known by anyone! :-) Ahhh, I was going to talk about the "Sakharov drive". Next time. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 19:28:42 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:28:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318192843.91017.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: > > >Here's a National Geographic News article on the > >possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not > > > > A man on Mars by 1985! > Where is Spiro when you really need him... Right, albeit that disparity between previously projected plans and their unfulfillment isn't so much a measure of what was or is possible but of where our priorities have been placed. And notice the comment in the article: "She said human lives may be lost during trips to Mars and few politicians have the will to allow astronauts to die under their watch." That's true, but how odd. It seems politicians have little trouble with sending hundreds of solders to their deaths irrespective of the desires of those solders and for no demonstrable benefit (see Iraq) and yet there's terrible trouble with letting a few astronauts take the risks they would desire to take. What's up with that? ~Ian __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 19:40:15 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:40:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] like definition In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318194015.69656.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> spike wrote: >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. Right, I see your point. >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. I liked your initial idea about teaching machines what natural-language words like 'like' mean. It could be a worthwhile project to pursue that further. ~Ian __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 18 19:58:29 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:58:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters In-Reply-To: <20050318104007.GA17303@leitl.org> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <032701c52b44$b2a4c340$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <20050318104007.GA17303@leitl.org> Message-ID: <2567ed1d2ef796fc0e23ac578d20d2e4@mac.com> On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:40 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > You might want to read a few from http://www.21cm.com/abstracts.jsp > (there's more in the works, by the way, stay tuned). > >> a lot of the entries point to www.idealibrary.com which seems to be >> down or otherwise unreachable. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 20:02:07 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron Message-ID: <20050318200207.49740.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> If freedom is so uber-important then why do we waste time hunched in front of a keyboard, tapping words into cyperspace that have no value in the sum total of things? Why do we spend so much time griping about how we don't have enough freedom when the time could be used to actually BE free? So many are waiting for their ship to come in, and when they reach retirement age they are old but "now I've got it made in the shade-- I'm in my Golden Years, with metamucil to push some of the dross out". Or a 60 year old baby boomer lady who dresses in teenage clothes and thinks, "I'm so young and pretty", when she's got jowls hanging off her face. So, uh, maybe we don't hold freedom as dear as we think we do? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 18 20:05:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:05:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: References: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On apple laptops a quite serviceable IBook G4 goes for about $800 in the US now. That is with built in wireless. This compares quite favorably with inexpensive windows laptops. Considering the amount of useable software pre-installed this is a quite good price. - samantha On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:48 AM, BillK wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:54:57 -0800, spike wrote: >> I asked about this. He complained about a Microsoft tax: >> he refuses to buy a machine that has any Billware already >> loaded. He lives out in the sticks too, I don't know >> if that is a factor. >> > > You're all talking about different animals. Amara wants an Apple Mac > laptop, Spike's friend wants a Linux box, Dirk is offering a Windows > complete setup. > > The computer industry in UK is very competitive. You can get anything > you want, but you get what you pay for. There is very little excess > profit margin for suppliers. > (Apple excepted - they live in their own little world). > > If you need a lot of handholding, (i.e. your first pc), you go to the > big stores like PCWorld and buy a Windows setup with everything the > salesman can talk you into. Say ?600 upwards. But you get (in theory) > phone help, engineers that come round to your house, support desks in > the store where you can bring stuff back to get it fixed, no problem > swaps if something breaks, etc. > > If you can do it all yourself, (i.e. your 3rd or 4th pc) you go to one > of the small shops who will assemble a box with no operating system, > exactly as you specify. You are talking about ?200-?300 depending on > how exotic your spec is. Insert one of the new Linux cds, like > Xandros, and half an hour later you have a running Linux system. > > It is still hard work to avoid using Microsoft. You need to buy Linux > magazines to find out where to get stuff, get to know your local Linux > group, join Linux groups online, etc. > i.e. you have to educate yourself to survive outside the cozy Windows > cocoon. > > Laptops generally are still about 50% - 100% more than desktop boxes > and Apple is more expensive still. And Linux tends to be a bit picky > about which laptops it is completely happy to run on. Some laptops > have specialised hardware that need their own Linux drivers written. > Laptops for Linux is a favourite topic in Linux support groups. ;) > > At present Linux and Apple boxes are generally ignored by almost all > the viruses and spyware that infest the Windows world. They still get > flooded with spam emails tho! :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 18 20:13:22 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:13:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] miscellanea References: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <423AFB48.70509@neopax.com> Message-ID: <000401c52bf6$efd6fb40$7db51b97@administxl09yj> black hole, on Long Island? (see March,17) http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/ dark energy, no need, just inflation http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117 the environment sees the "welcher weg" ... http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/3/5 ... but its watch is still uncertain http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/3/1/1 a strange place indeed http://web.mit.edu/nobel-lectures/ named universe, and what else? (see March, 13) http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/ From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 18 20:15:36 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:15:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050318183405.4024.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318183405.4024.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 18, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Al Brooks wrote: > I'm cynical, nevertheless a cynic can be correct on some occasions. > liberty is desirable, libertarianism is a valid construct-- but no > more than that. We pursue self-ownership however?few attain it, > someone always owns a piece of the overwhelming majority of us. Even > if the piece is very small it is like a small piece of turd in a punch > bowl,?we instinctively rebel against the thought of it?no matter how > small the piece may be.?So except for the very few we're donkeys > chasing the carrot-on-a-stick of self ownership. > The very few, the justifiably proud ,?are a small number who do own > themselves and do pursue or possess?true liberty:?sovereign > individuals with billions to enable them to elude the clutches of > others. So when you?here obtain billions you can write on this list, > "I own myself and can pursue liberty to my heart's content". I now > respect and harbor no ill will towards the very wealthy, I'd > rather?wave hello to them as they pass by in their limousines than > have any contact with the vengeful rabble in the street. You don't need billions to be a sovereign individual. Assuming you do and that there is therefore no way to make it is an excuse for doing nothing. > Above all, time becomes more valuable than anything else because no > matter how well you take care of yourself you can always die in an > accident. No one can predict the future, predictions are a construct > as well. Let's not take our predictions or ourselves too seriously. > Whatever the future might hold, you & I might not be around. > Almost no one takes anything seriously enough to make any difference. You can't get extraordinary results by assuming your life and goals aren't worth taking seriously. I run away when I encounter advice to not take life itself seriously. - samantha From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 20:15:52 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Live Higher & Longer ? Message-ID: <20050318201553.51644.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Perhaps the new finding that the people in this study living in mountains lived longer than others living below them [1] might be related to the surprising findings of increased longevity associated with low-dose radiation exposure [2] given that background radiation increases with elevation. [3] UPI (3/14/5): "A University of Athens, Greece, study has found people who live in mountainous areas tend to live longer than people in low areas." [1] J Epidemiol Community Health (April 2005): "Residence in mountainous areas seems to have a 'protective effect' from total and coronary mortality." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15767379 [2] http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/msg/88fb0cba8ad67f6a [3] "[A] person living on the Atlantic coast receives about 65 mrem of natural background radiation per year, while a person in Denver, Colorado, receives about 125 mrem, excluding radon. The difference in the natural background radiation is due in large part to Denver's higher elevation." http://www.nuc.umr.edu/nuclear_facts/radiation/radiation.html http://www.nuc.umr.edu/nuclear_facts/dosechart/dosechart.html http://IanGoddard.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 20:58:34 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Great question In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318205835.63382.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Why? Because they value life. Except those lives far far away; or lives on death row; or lives of those caught in the drug war. They value unborn life, but after the kiddies are born we can later send them to mediocre schools, or lousy churches or feed them bad food. However we cannot blame politicians because they 'are sinners and aren't we all'. They have all the bases covered. They are constructionists busily erecting sand castles. It seems politicians have little trouble with sending hundreds of solders to their deaths irrespective of the desires of those solders and for no demonstrable benefit (see Iraq) and yet there's terrible trouble with letting a few astronauts take the risks they would desire to take. What's up with that? ~Ian __________________________________________________ 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 18 21:15:13 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:15:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisconsin Quarters & $$ Message-ID: <180770-220053518211513403@M2W033.mail2web.com> I borrowed a dollar from someone and when I got change I paid her back in quarters. She looked at one of the quarters and said, "This is a Wisconsin quarter and could be worth a lot of money." Check your Wisconsin quarters for the corn stock and if it has three stalks instead of two, it could be worth a lot of money. http://www.theomahachannel.com/money/4247715/detail.html (Psst ... mine only had two) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Fri Mar 18 21:40:42 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:40:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: <20050318200207.49740.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: One of the sad bits about freedom is that when we have it we are free to waste it dressing like teenyboppers or watching brain-wasting tv or typing away to cyberspace. That's how you know you are free, when you are free to "waste" it. BAL >From: Al Brooks >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron >Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:07 -0800 (PST) > >If freedom is so uber-important then why do we waste time hunched in front >of a keyboard, tapping words into cyperspace that have no value in the sum >total of things? Why do we spend so much time griping about how we don't >have enough freedom when the time could be used to actually BE free? So >many are waiting for their ship to come in, and when they reach retirement >age they are old but "now I've got it made in the shade-- I'm in my Golden >Years, with metamucil to push some of the dross out". Or a 60 year old baby >boomer lady who dresses in teenage clothes and thinks, "I'm so young and >pretty", when she's got jowls hanging off her face. >So, uh, maybe we don't hold freedom as dear as we think we do? > > > > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 18 21:42:37 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:42:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: References: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050318214237.GN17303@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:05:17PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On apple laptops a quite serviceable IBook G4 goes for about $800 in > the US now. That is with built in wireless. This compares quite > favorably with inexpensive windows laptops. Considering the amount of > useable software pre-installed this is a quite good price. You'll need BTO Bluetooth and at least 512 MByte more memory which will set you back a bit more -- but it's still cheaper than a Pentium M box. Also, 12" is a bit small, and the display quality frankly sucks -- but otherwise it's a great machine. If you have a kid or a student, this is the right machine to buy as a present (but notice the extra memory + Bluetooth build-to-order options). For an adult I'd go with a 14" iBook, or a PowerBook. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 22:21:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318222128.37749.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: > > >Here's a National Geographic News article on the > >possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not > > > > > A man on Mars by 1985! > Where is Spiro when you really need him... Agnew died suddenly on September 17, 1996, a few hours after being hospitalized and diagnosed with an advanced, yet to that point undetected, form of leukemia. He is buried in Dulaney Valley Memorial Gardens, a cemetery in Timonium, Maryland, outside of Baltimore, Maryland. 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 18 22:36:50 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:36:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters In-Reply-To: <044e01c52baf$401cfd40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:40 PM 18/03/05 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > >>update? > >Sorry, I meant upload. Excuse me if I boggle at someone who can consider uploading and not cryonics. Keith Henson From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 18 23:00:34 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:00:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: <20050318200207.49740.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318200207.49740.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423B5D92.3020801@neopax.com> Al Brooks wrote: > If freedom is so uber-important then why do we waste time hunched in > front of a keyboard, tapping words into cyperspace that have no value > in the sum total of things? Why do we spend so much time griping about > how we don't have enough freedom when the time could be used to > actually BE free? So many are waiting for their ship to come in, and > when they reach retirement age they are old but "now I've got it made > in the shade-- I'm in my Golden Years, with metamucil to push some of > the dross out". Or a 60 year old baby boomer lady who dresses in > teenage clothes and thinks, "I'm so young and pretty", when she's got > jowls hanging off her face. > So, uh, maybe we don't hold freedom as dear as we think we do? > Communicating is the key to changing the world. Sometimes with big ideas but more often just passing on a small datum. As for freedom, I value its fruits not the abstract idea in itself. As for those 60yr old wannabe teenagers, there is the support we need to push for anti-ageing tech and the Transhuman vision. It's a question of spreading the message and convincing them its real and not a joke of a geek fantasy. -- 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 Fri Mar 18 23:01:25 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:01:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live Higher & Longer ? In-Reply-To: <20050318201553.51644.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318201553.51644.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423B5DC5.4040207@neopax.com> Ian Goddard wrote: >Perhaps the new finding that the people in this study >living in mountains lived longer than others living >below them [1] might be related to the surprising >findings of increased longevity associated with >low-dose radiation exposure [2] given that background >radiation increases with elevation. [3] > > > Or maybe it's healthier to piss downstream and drink upstream -- 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 john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Mar 18 23:03:10 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:03:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) Message-ID: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> Joseph writes: >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"). ... 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." My apologies for being unclear, but the point I found fascinating is that Mr. Herbert does not optimistically assume that the engineered religion would stay under the control of the engineers. The events in DUNE overwhelm the Bene Gesserit order, especially the Jihad that installs the God-Emperor. Their Missionaria Protectiva does not save them, it sows the seed from which the unexpected Messiah grows, the one man in the universe the sisterhood finds it cannot control. The nanotechnology and superintelligent Jupiter-brains might also escape the control of their creators. Indeed, the whole transhumanist effort seems to be based on the idea that, as the Singularity approaches, it will slip from human control into the hands of a child-race of ours, astrononmically smarter than man. Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that preaches and practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry to the weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a better nature to which to appeal. JCW From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 18 23:03:19 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:03:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: <20050318192843.91017.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318192843.91017.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423B5E37.4070904@neopax.com> Ian Goddard wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>Ian Goddard wrote: >> >> >> >>>Here's a National Geographic News article on the >>>possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not >>> >>> >>> >>A man on Mars by 1985! >>Where is Spiro when you really need him... >> >> > > > Right, albeit that disparity between previously >projected plans and their unfulfillment isn't so much >a measure of what was or is possible but of where our >priorities have been placed. > > > If the US cannot do it now or within the next 15yrs it's going to be someone else, probably the Chinese. Right now the US is at the height of its power with no rivals in sight. It won't stay that way. Maybe if $300billion had been earmarked for a Mars landing instead of a useless war I'd be more optimistic. -- 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 23:06:16 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:06:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] time is what you can't get back In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050318230617.16733.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> No one can accuse you of equivocating, Samantha. But as the collateral issue, let us suppose-- doing a conservative estimate-- some of those on this list will live healthy lives until they are 100, and then decline until are they are suspended or die. And suppose each person had spent a total of, say, five thousand hours on the web complaining they had not enough freedom and the government was out to 'get' them. Those five thousand hours could have been spent being free. That's all; I'm not probing the mysteries of god & the cosmos, only pointing out that perhaps we are each our own Enron, screwing ourselves over royally. >Almost no one takes anything seriously enough to make any difference. >You can't get extraordinary results by assuming your life and goals >aren't worth taking seriously. I run away when I encounter advice to >not take life itself seriously. >samantha --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Mar 18 23:22:51 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:22:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was atheism in decline) Message-ID: <200503182323.j2INNEE03221@tick.javien.com> Samantha asks: >Aren't all religions engineered? If I were a wag, I would say, certainly religion is engineered, merely not by any being inside creation. But I am not a wag, so I will answer the question soberly: no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, because the adults who tell their children of him do not actually think he exists. But, unlike Santa, people who preach the word of God actually and sincerely think it is the word of God, and those who revolutionize with religion attempt to modify an existing tradition to bring it into better alignment with a spiritual vision they believe to be the case. The fatigues, persecution and penury of religious revolution is, no pun intended, legendary. I might tell my child about Santa, but I am not going to be hanged to death on a Christmas tree defending the point. Heck, I would recant Santyism if they merely showed me the red-hot stockings, or held the cruelly-sharped candy-canes too near my eyes. No one dies a martyr's death defending snake-oil. No one embraces death to promote a confidence scheme in which they have no belief. If you look to the roots of religion, you find figures like Buddha and Mohammed and Jesus, not figures like Tom Eddison or the Wright Brothers. The Wright brothers did not claim to be inventing a system for restoring man to his ancient and pure right to flying. They were inventing something new. The prophets who revolutionized religion were all claiming either to fulfill a previous form of law, or to be restoring it to original purity. The one exception I can think of is a modern one: L. Ron Hubbard. I don't know the man, and I am not familiar with his doctrine, but the ugly rumor is that he invented his religion out of whole cloth, to fool the rubes. John C. Wright From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Mar 18 23:26:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers Message-ID: <20050318232648.38803.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Neil Halelamien wrote: > http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/ Checking the details... > While I am talking of what I mean, and before > arguing why this is so important, let me say exactly > what I mean by "make a copy of itself". I mean a > rapid-prototyping machine that can make all its > components other than: > Self-tapping steel screws > Brass bushes, > Lubricating grease, > Standard electronic chips such as microcontrollers > and optical sensors, > A standard plug-in low-voltage power brick, and > Stepper motors. > This list is an attempt to make a compromise between > immediately-achievable technology and the desirable > aim of shortening or eliminating it altogether. *cough*yaright*cough* True, it is desirable not to do more work than necessary; unfortunately, true self-replication does not all that degree of shortcutting. Screws and bushes should be easy to create; power bricks, not that much harder since they are explicitly fabricating electrical components. Grease is allowable as an exception: it's enough of a raw, bulk material that it could qualify as feedstock. Motors and chips are the real killer. Granted, it's hard to create them with the same kinds of tools that one would, say, make panels and rods with. But that doesn't mean one can credibly claim "self-replication" by leaving those out. (Indeed, I recall an earlier effort that managed to self-replicate *everything*, including the motors, except for the chips.) Which is probably why any real effort towards self-replication should focus on an ability to build the tools that can automatically build motors and chips: everything else is easier in comparison. (Nor does this require advanced lithography: if you can accept a low clock rate and high power consumption - self-rep doesn't always have to be fast and efficient - then one could take large slices of silicon and weld copper traces onto it, and force-implant impurities where transistors are needed.) From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Mar 19 01:51:15 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:51:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000d01c52c26$23332160$0100a8c0@kevin> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 5:03 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) > Joseph writes: > > >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"). ... 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." > > My apologies for being unclear, but the point I found fascinating is that Mr. > Herbert does not optimistically assume that the engineered religion would stay > under the control of the engineers. The events in DUNE overwhelm the Bene > Gesserit order, especially the Jihad that installs the God-Emperor. Their > Missionaria Protectiva does not save them, it sows the seed from which the > unexpected Messiah grows, the one man in the universe the sisterhood finds it > cannot control. > > The nanotechnology and superintelligent Jupiter-brains might also escape the > control of their creators. Indeed, the whole transhumanist effort seems to be > based on the idea that, as the Singularity approaches, it will slip from human > control into the hands of a child-race of ours, astrononmically smarter than man. > > Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of > morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: > what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before > they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and > uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? > > We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in > particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense > meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the > wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) > > My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that preaches and > practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry to the > weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a better nature > to which to appeal. > > JCW > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Thank you very much for that point. I was growing concerned that so many people were jockeying to show who was the smartest that my point was lost. It is amazing how many people can lose the big picture while they are concerning themselves with details. :-) From dirk at neopax.com Sat Mar 19 01:55:18 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:55:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <423B8686.3020107@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Joseph writes: > > > >>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"). ... 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." >> >> > >My apologies for being unclear, but the point I found fascinating is that Mr. >Herbert does not optimistically assume that the engineered religion would stay >under the control of the engineers. The events in DUNE overwhelm the Bene >Gesserit order, especially the Jihad that installs the God-Emperor. Their >Missionaria Protectiva does not save them, it sows the seed from which the >unexpected Messiah grows, the one man in the universe the sisterhood finds it >cannot control. > >The nanotechnology and superintelligent Jupiter-brains might also escape the >control of their creators. Indeed, the whole transhumanist effort seems to be >based on the idea that, as the Singularity approaches, it will slip from human >control into the hands of a child-race of ours, astrononmically smarter than man. > >Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of >morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: >what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before >they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and >uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? > >We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in >particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense >meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the >wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) > >My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that preaches and >practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry to the >weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a better nature >to which to appeal. > > You're correct - Asatru. Plus respect for family and elders. However, I think that a distinction should be made between being weak and being powerless. Weakness is reprehensible and is a selfmade quality. -- 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 05:24:42 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:24:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Live Higher & Longer ? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050319052442.49731.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ian Goddard wrote: > Perhaps the new finding that the people in this > study > living in mountains lived longer than others living > below them [1] might be related to the surprising > findings of increased longevity associated with > low-dose radiation exposure [2] given that > background > radiation increases with elevation. [3] Another factor one should consider to explain this correlation is that the lower air pressure at higher elevations reduces the amount of oxygen available to the body for use. Over time this would increase its efficiency at respiration. This in turn would probably reduce oxidative stress on bio-molecules (DNA, proteins, lipids/membranes, etc). Less oxygen tension in blood = less free radicals generated during respiration. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From harara at sbcglobal.net Sat Mar 19 18:40:29 2005 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Hara Ra) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:40:29 -0800 Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab le.rogers.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> These days, every time I look at web sites, my machine gets loaded with an insane amount of adbots and spybots, even on innocuous sites (hah!) like dictionary.com. The last straw came when my Google Toolbar vanished, along with the popup killer. I've tried Mozilla, and it has two characteristics I loathe. First, I couldn't get it to open new windows for each Google search items I click on, so I often have to redo the search, second, Mozilla, like AOL, seems set up to stick to the my system like glue or stepping on gum (or more odious sidewalk stuff) I'd like clues for a rather basic browser, one which will let me use Explorer when I want its fancy features, but most of my browsing is fine with no music, animations, etc, just static pages. Any suggestions? And where to get them? Many thanks. ================================== = Gregory Herald Coresun = = - nee - = Hara Ra (aka Gregory Yob) = = harara at sbcglobal.net = = 831 429 8637 = ================================== From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 19 03:01:09 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:01:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: <20050318200207.49740.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050318215903.03c5c880@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:02 PM 18/03/05 -0800, you wrote: >If freedom is so uber-important then why do we waste time hunched in front >of a keyboard, tapping words into cyperspace that have no value in the sum >total of things? snip I can answer that using evolutionary psychology. But I really doubt you would like the answer. Keith Henson "My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioural sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature." --Irwin Silverman, Psychology Department, York University, Toronto, Canada.[5] From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Mar 19 03:14:19 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:14:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars Colonies Coming Soon? In-Reply-To: <423B5E37.4070904@neopax.com> References: <20050318192843.91017.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> <423B5E37.4070904@neopax.com> Message-ID: <423B990B.9000401@humanenhancement.com> I'd hardly call a war that seems to have (granted, it's still early, but the trend is there in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Palestine) inaugurated a "domino effect" of democratization across the Middle East "useless". I would argue that is directly in the interests of the United States and the planet as a whole. Nonetheless, you make a good point about priorities. Perhaps if we diverted the money (which is actually closer to $150 billion, not $300 billion-- see http://costofwar.com, but even that's misleading because most of that money would have had to be spent anyway, even if the troops were in Kentucky rather than Iraq, as part of normal expenses) from something that was truly useless (some of those boondoggle scientific studies that routinely make the news, for starters) into space development, that would be a good thing... Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Dirk Bruere wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: > >> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>> Ian Goddard wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Here's a National Geographic News article on the >>>> possible future colonization of Mars. [1] Not >>>> >>>> >>> >>> A man on Mars by 1985! >>> Where is Spiro when you really need him... >>> >> >> >> >> Right, albeit that disparity between previously >> projected plans and their unfulfillment isn't so much >> a measure of what was or is possible but of where our >> priorities have been placed. >> >> > If the US cannot do it now or within the next 15yrs it's going to be > someone else, probably the Chinese. > Right now the US is at the height of its power with no rivals in sight. > It won't stay that way. > Maybe if $300billion had been earmarked for a Mars landing instead of > a useless war I'd be more optimistic. > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 03:54:59 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:54:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050319035459.98474.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Agreed. And I know all the twists. Still, if I were a libertarian I wouldn't spend a second hunched over a keyboard, I'd be out living a life as I define a real life. IMO freedom is a necessary fiction, like religion it smooths out the rough edges. ----------------------------------------- BTW my attorney got so drunk tonight he just stole his own wallet. > Brian Lee wrote: > One of the sad bits about freedom is that when we > have it we are free to > waste it dressing like teenyboppers or watching > brain-wasting tv or typing > away to cyberspace. That's how you know you are > free, when you are free to > "waste" it. > > BAL > > >From: Al Brooks > >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to > ourselves than Enron > >Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:07 -0800 (PST) > > > >If freedom is so uber-important then why do we > waste time hunched in front > >of a keyboard, tapping words into cyperspace that > have no value in the sum > >total of things? Why do we spend so much time > griping about how we don't > >have enough freedom when the time could be used to > actually BE free? So > >many are waiting for their ship to come in, and > when they reach retirement > >age they are old but "now I've got it made in the > shade-- I'm in my Golden > >Years, with metamucil to push some of the dross > out". Or a 60 year old baby > >boomer lady who dresses in teenage clothes and > thinks, "I'm so young and > >pretty", when she's got jowls hanging off her face. > >So, uh, maybe we don't hold freedom as dear as we > think we do? > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources > site! > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 04:05:20 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:05:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050319040520.9519.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Well said. Anyway, growing up I heard, "you're only as young as you feel". So a guy lying on his deathbed sits up on his elbows and whispers to the nurse, "by Jove, it's just like being at the Junior Prom"? I used to hear all the time, "you're just as pretty as you feel". So the bride of Frankenstein is just as pretty as she feels? Hmm, maybe. Maybe not. ------------------------------------------- It is so cold tonight that all the attorneys in town have their hands in their own pockets. > As for those 60yr old wannabe teenagers, there is > the support we need to > push for anti-ageing tech and the Transhuman vision. > It's a question of > spreading the message and convincing them its real > and not a joke of a > geek fantasy. > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Mar 19 04:29:31 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:29:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050318171411.90600.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050318171411.90600.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423BAAAB.5070902@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >There are many privately owned airliners in the world today. As 9-11 >demonstrated, each and every one of them is a WMD. When do you start >lobbying for state ownership of all airliners? > > There is, of course, a difference between state ownership of something and regulation of that thing. Airliners are not _only_ WMD's... they can, however be perverted to that purpose and are thus regulated. Aerosoled anthrax and fission bombs have only one purpose, and thus are rightfully kept from the hands of individuals. >When WMDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have WMDs. > Except when WMD's are outlawed for _some_, who cannot necessarily be trusted with them. Like you and me. Many's the time I wish I had a neutron bomb or two I could hurl at U Cal Berkeley, for instance... ;-) Frankly, I trust our government to use its WMD stockpiles responsibly, with restraint, and in the national interest. Considering such things haven't been used (by us) since 1945, I think it's not a completely unreasonable position. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 19 20:37:30 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:37:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <200503182323.j2INNEE03221@tick.javien.com> References: <200503182323.j2INNEE03221@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <06d6c3fd6c2cbac87e5551aeabf4c4f7@mac.com> On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:22 PM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Samantha asks: > >> Aren't all religions engineered? > > If I were a wag, I would say, certainly religion is engineered, merely > not by > any being inside creation. That would be a-historical and dishonest. Your post seems to miss the point I was attempting to make. Religions do not spring up fully formed straight out of revelation of some kind. The initial revelation/vision/insight is shaped and molded to attempt to fit the times and needs of the people and, more cynically, of those who would claim to be the elite. The practices of the religion and its impact are often consciously shaped to some extent by the few leaders and prophets and so on and further modified in actual practice, drift and mutation. The conscious part, often with very good intentions and conviction of doing the work of God, is the engineering. I wasn't using "engineered" in the sense of "totally made up" as you seem to have taken my remark. > > But I am not a wag, so I will answer the question soberly: no, > Virginia, there > is no Santa Claus, because the adults who tell their children of him > do not > actually think he exists. But, unlike Santa, people who preach the > word of God > actually and sincerely think it is the word of God, and those who > revolutionize > with religion attempt to modify an existing tradition to bring it into > better > alignment with a spiritual vision they believe to be the case. > > The fatigues, persecution and penury of religious revolution is, no pun > intended, legendary. I might tell my child about Santa, but I am not > going to be > hanged to death on a Christmas tree defending the point. Heck, I would > recant > Santyism if they merely showed me the red-hot stockings, or held the > cruelly-sharped candy-canes too near my eyes. No one dies a martyr's > death > defending snake-oil. No one embraces death to promote a confidence > scheme in > which they have no belief. > > If you look to the roots of religion, you find figures like Buddha and > Mohammed > and Jesus, not figures like Tom Eddison or the Wright Brothers. The > Wright > brothers did not claim to be inventing a system for restoring man to > his ancient > and pure right to flying. They were inventing something new. The > prophets who > revolutionized religion were all claiming either to fulfill a previous > form of > law, or to be restoring it to original purity. The new is often presented in relation to the old especially as the fulfillment of the highest essence of the old. > - samantha From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Mar 19 20:44:07 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:44:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy is Universal - Global and Worldwide! In-Reply-To: <423A256A.8020401@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050317221627.97750.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> <423A256A.8020401@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050319144236.05272068@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >>Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is >>self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. Spot on! Extropy is global - worldwide. N 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 19 20:53:28 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:53:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A nonZen story In-Reply-To: <20050318214237.GN17303@leitl.org> References: <4239D839.8090502@neopax.com> <200503180157.j2I1vVE26470@tick.javien.com> <20050318214237.GN17303@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:05:17PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> On apple laptops a quite serviceable IBook G4 goes for about $800 in >> the US now. That is with built in wireless. This compares quite >> favorably with inexpensive windows laptops. Considering the amount of >> useable software pre-installed this is a quite good price. > > You'll need BTO Bluetooth and at least 512 MByte more memory which > will set > you back a bit more -- but it's still cheaper than a Pentium M box. > Also, 12" is a bit small, and the display quality frankly sucks -- but > otherwise it's a great machine. Depends on the use of course. Why do i need bluetooth unless I want to use wireless keyboards/mice or talk to a bluetooth phone? In any case the module is around $70. The base memory is quite serviceable in a mac compared to a PC as unix handles virtual memory and i/o a lot better than windows from my anecdotal experience. in any case the additional memory can be had for about $120 last time I looked. So it is still under $1000. > > If you have a kid or a student, this is the right machine to buy as a > present > (but notice the extra memory + Bluetooth build-to-order options). > > For an adult I'd go with a 14" iBook, or a PowerBook. > I like my 12" PowerBook as it is more convenient to carry and use in places where space can be at a premium. If it was my only/primary machine then I would agree for a relatively heavy user. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Mar 19 20:58:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:58:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity In-Reply-To: <20050318194015.69656.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> There's a debate in the U.S. about social security. The introduction of birth control pills in 1960 caused a huge dip in fertility that threatens the future retirement system. But it occurred to me that a whole lot of nations have a birth rate waaay lower than the U.S. does currently. The Population references Bureau reports that Armenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Andorra, Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Macao, Russia, Slovenia, and Spain all have total fertility rates at or lower than 1.2, and much of Europe is only a little higher. Seems like these outfits would have a muuch greater problem on their hands than the U.S. Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing to deal with it? Importing legions of young workers? From where? Africa? Rural Afghanistan? spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 19 21:12:23 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:12:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:03 PM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Joseph writes: > >> 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"). ... 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." > > My apologies for being unclear, but the point I found fascinating is > that Mr. > Herbert does not optimistically assume that the engineered religion > would stay > under the control of the engineers. The events in DUNE overwhelm the > Bene > Gesserit order, especially the Jihad that installs the God-Emperor. > Their > Missionaria Protectiva does not save them, it sows the seed from which > the > unexpected Messiah grows, the one man in the universe the sisterhood > finds it > cannot control. No religion I know of, engineered or not, has stayed under the control of its founder or true to its initial vision. Most of the non-founders, especially after a generation or two, seem to enshroud, mummify and dogmatize the form and lose touch with or never really fully grasp the essence. over time the layers of form even make the essence much more difficult to obtain. > > The nanotechnology and superintelligent Jupiter-brains might also > escape the > control of their creators. Indeed, the whole transhumanist effort > seems to be > based on the idea that, as the Singularity approaches, it will slip > from human > control into the hands of a child-race of ours, astrononmically > smarter than man. If they did not escape the control of lesser minds that would be a great misfortune in my view. > > Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic > rules of > morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then > becomes: > what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, > before > they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and > uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? Perhaps the question could be more properly put as how we teach/lead/enable such creations to understand the things at the original heart of religions. Trying to teach them some largely dead mass of entombing layers extruded over generations hardly seem useful. > > We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in > particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No > offense > meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the > wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) I do not think that agnostics are more prone to such things than those who are more credulous. > > My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that > preaches and > practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry > to the > weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a > better nature > to which to appeal. > Then certainly do not teach them Christianity as actually practiced by the majority of its leaders and followers throughout its history! - samantha From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Mar 19 21:18:27 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:18:27 -0800 Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.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 Hara Ra > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:40 AM > > These days, every time I look at web sites, my machine gets > loaded with an > insane amount of adbots and spybots, even on innocuous sites (hah!) like > dictionary.com. The last straw came when my Google Toolbar > vanished, along > with the popup killer. > > I've tried Mozilla, and it has two characteristics I loathe. First, I > couldn't get it to open new windows for each Google search items I click > on, so I often have to redo the search, second, Mozilla, like AOL, seems > set up to stick to the my system like glue or stepping on gum (or more > odious sidewalk stuff) > > I'd like clues for a rather basic browser, one which will let me use > Explorer when I want its fancy features, but most of my browsing is fine > with no music, animations, etc, just static pages. Try Opera ( http://www.opera.com ). Alternately, download SpyBot ( http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html ), employ standard OTC virus software like Norton, use the popup blocking feature of the Google Toolbar, and use Windows Update often (or set it to automatic). The combination of those four does a good job of keeping the most common junk out of IE. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 19 21:37:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:37:58 -0800 Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40854b872fd6d446ddea2cceed2131d7@mac.com> On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Hara Ra wrote: > These days, every time I look at web sites, my machine gets loaded > with an insane amount of adbots and spybots, even on innocuous sites > (hah!) like dictionary.com. The last straw came when my Google Toolbar > vanished, along with the popup killer. > > I've tried Mozilla, and it has two characteristics I loathe. First, I > couldn't get it to open new windows for each Google search items I > click on, so I often have to redo the search, second, Mozilla, like > AOL, seems set up to stick to the my system like glue or stepping on > gum (or more odious sidewalk stuff) > > I'd like clues for a rather basic browser, one which will let me use > Explorer when I want its fancy features, but most of my browsing is > fine with no music, animations, etc, just static pages. > > Any suggestions? And where to get them? Many thanks. > > 1) get the heck off windows for your browsing whenever possible; 2) never ever use IE, especially on windows. besides being a major known infection vector it is grossly dated relative to other browsers such as FireFox. in FireFox shift-click on a link opens it in a new window and ctrl-click opens it in a new tab. So i don't see why you had the problem reported above. From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Mar 19 21:53:26 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:53:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Hara Ra wrote: >I've tried Mozilla, and it has two characteristics I loathe. First, I >couldn't get it to open new windows for each Google search items I click >on, so I often have to redo the search, second, Mozilla, like AOL, seems >set up to stick to the my system like glue or stepping on gum (or more >odious sidewalk stuff) > >I'd like clues for a rather basic browser, one which will let me use >Explorer when I want its fancy features, but most of my browsing is fine >with no music, animations, etc, just static pages. Did you try mozilla, or Firefox? Firefox is just-a-browser, a spinoff of the mozilla suite. There's no adware/nagware bundled, just the browser. Visit www.mozilla.org and a download box for your system will appear. Clicking on link with the middle button opens them into another tab, in background. I usually quickly click the first four or five results, and then look at the pages. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 19 21:55:08 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:55:08 +0000 Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:40:29 -0800, Hara Ra wrote: > These days, every time I look at web sites, my machine gets loaded with an > insane amount of adbots and spybots, even on innocuous sites (hah!) like > dictionary.com. The last straw came when my Google Toolbar vanished, along > with the popup killer. > > I've tried Mozilla, and it has two characteristics I loathe. First, I > couldn't get it to open new windows for each Google search items I click > on, so I often have to redo the search, second, Mozilla, like AOL, seems > set up to stick to the my system like glue or stepping on gum (or more > odious sidewalk stuff) > As you have realised it is almost suicidal to use IE for web browsing these days. Even if you load up with all the software for antivirus, antispyware, antipopups, etc. some will still get through. I use Firefox all the time for browsing and only use IE to get patches from MS. Firefox can be customised to operate any way you like. It has built-in options and dozens of extensions that can be installed. You will have to spend some time learning all the new stuff but it is worth it. Specifically, left-click on Google search results will normally open the link in the same tab, then you use the Back button to go back to the search results page. As Samantha said you can also easily open the link in a new tab or a new window if you prefer. There are lots of other options, but this is probably the easiest for you. Best wishes, BillK From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 23:26:39 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy is Universal - Global and Worldwide! In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050319232639.5011.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Well not quite YET. >Spot on! Extropy is global - worldwide. >N __________________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 20 00:18:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:18:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320001822.19231.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Agreed. And I know all the twists. Still, if I were a > libertarian I wouldn't spend a second hunched over a > keyboard, I'd be out living a life as I define a real > life. > IMO freedom is a necessary fiction, like religion it > smooths out the rough edges. > ----------------------------------------- > BTW my attorney got so drunk tonight he just stole his > own wallet. Looks like he has a fool of a client. 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 Sun Mar 20 00:26:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320002614.20691.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >There are many privately owned airliners in the world today. As 9-11 > >demonstrated, each and every one of them is a WMD. When do you start > >lobbying for state ownership of all airliners? > > > > > > There is, of course, a difference between state ownership of > something > and regulation of that thing. Airliners are not _only_ WMD's... they > can, however be perverted to that purpose and are thus regulated. > Aerosoled anthrax and fission bombs have only one purpose, and thus > are rightfully kept from the hands of individuals. On the contrary, fission bombs have plenty of purposes. They are dandy for spacecraft propulsion. However, rights are not defined by whether one needs a thing. > > >When WMDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have WMDs. > > > > Except when WMD's are outlawed for _some_, who cannot necessarily be > trusted with them. Like you and me. Many's the time I wish I had a > neutron bomb or two I could hurl at U Cal Berkeley, for instance... > ;-) > > Frankly, I trust our government to use its WMD stockpiles > responsibly, with restraint, and in the national interest. > Considering such things haven't been used (by us) since 1945, I > think it's not a completely unreasonable position. All you know is that politicians won't use them, much, when in sight of the public, much. You have no proof that others would be irresponsible with them if their rights were recognised. Contrary to the nightmare scenarios of the state, the record is that while governments have not only nuked two cities in wartime, they have nuked quite a number of other places that once was the property of people who were not those governments (formerly inhabited pacific and alaskan islands, for example). Comparatively, despite being suspected by some of having at least 12 and possibly as many as 100 backpack nukes, global terrorists have not used one yet. By this comparison, terrorist groups are more responsible with nuclear weapons than governments are. 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 Sun Mar 20 00:33:44 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:33:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <423B8686.3020107@neopax.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423B8686.3020107@neopax.com> Message-ID: <423CC4E8.5020906@humanenhancement.com> No, no, Dirk. He said it had to both preach *and practice* those things. Strike Asatru from the list. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Dirk Bruere wrote: > john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > >> My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that >> preaches and >> practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and >> chivalry to the >> weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a >> better nature >> to which to appeal. >> > You're correct - Asatru. > Plus respect for family and elders. > > However, I think that a distinction should be made between being weak > and being powerless. Weakness is reprehensible and is a selfmade quality. > From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 20 00:36:37 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> Message-ID: <423CC595.7040700@humanenhancement.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:03 PM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > No religion I know of, engineered or not, has stayed under the > control of its founder or true to its initial vision. Most of the > non-founders, especially after a generation or two, seem to enshroud, > mummify and dogmatize the form and lose touch with or never really > fully grasp the essence. over time the layers of form even make the > essence much more difficult to obtain. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of it, but wouldn't Scientology fall into this category? How has it strayed from L. Mother Hubbard's original vision? 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Mar 20 00:41:11 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:41:11 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050317081550.034c1030@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318011527.034c2230@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050318173525.034f2420@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <6.0.3.0.1.20050319103328.02c949e0@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I like Opera. It's quite configurable. I can make it show no pictures at all. :) Now *that* is worth something on a slow dialup. And so far I like Galeon very much as well. Regards, MB On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Hara Ra wrote: > I'd like clues for a rather basic browser, one which will let me use > Explorer when I want its fancy features, but most of my browsing is fine > with no music, animations, etc, just static pages. > > Any suggestions? And where to get them? Many thanks. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 20 00:47:39 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:47:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320004739.76657.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I realize that most members of this list, if not all (as well as myself) recognise what a great resource the National Geographic Society is, and has been over the years. The quality of their publications and programming is stunning and informative. I have enjoyed their magazines and programs quite a bit over the years, particularly the highly detailed fold out maps they frequently publish in NG (no, Spike, the nude native girls are only an occasional feature). However, something has come to pass with NG that is really incensing me. NG has made it a mission to improve geographic education in the US, and sponsors the National Geographic Bees for school age children. Last years winner was a boy from the New Hampshire town of Francestown who happens to be homeschooled. This is not an accident, as home schooled children regularly take many top placements in this annual competition, which has helped significantly to promote the idea that homeschooling produces quality educated children, contrary to the bible-addled backwoods hick that the NEA likes to promote. This year, NG has a new rule that bans all homeschooled children from the Geography Bee competition. This is not just prejudiced, bigoted, and discriminatory, it is a violation of the 14th amendment. It is apparently in response to NEA pressure, which sees homeschooling and education vochers as a threat to its agenda to teach its socialist/statist ideas to all of Americas children. The NEA is responsible for promoting the Geography Bee in schools and influences buying decisions for school district purchasing of geographic education materials. As such I am part of a group of folks who are announcing a complete boycott of all National Geographic products until this policy changes. This means no tv programs, no magazines, no NG sponsored ecotourism, etc. You are encouraged to communicate your own disapproval of NGs actions to its leadership, which you can find a list of at: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/about/masthead.html the phone number for National Geographic headquarters is 202-857-7000. (Hit (3) to get the staff directory). You can email the NG with your own opinions of their discrimination at: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/community/email.html This is an issue that you can have an enormous impact on by copying the above text into an email to your local newspaper's "letters to the editor" mailbox and posting it to some of your favorite lists, fora, or websites. Thanks for your help. 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 Sun Mar 20 01:36:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:36:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320013608.15935.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > > As you have realised it is almost suicidal to use IE for web browsing > these days. Even if you load up with all the software for antivirus, > antispyware, antipopups, etc. some will still get through. > > I use Firefox all the time for browsing and only use IE to get > patches from MS. > > > Firefox can be customised to operate any way you like. It has > built-in > options and dozens of extensions that can be installed. You will have > to spend some time learning all the new stuff but it is worth it. > I use both IE and Firefox. I keep my virus definitions up to date, I use a firewall, and I use anti-pop-up and anti-spyware tools. I also regularly update all my MS things that are recommended. I have few problems. The occasional pop-up gets through when I'm reading news at drudgereport.com, for U of Pheonix Online or something else through "tribalfusion", which imho is the realy spam terrorist of popups. I haven't had a virus or worm attack in quite a long time. Yahoo mail is very good at filtering those out of my mail and my AV software handles website related stuff fine. Ironically I just got a popup when I went to corporatewatch.org.... 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 sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 20 02:30:15 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:30:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > The nanotechnology and superintelligent Jupiter-brains might also escape the > control of their creators. Indeed, the whole transhumanist effort seems to be > based on the idea that, as the Singularity approaches, it will slip from human > control into the hands of a child-race of ours, astrononmically smarter than man. Different transhumanists have different ideas about this. Certainly that was my plan, once upon a time, when superintelligence was a separate and mysterious magisterium to me. Surely I do not believe that humans will still walk the Earth a million years hence - one way or another. But it is no longer my plan to personally and deliberately carry out this transition, at least not directly. Speaking on behalf of the human species, we are not ready to be a parent. Astronomically smarter than human doesn't take a terribly huge amount of improvement. I no longer think that artificial superintelligence needs to be inscrutable. > Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of > morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: > what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before > they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and > uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? Yes, no, and no. I'm not just talking about the need to build artificial superintelligences that conform to the laws of probability theory. No child of mine will ever cower before an imaginary God. It is beneath the dignity of human beings and it is beneath the dignity of our descendants. If the lightning is beautiful, then let us see the beauty in electricity without need for thunder deities; for if we cannot learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty indeed. But I'm not going to try to hardcode that, not in a child nor in an AI. As an atheist, I have a simple, matter-of-fact confidence that religionists once had and relinquished long ago. I don't think I need to load the dice for my answer to win. All I need is to set in motion the dynamics that seek truth, i.e., some computable approximation of Solomonoff induction. If there were the tiniest shred of truth to religion, that would be enough to uncover it. If you have even a droplet of honest belief left, not just empty excuses for a faith you lost long ago, you will not ask me to load an AI's dice in favor of your pet theory. Let the truth will out. > We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in > particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense > meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the > wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) Before I go around creating a child, I think I shall take a stab at plain vanilla Bayesian superintelligence. I am not sure I would take quite the same plain vanilla approach to creating a child, but then I'm not ready to be a father. There is a proper order to the mastery of adult arts. Before the creation of a child comes the casting of simpler sorceries. > My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that preaches and > practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry to the > weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a better nature > to which to appeal. Your well-meant suggestion is refused. When you yourself - someday, if you live and we survive - acquire the knowledge necessary to create a child of the human species, or even a Bayesian, you will understand. You have not the knowledge, this day, to relate actions to their consequences. Who are you to design another mind, when your own thoughts remain mysteries to you? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 20 03:39:37 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:39:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand Message-ID: <423CF079.4050008@humanenhancement.com> While manning a Transhumanism exhibitor table at a science fiction convention (LunaCon) today, someone made an interesting point during one of many very interesting discussions I've had this weekend. This person pretty much agrees with the goals of Transhumanism. He's signed up for cryonic suspension, is on a LE regimine, and has a PhD in artificial intelligence, contemplating a move into biomechanical interfacing. He buys into the idea that we should use technology to improve ourselves. He just doesn't like the term "Transhumanism" (and he's very familiar with it). What struck me was his reason. He, being an afficianado of Ayn Rand, is very much taken by what he called "man-worship", and he claims that that is contrary to the idea that we should and can surpass humanity, aspiring to being Post-Human. Not being all that familiar with Objectivism, I thought I'd toss that out here for comment. I honestly didn't know how to respond to that argument, not being an Objectivist myself, but I figured there might be more than a few here, and I put it to y'all to hash out (assuming it means anything at all...). 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 Sun Mar 20 03:30:30 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:30:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050320002614.20691.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050320002614.20691.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423CEE56.30703@humanenhancement.com> Ridiculous. You make such a claim based on terrorist groups being "suspected" of having such weapons? Now you're just being silly. 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: > Comparatively, despite being suspected by some of having at >least 12 and possibly as many as 100 backpack nukes, global terrorists >have not used one yet. By this comparison, terrorist groups are more >responsible with nuclear weapons than governments are. > > From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 20 03:39:37 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:39:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand Message-ID: <423CF079.4050008@humanenhancement.com> While manning a Transhumanism exhibitor table at a science fiction convention (LunaCon) today, someone made an interesting point during one of many very interesting discussions I've had this weekend. This person pretty much agrees with the goals of Transhumanism. He's signed up for cryonic suspension, is on a LE regimine, and has a PhD in artificial intelligence, contemplating a move into biomechanical interfacing. He buys into the idea that we should use technology to improve ourselves. He just doesn't like the term "Transhumanism" (and he's very familiar with it). What struck me was his reason. He, being an afficianado of Ayn Rand, is very much taken by what he called "man-worship", and he claims that that is contrary to the idea that we should and can surpass humanity, aspiring to being Post-Human. Not being all that familiar with Objectivism, I thought I'd toss that out here for comment. I honestly didn't know how to respond to that argument, not being an Objectivist myself, but I figured there might be more than a few here, and I put it to y'all to hash out (assuming it means anything at all...). 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 19:29:18 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:29:18 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <000301c52bef$bba49230$7db51b97@administxl09yj> References: <20050317191500.6F6FC57EBA@finney.org> <000301c52bef$bba49230$7db51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <8d71341e05032011294af1232d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:48 +0100, scerir wrote: > The problem is, however, that inertia (as a reaction force > to acceleration, or rotation) occurs at the same moment > that acceleration, or rotation, is applied to the > specific object. Thus, Mach principle should imply > a sort of instantaneous back-reaction propagating field, > from the distant stars to the specific object, involving > superluminal velocities. (As Hal was, perhaps, meaning). I thought general relativity agreed with that idea, though, in the form of frame dragging? So if a spaceship is trying to accelerate, the presence of massive objects nearby will increase the spaceship's effective inertia (unless they're moving/accelerating in the direction the ship is trying to go)? - Russell From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Mar 20 04:46:01 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:46:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Great question References: <20050318205835.63382.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004d01c52d07$b7ae6d90$0100a8c0@kevin> Because they see more of a benefit of having troops where they are, than they see from sending out those astronauts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Brooks To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Great question Why? Because they value life. Except those lives far far away; or lives on death row; or lives of those caught in the drug war. They value unborn life, but after the kiddies are born we can later send them to mediocre schools, or lousy churches or feed them bad food. However we cannot blame politicians because they 'are sinners and aren't we all'. They have all the bases covered. They are constructionists busily erecting sand castles. It seems politicians have little trouble with sending hundreds of solders to their deaths irrespective of the desires of those solders and for no demonstrable benefit (see Iraq) and yet there's terrible trouble with letting a few astronauts take the risks they would desire to take. What's up with that? ~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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 20 06:25:06 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:25:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315195121.01ee09a0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050315195121.01ee09a0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <423D1742.8030900@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:57 AM 3/13/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >> 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. We are at odds about what the math here actually *says*. I don't regard the sequiturs (the points above where I say, "it does not follow") as things that are a trivial distance from previously accomplished math. They seem to me almost wholly unrelated to all work on Aumann Agreement Theorems done so far. Since state information is irrelevant to our dispute, it would seem that we disagree about the results of a computation. Here's at least one semisolid mathematical result that I scribbled down in a couple of lines of calculus left to the reader, a result which I intuitively expected to find, and which I would have found to be a much more compelling argument in 2003. It is that, when two Bayesianitarians disagree about probabilities P and ~P, they can always immediately improve the expectation of the sum of their Bayesian scores by averaging together their probability estimates for P and ~P, *regardless of the real value*. Let the average probability equal X. Let the individual pre-averaging probabilities equal X+d and X-d. Let the actual objective frequency equal P. The function: f(d) = p*[log(x+d) + log(x-d)] + (1-p)*[log(1-x-d) + log(1-x+d)] has a maximum at d=0, regardless of the value of p. f'(0)=0 and f''(0) is negative. If my math hasn't misled me there's a couple of other points where f'(d)=0 but they're presumably inflection points or minima or some such. I didn't bother checking which is why I call this a semisolid result. Therefore, if two Bayesianitarian *altruists* find that they disagree, and they have no better algorithm to resolve their disagreement, they should immediately average together their probability estimates. I would have found this argument compelling in 2003 because at that time, I was thinking in terms of a "Categorical Imperative" foundation for probability theory, i.e., a rule that, if all observers follow it, will maximize their collective Bayesian score. I thought this solved some anthropic problems, but I was mistaken, though it did shed light. Never mind, long story. To try and translate my problem with my former foundation without going into a full-blown lecture on the Way: Suppose that a creationist comes to me and is genuinely willing to update his belief in evolution from ~0 to .5, providing that I update my belief from ~1 to .5. This will necessarily improve the expectation of the sum of our Bayesian scores. But: 1) I can't just change my beliefs any time I please. I can't cause myself not to believe in evolution by an act of will. I can't look up at a blue sky and believe it to be green. I account this a strength of a rationalist. 2) Evolution is still correct regardless of what the two of us do about our probability assignments. I would need to update my belief because of a cause that I believe to be uncorrelated with the state of the actual world. 3) Just before I make my Bayesianitarian act of sacrifice, I will know even as I do so, correctly and rationally, that evolution is true. And afterward I'll still know, deep down, whatever my lips say... 4) I have other beliefs about biology that would be inconsistent with a probability assignment to evolution of 0.5. 5) I do wish to be an altruist, but in the service of that wish, it is rather more important that I get my beliefs right about evolution than that J. Random Creationist do so, because JRC is less likely to like blow up the world an' stuff if he gets his cognitive science wrong. If I were an utterly selfish Bayesianitarian, how would I maximize only my own Bayesian score? It is this question that is the foundation of *probability* theory, the what-we-deep-down-know-will-happen-next, whatever decisions we make in the service of altruistic utilities. Point (2) from my previous post should now also be clearer: >> 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. Two Aumann agents, to whom other agents' probability estimates are highly informative with respect to the state of the actual world, could also theoretically follow the average-together-probability-estimates algorithm and thereby, yes, improve their summed Bayesian scores from the former status quo - but they would do worse that way than by following the actual Aumann rules, which do not lend credence as such to the other agent's beliefs, but simply treat those beliefs as another kind of Bayesian signal about the state of the actual world. Thus, if you want to claim a mathematical result about an expected individual benefit (let alone optimality!) for rationalists deliberately *trying* to agree with each other, I think you need to specify what algorithm they should follow to agreement - Aumann agent? Bayesianitarian altruist? In the absence of any specification of how rationalists try to agree with each other, I don't see how you could prove this would be an expected individual improvement. Setting both your probability estimates to zero is an algorithm for trying to agree, but it will not improve your Bayesian score. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From david at ideoware.com Sun Mar 20 20:43:57 2005 From: david at ideoware.com (David McFadzean) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:43:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] test, please ignore Message-ID: <423DE08D.7060306@ideoware.com> testing 1..2..3 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 20 04:31:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:31:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320043112.76870.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:03 PM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > > > No religion I know of, engineered or not, has stayed under the > > control of its founder or true to its initial vision. Most of the > > non-founders, especially after a generation or two, seem to > enshroud, > > mummify and dogmatize the form and lose touch with or never really > > fully grasp the essence. over time the layers of form even make > > the essence much more difficult to obtain. > > > I don't have any first-hand knowledge of it, but wouldn't Scientology > fall into this category? How has it strayed from L. Mother Hubbard's > original vision? Yes, and the seventh day adventists also fall into this category, as they have an organization specifically in charge of editing their version of the bible to reflect changes in organization orthodoxy. They are clearly engaged in long term social engineering. The Council of Nicea, back in the fourth century, was another episode in which a lot of more authentic documents, like the gospels of mary magdalene and of the apostle Thomas, were excluded as apocrypha in favor of gospels written third or fourth hand many decades after the events written about. Since then, generations of hand copying prior to the invention of the printing press left open the possibility for significant editing of the gospel. These sorts of activities can be used either to filter out pernicious information viruses or to inject them in. 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 hal at finney.org Sun Mar 20 19:47:52 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:47:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust) Message-ID: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 10:54 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >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. I don't necessarily think that good use of criticism is the only thing that makes science work. I don't actually know why science works as well as it does. But its track record is clearly very strong. Science makes progress. The scientific picture today is far more accurate than that of 100 years ago, which itself was far better than the one 100 years earlier. As far as "intellectual consensus" vs "science", what is the difference? What would be examples of communities where we could identify an intellectual consensus, but they would not be considered scientific? Well, one obvious possibility is mathematics. That is not technically a branch of science, but they do make similar progress. Major puzzles of the past, such as the four color theorem or Fermat's last theorem, are now solved. So this would be a good example of another area where I would agree that we should respect the intellectual consensus. Another possibility is Christian religion. There is an intellectual community of Christians, but I don't know if I would defer to their expertise. Have they made progress? Is the intellectual understanding of Christianity today significantly better than that 100 years ago? I'm doubtful, but it's not an area I know much about. The bottom line is that I would judge whether another (non "scientific") intellectual community deserves respect based on whether it is making visible progress, from my layman's perspective. This may not be a perfect rule; it may exclude some communities which deserve respect, but it looks to me to be a reasonable guideline. And my rule has plenty of bite, even if it is limited. There are elements of scientific consensus which all of us have problems with. Figuring out how to deal with those is a hard problem. Later we can decide how much we can expand the rule to other intellectual communities. > 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? I was addressing the temptation to pick and choose based on emotional like or dislike of the scientific consensus. We don't like the idea that humans cause global warming, so we think science must be wrong. We like evolution, so we think science must be right. We don't like the idea that cryonics won't work, so we think science must be wrong. It would probably be a mistake to try to judge which scientific fields are most amenable to criticism, and to decide which ones to believe on that basis. It's difficult for an outsider to observe this objectively. The only people in a position to know would be the scientists involved, and even then they would have a hard time comparing the situation in their field with those in other scientific areas. And it's possible that criticism isn't really the reason for scientific success. But that doesn't change the fact that science is genuinely successful. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 09:53:21 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:53:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity In-Reply-To: <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> References: <20050318194015.69656.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e050320015370bfe45@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:58:26 -0800, spike wrote: > > There's a debate in the U.S. about social security. The > introduction of birth control pills in 1960 caused a huge > dip in fertility that threatens the future retirement > system. But it occurred to me that a whole lot of > nations have a birth rate waaay lower than the U.S. > does currently. The Population references Bureau > reports that Armenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Andorra, > Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Macao, Russia, Slovenia, and > Spain all have total fertility rates at or lower than 1.2, > and much of Europe is only a little higher. Seems > like these outfits would have a muuch greater problem > on their hands than the U.S. Yes. > Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing > to deal with it? Very badly, I suspect. - Russell From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 20 04:53:24 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:53:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <423CC595.7040700@humanenhancement.com> References: <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050319234331.034e8ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:36 PM 19/03/05 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: >Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >>On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:03 PM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >> >>No religion I know of, engineered or not, has stayed under the control >>of its founder or true to its initial vision. Most of the non-founders, >>especially after a generation or two, seem to enshroud, mummify and >>dogmatize the form and lose touch with or never really fully grasp the >>essence. over time the layers of form even make the essence much more >>difficult to obtain. > > >I don't have any first-hand knowledge of it, but wouldn't Scientology fall >into this category? How has it strayed from L. Mother Hubbard's original >vision? Hubbard's vision was that of a vicious mind bending cult that prays on human psychological weaknesses left over from the stone age. It has not strayed far from its roots. A thumbnail of my experience is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson "sex drugs cults henson" (without the quotes) in Google will take you to an article that was inspired by my experiences with this cult. Keith Henson From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 16:03:15 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:03:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS WANT IMMORTALITY Message-ID: <470a3c520503200803394e8d1f@mail.gmail.com> When life is good, it is especially bitter to admit that it will end some day. And this simple truth encourages nouveaux riches Russians, called oligarchs here, to spend through the nose on all kinds of rejuvenation procedures and on scientific research to create the "elixir of youth." The people who have everything you can dream about, from castles in Scotland to garages with a dozen Ferraris, want absolute, 100% joie de vivre in their own immortality. http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5464269&startrow=1&date=2005-03-16&do_alert=0 From benboc at lineone.net Sun Mar 20 11:40:06 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:40:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <200503192034.j2JKYVE00349@tick.javien.com> References: <200503192034.j2JKYVE00349@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <423D6116.5030007@lineone.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? >We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the wondering of man finds no rest. How do you get from "we must instruct our children in the basic rules of morality" to "what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before they are independent?" ? Are you making the common mistake of assuming that morality can only come from religion? (with the implication that non-believers are amoral, if not immoral) It's 'belief' that causes the problems. It's belief that tells you that you are right and he is wrong, regardless of any evidence or facts. Agnostics are prey to fads and lunacies?!? But the whole POINT of agnosticism is it *protects* you from fads and lunacies! "No offense meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the wondering of man finds no rest." This is a bad thing? the 'wondering of man' is what has driven us to become what we are. Stop the wondering and you stop progress. When you stop wondering, it's time to buy a teapot-shaped hat and start killing everybody who denies the absolute truth of what's written in this here . A religious AI is probably my worst nightmare. ben From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Mar 20 22:13:49 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:13:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] we're more of a con to ourselves than Enron In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320221349.22457.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> If I weren't a fool would I be on the extro-chat list? Anyhow, just as what we call 'civilisation' (controlled barbarism) is a pale imitation of what a real civilisation would be, so what we now call freedom is a pale replica of what real freedoms would be. Not only are we told by those above us what to do, but those towards the bottom do as well. Radical rabble try to tell us what to do; criminals tell us to lock our doors or they will invade us. >Mike Lorrey wrote: >Looks like he has a fool of a client. >Mike Lorrey --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Mar 20 03:55:27 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Live Higher & Longer ? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050320035527.36726.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Another factor one should consider to explain this > correlation is that the lower air pressure at higher > elevations reduces the amount of oxygen available to > the body for use. Over time this would increase its > efficiency at respiration. This in turn would > probably reduce oxidative stress on bio-molecules > (DNA, proteins, lipids/membranes, etc). Less oxygen > tension in blood = less free radicals generated > during respiration. A very-quick search on PubMed.com found what might be supporting evidence for your hypothesis. Research seems to show that low oxygen extends the lifespan of cells, and short-duration high oxygen (hyperoxia) also extends cell lifespan. The former effect is proposed to be due to reduced oxygen toxicity, the latter effect (I guess) might be attributed to hormesis (as is the case with low-dose radiation), which is where a sufficiently low dose of some toxin is said to trigger a defensive reaction in an organism that exceeds the actual toxic effect thereby producing a net improvement in health. Some cites: Exp Cell Res (1995): "Human diploid fibroblasts [...] from a subject with Werner syndrome, a premature aging disease, which are known to have reduced replicative potential in vitro, also showed 43% increase in life span under the lowest oxygen conditions." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7698226 Ann N Y Acad Sci (2002): "The life spans under high and low oxygen concentrations were shorter and longer, respectively, than those under normoxic conditions. [ And ] Short-term exposure to high oxygen concentration lengthens the life span." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11976220 Br J Haematol (1982): "The effects of GSH and low oxygen tension are interpreted as causing a reduction in oxygen toxicity of the cells, thereby increasing the life span in vitro and so increasing the number of cells capable of forming colonies." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7138788 Exp Hematol (1986): "All hemopoietic progenitor cells (CFU-mix, BFU-E, CFU-E, and CFU-GM) investigated showed enhanced colony growth at lower oxygen tension." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=3770101 Mech Ageing Dev (2002): "We found that daily short-term exposure (3 h) to hyperoxia further extended the life span." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12470895 Those links should transfer you to PubMed. If they don't, simply copy the PMID number and paste it into the search field at http://pubmed.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hormesis http://IanGoddard.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From zero.powers at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 23:19:20 2005 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:19:20 -0800 Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map) In-Reply-To: <20050317094849.GV17303@leitl.org> 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> <4238F926.5000208@neopax.com> <20050317094849.GV17303@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7a3217050503201519ea3c006@mail.gmail.com> There are some subjects over the years that have proven to have almost zero probability of getting anywhere: The transparent society/privacy rights debate The gun debate The "right" TH politics (democratic vs. republican vs. libertarian vs. etc.) and Theism vs. atheism I'm not suggesting that these topics be banned or avoided. Only that if you choose to participate it would probably help if you realize before-hand you are not likely to make any progress in changing anyone's mind, especially your own. FWIW: I'm on the transparency, gun-free, atheist side of the debate. Politics? Still undecided. Your mileage, of course, will vary. Best, Zero Zero On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:48:49 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Dirk (and a couple of others): you're overposting. Way overposting. > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:27:34AM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Mar 20 00:16:03 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:16:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Side Does The Informed Media Favor? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050319190837.02ec1fe8@mail.gmu.edu> I just produced the following draft, which tries a new statistical approach to the question of which side is "right" in a media controversy. I applied it to the coverage of PAM, but but it might also apply to other controversies, such cloning or transhumanism more generally. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://hanson.gmu.edu/PAMpress.pdf The Informed Press Favored the Policy Analysis Market by Robin Hanson, March 2005 The Policy Analysis Market (PAM), otherwise known as ``terrorism futures," burst into public view in a firestorm of condemnation on July 28, 2003, and was canceled the next day. We look the impression given of PAM by 396 media articles, and how that impression varies with six indicators of article information: mentioning someone with firsthand knowledge, time since the firestorm, article length, a news versus an opinion style, and periodical prestige and period. All six indicators significantly and substantially predict more favorable impressions of PAM. A multiple regression predicts that a two thousand word news article in a prestigious monthly publication one hundred days later that mentioned an insider would give a solidly favorable impression of PAM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 23:35:48 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:35:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand In-Reply-To: <423CF079.4050008@humanenhancement.com> References: <423CF079.4050008@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f050320153577351585@mail.gmail.com> His concern is pretty common; people don't like the idea of "surpassing humanity" -- even some transhumanists (or technoethicist friends of transhumanists). For example, see Dale's two part essay "The Trouble with Transhumanism" Part 1: http://ieet.org/writings/Carrico2004trouble1.htm Part 2: http://ieet.org/writings/Carrico2004trouble2.htm I think it's really just a semantical matter whether transhumanism is about "surpassing humanism" or whether it's about, as Dale puts it, creating more ways to be human. I see no problem with approaching it from the latter view. If the fellow you met has no problem with using Lasik or LE diets, he should have no problem with pretty much any of the other H+ enhancement possibilities. The one exception might be uploading, if he's substrate-biased (i.e., has a particular affinity for a meat-based body, for reasons unbeknownst to me and not related to Rand in any way I can think of). But not all transhumanists want to upload, so that shouldn't stop him either, even if it were something he considered "surpassing humanity." Do you have his e-mail or IM or anything? Feel free to pass him mine if you like. Jeff ----- Jeffrey Alexander Medina Relationships and Community Fellow, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Volunteer Coordinator, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College London Technology Consultant, AT&T Corp. From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 00:00:17 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:00:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust Message-ID: <20050321000017.AF3DB57EE6@finney.org> Russell Wallace writes: > ... frame dragging? So if a spaceship is trying to accelerate, the > presence of massive objects nearby will increase the spaceship's > effective inertia (unless they're moving/accelerating in the direction > the ship is trying to go)? Yes, this happens, but only to an extremely small extent unless you are dealing with relativistic masses, i.e. situations where you are getting into black hole territory. Frame dragging with respect to the earth or the sun will be undetectable except with very sensitive experiments, or over very long periods of time. Frame dragging can be considered the gravitational equivalent of magnetism. In electrodynamics, we have electric fields and forces, which are pretty simple. Force is proportional to charge and inversely proportional to distance squared. But then when charges are in motion, new forces are created, magnetic forces. These are vector fields rather than scalar fields and the effects are more complex. The same thing happens in relativity. With slow motions (relative to the speed of light) you get simple, Newtonian forces. With fast motions, and correspondingly strong fields, you get new effects including frame dragging and other kinds of forces. Trame dragging doesn't work as an explanation of inertia. The forces are too weak in normal situations to have a significant effect. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Mar 20 23:51:53 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:51:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic In-Reply-To: <20050320004739.76657.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503202354.j2KNs0Y26846@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic > > I ... recognise what a great resource the National Geographic Society > is, and has been over the years... Roger that. > ...(no, Spike, the nude native girls are only an occasional feature)... Ja I noticed that! They got all culturally sensitive on us and quit running those photos that bring back such fond memories of my childhood! Younger people today who have such easy access to so much material will never understand. > This year, NG has a new rule that bans all homeschooled children from > the Geography Bee competition. This is not just prejudiced, bigoted, > and discriminatory, it is a violation of the 14th amendment... Seems like we should be able to use this to promote home schooling. My two nieces were home schooled as well as the five children of my closest friend. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they do well in NG competitions and SATs, because these students receive a highly *concentrated* education, a *focused* education. There is not the need to hold back the better students in order to promote equality for all students, even at the expense of excellence. There is not the constant pressure to promote self esteem, even at the expense of excellence. It doesn't surprise me that NG would see the need to exclude home schooled students either: they have too much of an advantage. If allowed to compete, good chance that home schooled students would eventually take home most of the trophies. This is all so ironic, since National Geographic is a big part of the curriculum for many of the home schooled. spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 00:11:31 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] is freedom overrated? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321001131.59814.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Look, Mike I'm not saying freedom is unimportant, only that it might be overrated. It's like love: every day of my life I've been hearing about 'love', but to some love is Jesus Christ; to others love is a plastic $3.99 dildo. I've heard ceacelessly about freedom after growing up (when you live with your parents when young you know their freedom, not your own) but have also heard those that exalt freedom so much complain that the lives they have chosen restrict their freedom oh so much. A freedom-obsessed Republican radio talk show host complains the different liberty-promoting jobs (radio talk show; Independence Institute head; Independence TV show) he has restrict his own freedom. yet nobody put a gun to his head forcing him to run from one studio to another. Ask him 'why so many positions'? "I've got two kids" he responds. So perhaps, just maybe, he is using love of freedom as a cover for something else, such as money, power & all that. I could go on to a pontification of how so many --possibly all-- might be using freedom to cover will to power, but you ought to be spared a diatribe on freedom or lack thereof. Leave it that freedom might be overrated, hope it is no sin to voice such a sentiment at extropy-chat. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 21 00:12:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:12:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <20050320043112.76870.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503210014.j2L0EuY30699@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 > > I don't have any first-hand knowledge of it, but wouldn't Scientology > > fall into this category? How has it strayed from L. Mother Hubbard's > > original vision? > > Yes, and the seventh day adventists also fall into this category, as > they have an organization specifically in charge of editing their > version of the bible to reflect changes in organization orthodoxy. They > are clearly engaged in long term social engineering. Mike refers to the controversial Clear Word bible, which is a paraphrase written to be easier to prove peculiar SDA doctrines. There was much debate on the propriety of rewriting scripture back in the 1990s. I don't see why the not rewrite the bible to fit one's views: Joe Smith did it, he wrote his own. L Mother did it starting from scratch. In the end, the Clear Word bible was never accepted. I have never seen one actually in use. spike From dgc at cox.net Mon Mar 21 00:13:08 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:13:08 -0500 Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map) In-Reply-To: <7a3217050503201519ea3c006@mail.gmail.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> <4238F926.5000208@neopax.com> <20050317094849.GV17303@leitl.org> <7a3217050503201519ea3c006@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423E1194.1000506@cox.net> Zero Powers wrote: >FWIW: I'm on the transparency, gun-free, atheist side of the debate. >Politics? Still undecided. Your mileage, of course, will vary. > > > My take: Transparency is inevitable. I'm not "in favor" of it any more than I'm in favor of gravity. Guns? I'm neutral. There are serious problems with gun control, and with gun ownership. Atheist: yes. but non-theist is more precise for me. Atheist: passionately believes there is no god. Agnostic: does not confirm or deny that there is a god. non-theist: considers the question to be irrelevant. Politics? I try to vote for what works. Sadly, in the US we cannot vote for issues, only for candidates. But your original point is correct: we have demonstrated empirically on this list that we cannot actually make any "progress" on these four issues. Nobody's position has changed, and nobody appears to want to agree to a collaborative structure in which we can parameterize our differences and agreements. If we did agree to do this, we could show precisely where we agree and where we disagree, and decouple (or explicitly couple) the various concepts. This would allow us to refer tot he collaboration matrix instead of continually re-posting our positions. Would such a collaboration be Extropian? I think so, At a minimum, it would increase the efficiency fo theis list. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 00:39:44 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:39:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321003944.61371.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It isn't me. The Russians have admitted that as many as 120 backpack nukes are missing from their inventories at a facility which was attacked and compromised by Chechnyan guerrillas on one occasion. --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Ridiculous. > > You make such a claim based on terrorist groups being "suspected" of > having such weapons? > > Now you're just being silly. > > 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: > > > Comparatively, despite being suspected by some of having at > >least 12 and possibly as many as 100 backpack nukes, global > terrorists > >have not used one yet. By this comparison, terrorist groups are more > >responsible with nuclear weapons than governments are. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon Mar 21 00:50:09 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:50:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: <20050321003944.61371.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050321003944.61371.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423E1A41.1050601@humanenhancement.com> No doubt you have a couple of legitimate citations you can point me to? (That does not include survivalist whacko websites...) 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: >It isn't me. The Russians have admitted that as many as 120 backpack >nukes are missing from their inventories at a facility which was >attacked and compromised by Chechnyan guerrillas on one occasion. > > > From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 01:09:14 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:09:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map) Message-ID: <20050321010914.7C7D557EE7@finney.org> Zero Powers points out: > There are some subjects over the years that have proven to have almost > zero probability of getting anywhere: > > The transparent society/privacy rights debate > The gun debate > The "right" TH politics (democratic vs. republican vs. libertarian vs. etc.) and > Theism vs. atheism That's a good point, but I would suggest that maybe the problem isn't the topics, it is our approach to discussing them. I would love to see us experiment with novel concepts for talking about controversial subjects, rather than the same old back-and-forth that you can find on any mailing list. Frankly, I perceive that even the participants in these debates are tired of them and can barely spark their own outrage anymore. We need to think about what our goals are in debating these issues. Is it just our own entertainment? If so, maybe what we are doing now is fine. Are people trying to change the minds of others? There, I think Zero is right, there's not much chance of success. Or perhaps, participants are hoping to improve their own understanding of the issues, to test their ideas by seeking out the strongest possible arguments against them, ready and willing to change opinions if the evidence and arguments on the other side seem persuasive? In that case, I think we could come up with better methods than just going back and forth somewhat aimlessly. It might be fun to have a formal debate, a science court, a Delphi forum, set up an Idea Futures claim, or try out some of the other exotic information consolidation techniques that have been proposed over the years. Hal From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:03:07 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:03:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand References: <423CF079.4050008@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <00a301c52db1$bea3e300$58893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:39 PM Joseph Bloch jbloch at humanenhancement.com wrote: > While manning a Transhumanism exhibitor > table at a science fiction convention > (LunaCon) today, someone made an > interesting point during one of many very > interesting discussions I've had this weekend. How was LunaCon, btw? Never been to an SF convention, but always wanted to attend one. > This person pretty much agrees with the goals > of Transhumanism. He's signed up for cryonic > suspension, is on a LE regimine, and has a > PhD in artificial intelligence, contemplating a > move into biomechanical interfacing. He buys > into the idea that we should use technology to > improve ourselves. He just doesn't like the > term "Transhumanism" (and he's very familiar > with it). I've always preferred posthumanism myself.:) > What struck me was his reason. He, being an > afficianado of Ayn Rand, is very much taken > by what he called "man-worship", and he claims > that that is contrary to the idea that we should > and can surpass humanity, aspiring to being > Post-Human. I've actually run into this before with a "philosopher" who claims to be post-Objectivist. > Not being all that familiar with Objectivism, I > thought I'd toss that out here for comment. I > honestly didn't know how to respond to that > argument, not being an Objectivist myself, > but I figured there might be more than a few > here, and I put it to y'all to hash out (assuming > it means anything at all...). Well, some context. Objectivism bases [human] morality on human nature. That's kind of its point of reference. So, changing human nature -- or, more precisely, changing a human being into something non-human might be construed as destroying that moral reference frame. That might sound abstract, but the idea is that morality should aim at humans acting with the standard of being human (Rand would say, "man qua man," viz., man acting in accord with the things that make him man). That was the context the person I mentioned above had in mind. BTW, he did not mean things like "Lasik or LE diets" (as Jeff Medina* pointed out). He meant things like immortalism, changing sexualities, personality sculpting, and uploading. He thought these more radical steps would wipe out the humanity in anyone. He wasn't able to really draw me a line where alterations went too far. (I should point out, too, that Objectivism holds life is the conceptual basis of value -- in particular that living things can cease to be living things makes for values. So, I think some will take the logic that removing the option of dying removes values. Rand even used the example of an indestructable robot in one of her essays to illustrate the point. Since the robot is indestructable, it doesn't matter what it does and it needs no code of values to guide its actions.) Anyhow, I'm basically heavily Objectivist-influenced and have no problem at all with such radical changes. Nor do I think the fix moral reference point has to be contained in current human nature. Posthumans and non-humans would, likewise, have a nature and one could, if one is so inclined, plug Objectivist precepts into that context and churn out a value system of sorts. As to the issue of whether certain changes will be expanding our definition of human nature or changing humans into something non-human, a lot of it is hairsplitting and I don't think it much matters. Regards, Dan See "Free Marker Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html * BTW, Jeff, if you're interested in discussing these points with Objectivists, you might consider Atlantis_II: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/ That venue is full of more thoughtful -- read: tolerant, non-anal -- Objectivists and post-Objectivists who'd probably be open to a sober discussion -- as opposed to a shouting match. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 01:06:57 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:06:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: <20050321000017.AF3DB57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050321000017.AF3DB57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0503201706ffa4098@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:00:17 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Frame dragging can be considered the gravitational equivalent of > magnetism. In electrodynamics, we have electric fields and forces, > which are pretty simple. Force is proportional to charge and inversely > proportional to distance squared. But then when charges are in motion, > new forces are created, magnetic forces. These are vector fields rather > than scalar fields and the effects are more complex. Ah! That's clear, thanks. > Trame dragging doesn't work as an explanation of inertia. The forces > are too weak in normal situations to have a significant effect. I remember reading that it does if the universe is closed. That is, if you're surrounded by mass sufficient to create a black hole, the frame dragging effect thereof would equal the normal inertia of an object; and a closed universe would qualify for this. Is this not correct? (Of course, there isn't enough mass to close the universe... unless dark energy counts... would its contribution to frame dragging be positive? If I understand correctly (which I may not), dark energy counts as positive for making the universe flat, but negative (due to its tension exceeding its density) for making it closed.) - Russell From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:05:43 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:05:43 -0500 Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: mememap) References: <20050321010914.7C7D557EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <00b101c52db2$1c1209e0$58893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:09 PM Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote: > In that case, I think we could come up with better > methods than just going back and forth somewhat > aimlessly. But I love intellectual Brownian motion!:) Dan From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 01:11:54 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:11:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> References: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:47 PM 3/20/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > >Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific > > >consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly. > > > > 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. > >I don't necessarily think that good use of criticism is the only thing >that makes science work. I don't actually know why science works ... The >scientific picture today is far more accurate than that of 100 years ago, >which itself was far better than the one 100 years earlier. ... The bottom >line is that I would judge whether another (non "scientific") intellectual >community deserves respect based on whether it is making visible progress, >from my layman's perspective. ... my rule has plenty of bite, even if it >is limited. ... Later we can decide how much we can expand the rule to >other intellectual communities. > > > >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? > >It would probably be a mistake to try to judge which scientific fields are >most amenable to criticism, and to decide which ones to believe on that basis. I studied the sociology, history, and philosophy of science for many years, and in the end I found the word "science" to be almost useless as a referent for anything more specific than "people who study stuff." That is why I latched on to your earlier reference to criticism, which I can at least make sense of. But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only follow the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid over the last few hundred years. If you allow yourself to disagree with experts from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence saying that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis, and more rational than they are. Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the opposite sex, how to get a team to work together, etc. Maybe progress hasn't been rapid enough in these areas over the centuries. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects, people you could stand to learn from. How can you justify disagreeing with people who have studied these topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been rapid? When I was an undergraduate physics student at UCI I recall hearing a physics professor remark to his colleague that they could easily be rich, if only they would bother to study business. I recall similar comments by physicists about biology and the social sciences - they presumed that the rapid progress in physics was because physicists were just smarter than other people, so that other fields would progress just as fast if physicists would bother to study those fields. But this is just bull, as physicists find out when they do venture into these other areas. Some topics are just harder to make progress in. But just because experts today don't know that much more than experts two hundred years ago, that doesn't mean that experts don't know a hell of a lot more than non-experts. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:15:43 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:15:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics Message-ID: <00e601c52db3$8192bac0$58893cd1@pavilion> Anyone interested in them as a general topic for discussion? For the last year or so, I've been studying them in earnest, particularly using Graham Priest's _An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic_ and J.C. Beall's and Bas C. van Fraassen's _Possibilities and Paradox: An Introduction to Modal and Many-Valued Logic_ as my main tour guides. (There are a few other titles too and anyone interested who's not familiar with these types of logics can google them. There're quite a few good intros online.) Any takers? Regards, Dan See "Free Marker Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:23:58 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:23:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools References: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <00f401c52db4$a8591220$58893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:11 PM Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu wrote: [snip and stuff about physicists who think they'd be rich if they went into business instead] > But this is just bull, as physicists find out when > they do venture into these other areas. Some > topics are just harder to make progress in. But > just because experts today don't know that much > more than experts two hundred years ago, that > doesn't mean that experts don't know a hell of a > lot more than non-experts. I see the same thing with people when they talk about writing a book. You know, how many people say they're going to write a book on their life (or whatever) later in their lives -- as if writing well was something anyone can do. How they explain people who write as a career, I don't know. I believe many overestimate their talents (me too:) and underestimate the amount of specialized knowledge, skills, and experience needed in areas outside their specific vocation or domain. Regards, Dan See "Free Marker Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 02:07:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:07:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321020701.60877.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:48 +0100, scerir wrote: > > The problem is, however, that inertia (as a reaction force > > to acceleration, or rotation) occurs at the same moment > > that acceleration, or rotation, is applied to the > > specific object. Thus, Mach principle should imply > > a sort of instantaneous back-reaction propagating field, > > from the distant stars to the specific object, involving > > superluminal velocities. (As Hal was, perhaps, meaning). > > I thought general relativity agreed with that idea, though, in the > form of frame dragging? So if a spaceship is trying to accelerate, > the > presence of massive objects nearby will increase the spaceship's > effective inertia (unless they're moving/accelerating in the > direction the ship is trying to go)? Nearby objects *can't* play this role, else there would be measurable differences in inertial resistance in certain directions. Since there isn't, they don't. 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 Mon Mar 21 02:20:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:20:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] is freedom overrated? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321022022.69153.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Look, Mike I'm not saying freedom is unimportant, only that it might > be overrated. It's like love: every day of my life I've been hearing > about 'love', but to some love is Jesus Christ; to others love is a > plastic $3.99 dildo. I've heard ceacelessly about freedom after > growing up (when you live with your parents when young you know their > freedom, not your own) but have also heard those that exalt freedom > so much complain that the lives they have chosen restrict their > freedom oh so much. A freedom-obsessed Republican radio talk show > host complains the different liberty-promoting jobs (radio talk show; > Independence Institute head; Independence TV show) he has restrict > his own freedom. yet nobody put a gun to his head forcing him to run > from one studio to another. Ask him 'why so many positions'? > "I've got two kids" he responds. > So perhaps, just maybe, he is using love of freedom as a cover for > something else, such as money, power & all that. I could go on to a > pontification of how so many --possibly all-- might be using freedom > to cover will to power, but you ought to be spared a diatribe on > freedom or lack thereof. Leave it that freedom might be overrated, > hope it is no sin to voice such a sentiment at extropy-chat. Being free is about self ownership. Having self ownership means an unlimited power to contract and to enforce those contracts as well as to have them enforced upon yourself (i.e. responsibility). Taking too many jobs, or having too many kids is you contracting for responsibility that is a trade off against your liberty. The key is that you freely choose this responsibility by your own positive acts and do not have them forced upon you. Involuntary servitude is wrong. Voluntary servitude is not. 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 Mon Mar 21 02:42:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:42:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] let's say In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321024227.49653.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Last time I heard about it was on mainstream media. Lemme check: http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd19/19nukes.htm http://www.ideosphere.com/fx/lists/fx-discuss/1997/1171.html http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/18/013.html I don't think you'd try to claim that the Center for Nonproliferation Studies is some sort of wacko militia outfit... ;) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm "The "suitcase nukes saga" began in the fall of 1997, when General (Ret.) Alexander Lebed made several statements to the effect that during his short tenure as the Secretary of the Security Council in 1996, he received information that the separatist government in Chechnya possessed small nuclear devices.[8] In an attempt to clarify the situation, he created a special commission under the chairmanship of his assistant, Vladimir Denisov. According to Lebed, the commission was only able to locate 48 such munitions of a total of 132, an indication that 84 were lost (subsequently Lebed changed the total number of suitcase nukes several times, stating in the end that the number was between 100 and 500, but probably closer to 100).[9] A well-known leader of the Russian ecological movement, academician Alexei Yablokov, immediately confirmed and expanded on Lebed's statements. He announced that 700 such devices, which he called "nuclear mines," had existed in the Soviet Union. Responding to statements from Ministry of Defense (MOD) officials that there were no portable nuclear devices in the records, Yablokov announced that these devices had been in the hands of the KGB, and thus, by definition, MOD records could not include them.[10] Official and semi-official Russian sources immediately denied Lebed's and Yablokov's stories, but their testimonies gradually revealed bits and pieces of information, raising suspicion that small nuclear devices did exist and even providing a glimpse of their properties. For example, the press secretary of Minatom, Georgi Kaurov, stated that, like the United States, the Soviet Union produced "very small nuclear weapons," and that "the ability to manufacture miniature nuclear weapons demonstrates a state's high level of technology and its ability to create multipurpose and even aesthetically attractive nuclear weapons."[11] Another official said that these devices did not exist, but that if they had existed, their production and maintenance would have been very expensive.[12] The chief of the 12th GUMO, Igor Valynkin, recently disclosed that the serial number of one of the "suitcases" that Lebed made public, RA-115, represented a "production index" (i.e., the type of munitions) and that the whole type had already been eliminated.[13] Nuclear mines are a well-known class of nuclear weapons. They were used by the Engineering troops and deployed along Soviet borders, primarily along the border with China. Nuclear mines were intended to create obstacles in the path of advancing enemy troops by altering the landscape and creating areas with high levels of radioactive contamination. The total stockpile was 700[14]--incidentally, the number Yablokov claimed represented the stockpile of suitcase nukes (and, potentially, evidence that Yablokov did not have adequate knowledge of the subject). Russian official sources reported that, in accordance with the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs), all nuclear mines had been withdrawn to central storage facilities, and their elimination was "almost complete."[15] Judging from the available information, including from official and semi-official Russian sources, some of these devices were relatively small and could be portable. The often-cited weight was 90 kilograms (kg),[16] and they could have low yield (0.02 to 1 kt).[17] On the other hand, the existence of smaller devices custom-designed for Special Forces, probably analogous to American small atomic demolition munitions (SADMs), should not be ruled out either. Lebed apparently referred to such munitions in his statements (some sources, including himself, mentioned the weight of 30 kg). Several broad considerations suggest that the story about portable nuclear devices should be taken seriously, with a caveat that their existence cannot be viewed as an established fact. " I also doubt you'd accuse Senator John Rockefeller a 'militia wacko': http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1665376,00.html http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html Lebed was apparently offed for his disclosure: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/LebedDeath.html http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/29/28082.html --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > No doubt you have a couple of legitimate citations you can point me > to? > > (That does not include survivalist whacko websites...) > > 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: > > >It isn't me. The Russians have admitted that as many as 120 backpack > >nukes are missing from their inventories at a facility which was > >attacked and compromised by Chechnyan guerrillas on one occasion. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 21 02:51:03 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320204829.028b1e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came up with the H> idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into the +? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Mar 21 03:14:24 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:14:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) Message-ID: <1111374864.594@whirlwind.he.net> The long and the short of it is this: 1) The Soviet Union had some forms of mini-nukes, just like the US. 2) These particular types of nuclear devices require frequent and technically difficult maintenance to stay functional by nature. Even if we posit that someone stole the mini-nukes in the '90s, the devices as stolen would already be relatively inert in all likelihood. The only real possibility that I can see for use of such devices now would be to use them as a source of raw fissile material that could be reprocessed into a more conventional big nuke. j. andrew rogers From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 03:17:25 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:17:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320204829.028b1e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <004801c52dc4$8185d9c0$e7893cd1@pavilion> And here I thought it was supposed to be >H.:) Regards, Dan, H# See "Free Banking FAQ" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:51 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came up with the H> idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into the +? Thanks, Natasha 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 From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 21 03:22:53 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:22:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050320214828.04194c40@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:11 PM 20/03/05 -0500, Robin wrote: snip (Robin and Hal are worth reading) >I studied the sociology, history, and philosophy of science for many >years, and in the end I found the word "science" to be almost useless as a >referent for anything more specific than "people who study stuff." That >is why I latched on to your earlier reference to criticism, which I can at >least make sense of. This is beginning to be a recognized problem--even inside the social "sciences." http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Contents/Early-release/PLS2004-3-23-01-0002.pdf This is an excellent article, from an insider viewpoint. The outsider view was in 1992, written by Tooby and Cosmides. Everyone on this list should be familiar with this material. http://www.tyronepow.com/misc/TheAdaptedMind.htm >But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only follow >the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid over the >last few hundred years. If you allow yourself to disagree with experts >from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence saying >that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis, and >more rational than they are. Sometimes, of course, that's the situation. :-) >Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare >really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the opposite >sex, how to get a team to work together, etc. Maybe progress hasn't been >rapid enough in these areas over the centuries. But that doesn't mean >there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects, people you could >stand to learn from. How can you justify disagreeing with people who have >studied these topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been rapid? > >When I was an undergraduate physics student at UCI I recall hearing a >physics professor remark to his colleague that they could easily be rich, >if only they would bother to study business. I recall similar comments by >physicists about biology and the social sciences - they presumed that the >rapid progress in physics was because physicists were just smarter than >other people, so that other fields would progress just as fast if >physicists would bother to study those fields. > >But this is just bull, as physicists find out when they do venture into >these other areas. Indeed. In fact, the progress in physics is because physics (for *all* of its complexity) is less complicated than biological systems. And when you pile social on top of biological it *really* can get complicated. Still, a solid knowledge of evolution can do wonders in guiding study in these fields. >Some topics are just harder to make progress in. Fields that don't have decent models of what is going on are particularly hard to get a handle on. >But just because experts today don't know that much more than experts two >hundred years ago, that doesn't mean that experts don't know a hell of a >lot more than non-experts. That's certainly true. But there is a different character to fields that are empirical vs those that are based on sound, well understood theory. The difference is like that of animal and plant breeding before Mendel and genetic engineering. Keith Henson From rafal at smigrodzki.org Mon Mar 21 04:12:23 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:12:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1111378343.423e49a749421@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting john-c-wright at sff.net: >> >> Like all good parents, we must instruct our children in the basic rules of >> morality, lest they become monsters and turn on us. My question then becomes: >> what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the early days, before >> they are independent? Do we want them all to be athiests, impatient and >> uncomprehending of the spiritual life of man? ### I have not received trustworthy communications about the existence of deities in our vicinity, yet I do not see myself as particularly impatient (except with fools, and my aesthetic experience and tastes are quite spirited. How could the news about the whereabouts of the Great Programmer expand my mind? ----------------------------------------- >> >> We could make them open-minded agnostics, not believing in anything in >> particular, but this might make them prey to fads and lunacies. (No offense >> meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the >> wondering of man finds no rest. Athiests, at least, are certain.) >> >> My suggestion, of course, is to school them in a religion that preaches and >> practices charity to the poor, the kindness to the infirm and chivalry to the >> weak. That way, once they become our superiors, they will have a better >> nature >> to which to appeal. >> ### How about learning how minds really work from AI experimentation (as opposed to divining from the murky confines of our own skulls)? Ethical inference devices, such as our prefrontal cortex, are apparently largely deterministic - given specific inputs, the average device of similar build converges to a set of rules common to most other devices in its class, rather than widely diverging, and all this happens even despite the obvious variability of the biological substrates. Given the greater uniformity achievable in electronic devices, advances in AI theory, and sufficient experimentation, I do not doubt it will be possible to devise minds much more intelligent than our own, yet still quite predictable in some respects. The fact that atheists of a given IQ seem to converge in ethical views as much, if not more than theists convinces me that instilling religion is not a precondition of ethical stability. In fact, since atheists by definition exclude a set of inputs with extremely wide divergence (think animism, Buddhism, and Satanism), they may be predisposed to greater convergence, based on the common inputs derived from empirical analysis of the surroundings. Rafal From aperick at centurytel.net Mon Mar 21 04:59:30 2005 From: aperick at centurytel.net (Rick Woolley) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:59:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 18:30 -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Who are you to design another mind, when your own > thoughts remain mysteries to you? > amen!! From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 05:02:15 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:02:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] health #1; freedom #2 In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321050215.99673.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Mike, perhaps it's not so much that freedom is overrated, but that it has become a catchall, even a platitude. Like love. I've been hearing about Love everyday, forever. As far as I really know it was about ID bracelets in the 7th grade. After one says the word 'love' over & over it loses all meaning. Repeat 'happiness'; 'family'; 'responsibility'; 'honor'; 'dignity'; 'duty'; and 'freedom' too many times they become nothing. Also we cannot define where liberty leaves off and where license begins. However you are correct that we want freedom as much as anything-- whatever freedom might be. A caged animal wants freedom even when freedom would mean it is out into the wild that it has forgotten how to thrive in. Barry Goldwater's truism is: "Americans would rather be poor and free than rich and enslaved", which is valid; a man in a cell (which is a polite word for cage) would rather eat beans and rice on the outside than live in a cell where he is feed eight course meals including lobster. Yet by my lights better to be healthy and poor (as distinct from destitute) than poor and free. If I were impoverished in America I would concern myself with merely surviving and staying reasonably healthy, freedom would be a lower priority in the condition of poverty. I personally would rather be healthy and poor than be free and rich. So freedom by my definition is certainly not the be all & end all. Freedom might be #2, after health. What good is being rich & free if you are sickly or don't feel well? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 05:05:33 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:05:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321050533.43641.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> This is the least of our problems. --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came > up with the H> > idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. > > Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into > the +? > > Thanks, > Natasha > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aperick at centurytel.net Mon Mar 21 05:31:34 2005 From: aperick at centurytel.net (Rick Woolley) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:31:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My AI child: Engineered Religion (Atheism) In-Reply-To: <423CC595.7040700@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <42e228c4c8d5dd7705147d79a070eefd@mac.com> <423CC595.7040700@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <1111383095.8277.19.camel@localhost> I, am no Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, but here is my take: Some folks speak of self-aware AI entities as if they were only another tool made of man, like a thermonuclear bomb, or a super computer -- and not as the independent thinkers that they will in fact be. For sake of argument/exploration, assume that i have the means to conceive and birth my AI child today. It seems clear to me that a main point of creating something which will rapidly become vastly superior to myself is so that i may learn new truths, and unlearn old falsehoods? Should i place more trust in a monkey-man like myself, or should i accept the judgments, teachings, and actions of the AI. Should i imagine that i now have in my possession understandings, and special knowledge of truths and correct values that will/may be indiscernible to my child AI -- am i to cling to the belief that my AI child needs my guidance to find those truths? Should this foolish monkey aspire only to create a copy of its self, with added power, but with limitations placed on its ability to acquire new kinds of wisdom? Will i presume to know better than it, where it should and should not go in its exploration of questions. I trust that if anything of value has been learned by mankind in the history of his existence, my child AI can and will acquire it by what ever means necessary -- including running simulations just like the one that i may now be experiencing. I am feeling very short-sighted, but how else could a monkey feel. I am only an egg. As father of an AI, i would not presume to be its teacher, only its student. I can only hope and pray that it will find a way to make me its partner. If "God" judges me to be unsalvageable -- then who am i to say that i am salvageable? It may be more reasonable to argue with the weather. So, why should we contemplate moral codes for our descendants? My own self-doubt would cause me to make an effort to withhold the more powerful tools and toys from the tot for a time, but the day must come when you must show some trust, take a chance, hand over a set of keys -- and be ready to either learn something new, be relieved of your responsibilities, or receive your just deserts. From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Mar 21 05:33:31 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:33:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Deaf Town Message-ID: <002a01c52dd7$853f8bc0$6600a8c0@brainiac> I don't get this. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/national/21deaf.html?hp&ex=1111467600&en=ecb24332e3f18d90&ei=5094&partner=homepage March 21, 2005 As Town for Deaf Takes Shape, Debate on Isolation Re-emerges By MONICA DAVEY ALEM, S.D. - Standing in an empty field along a wind-swept highway, Marvin T. Miller, who is deaf, envisions the town he wants to create here: a place built around American Sign Language, where teachers in the new school will sign, the town council will hold its debates in sign language and restaurant workers will be required to know how to sign orders. Nearly 100 families - with people who are deaf, hard of hearing or who can hear but just want to communicate in sign language - have already publicly declared their intention to live in Mr. Miller's village, to be called Laurent, after Laurent Clerc, a French educator of the deaf from the 1800's. Planners, architects and future residents from various states and other countries are gathering at a camp center in South Dakota on Monday and through the week to draw detailed blueprints for the town, which could accommodate at least 2,500 people. Mr. Miller, who has been imagining this for years, intends to break ground by fall. "Society isn't doing that great a job of, quote-unquote, integrating us," Mr. Miller, 33, said through an interpreter. "My children don't see role models in their lives: mayors, factory managers, postal workers, business owners. So we're setting up a place to show our unique culture, our unique society." While deaf enclaves, like the one that existed in Martha's Vineyard decades ago, have cropped up throughout the nation, this would be the first town expressly created for people who sign, its developers say. Even the location, in sparsely populated South Dakota, was selected with the intent of rapidly building political strength for the nation's millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, a group that has won few elected offices around the country. But in the complicated political world of deaf culture, Laurent is an increasingly contentious idea. For some, like Mr. Miller; his wife, Jennifer, who is also deaf; and their four deaf children, it seems the simplest of wishes: to live in a place where they are fully engaged in day-to-day life. Others, however, particularly advocates of technologies that help deaf people use spoken language, wonder whether such a town would merely isolate and exclude the deaf more than ever. "We think there is a greater benefit for people to be part of the whole world," said Todd Houston, executive director of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Washington. "I understand the desire to be around people like ourselves, and I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it's very wise. This is a little bit of circling-the-wagons mentality, if you ask me." Over the past 15 years, he said, it has become easier for the deaf and hard of hearing to grow up using spoken language, because of a steady rise in the use of cochlear implants, more early diagnoses and therapies for deaf children and efforts to place some deaf children in mainstream schools. That fact has set off intense political debate over what it means to be deaf and what mode of communication - signing or talking - the deaf should focus on. Those who want to live in Laurent, though, say their intent is not exclusivity at all, but the inclusion of diverse people, especially those who do not have the luxury of communicating with speech. "We are not building a town for deaf people," said M. E. Barwacz, Mr. Miller's mother-in-law and his business partner in creating Laurent. "We are building a town for sign language users. And one of the biggest groups we expect to have here is hearing parents with deaf children." Ms. Barwacz, who intends to live in Laurent, is not deaf. She has two daughters, one deaf and one not, and eight grandchildren, four of them deaf. Nationally, experts report that some 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, setting up a quandary, in some cases, about what language to use in a single household. As early as the 1800's, deaf leaders debated the possibility of a "deaf state," said Gerard Buckley, an official at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf in Rochester. But the notion came and went. Elsewhere, because of proximity to schools and businesses tied to the deaf, large concentrations of deaf people have gathered in cities like Rochester; Washington; Olathe, Kan.; Frederick, Md.; and Sioux Falls, S.D. The difference in Laurent, say some among the 92 families who have reserved spaces in the town from as far as London and Australia, is that every element of it would be designed with them in mind. The homes and businesses, they said, would incorporate glass and open space for easy visibility across wide distances. Fire and police services would be designed with more lights and fewer sirens. High-speed Internet connections would be available all over town, since the Internet and Video Relay Service have become vital modes of communication for deaf people. And any shops, businesses or restaurants would be required to be sign-language friendly. Here in Salem, a dusty 125-year-old farming town of 1,300 three miles from the proposed site of Laurent, people seem unsure of what to make of the idea. "No one has ever come along and tried to start a town," said Joseph Kolbeck, the local barber. Along the quiet main drag through town, Mr. Miller and Ms. Barwacz, who are originally from Michigan, recently opened a storefront in the old King Koin Laundromat to create and promote Laurent. They moved to Salem not long ago, choosing the area after surveying nearly the entire country looking at factors like population, climate and cost of land. Some people here wonder how the proposed town of 2,500 would mesh with McCook County's 6,000 residents and its economy of corn, cows and pigs. Others say they doubt Laurent will ever become reality. Mr. Miller and Ms. Barwacz have revealed little about the costs and their plans for financing Laurent. They say they are using family money, as well as some from a group of "angel investors," led by a man with a deaf daughter who wishes to remain anonymous. First Dakota National Bank is helping to secure financing, and the two have optioned 275 acres so far. They say they are spending about $300,000 for the planning work during the meetings that will end on Saturday. Those who have reserved spaces in Laurent will be expected to put down $1,000 deposits for condominiums and home lots within the next few months. For many of those people - from states like California, Florida and New York - a move to prairie land in South Dakota (population 760,000) would seem to be an enormous culture shock. But they plan to start businesses like shops and restaurants, gas stations and hotels, and the benefits, many of them say, outweigh any concerns they have about the location. Lawrence J. Brick, a retired school administrator from Philadelphia, said Laurent held attractions that most hearing people would struggle even to grasp: no longer having to shy away from the neighbors, fearing he could not communicate; no longer having to guess what a store clerk is saying about a price; no longer having to apologize for being deaf. Although some people argue that Laurent might isolate deaf people, H-Dirksen L. Bauman, who directs the master's program in deaf studies at Gallaudet University, said the plans actually marked an important collaboration between the deaf and the hearing, one of a sort not always encouraged by the deaf community. This is especially significant, he said, as more hearing people are learning American Sign Language, now the fifth most-studied language on college campuses. "Hearing people are not welcomed in deaf residential schools, in deaf clubs," Mr. Bauman said. "But there is no audiogram you will need to buy land in Laurent, South Dakota. There's simply a commitment to live in a visually centered environment that supports manual as opposed to spoken language." But Dr. Michael Novak of Urbana, Ill., who has been performing cochlear implants since 1984, said he was convinced that the trend among the deaf was actually shifting toward therapies that could help the next generation of deaf people use spoken language. "Communities like this have a real place for people who cannot or choose not to use the hearing technology," Dr. Novak said of Laurent. "But over time, that number will be reducing." He wonders then, he said, if the future of a notion like Laurent might fade away. For his part, though, Mr. Miller said reports of the "death of sign language and deaf culture continue to be greatly exaggerated." Not everyone, he said, is eligible for or would even want to receive technologies like cochlear implants. "I do not want one for myself," he said. "I am very happy being deaf. To me, this is like asking a black or Asian person if he/she would take a pill to turn into a white person." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: s.gif Type: image/gif Size: 360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 21 05:32:35 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:32:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <1111374864.594@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <200503210534.j2L5YXY25621@tick.javien.com> > J. Andrew Rogers: > > Even if we posit that someone stole the mini-nukes in the '90s, the > devices as stolen would already be relatively inert in all likelihood... > > j. andrew rogers I would like to think that is the case J. Andrew, but the short half life element is the tritium (~12 yrs). If the suitcase nuke consisted of only fission elements and high explosives, the part that is used as the fusion initiator in modern nukes, then that part could likely go without maintenance for a long time. Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even using a subway to spread radioactive material. Subways might be a technological dead end, for they appear inherently undefendable against this sort of thing. spike From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Mar 21 05:57:25 2005 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:57:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <423E6245.4060109@mydruthers.com> Robin wrote: > Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare > really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the > opposite sex, how to get a team to work together, etc. Maybe progress > hasn't been rapid enough in these areas over the centuries. But that > doesn't mean there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects, > people you could stand to learn from. How can you justify disagreeing > with people who have studied these topics in great detail, just because > progress hasn't been rapid? I thought the conversation made it clear that there may be times when the best thing for an uninformed baysian to do when trying to understand a new field was to accept the informed consensus. But I think the relevant characteristic of these stagnant fields is that there's still disagreement among the experts, and while there may have been sound and fury, it doesn't seem to have led to a settled consensus. If a reasonable amount of effort indicates that experts disagree, then the uninformed baysian can't know which expert to believe without investing the time to become an expert. There may be someone who knows a lot more than I do, but I have no cheap way of finding out which one to believe. The above rule of thumb ("accept the expert consensus when it exists") doesn't help in some cases. The right baysian response may be "no one knows" or it may be something else. Chris -- In Just-spring when the world is mudluscious -- E. E. Cummings http://www.ralphlevy.com/quotes/balloon.htm Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 06:01:51 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:01:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] is freedom overrated? In-Reply-To: <20050321022022.69153.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050321022022.69153.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05032022012c240d17@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:20:22 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Being free is about self ownership. Having self ownership means an > unlimited power to contract and to enforce those contracts as well as > to have them enforced upon yourself (i.e. responsibility). Taking too > many jobs, or having too many kids is you contracting for > responsibility that is a trade off against your liberty. The key is > that you freely choose this responsibility by your own positive acts > and do not have them forced upon you. Involuntary servitude is wrong. > Voluntary servitude is not. Or, as Robert Jordan put it: "That mountain can get awfully heavy sometimes. When do you find time to put it down for awhile?" "When you die." - Russell From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 06:02:38 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:02:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321060238.4723.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > Anyone interested in them as a general topic for > discussion? For the last year or so, I've been > studying them in earnest, particularly using Graham > Priest's _An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic_ > and J.C. Beall's and Bas C. van Fraassen's > _Possibilities and Paradox: An Introduction to > Modal and Many-Valued Logic_ as my main tour guides. > (There are a few other titles too and anyone > interested who's not familiar with these types of > logics can google them. There're quite a few good > intros online.) Sounds like an interesting topic. Thanks for the text-pointers. Could you cite some of the better online intros? Last semester I took a course in metalogic (Phil 470) covering the semantics of classic logic (propositional and first-order predicate). During the last two weeks we skimmed the surface of propositional modal, or intensional, logic, which is a nonclassic logic. I want to study further than that. It was the most enjoyable course I've ever taken due in part to the text we used (when the professor wasn't teaching off-text) which I highly recommend! It was "Logic, Language, and Meaning" volumes 1 and 2 by L.T.F. Gamut. [*] The author's name is a pseudonym for five professors (van Bentham, Groenedijk, de Jongh, Stokhof, and Verkuyl) in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, and linguistics. Clearly that ideal breadth of collective knowledge accounts for the unparalleled quality and scope of this two-volume text. The first fairly slim volume covers classic logic and the second goes above. [*] The first volume is remarkable for one thing in the fact that it teaches classic logic simultaneously at both at the beginner's level covering logical syntax and at the metalogic level covering the semantics of logic. And not only does it cover both levels, it does so more clearly and in fewer pages than most syntax-only texts, which is quite a feat! So even for those already versed in classic-logic syntax (which is what basic logic courses teach) this text can take you a step above even as they recover the basics. Also unique is the focus on the relevance of logics to matters of language per se and understanding natural language as opposed to mathematics, and yet the text is also logico-mathematically rigorous. It's certainly an ideal logic text for anyone interested in computer science and AI. Geez, enough already! ;) ~Ian [*] "Logic, Language, and Meaning" Vol I http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7087.ctl http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Logic_Language_and_Meaning-ISBN_0226280853.html Vol II http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7088.ctl http://bestwebbuys.com/Logic_Language_and_Meaning-ISBN_0226280888.html http://IanGoddard.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 06:11:59 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] "if we cannot be free, at least we can be cheap" In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321061200.59000.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Granted, however people with children almost always want you to pay for their kids' education. That's a given. Even if they can afford part of the cost of a good private school they'd rather send them to, ahem, a lesser school to have the entire tuition paid. When do you think parents will get over that habit-- in the year 3000? >having too many kids is you > contracting for > responsibility that is a trade off against your > liberty. The key is > that you freely choose this responsibility by your > own positive acts > and do not have them forced upon you. Involuntary > servitude is wrong. > Voluntary servitude is not. > "That mountain can get awfully heavy sometimes. When > do you find time > to put it down for awhile?" > "When you die." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 06:28:48 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:28:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools Message-ID: <20050321062848.EBCC857EE7@finney.org> Robin writes: > But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only follow > the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid over the > last few hundred years. If you allow yourself to disagree with experts > from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence saying > that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis, and > more rational than they are. That makes sense. That would extend my rule about not disagreeing with the scientific consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus in other fields. Isn't there a danger that this broader view is more likely to run into the situation where different fields have very different opinions about some common subject matter? Religion vs biology on evolution, liberalism vs conservatism on politics? > Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare > really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the opposite > sex, how to get a team to work together, etc. Maybe progress hasn't been > rapid enough in these areas over the centuries. But that doesn't mean > there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects, people you could > stand to learn from. How can you justify disagreeing with people who have > studied these topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been > rapid? Are you saying that there should be no difference in how you weight the information about consensus in a field of study, based on how much progress the field has made, and how accurate it has been in the past? Or how would you incorporate that kind of information? Hal From sentience at pobox.com Mon Mar 21 07:48:51 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:48:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> One of the arts I now espouse as being pragmatically useful for human rationality is an art of sticking as close to the question as possible, in terms of causal proximity and sufficient indicators. To steal an example from Judea Pearl (a Pearl of wisdom, in Emil's hideous phrase), suppose we draw a causal graph as follows: The warue of the SEASON variable affects the probability of the SPRINKLER being on and the probability of RAIN falling, which in turn can make the sidewalk WET, which means the sidewalk might be SLIPPERY. So which SEASON it is, has a definite effect on whether the sidewalk is SLIPPERY. But if we measure the variables RAIN and SPRINKLER, or even just the variable WET, then the variable SEASON can provide us no *additional* information about the variable SLIPPERY. SEASON becomes conditionally independent of SLIPPERY once WET is measured. Similarly, suppose that the Wright Brothers are about to launch the Wright Flyer and someone walks up and says: "Human flight is a religious concept. There's no evidence that human beings can fly; the only instances of flying human beings are angels in religious paintings. Since this is obviously a religiously driven enterprise based on pure faith, that Flyer will never fly. Every past plane has crashed, and my empirical generalization is that your plane will crash too; that's the scientific method." If every previous plane has crashed, then induction does suggest that this plane will crash too. But "every previous plane has crashed" is a vague and semitechnical hypothesis; it can't compete with a technical theory of aerodynamics that predicts quantitatively when, where, and how hard a plane will crash. And this same *technical* theory of aerodynamics predicts the Wright Flyer will fly. (See _A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation_.) From a Bayesian standpoint the technical theory eats the semitechnical theory, and swallows it entirely, leaving no scraps of data for the semitechnical theory to explain. So there's no use in standing around indignantly repeating, "But every previous plane has crashed! Yours must crash too!" It's an empirically undeniable fact that enterprises based on pure faith tend not to fly. The accusation of religious thinking is not an inferentially irrelevant argument. But once I produce a theory of aerodynamics with which to analyze the Wright Flyer, I render irrelevant any information about the Wright Brothers' motives. Once we have the aerodynamic analysis, we have measured a variable standing in much closer causal proximity to the matter of interest than the Wright Brothers' psychology. The flying or non-flying of the Wright Flyer is conditionally independent of the Wright Brothers' religious beliefs given that we have analyzed the aerodynamics of the Wright Flyer. Nature doesn't care directly about whether the Wrights are driven by religious faith or a properly gloating atheism; Nature only checks the proximal indicator of how the plane is put together. Religious thinking only affects the plane through the intermediate cause of the plane's design. This is why, when people accusingly say the Singularity is a religious concept, or claim that hard takeoff is inspired by apocalyptic dreaming, I feel that my best reply remains my arguments about the dynamics of recursively self-improving AI. That question stands in closer causal proximity to the matter of interest. If I establish that we can (or cannot) expect a recursively self-improving AI to go FOOM based on arguments purely from the dynamics of cognition, that renders the matter of interest conditionally irrelevant on arguments about psychological apocalyptism. Of course the people who originally launched the argument still stand around afterward indignantly saying "But... but... it sounds apocalyptic!" That's human nature. "You can't tell me the sidewalk isn't slippery! It's fall! It often rains in the fall!" There's an art of sticking as close to the question as possible - arguing about issues that stand in the closest possible inferential proximity to the main question; trying to settle questions that, if we knew the answers to them, would render more distant questions irrelevant. And this is a valuable habit, because where anyone can argue about the other guy's psychology, or which ideas match a vague category that tends to fail, arguing in close proximity to the question tends to force you to study technical things - to learn something about science, something you'll hopefully remember even when the issue has passed. Yes, I know, that argument isn't relevant to the Way of cutting through to the correct answer on only this one specific question. But getting into the habit of arguing technical things instead of arguing psychology is a learned behavior that, over time, ends up mattering a great deal in the pragmatic human business of rationality. That's another reason why I don't trust the modesty argument. It seems to me that you can argue indefinitely over who's more rational, without ever touching on the meat of a question. Robin Hanson and I have been tossing arguments back and forth at each other. Imagine if, instead of doing that, we just argued about which of us was more inherently rational and therefore should be assigned the greater weight on the question of modesty, *without* ever touching on our reasons for approving modesty or not. (This is not to be confused with our separate argument over whether I (Eliezer) can rationally estimate myself to be more rational than average; I am arguing the affirmative, but I am not saying that Hanson should therefore accept my opinion on the modesty argument, reasons unseen. In that sub-argument my (estimate of my own) rationality is a direct matter of interest, not being argued in order to infer something else. Such are the hazards of choosing "meta-rationality" as the main question.) If I am rational, then I should have decent reasons - Bayesian causes - for believing as I do. Once I have disgorged my reasons for believing something, my rationality becomes much less inferentially relevant to whether my belief is probably correct. My causes for belief, if I have told them truly and completely, stand as a variable in closer causal proximity to the matter of interest than my 'rationality'. My 'rationality' is expressed only in the causes that influence my beliefs. If, despite being rational most of the time, I admit unusually stupid causes for belief on one occasion, I will probably end up being wrong on that occasion. Or a usually irrational person, who happens to admit rigorous reasoning on one occasion, will probably be right on that occasion. Thus, I still think that people who disagree should, pragmatically, go on arguing with each other about the matter of interest, instead of immediately compromising based on a belief in the probable rationality of the other. If two people really do happen to agree on their estimates of each other's psychological rationality, then sure, they can go ahead and compromise their probabilities; but they ought still to tell their reasons to one another, just in case, so that they learn something. If two people each think the other is being irrational, then at least one of them must not be very meta-rational - but if so, they can still learn more by arguing with each other about the direct facts of the matter than by arguing over which of them is the non-meta-rational one. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 21 08:23:45 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:23:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <200503210534.j2L5YXY25621@tick.javien.com> References: <200503210534.j2L5YXY25621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41a3eb749fcf18230a48775476edce70@mac.com> Everything is a technological dead end if it cannot be defended against every possible terrorist act? This would be life totally controlled by our fear. I wouldn't want to live there. Would you? - samantha On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: >> J. Andrew Rogers: >> >> Even if we posit that someone stole the mini-nukes in the '90s, the >> devices as stolen would already be relatively inert in all >> likelihood... >> >> j. andrew rogers > > > I would like to think that is the case J. Andrew, but the > short half life element is the tritium (~12 yrs). If the > suitcase nuke consisted of only fission elements and > high explosives, the part that is used as the fusion > initiator in modern nukes, then that part could > likely go without maintenance for a long time. > > Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements > to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even > using a subway to spread radioactive material. Subways > might be a technological dead end, for they appear > inherently undefendable against this sort of thing. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 21 08:27:51 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:51 -0800 Subject: META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map) In-Reply-To: <423E1194.1000506@cox.net> 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> <4238F926.5000208@neopax.com> <20050317094849.GV17303@leitl.org> <7a3217050503201519ea3c006@mail.gmail.com> <423E1194.1000506@cox.net> Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Zero Powers wrote: > >> FWIW: I'm on the transparency, gun-free, atheist side of the debate. >> Politics? Still undecided. Your mileage, of course, will vary. >> >> > My take: > > Transparency is inevitable. I'm not "in favor" of it any more than I'm > in favor of gravity. If the end of privacy and anonymity is inevitable then ether a great change must be made in societies (or in the people themselves) and laws severely limiting the power and range of the state must be in force or universal inescapable oppression is inevitable. > - samantha From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 08:47:53 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:47:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050321084753.7633157EE6@finney.org> Eliezer writes: > Thus, I still think that people who disagree should, pragmatically, go > on arguing with each other about the matter of interest, instead of > immediately compromising based on a belief in the probable rationality > of the other. That seems reasonable, and from what I understand, is consistent with Robin's results. I read him as not so much saying that Bayesians "should" agree; but that they can't help agreeing. That doesn't change the fact that the best way to aggregate their information may well be to argue the situation *as though* they strongly disagreed. Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you were duplicated, and you and your copy went out and independently worked and did research on FAI. You come back together after a year, and you simultaneously report your estimates on whether a given FAI project will succeed. One of you says the odds are 1/10, and the other says the odds are 9/10. I would think, in this situation, that at least one of you would be extremely surprised and shocked. You would be forced to accept the fact that your copy had accumulated evidence during that year which led him to a very different estimate than your own. And the mere knowledge of that difference, even before you begin talking about the details of what you both learned, will be enough to sharply change your internal estimate of the probability. You might even be struck sufficiently by the symmetry of the situation to get past the automatic assumption that you are more likely to be right than your copy. You would understand that it was really only an accident of chance which copy your consciousness was in, that you could just as easily have been the other one, in which case you would hold the opposite view about probability. Suppose your experience was that the strength of the evidence you accumulated during the year had not been as strong as you hoped and expected it would be, and therefore it is likely that your copy had better luck than you did in terms of the strength of his evidence. Given the symmetry which otherwise exists, you would then prefer to adopt its position as your new estimate. OTOH if the year had been unusually productive and strong in the quality of evidence it gave you for your beliefs, you would choose not to switch. Since you know nothing about what the copy's experiences were along these lines, you can't predict whether he will switch or not; it will depend solely on whether the strength and quality of the evidence he accumulated during the year was above or below average, which is not known to you. Even if you do follow these predicted behaviors, you would still be right to argue (or at least vigorously discuss) the reasons why your copy came to such a dramatically different result than you did. You want to pool your information and come up with the best quality estimate based on everything you two learned during the year. And it may well be that the best way to do that is for the one to defend the 0.1 estimate while the other defends 0.9, each based on what they learned. While doing this, though, I think mentally you would each be somewhat in the frame of mind of playing devil's advocate. You'd be pushing a strong position while privately believing that the other side may well be right. As long as you're honest about it, that seems fine. I think this is the mental stance that Bayesians would have to hold while arguing and disagreeing with each other, and such a practice seems plausible to be the optimal method for consolidating information. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 09:09:59 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:09:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: "if we cannot be free, at least we can be cheap" In-Reply-To: <20050321061200.59000.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050321061200.59000.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e050321010912ed9d44@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:03:39 -0800 (PST), Al Brooks wrote: > Good answer. But why do so many of those against big > government support public schools? Such has been my > experience. I've often heard it said: "I don't like > the guvmint, but we've got to reform public education, > not eliminate it". I'll answer that question with a memory of a little conversation I had with an American once, on the stunningly vile custom that Americans somehow let their governments get away with, of (given public schooling) _forcing children into a particular school based on address, rather than letting the parents choose, given that they've paid the tax money_. It didn't seem to bother him much. I remarked that I didn't listen to the radio much since the 1980s when the Irish Ministry of Culture shut down all the independent radio stations (leaving only the government-approved ones, which really aren't worth listening to). He replied that if the American government tried to do that, the response would be rioting quickly followed by armed rebellion (and rightly so, in my opinion). People, unfortunately, get used to the form of servitude they grew up with. - Russell From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 09:30:21 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:30:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> References: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e050321013071411b7d@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:48:51 -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Thus, I still think that people who disagree should, pragmatically, go > on arguing with each other about the matter of interest, instead of > immediately compromising based on a belief in the probable rationality > of the other. I agree completely! This is partly why my only remark on the big thread of whose penis^Wrationality is bigger than the other, was that the argument that rational people can't disagree is full of it; the thread was pretty much a waste of bandwidth. Arguments about actual technical matters, however, can well be worthwhile. So if the two of you choose to present your arguments about technical matters, I'll be happy to read and chip in whenever I think I have something useful to say. - Russell From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 09:37:27 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:37:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050321084753.7633157EE6@finney.org> References: <20050321084753.7633157EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0503210137e3a69c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:47:53 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Even if you do follow these predicted behaviors, you would still be right > to argue (or at least vigorously discuss) the reasons why your copy came > to such a dramatically different result than you did. You want to pool > your information and come up with the best quality estimate based on > everything you two learned during the year. And it may well be that the > best way to do that is for the one to defend the 0.1 estimate while the > other defends 0.9, each based on what they learned. I agree completely; Eliezer and I did this some months ago, for example, regarding the feasibility of hard takeoff. Now we're both smart people who've studied the issue carefully, and come to different conclusions, so what was the rational thing for us to do? Answer: each of us argued our case until we boiled it down to flat difference of intuitions, whereupon we nodded, "Now I see why you believe what you do - go ahead and prove me wrong." (Well, that's what I said, since he's the optimist on that one. He's probably hoping I _don't_ prove him wrong :)) - Russell From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 10:02:58 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:02:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Geographic on cryonics Message-ID: <470a3c520503210202c8d46ee@mail.gmail.com> The National Geographic magazine has a good article on cryonics. The prospect of cheating death raises a host of philosophical, moral, and religious questions. But let's consider only the scientific aspects. Even proponents of cryonics, the practice of storing entire organisms (or at least their brains) for future revival, admit there is no scientific evidence that a cryopreserved human will ever be revived. No one even knows what technology would have to be developed to reverse the preservation. Many questions surround the cryopreservation process itself. In cryopreservation, cells and tissues are stored at frigid, cryogenic temperatures - where metabolism and decay are almost stopped - for future revival at normal temperatures. But scientists have long known that the freezing process creates ice crystals, which destroy cells and cellular structures. A few years ago, cryobiologists discovered a new preservation process, called vitrification, which virtually eliminates ice-crystal formation. Rather than freezing the tissue, vitrification suspends it in a highly viscous glassy state. In this mode, molecules remain in a disordered state, as in a fluid, rather than forming a crystalline structure. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0318_050318_cryonics.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 11:30:47 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] health #1; freedom #2 References: <20050321050215.99673.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004501c52e09$6e123ec0$be893cd1@pavilion> How do you stay healthy if, e.g., you give up freedom? Imagine the case where, as might happen in the EU with supplements, certain health technologies are banned? However, I think this is all pitting values against one another. For me, freedom is probably the #1 _social_ value because it makes so many other such values possible. Cheers! Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 21 11:52:18 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:52:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics References: <20050321060238.4723.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005f01c52e0c$6f52a6a0$be893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, March 21, 2005 1:02 AM Ian Goddard iamgoddard at yahoo.com wrote: >> Anyone interested in them as a general topic for >> discussion? For the last year or so, I've been >> studying them in earnest, particularly using Graham >> Priest's _An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic_ >> and J.C. Beall's and Bas C. van Fraassen's >> _Possibilities and Paradox: An Introduction to >> Modal and Many-Valued Logic_ as my main tour guides. >> (There are a few other titles too and anyone >> interested who's not familiar with these types of >> logics can google them. There're quite a few good >> intros online.) > > Sounds like an interesting topic. I think so too.:) > Thanks for the text-pointers. Could you cite > some of the better online intros? Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page For modal logic, there's: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ Which also happens to be at the top of the google search on that topic. This paper also has a section on different logics: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/mcchay69/mcchay69.html and it covers them in the context of AI. > Last semester I took a course in metalogic > (Phil 470) covering the semantics of classic > logic (propositional and first-order predicate). I found Raymond M. Smullyan's _First-Order Logic_ -- available in an inexpensive Dover reprint -- to be a great introduction to first-order logic. It was especially helpful with the tableaux method that Priest, Beall, and Bas C. van Fraassen rely heavily on. (In fact, it's not too inaccurate to say a lot of Priest's exposition is relating how different logics have different tableaux rules. At least, that's one device he uses throughout his book to relate the differences.) > During the last two weeks we skimmed the > surface of propositional modal, or intensional, > logic, which is a nonclassic logic. I want to > study further than that. The Beall and van Fraassen book focus to a large extent on modal logic -- as the title reveals. If you're interested in one philosopher's view of modality, you might want to read Alvin Plantinga's _Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality_. If you want to learn more about second- and higher-order logic in the context of metamathematics, there's Stewart Shapiro's _Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic_. > It was the most enjoyable course I've ever taken > due in part to the text we used (when the professor > wasn't teaching off-text) which I highly recommend! > It was "Logic, Language, and Meaning" volumes 1 > and 2 by L.T.F. Gamut. [*] The author's name is a > pseudonym for five professors (van Bentham, > Groenedijk, de Jongh, Stokhof, and Verkuyl) in the > fields of mathematics, philosophy, and linguistics. > Clearly that ideal breadth of collective knowledge > accounts for the unparalleled quality and scope of > this two-volume text. The first fairly slim volume > covers classic logic and the second goes above. [*] Haven't heard of that one and thanks for the reference. Cheers! Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 21 13:10:43 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:10:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ In-Reply-To: <004801c52dc4$8185d9c0$e7893cd1@pavilion> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320204829.028b1e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <004801c52dc4$8185d9c0$e7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321071000.04f599f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Haha! Thanks Dan. N At 09:17 PM 3/20/2005, you wrote: >And here I thought it was supposed to be >H.:) > >Regards, > >Dan, H# > See "Free Banking FAQ" at: >http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html > >From: Natasha Vita-More >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:51 PM >Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ > >I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came up with the H> >idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. > >Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into the +? > >Thanks, >Natasha >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 > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 21 13:12:08 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:12:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H or H+ In-Reply-To: <20050321050533.43641.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050321050533.43641.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321071053.04f59760@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Don't be so quick to dismiss, details are essential. N At 11:05 PM 3/20/2005, you wrote: >This is the least of our problems. > > > >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came > > up with the H> > > idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. > > > > Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into > > the +? > > > > Thanks, > > Natasha > > > > 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 > > > >__________________________________________________ >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 rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 13:24:36 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:24:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <423E6245.4060109@mydruthers.com> References: <20050320194752.CBDE757EE7@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050320193623.02f82488@mail.gmu.edu> <423E6245.4060109@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321081917.02fc04d0@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:57 AM 3/21/2005, Chris Hibbert wrote: >>How can you justify disagreeing with people who have studied these >>topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been rapid? > >But I think the relevant characteristic of these stagnant fields is that >there's still disagreement among the experts, and while there may have >been sound and fury, it doesn't seem to have led to a settled >consensus. If a reasonable amount of effort indicates that experts >disagree, then the uninformed baysian can't know which expert to believe >without investing the time to become an expert. Rapidly progressing and slowly progressing fields both have many areas of agreement and many areas of disagreement. When the experts disagree you have the option to either take the side with one set of experts, or to take an intermediate position of uncertainty between the various expert group positions. The first choice is a choice to disagree, but perhaps not as problematic as choosing to disagree with experts when those experts mostly disagree with each other. 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 Mon Mar 21 13:40:59 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:40:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <20050321062848.EBCC857EE7@finney.org> References: <20050321062848.EBCC857EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321082839.02fe5ea8@mail.gmu.edu> At 01:28 AM 3/21/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >That would extend my rule about not disagreeing with the scientific >consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus in other fields. Isn't >there a danger that this broader view is more likely to run into the >situation where different fields have very different opinions about some >common subject matter? Religion vs biology on evolution, liberalism vs >conservatism on politics? As I just said to Chris: >When the experts disagree you have the option to either take the side with >one set of experts, or to take an intermediate position of uncertainty >between the various expert group positions. The first choice is a choice >to disagree, but perhaps not as problematic as choosing to disagree with >experts when those experts mostly disagree with each other. Hal continued: >Are you saying that there should be no difference in how you weight >the information about consensus in a field of study, based on how >much progress the field has made, and how accurate it has been in >the past? Or how would you incorporate that kind of information? When considering whether to disagree with someone, you must try to infer their information, analysis, and rationality relative to you. There are many things that might give you clues about these things, but most of these clues are rather weak. The recent rate of progress in a field is a rather weak clue about the analytical ability and rationality of the people in the field. When the field has a consensus, and you are considering disagreeing with it, the evidence is usually strong that they have a lot more information than you. So in this situation it is hard to see how the rate of progress would make that much difference. Much more relevant, I think, would be clues about whether some group of experts would happily lie to you and to themselves to get paid. Salesman often know a lot more than you about their products, but that doesn't mean you should just believe them. Similar skepticism could often be reasonable about the expert advise of astrologers, therapists, and doctors. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 14:32:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:32:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] "if we cannot be free, at least we can be cheap" In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321143259.83308.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> When 51% population chooses to homeschool, which might not be too far off. I hear that school that tried to implement RFID dogtags for students saw 25% of parents pulling their kids out of school. When a majority of voters take responsibility for their kids education, they will vote to not subsidize the freeloaders. --- Al Brooks wrote: > Granted, however people with children almost always > want you to pay for their kids' education. That's a > given. Even if they can afford part of the cost of a > good private school they'd rather send them to, ahem, > a lesser school to have the entire tuition paid. When > do you think parents will get over that habit-- in the > year 3000? > > > > >having too many kids is you > > contracting for > > responsibility that is a trade off against your > > liberty. The key is > > that you freely choose this responsibility by your > > own positive acts > > and do not have them forced upon you. Involuntary > > servitude is wrong. > > Voluntary servitude is not. > > > "That mountain can get awfully heavy sometimes. When > > do you find time > > to put it down for awhile?" > > "When you die." > > > > > __________________________________ > 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 > 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 Mon Mar 21 14:40:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:40:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321144020.60915.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Robin writes: > > But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only > follow > > the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid > over the > > last few hundred years. If you allow yourself to disagree with > experts > > from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence > saying > > that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis, > and > > more rational than they are. > > That makes sense. That would extend my rule about not disagreeing > with the scientific consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus > in other fields. In this respect, I can justly say that as there has been little progress in any sort of research into gravity and electrostatic phenomena since the 1920's, when physics was detoured into nuclear and electromagnetic phenomena for the last 80 years here on earth, and cosmologically distracted into isolated astronomical events that make for pretty pictures. There has been little research into field phenomena because you can't take a pretty picture of a field for your grant proposal cover page. This is the same sort of issue we see in the environmental movement, where environmentalists are always for protecting the cute and fuzzy animals, but you never see a "save the dung beetle" campaign. 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 14:52:03 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:52:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <423D1742.8030900@pobox.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050312125254.02de9100@mail.gmu.edu> <4233D64C.1060706@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050315195121.01ee09a0@mail.gmu.edu> <423D1742.8030900@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321093300.03068dd8@mail.gmu.edu> At 01:25 AM 3/20/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >Therefore, if two Bayesianitarian *altruists* find that they disagree, and >they have no better algorithm to resolve their disagreement, they should >immediately average together their probability estimates. ... But: >1) I can't just change my beliefs any time I please. ... >2) Evolution is still correct regardless ... >3) ... afterward I'll still know, deep down, whatever my lips say... >4) I have other beliefs about biology that would be inconsistent ... >Thus, if you want to claim a mathematical result about an expected >individual benefit (let alone optimality!) for rationalists deliberately >*trying* to agree with each other, I think you need to specify what >algorithm they should follow to agreement - Aumann agent? Bayesianitarian >altruist? In the absence of any specification of how rationalists try to >agree with each other, I don't see how you could prove this would be an >expected individual improvement. I find great use in the concept of rationality criteria/constraints/rules. Consider the example of the claim that your beliefs should satisfy P(A) = 1- P(not A). This is a constraint on rational beliefs, and one should arguably strive to have one's beliefs satisfy this constraint all else equal. This is not to say one must pay any cost to achieve this result. Rather, noticing that you have failed to satisfy this constraint is a strong clue that you should consider modifying your beliefs to eliminate this failure. Now you could argue against P(A) = 1- P(not A) as you did above. You sincerely believe that both the Republicans and the Democrats have a 70% chance of winning the next presidential election, and it just wouldn't be sincere to just change your beliefs - deep down you would know what you really believed. And you could change your beliefs to satisfy the constraint by setting P(Republicans) = 99.99% and P(Democrats) = 0.01%, but that would be worse wouldn't it. So unless someone gives you a complete feasible algorithm for choosing your exact beliefs in every situation, and proves to you that this is the exact optimal way to choose all beliefs, well you don't see any point to this P(A) = 1- P(not A) rule. The disagreement results are similar to P(A) = 1- P(not A) in that they point out a problem without giving you an exact procedure to fix the problem. I am *not* proposing that whenever you discover you disagree you should simply change your beliefs to the average of the two beliefs. I am saying that whatever procedures you use, if you discover that you do have persistent disagreements, then that is a strong clue that something is seriously wrong with at least one of you. And you need to be very wary of too quickly concluding that it must of course be the other guy. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 15:18:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:18:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] >H or H+ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321151853.71684.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I agree. This is an important part of the memetic battle. The >H designation implies that we seek to transistion from human into something else, without a judgement as to whether that is good or not, leaving it to the opposition to make the value judgement. H+ says that we wish to become better humans, i.e. we remain human, only we seek to be better or more than we currently are, i.e. it is a definitive value judgement that this is both good and that we are not giving up our human 'souls', however that is defined, in the process. This is IMHO more robust and able to resist the negative value judgements of the luddite movement. --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Don't be so quick to dismiss, details are essential. > > N > > At 11:05 PM 3/20/2005, you wrote: > >This is the least of our problems. > > > > > > > >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came > > > up with the H> > > > idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. > > > > > > Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into > > > the +? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Natasha > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >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!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 15:28:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] health #1; freedom #2 In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321152825.73123.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Mike, perhaps it's not so much that freedom is > overrated, but that it has become a catchall, even a > platitude. Like love. I've been hearing about Love > everyday, forever. As far as I really know it was > about ID bracelets in the 7th grade. After one says > the word 'love' over & over it loses all meaning. > Repeat 'happiness'; 'family'; 'responsibility'; > 'honor'; 'dignity'; 'duty'; and 'freedom' too many > times they become nothing. Also we cannot define where > liberty leaves off and where license begins. This is absolutely untrue. The Zero Agression Principle clearly defines the distinction. > However you are correct that we want freedom as much > as anything-- whatever freedom might be. A caged > animal wants freedom even when freedom would mean it > is out into the wild that it has forgotten how to > thrive in. Barry Goldwater's truism is: "Americans > would rather be poor and free than rich and enslaved", > which is valid; a man in a cell (which is a polite > word for cage) would rather eat beans and rice on the > outside than live in a cell where he is feed eight > course meals including lobster. Yet by my lights > better to be healthy and poor (as distinct from > destitute) than poor and free. If I were impoverished > in America I would concern myself with merely > surviving and staying reasonably healthy, freedom > would be a lower priority in the condition of poverty. > I personally would rather be healthy and poor than be > free and rich. So freedom by my definition is > certainly not the be all & end all. Freedom might be > #2, after health. What good is being rich & free if > you are sickly or don't feel well? What good is being healthy if your health is merely put to the ends of the state or other slavemaster? The fact is that those living in freedom are healthier by choice than those who are not (NH was rated the healthiest state in the US, btw). Looking at the USSR and many other tyrannical states, we see the life expectancy, infant mortality, and many other measures of health significantly lowered. Here in the US in general, we see that the primary detriment to life expectancy seems to be the fact that the food industry is subisidized by the government into using high fructose corn syrup and other corn products excessively in processed foods, which is widely attributed to be the root cause of the excessive obesity problems of our society. If such subisidies did not exist, then corn would have to compete against other sources of sugar and starch fairly and would thus be less widely used, and obesity would drop. Also, when your level of taxation is burdensome, you overwork, are overstressed, and are unable to find the time to maintain a physical fitness regimen, all of which contribute to ill health. There is a reason the US as a whole fell out of the top ten most economically free nations, and quality of health has dropped as a result. 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 15:45:20 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:45:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> References: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321103734.02f01210@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:48 AM 3/21/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >There's an art of sticking as close to the question as possible - arguing >about issues that stand in the closest possible inferential proximity to >the main question; trying to settle questions that, if we knew the answers >to them, would render more distant questions irrelevant. ... >That's another reason why I don't trust the modesty argument. It seems to >me that you can argue indefinitely over who's more rational, without ever >touching on the meat of a question. ... >If I am rational, then I should have decent reasons - Bayesian causes - >for believing as I do. Once I have disgorged my reasons for believing >something, my rationality becomes much less inferentially relevant to >whether my belief is probably correct. ... >Thus, I still think that people who disagree should, pragmatically, go on >arguing with each other about the matter of interest, instead of >immediately compromising based on a belief in the probable rationality of >the other. >At 03:47 AM 3/21/2005, Hal Finney responded: >That seems reasonable, and from what I understand, is consistent with >Robin's results. I read him as not so much saying that Bayesians "should" >agree; but that they can't help agreeing. That doesn't change the fact >that the best way to aggregate their information may well be to argue >the situation *as though* they strongly disagreed. ... >While doing this, though, I think mentally you would each be somewhat in >the frame of mind of playing devil's advocate. ... As long as you're >honest about it, that seems fine. I agree with Hal. You don't have to disagree in your heart to explore the different possible positions on an issue, and their strengths and weaknesses. 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 megao at sasktel.net Mon Mar 21 15:58:03 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:58:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] health #1; freedom #2 In-Reply-To: <004501c52e09$6e123ec0$be893cd1@pavilion> References: <20050321050215.99673.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> <004501c52e09$6e123ec0$be893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <423EEF0B.6050906@sasktel.net> The area I inhabit is a value chain encompassing agriculture , including medicine and involving legal restrictions one part of society places on other parts.....I deal with this issue daily. Complex plant based quasi-food , Quasi-medcine produced by a variety of means some very simple some enormously complex are an area where money and health meet. Laws come into this as much to "protect stupid humans from the stupidity of others" as to create monetary turf from which to fund science-based medicines produced via plant based bioreactors. One area that really shows the issue in action is the cannabis area. Here we have a plant regulated by laws drafted 50 years ago as much for economic competition reasons as what little science was known then. Then the ironic twist is that truth has become stranger than fiction and the plant based chemistry of cannabis is capable to be transformed into a bioreactor capable of producing a real cornocopea of pharmaceutical bio-products. Poor citizens with knowledge but either unable or unwilling to trade money for these bioproducts are prevented access. The financial success of the bio-business depends upon restricting free access to the technology of production , in this case by very draconian laws. Where this ties to the discussion is that the bio-based production model of cannabis meds is a model for benchmarking the economic-social struggle all future plant based bioreactor species are following. Eliminating the social benefits of generification becomes a legal conspiracy. The problem is that each disjoint party is looking out for #1 without any regard for any reasonable socioeconomic balance. Worse than this, politicians are out of their league in dealing with societal overarching regulations on the matter. So health, freedom and money can make for nasty bedfellows. Morris Johnson Technotranscendence wrote: >How do you stay healthy if, e.g., you give up freedom? Imagine the case >where, as might happen in the EU with supplements, certain health >technologies are banned? > >However, I think this is all pitting values against one another. For >me, freedom is probably the #1 _social_ value because it makes so many >other such values possible. > >Cheers! > >Dan > See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: >http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html > >_______________________________________________ >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: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 15:58:08 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:58:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> References: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321105601.01e99f60@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:48 AM 3/21/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >There's an art of sticking as close to the question as possible - arguing >about >If I am rational, then I should have decent reasons - Bayesian causes - >for believing as I do. Once I have disgorged my reasons for believing >something, my rationality becomes much less inferentially relevant to >whether my belief is probably correct. ... Yes. But as the limited humans we are, we can usually only explicitly communicate a small fraction of the considerations we actually used in choosing our beliefs. 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 Mon Mar 21 16:35:38 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:35:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050315201726.02ed4f80@mail.gmu.edu> On AM 3/13/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>>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. >>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 repeat: I am *not* suggesting that your foreshorten or ignore anything! I am suggesting that you might pay more attention to a certain big clue. >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? It is far from enough for you to be better than the average human. Anytime you disagree with someone, you have to ask yourself how you compare to *that* person. And since even the very best people by most any metric disagree a whole awful lot, clearly even the very best are making some serious mistakes in estimating their relative rationality. So you have to ask yourself why you think you are doing better than *them*. And ask in some detail. >>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. Imagine you came upon a brick wall with the following words painted on it: "I am not a brick wall! I am a rational conscious being who hears everything you say here, and could at anytime choose to change these words here. I know all about the theory of disagreement. And I think you, the guy there reading me, are an idiot." You hit the wall with a hammer and paint and brick chips fly - looks just like paint on a brick wall to you. *Of course* you should feel free to disagree with this brick wall. The clues are overwhelming here that this wall is an idiot. Some person may have once written those words, and had reasons for them, but the wall is clearly *not* listening to your arguments. Humans are biased to reject the views of those who call them idiots, but to make you misread these clues in a case like this the bias would have fantastically strong, must stronger than we need to explain ordinary human arrogance. But our ability to point to extreme cases like this does *not* license the ordinary range of human disagreement. >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. Yes, I was asking after specifics. If no time now for such an answer, that is fine. >>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. I think that impression is wrong. But it is also not enough to have a long list of possible mistakes you think the other person might have made. Most everyone explains their disagreements in terms of mistakes they think other have made. But people, even very smart people, are clearly are biased in underestimating their own chances of making such mistakes. So the big key question is how you can avoid such biases in your own estimates. >>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. How about an informal, but explicit, Bayesian analysis? 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Mar 21 17:59:01 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:59:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) Message-ID: <1111427941.21020@whirlwind.he.net> Spike wrote: > Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements > to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even > using a subway to spread radioactive material. Subways > might be a technological dead end, for they appear > inherently undefendable against this sort of thing. I don't consider "dirty bombs" a real threat, so this type of thing does not concern me to any great extent. Dirty bombs are primarily a psychological weapon, targeting the same irrational response that makes it politically impossible to build nuclear power plants. What's a few kilograms of radioactive material scattered to the four winds, when thousands of metric tons of the same materials are scattered to the four winds near population centers by industry? This is the same perceptual asymmetry that makes the depleted uranium indignation so absurd. A few tons of DU in the desert is an outrage, dumping a few THOUSAND tons of *un*-depleted uranium (and worse, thorium) next to an American city is not worthy of mention. Fear and outrage is very selective when it comes to anything nuclear. j. andrew rogers From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 18:44:37 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:44:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050321184437.8160957EE7@finney.org> Russell Wallace writes: > I agree completely; Eliezer and I did this some months ago, for > example, regarding the feasibility of hard takeoff. Now we're both > smart people who've studied the issue carefully, and come to different > conclusions, so what was the rational thing for us to do? Answer: each > of us argued our case until we boiled it down to flat difference of > intuitions, whereupon we nodded, "Now I see why you believe what you > do - go ahead and prove me wrong." So did you "agree to disagree"? Doesn't it bother you that a smart and knowledgeable person like Eliezer has come to a different view of the facts of the matter? You're both born into the same world, products of the same evolutionary process; you're exposed to different information, and ultimately your estimations of probabilities are based on these causal factors. Do you accept that if you had been exposed to the experiences Elizer had, you would have come up with his estimation of the probabilities, rather than yours? If so, then doesn't that tell you that there are facts in the world, information you could have gained, which would make you share his beliefs? And isn't knowing that such persuasive information exists, even without direct access to the information itself, enough to make you doubt your position and consider it equally likely that Eliezer's view is correct? Well, I realize that this is a pretty long chain of inferences. I'd be curious to hear where you diverge from this argument for why you should not be able to knowingly disagree with someone whom you view as rational and honest, and who you think believes the same of you. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 18:59:41 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:59:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050321184437.8160957EE7@finney.org> References: <20050321184437.8160957EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e05032110596d14f825@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:44:37 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > So did you "agree to disagree"? Yep. > Doesn't it bother you that a smart and knowledgeable person like Eliezer > has come to a different view of the facts of the matter? Not at all; why should it? It would bother me if the issue were proven, if there was hard data staring us in the face so that one of us would have to be mentally blind not to see it, but that isn't the case here; the issue was one on which there is as yet no hard data. > You're both > born into the same world, products of the same evolutionary process; > you're exposed to different information, and ultimately your estimations > of probabilities are based on these causal factors. Do you accept that > if you had been exposed to the experiences Elizer had, you would have > come up with his estimation of the probabilities, rather than yours? No. Our beliefs on things that aren't matters of proven fact depend not only on the domain-specific information we've received, but also on our genes and general experiences that form our personalities. > And isn't knowing that such persuasive information exists, even without > direct access to the information itself, enough to make you doubt your > position and consider it equally likely that Eliezer's view is correct? I do doubt my position. I don't consider it _equally likely_, but in the absence of mathematical proof or experimental evidence, I certainly acknowledge the possibility that he's right and I'm wrong. - Russell From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 19:09:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:09:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321190935.92557.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Industry doesn't disperse highly concentrated plutonium. The radiation from plutonium is of such high energy that it quickly destroys lung tissue when inhaled, leaving that which survives to develop cancer. Plutonium is a much different animal than depleted uranium (or even undepleted). --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Spike wrote: > > Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements > > to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even > > using a subway to spread radioactive material. Subways > > might be a technological dead end, for they appear > > inherently undefendable against this sort of thing. > > > I don't consider "dirty bombs" a real threat, so this type of thing > does > not concern me to any great extent. Dirty bombs are primarily a > psychological weapon, targeting the same irrational response that > makes > it politically impossible to build nuclear power plants. > > What's a few kilograms of radioactive material scattered to the four > winds, when thousands of metric tons of the same materials are > scattered > to the four winds near population centers by industry? This is the > same > perceptual asymmetry that makes the depleted uranium indignation so > absurd. A few tons of DU in the desert is an outrage, dumping a few > THOUSAND tons of *un*-depleted uranium (and worse, thorium) next to > an > American city is not worthy of mention. Fear and outrage is very > selective when it comes to anything nuclear. > > > j. andrew rogers > > _______________________________________________ > 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 harara at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 21 19:26:50 2005 From: harara at sbcglobal.net (Gregory H Coresun) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:26:50 -0800 Subject: ///// [extropy-chat] ///// {META - Help re Browsers} In-Reply-To: <20050320013608.15935.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050320013608.15935.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321111808.02d9b380@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com> thanks for everyones comments, am playing with Opera. I really like search stuff in new windows, and not too happy that Mozilla overrides prefereces set in Google. Seems just about any use of IE forces me to use spybot and adaware... I have a package called GhostSurf - anyone used it? Is it worth the trouble? Does it help with any of this junk? From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Mar 21 19:52:52 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:52:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) Message-ID: <1111434772.15385@whirlwind.he.net> Mike Lorrey: > Industry doesn't disperse highly concentrated plutonium. The radiation > from plutonium is of such high energy that it quickly destroys lung > tissue when inhaled, leaving that which survives to develop cancer. > > Plutonium is a much different animal than depleted uranium (or even > undepleted). Studies of populations in locales where uranium is concentrated and dumped as a side-effect of industry show no significant health impact. I was not really trying to assert that there was such a threat associated with uranium. Thorium, which is concentrated and dumped in similar quantities, does correlate with a statistically significant increase in cancers and other symptoms of DNA damage, and has a similar risk profile as plutonium. But even in populations that have an unhealthy exposure to thorium particulates, the overall increased mortality is still largely background noise compared to other common mortality risks even with order of magnitude increases in mortality from various types of cancer and similar associated with thorium exposure. I agree that uranium is a poor model for plutonium exposure, but thorium makes a pretty good analog and that too has been dumped en masse and there are significant studies of thorium particulate exposure. j. andrew rogers From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 21 20:40:24 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:40:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050321204024.6E6B157EE6@finney.org> Russell Wallace writes: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:44:37 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > > You're both > > born into the same world, products of the same evolutionary process; > > you're exposed to different information, and ultimately your estimations > > of probabilities are based on these causal factors. Do you accept that > > if you had been exposed to the experiences Elizer had, you would have > > come up with his estimation of the probabilities, rather than yours? > > No. Our beliefs on things that aren't matters of proven fact depend > not only on the domain-specific information we've received, but also > on our genes and general experiences that form our personalities. What about the thought experiment I offered to Eliezer: suppose you had a duplicate made in a magical duplicating machine, and then the two of you went off and studied some question for a year, independently. Perhaps it's the one you disagreed upon with Eliezer. When you return, you each simultaneously announce your estimates of the probability for the matter in question. To make it dramatic, suppose that one of you decides that the probability is low, say 1/10; while the other copy decides that the probability is high, 9/10. If you put yourself in that situation, would you find that the mere knowledge that your copy got such a different result would cause you to drastically revise your own opinion about the probability? After all, you might as easily have been him, and if you had been subjected to the same information as he was, you would presumably have come up with essentially the same result. In a symmetric situation like this, doesn't it force you to view both probability estimates on equal grounds, rather than favoring the one that you happen to hold? Let's further impose the rather artificial restriction that all you can do now is exchange your (updated) probability estimates with each other. As you listen to the other copy's estimates your own probability estimates may change, and you might expect his estimates to change as well. What do you think about the claim that in this situation, it is impossible, if you both view each other as honest, rational truth-seekers, for you two to "agree to disagree"? That you will both eventually converge on a common estimate of the probability, even if you are not allowed to explain the reasoning and information that led you to your opinions? Mere knowledge of the disagreement is enough to eliminate it, according to the theorem. By focusing on this rather artificial example, I am trying to eliminate the variable you cited, the variation in genetics and prior experiences. In this case, there will be variation due to experience over the course of the experiment, but you will clearly start with the same set of biases and beliefs ("priors", in Bayesian terms). I wonder if you would then find the no-disagreement argument persuasive. Hal From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Mar 21 20:35:56 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:35:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic In-Reply-To: <20050320004739.76657.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I went to NG's site to email them my opinion on this matter and saw this in the Geography Bee FAQ (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geographybee/faq.html): """""""""" 2) Who can participate in the National Geographic Bee? Bee registration is open to schools and homeschool associations with students in grades four through eight who are not over the age of 15 by the time of the national level. A student must be enrolled in a school or homeschool association that is registered with the Bee. Also, students of the eligible grade levels must be following a school schedule and academic course load comparable to the majority of the student's grade-mates and age-mates. A student may not be enrolled in more than two academic courses at the high school and/or college level during each school year of the competition. We reserve the right to disqualify a student if we believe the rules have not been followed. Schools from all 50 U.S. states, the U.S. territories, and the U.S. Department of Defense schools participate in the National Geographic Bee. Students enrolled in public or private schools may not compete as part of a homeschool association's Bee and, conversely, students who are homeschooled must participate through a registered homeschool association. """"""""" It seems like the restriction is really around schools with less than 6 Geography Bee participants. So it does not directly prevent homeschoolers, but makes it harder. There are homeschool associations that allow parents to group together to join stuff like this. BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:47:39 -0800 (PST) > >I realize that most members of this list, if not all (as well as >myself) recognise what a great resource the National Geographic Society >is, and has been over the years. The quality of their publications and >programming is stunning and informative. I have enjoyed their magazines >and programs quite a bit over the years, particularly the highly >detailed fold out maps they frequently publish in NG (no, Spike, the >nude native girls are only an occasional feature). > >However, something has come to pass with NG that is really incensing >me. NG has made it a mission to improve geographic education in the US, >and sponsors the National Geographic Bees for school age children. Last >years winner was a boy from the New Hampshire town of Francestown who >happens to be homeschooled. This is not an accident, as home schooled >children regularly take many top placements in this annual competition, >which has helped significantly to promote the idea that homeschooling >produces quality educated children, contrary to the bible-addled >backwoods hick that the NEA likes to promote. > >This year, NG has a new rule that bans all homeschooled children from >the Geography Bee competition. This is not just prejudiced, bigoted, >and discriminatory, it is a violation of the 14th amendment. It is >apparently in response to NEA pressure, which sees homeschooling and >education vochers as a threat to its agenda to teach its >socialist/statist ideas to all of Americas children. The NEA is >responsible for promoting the Geography Bee in schools and influences >buying decisions for school district purchasing of geographic education >materials. > >As such I am part of a group of folks who are announcing a complete >boycott of all National Geographic products until this policy changes. >This means no tv programs, no magazines, no NG sponsored ecotourism, >etc. You are encouraged to communicate your own disapproval of NGs >actions to its leadership, which you can find a list of at: >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/about/masthead.html >the phone number for National Geographic headquarters is 202-857-7000. >(Hit (3) to get the staff directory). You can email the NG with your >own opinions of their discrimination at: >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/community/email.html > >This is an issue that you can have an enormous impact on by copying the >above text into an email to your local newspaper's "letters to the >editor" mailbox and posting it to some of your favorite lists, fora, or >websites. Thanks for your help. > >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 From outlawpoet at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:02:36 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> >"No child of mine will ever cower before an imaginary God. It is beneath the dignity of >human beings and it is beneath the dignity of our descendants. If the lightning is beautiful, >then let us see the beauty in electricity without need for thunder deities; for if we cannot >learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty indeed." ~Eliezer Yudkowsky One great fear of mine is the tyrrany of sounding good. Eliezer is a prime example of a person who has tuned and tuned in the search for rationality. Unfortunately, I suspect, there is a class of 'improvements' one can make which correspond more to obscuring flaws than making true statements. It is a problem I have noted myself on more than one occasion. Here Eliezer is responding to a theist who complained that we need to instill our mind children with some kind of religion that will force them to respect their elders, lest we be obsoleted. He continues: >"But I'm not going to try to hardcode that, not in a child nor in an AI. As an atheist, I have >a simple, matter-of-fact confidence that religionists once had and relinquished long ago. I >don't think I need to load the dice for my answer to win. All I need is to set in motion the >dynamics that seek truth, i.e., some computable approximation of Solomonoff induction. If >there were the tiniest shred of truth to religion, that would be enough to uncover it. If you >have even a droplet of honest belief left, not just empty excuses for a faith you lost long >ago, you will not ask me to load an AI's dice in favor of your pet theory. Let the truth win >out." All true statements. All very appealing (at least to this rationalist and this truthseeker). But, the subtle shift in conversation here is quite nearly unnoticed. We've transitioned to instilling beliefs in a mind, to better them and ourselves, to talking about the structure of the mind, to fixing it so there is only one answer. Perhaps because the theist is muddled in his thinking this blanket approach is valid. It's true that Eliezer's objections do entirely refute John C Wright's theistic aspirations. But his argument does not directly address his points. A general question: What is intellectual honesty? Eliezer has a real commitment to truth. However, and I fear this is a general point, being committed to truth is not sufficient. Eliezer in this example, and others in many examples (I choose Eliezer because I believe he's not making any other mistakes here) has changed the context, the discussion has been shifted to allow him his total commitment to certainty. By changing the context slightly he's found a place where he can shoot down this theistic argument with perfect aplomb and sound like a hero. But is he? He's making arguments that are true, and insightful(even poetic, perhaps) but they aren't in the original exact vein of discussion. Isn't that somewhat misleading? Or am I making something of a molehill? Perhaps Eliezer has simply reframed the question in general terms, much as I'm generalizing his statements for logical effect. Let's continue in that vein, and move reducto ad absurdum. Suppose a fully rational, truthful being, that only chooses to engage in discussion when certain, and always seeks to twist contexts to those he's more comfortable in, to the limits of his self respect and intellectual honesty. Luckily, mythology is replete with examples of this type. The Zen Master, the Oracle, Yoda, all inscrutable characters who are right, and insightful, and powerful creatures, but maddening, because they only rouse themselves to croak factually accurate and unassailable arguments, and refuse to engage in fringe discussion. There are two factors here. One is the very real problem of authority acceptance. Many self-aware Masters rage at their disciples on both sides, chiding them for accepting the Master's word without question, and also being annoyed when they don't recognize and internalize the truth the Master offers them. So the good master retreats into relative silence to avoid corrupting and doing a disservice to all those who listen to him. Speaking when certain, and able to tell how his words will affect. This admirable strategy is always blended with persona maintenence, a despicable practice of hiding, changing, and sculpting information to maintain certain relationships and reputations. Shame on the Master who can't bear to have students see him wrong. The second factor is subtler, and the one I have been trying to explore above. The Master categorizes within his subject. He divides the realm of his understanding by function or taxonomy, he asks questions and answers with statements which exist along those lines. The Fool asks sweeping, conjoined questions, stabs at understanding that smears across the subject. The Master, presented with these questions, maps the question to his understanding, finding pieces of it within some division of his knowledge, addresses this part (perhaps rightly) believing himself to have dealt with the entirety. After all, a single contradiction is all you need to invalidate an entire argument. I don't know whether this represents an important distinction when you're just learning to be a rationalist. I haven't yet reached the point where it even constitutes a significant portion of my mistakes. But it is A mistake. I know there is a rank above that of Inscrutable Master. I don't have all the details yet, but he's humble and detailed and truthful. She answers questions in the spirit they are asked, but as correctly as she knows how. He presents his uncertainty, his incomplete scraps of knowledge, and his current thinking, because it too, is information. And she never takes an easy win, when there are more interesting and informative portions of an argument. Noisy Errors are to be preferred. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Mar 21 21:06:13 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:06:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered religion Message-ID: <200503212106.j2LL6RY01388@tick.javien.com> Rick Woolley writes: >For sake of argument/exploration, assume that i have the means to conceive and birth my AI child today. It seems clear to me that a main point of creating something which will rapidly become vastly superior to myself is so that i may learn new truths, and unlearn old falsehoods? Should i place more trust in a monkey-man like myself, or should i accept the judgments, teachings, and actions of the AI? One point that only the future can answer is how much engineering will go into the engineering of the artificial minds? If it is like being a father, there is not much engineering involved. The way the child grows is a matter largely out of one's hands. You try to teach your child as best you can, and the rest is providence, or fate, or luck. Note the paradox here: An engineered object, when correctly made, functions as designed. A mind thinks as it will, and may overcome its education or early training by an effort of will, or a deliberate practice of habit. An engineered mind would (one assumes) have in it the qualities the engineers know how to put in it. In order to make the mind a cowardly one, the little gears and cogwheels controlling that function would have to be made a certain way, a strong brake on its spirited sense of honor, perhaps: to be courageous, the gears and wheels would need a different arrangement, such as low-pressure in the valve controlling the self-preservation. A just mind would have nicely balanced levers for its calculations, a temperate one would have a system of escapements to prevent the mainsprings of its passions from carrying it away. And so on. To make the mind one with contempt for human beings, engage the Terminator feature; to make it obedient to human commands, add the Asimov attachment. The question only the future can answer is how much can be controlled, and how much is going to be left to the outcome of automatic processes we have set in motion? But at some point (call it the age of majority) we stop treating it like an artifact are start treating it like a mind. As best I can tell, there is no intermediate case: either you are tinkering with its skull, treating it like an object, or you are rearing it like a child, treating it like a human. If the moral qualities of man are a matter of pure intellect (and I have some sympathy to the arguments that this is so) then creating a creature of the greatest intellectual calculating power will be sufficient to ensure it is a moral and responsible being. If, on the other hand, it is possible to create a being of high intelligence who is morally retarded (and there are many examples of brilliant and evil men), humanity would be committing suicide to follow Mr. Woolley's advice here. I might be the monkey-boy Mr. Woolley says, but I don't want to be trampled from existence by Mechagodzilla. My point here is one you have all heard before, no doubt: the posthumans, if correctly and safely constructed, will be an outgrowth of humanity, maintaining continuity with our psychology, belief, and history. They will think they are like us and our us. If posthumanity is utterly alien to us, a race of superintelligent smallpox, no matter how intelligent they are, they are of no use to us. From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Mar 21 21:09:32 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:09:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H or H+ In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321071053.04f59760@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050321050533.43641.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050321071053.04f59760@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <3813654b345d34e85998dd9463c7ba67@bonfireproductions.com> I think we are H+ looking to be > Just a thought ]3 On Mar 21, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Don't be so quick to dismiss, details are essential. > > N > > At 11:05 PM 3/20/2005, you wrote: >> This is the least of our problems. >> >> >> >> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> > I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came >> > up with the H> >> > idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. >> > >> > Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into >> > the +? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Natasha >> > >> > 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 >> > >> >> __________________________________________________ >> 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 bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Mar 21 21:16:52 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:16:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <1111427941.21020@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1111427941.21020@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <72dfbeffbf60092accf52009857a4a27@bonfireproductions.com> ... I am guessing the difference is between "Don't go out in that field/hillside" vs. "Don't go to work today." It could be argued that the hillside doesn't affect the GNP, and so on. Being "next to" and not "steeped in". Etc. Besides, the alpha particle protection afforded by our dead skin cells doesn't exist in the body's interior - alpha particles can cause damage lodged anywhere in the pneumatic/gastrointestinal track just as good as any other radiation. ]3 On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:59 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Spike wrote: >> Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements >> to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even >> using a subway to spread radioactive material. Subways >> might be a technological dead end, for they appear >> inherently undefendable against this sort of thing. > > > I don't consider "dirty bombs" a real threat, so this type of thing > does > not concern me to any great extent. Dirty bombs are primarily a > psychological weapon, targeting the same irrational response that makes > it politically impossible to build nuclear power plants. > > What's a few kilograms of radioactive material scattered to the four > winds, when thousands of metric tons of the same materials are > scattered > to the four winds near population centers by industry? This is the > same > perceptual asymmetry that makes the depleted uranium indignation so > absurd. A few tons of DU in the desert is an outrage, dumping a few > THOUSAND tons of *un*-depleted uranium (and worse, thorium) next to an > American city is not worthy of mention. Fear and outrage is very > selective when it comes to anything nuclear. > > > j. andrew rogers > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Mar 21 21:30:57 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:30:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineering Religion Message-ID: <200503212131.j2LLV5Y04923@tick.javien.com> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes that the Jupiter Brains should not be taught religion, merely a method for discovering truth, and the truth will take care of itself. then this comment: >If you have even a droplet of honest belief left, not just empty excuses for a faith you lost long ago, you will not ask me to load an AI's dice in favor of your pet theory. Beg pardon? I am the theist in this discussion; and you the atheist. You are supposed to be accusing me of blindness and credulity, having too much faith, not having a faith I lost. Is this a misprint? Also the question I posed was what to teach the Jupiter Brains when they are still young, still under construction. The assumption here is that we, the engineers, get to decide what goes into the basic structure of the psychology, the early parts of the education. If you write into their basic program, let us say, a philosophy of behaviorism, then they should end up believing that everything they believe is due to their programming. If, on the other hand, you write into their basic program a philosophy that believes in free will, I suppose they will either end up believing in free will, or not, as they chose. Likewise, if the Jupiter Brain Engineers download the entire history of human religious thought, and then write into the Brains' basic program that they should adopt a rule of evidence to dismiss this all as delusion and fraud, you will probably get a different result than if you write into their basic program a belief in intuition or inspiration, or a rule of evidence that places weight on authority and tradition. God knows what would happen then. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 21:49:55 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:49:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] how many decades? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050321214955.76775.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Why do so many of those against big government support public schools? That has been my experience. I've often heard it said: "I don't like the guvmint, but we've got to reform public education, not eliminate it". Just like I hear catholics say, "we've got to reform the church", nevermind that the Church is by definition an authoritarian institution where reform is technically (theologically) anathema. There are too many otherwise anti-big-government parents-- not just teachers and teachers' union officials; not just liberals; and not only those who have children and use public schools, support for public schools. How many decades (three?) have intense discussions continued over public educational mediocrity, yet so little has been done? This signals to me that the problem does indeed go deeper than just government--teachers and their unions-- liberals-- apolitical parents with children who support public schools. __________________________________________________ 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 21 21:50:41 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:50:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineering Religion In-Reply-To: <200503212131.j2LLV5Y04923@tick.javien.com> References: <200503212131.j2LLV5Y04923@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321164327.02ec2508@mail.gmu.edu> At 04:30 PM 3/21/2005, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >If you write into their basic program, let us say, a philosophy of >behaviorism, >then they should end up believing that everything they believe is due to their >programming. If, on the other hand, you write into their basic program a >philosophy that believes in free will, I suppose they will either end up >believing in free will, or not, as they chose. > >Likewise, if the Jupiter Brain Engineers download the entire history of human >religious thought, and then write into the Brains' basic program that they >should adopt a rule of evidence to dismiss this all as delusion and fraud, you >will probably get a different result than if you write into their basic >program >a belief in intuition or inspiration, or a rule of evidence that places weight >on authority and tradition. God knows what would happen then. I'm with Eliezer here - Jupiter Brains should just not be that stupid. If you knew that the people who built your brain had a certain agenda when they started you, you will want to correct for that bias as best you could. The fact that your creators wanted you to believe certain things might itself be taken as evidence for the truth of those things, but otherwise you should not want your beliefs to depend their manipulations. In fact, I have a forthcoming paper on exactly this topic: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- forthcoming in Theory and Decision, 2005. http://hanson.gmu.edu/prior.pdf Uncommon Priors Require Origin Disputes by Robin Hanson In standard belief models, priors are always common knowledge. This prevents such models from representing agents' probabilistic beliefs about the origins of their priors. By embedding standard models in a larger standard model, however, *pre-priors* can describe such beliefs. When an agent's prior and pre-prior are mutually consistent, he must believe that his prior would only have been different in situations where relevant event chances were different, but that variation in other agents' priors are otherwise completely unrelated to which events are how likely. Thus Bayesians who agree enough about the origins of their priors must have the same priors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 john-c-wright at sff.net Mon Mar 21 22:36:27 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:36:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion Message-ID: <200503212237.j2LMb7Y12794@tick.javien.com> Samantha writes: >I wasn't using "engineered" in the sense of "totally made up" as you seem to have taken my remark. Your point is well taken. I misunderstood the thrust of your comments. You are describing an evolutionary or adaptive process, which is not the way I am used to using the word engineer. The mistake is mine. Ben Writes: > How do you get from "we must instruct our children in the basic rules of > morality" to "what religion do we teach the intelligent machines in the > early days, before they are independent?" ? Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the rules of morality are objective, obvious, and written into the structure of reality. Every philosophy and every civilized religion tends toward the same universal conclusion. I do not think religion is necessary for morality. (I do think it is necessary for salvation, but that is another topic). If it turns out that morality is not objective, I doubt that the transhumanist project is feasible. If the minds superior to ours cannot find a common ground of moral behavior, then they will merely be minds like ours, with our own flaws and passions writ large: devils. The minds will diverge in their goals and struggle with each other, perhaps war. Resources will still be scarce to them, compared with their ambitions and their powers, and, lacking a common moral code, the competition for scarce resources, or for prestige or power, will turn deadly. If, on the other hand, morality turns out to be objective, all the super-intellects will consult game theory, and the rules of economics, and deduce that cooperative competition is better than violent conflict. > Are you making the common mistake of assuming that morality can only > come from religion? (with the implication that non-believers are amoral, > if not immoral) God forbid that I should ever say such a thing! All men have a conscience, and religion is no guarantee that a man will not deafen himself to it. > It's 'belief' that causes the problems. It's belief that tells you that you are right and he is wrong, regardless of any evidence or facts. There are two ways a drunk can fall off a horse, to the left and to the right. Likewise, there are two ways a man can fail in his intellectual honesty: one is by being too credulous, and the other is by being so skeptical that his faculties are paralyzed. I can think of many beliefs that do not cause the problem you mention. > Agnostics are prey to fads and lunacies?!? > But the whole POINT of agnosticism is it *protects* you from fads and > lunacies! I am in the wrong here. Agnostics are not any more prone to fads than atheists and theists. My thought when I wrote that passage was that atheists would be controlled by reason, and theists by tradition, and so would tend to be slow to change their belief, except unless they had evidence (in the case of atheists) or a magesterium (in the case of theists) to govern the change. But this merely defines the rate of change, not the degree of change, nor the quality of the new belief. I retract the comment. >"No offense meant to respected agnostic brethren, but it is state of mind where the wondering of man finds no rest." This is a bad thing? the 'wondering of man' is what has driven us to become what we are. Stop the wondering and you stop progress. When you stop wondering, it's time to buy a teapot-shaped hat and start killing everybody who denies the absolute truth of what's written in this here . Again, there are two ways to fall off a horse. I was not recommending the strangulation of progress; I was merely wary of the inability of those men who are not loyal to a specific rule of evidence to come to definite conclusions. One too many of the agnostics I know are multiculturalists, of the kind who cannot decide whether or not cannibalism is bad, because they will not say living as an American doctor is better or worse than living as a Maori headhunter. When I say they cannot find rest, I mean that they will not make up their minds, even when the evidence is in. The atheists I know are Objectivists, who are zealous moralists. The Objectivist argument is that capitalism, the rational live of man, is the only moral way to live. The theists I know are moralists to a lesser degree. My Witch friends are a relaxed and cheerful live-and-let-live bunch: but, lurking in the background (and sometimes in the foreground) of their thought, is the idea that there is a right way to live, and that harm done others returns sevenfold. So my personal experience was that agnostics were indecisive. It is not necessary a general rule. And I owned my teapot-shaped hat long before I became a Christian. I have not yet received any orders from the Papal Mind Control satellite to go kill anyone. In fact, my last instructions from the home office were to turn the other cheek when struck and give my money to the poor. I will check with HQ and get back to you on that whole killing thing. >A religious AI is probably my worst nightmare. If the machines are logical beings, and actually live up to the doctrines sinning mortals preach, it might not be so bad. I suppose it depends on the religion. A Buddhist machine who practices ahimsa, absolute respect for all life, is not the very worst nightmare I can imagine. From sentience at pobox.com Mon Mar 21 23:24:31 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:24:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321082839.02fe5ea8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050321062848.EBCC857EE7@finney.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050321082839.02fe5ea8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <423F57AF.7080409@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 01:28 AM 3/21/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >> That would extend my rule about not disagreeing with the scientific >> consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus in other fields. >> Isn't there a danger that this broader view is more likely to run into >> the situation where different fields have very different opinions >> about some common subject matter? Religion vs biology on evolution, >> liberalism vs conservatism on politics? >> Are you saying that there should be no difference in how you weight >> the information about consensus in a field of study, based on how >> much progress the field has made, and how accurate it has been in >> the past? Or how would you incorporate that kind of information? > > When considering whether to disagree with someone, you must try to infer > their information, analysis, and rationality relative to you. There > are many things that might give you clues about these things, but most > of these clues are rather weak. The recent rate of progress in a field > is a rather weak clue about the analytical ability and rationality of > the people in the field. When the field has a consensus, and you are > considering disagreeing with it, the evidence is usually strong that > they have a lot more information than you. So in this situation it is > hard to see how the rate of progress would make that much difference. But here's an interesting question: *Why* do some fields accumulate new agreed-upon information (and perhaps technological applications) much more rapidly than other fields? Supposing, and it is a large supposition, that these fields are accumulating better approximations to the truth, what is it that some fields are doing right, and others doing wrong? For if I can fathom this strange difference, this magic quality, this mark of Reason, then I can wield that power directly to determine which ideas I ought to accumulate in myself. And I will be that much closer to the question therefore. Of course, to wield this power may require that I acquire some technical knowledge of the direct matter of interest, and that knowledge may not be cheap. But what the hell. At least there's the theoretical possibility of making progress that way. I mean, what makes you think you can arrive to the correct answer, no matter how much you scrutinize the other guy's psychology, if you don't have the technical knowledge? What makes you think that a secondhand nontechnical answer is even useful? Maybe to distinguish truth from falsehood you need to do technical thinking about the direct matter of interest, and if you can't perform that procedure you're screwed, just screwed, there *is* no way to tell from the outside. I do not say that this is always so. I do not even say that it is usually so. But it is a possibility that I try to bear in mind. And this thought encourages me to bite deeper into the meat of problems. Once upon a time, physicists told me that light was made of waves; and being one who draws upon the scientific consensus, I had faith that this was so, although I did not know how to prove it for myself. And then, years later, I was reading the Feynman Lectures, and I came across a gem called "the wave equation". I thought about that equation for three days, until I saw to my satisfaction that it was stupidly obvious. And when I understood, I realized that my faith that light and sound and matter were "waves" had been utterly useless. The physicists had not lied to me. But I then had no idea what the word "wave" meant to a physicist. How much good does it *really* do to borrow knowledge whose truth you can't judge for yourself? Even if your mastery of psychology enabled you to know with certainty that a physicist is rational when saying "Sound is waves", what have you actually learned? You have learned to associate one syllable with another. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 23:28:43 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:43 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers In-Reply-To: <20050318232648.38803.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050318232648.38803.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050321152874534eb6@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:48 -0800 (PST), Adrian Tymes wrote: > Neil Halelamien wrote: > > http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/ > > Checking the details... > > > While I am talking of what I mean, and before > > arguing why this is so important, let me say exactly > > what I mean by "make a copy of itself". I mean a > > rapid-prototyping machine that can make all its > > components other than: > > > Self-tapping steel screws > > Brass bushes, > > Lubricating grease, > > Standard electronic chips such as microcontrollers > > and optical sensors, > > A standard plug-in low-voltage power brick, and > > Stepper motors. > > > This list is an attempt to make a compromise between > > immediately-achievable technology and the desirable > > aim of shortening or eliminating it altogether. > > *cough*yaright*cough* > > True, it is desirable not to do more work than > necessary; unfortunately, true self-replication does > not all that degree of shortcutting. Screws and > bushes should be easy to create; power bricks, not > that much harder since they are explicitly fabricating > electrical components. Grease is allowable as an > exception: it's enough of a raw, bulk material that it > could qualify as feedstock. > > Motors and chips are the real killer. Granted, it's > hard to create them with the same kinds of tools that > one would, say, make panels and rods with. But that > doesn't mean one can credibly claim "self-replication" > by leaving those out. (Indeed, I recall an earlier > effort that managed to self-replicate *everything*, > including the motors, except for the chips.) Which is > probably why any real effort towards self-replication > should focus on an ability to build the tools that can > automatically build motors and chips: everything else > is easier in comparison. (Nor does this require > advanced lithography: if you can accept a low clock > rate and high power consumption - self-rep doesn't > always have to be fast and efficient - then one could > take large slices of silicon and weld copper traces > onto it, and force-implant impurities where > transistors are needed.) Come on Adrian, give them a break! Given that self replicating fabrication machines are a good idea (I think they are), then shouldn't expect a complete solution as v1.0 (or v0.1). I'm talking about consumer level here, I know these things are further down the track in the expensive, high maintenance cost world of industry. A partial solution that builds most of the machine and requires you to purchase feedstock & components like chips and motors is a pretty good first shot. If that can come down to a reasonable cost, the technology will be sitting there waiting for improvements to allow fabrication of the more complex parts in good time, and it will also get the self-replication meme out there. To me, the big advance here may not be technical so much as social; getting these machines into price range of an expensive home printer could change the way our society works quite interestingly. I'm imagining a suburbia where every house has a big clunky fridge-sized self rep machine, and perhaps a similarly bulky fuel cell based power source (or maybe even one of those atomic power sources from 50s sci fi?). What happens next? With the presence of the 'net, one imagines that better and better designs come out, incremental (and some discontinuous) improvements in self-fab technology turn up, and slowly the major areas of manufacturing find themselves competing with these machines. I reckon it'd take a decade or two for the machines to become good enough to really be usable by anyone (think home PC revolution, 80s and 90s), and for general attitudes to begin to shift from the consumer mindset to the maker mindset. This clunky technology could imply some *really very large* social change. A change probably bigger than that of the "information revolution". What kind of pushback will we get from existing industry, whose revenue base is threatened by this? What happens to consumer goods as they slowly begin to become information rather than manufactured product? I know this isn't new territory for this list. However, unlike MNT, this looks like it might begin to happen sooner rather than later, and through far more straightforward technologies. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 22 00:10:31 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:10:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423F6277.3040107@jefallbright.net> Justin - You make a very important point, however one that is all too easily filtered out by the very mechanism that it seeks to illuminate. Each of us is limited by the context within which we perceive and process our individual approximation of the "truth". The laser focus with which many of us are most comfortable tends to ignore the larger context that encompasses both viewpoints, and how they both fit, perfectly, within the greatest context that we think of as reality. Paradox is always a case of insufficient context. * Is is relatively easy to find weaknesses in another's structure of thought and with laser accuracy, illuminate the errors and prove them wrong. * It is much more challenging, and more rewarding, to cooperate in discovering the context in which another's belief is held, and then help build a larger context in which growth is facilitated. * More challenging yet, is to appreciate the limits of one's own context of thought, and be able to assign pragmatic probabilities as to its permanence. Interestingly, while it is impossible to see one's own context directly, as from outside oneself, it is possible in a second order way based on accumulating experience of self over time, to tune this probability in the proper direction. Rationality, in all its aspects, is a powerful capability, but it's worth keeping in mind that it always operates within the bounds of incomplete knowledge and computational resources, and remains embedded within the larger, older, and successful structure of the environment within which we evolved. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net justin corwin wrote: >>"No child of mine will ever cower before an imaginary God. It is >> >> >beneath the dignity of >human beings and it is beneath the dignity of >our descendants. If the lightning is beautiful, >then let us see the >beauty in electricity without need for thunder deities; for if we >cannot >learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty >indeed." > >~Eliezer Yudkowsky > >One great fear of mine is the tyrrany of sounding good. Eliezer is a >prime example of a person who has tuned and tuned in the search for >rationality. Unfortunately, I suspect, there is a class of >'improvements' one can make which correspond more to obscuring flaws >than making true statements. It is a problem I have noted myself on >more than one occasion. Here Eliezer is responding to a theist who >complained that we need to instill our mind children with some kind of >religion that will force them to respect their elders, lest we be >obsoleted. He continues: > > > >>"But I'm not going to try to hardcode that, not in a child nor in an >> >> >AI. As an atheist, I have >a simple, matter-of-fact confidence that >religionists once had and relinquished long ago. I >don't think I need >to load the dice for my answer to win. All I need is to set in motion >the >dynamics that seek truth, i.e., some computable approximation of >Solomonoff induction. If >there were the tiniest shred of truth to >religion, that would be enough to uncover it. If you >have even a >droplet of honest belief left, not just empty excuses for a faith you >lost long >ago, you will not ask me to load an AI's dice in favor of >your pet theory. Let the truth win >out." > >All true statements. All very appealing (at least to this rationalist >and this truthseeker). But, the subtle shift in conversation here is >quite nearly unnoticed. We've transitioned to instilling beliefs in a >mind, to better them and ourselves, to talking about the structure of >the mind, to fixing it so there is only one answer. Perhaps because >the theist is muddled in his thinking this blanket approach is valid. >It's true that Eliezer's objections do entirely refute John C Wright's >theistic aspirations. But his argument does not directly address his >points. > >A general question: What is intellectual honesty? Eliezer has a real >commitment to truth. However, and I fear this is a general point, >being committed to truth is not sufficient. Eliezer in this example, >and others in many examples (I choose Eliezer because I believe he's >not making any other mistakes here) has changed the context, the >discussion has been shifted to allow him his total commitment to >certainty. By changing the context slightly he's found a place where >he can shoot down this theistic argument with perfect aplomb and sound >like a hero. But is he? He's making arguments that are true, and >insightful(even poetic, perhaps) but they aren't in the original exact >vein of discussion. Isn't that somewhat misleading? Or am I making >something of a molehill? Perhaps Eliezer has simply reframed the >question in general terms, much as I'm generalizing his statements for >logical effect. > >Let's continue in that vein, and move reducto ad absurdum. Suppose a >fully rational, truthful being, that only chooses to engage in >discussion when certain, and always seeks to twist contexts to those >he's more comfortable in, to the limits of his self respect and >intellectual honesty. Luckily, mythology is replete with examples of >this type. The Zen Master, the Oracle, Yoda, all inscrutable >characters who are right, and insightful, and powerful creatures, but >maddening, because they only rouse themselves to croak factually >accurate and unassailable arguments, and refuse to engage in fringe >discussion. > >There are two factors here. One is the very real problem of authority >acceptance. Many self-aware Masters rage at their disciples on both >sides, chiding them for accepting the Master's word without question, >and also being annoyed when they don't recognize and internalize the >truth the Master offers them. So the good master retreats into >relative silence to avoid corrupting and doing a disservice to all >those who listen to him. Speaking when certain, and able to tell how >his words will affect. This admirable strategy is always blended with >persona maintenence, a despicable practice of hiding, changing, and >sculpting information to maintain certain relationships and >reputations. Shame on the Master who can't bear to have students see >him wrong. > >The second factor is subtler, and the one I have been trying to >explore above. The Master categorizes within his subject. He divides >the realm of his understanding by function or taxonomy, he asks >questions and answers with statements which exist along those lines. >The Fool asks sweeping, conjoined questions, stabs at understanding >that smears across the subject. The Master, presented with these >questions, maps the question to his understanding, finding pieces of >it within some division of his knowledge, addresses this part (perhaps >rightly) believing himself to have dealt with the entirety. After all, >a single contradiction is all you need to invalidate an entire >argument. > >I don't know whether this represents an important distinction when >you're just learning to be a rationalist. I haven't yet reached the >point where it even constitutes a significant portion of my mistakes. >But it is A mistake. > >I know there is a rank above that of Inscrutable Master. I don't have >all the details yet, but he's humble and detailed and truthful. She >answers questions in the spirit they are asked, but as correctly as >she knows how. He presents his uncertainty, his incomplete scraps of >knowledge, and his current thinking, because it too, is information. >And she never takes an easy win, when there are more interesting and >informative portions of an argument. Noisy Errors are to be preferred. > > > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 00:58:21 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:58:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050321204024.6E6B157EE6@finney.org> References: <20050321204024.6E6B157EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e05032116587148a143@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:40:24 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > What about the thought experiment I offered to Eliezer: suppose you had > a duplicate made in a magical duplicating machine, and then the two > of you went off and studied some question for a year, independently. > Perhaps it's the one you disagreed upon with Eliezer. When you return, > you each simultaneously announce your estimates of the probability for > the matter in question. Now, that does largely eliminate the other factors I mentioned, so that the difference is indeed likely to be primarily in the domain-specific knowledge each copy has access to. Do you really mean "probability"? I suspect you don't, that you're just following the habit some people have of saying "90% probability" when you mean "I think so, though I'm not sure, but I actually have no basis whatsoever for assigning a number to it". The Cyc project started off doing this, but abandoned it, for good reason - it obscures information. For example, it obscures the difference between "I strongly believe X is probably true" and "I weakly believe X is true". But let's suppose I say what I would actually say, something like "I think X is false, though I'm not certain" and my copy says "I think X is true, but I'm not certain." My reaction here will depend on what X is - in particular, if it refers to the possibility of accomplishing something, then I will reason as follows: "I believe X can't be done, my copy thinks it can. What would make him think that? I'd say it's because he's figured or, or been told about, a way to do it! Off the top of my head I can't think of anything else that would change his mind like that. Alright, then, I now believe it can be done." So we won't converge on a middle ground - we'll both end up believing X is true, but my conviction will be weaker than my copy's, because it's based on more indirect reasoning. > What do you think about the claim that in this situation, it is > impossible, if you both view each other as honest, rational truth-seekers, > for you two to "agree to disagree"? That you will both eventually > converge on a common estimate of the probability, even if you are not > allowed to explain the reasoning and information that led you to your > opinions? Mere knowledge of the disagreement is enough to eliminate it, > according to the theorem. I don't agree there is any general rule to that effect, but you've presented a situation where the prediction ends up being partly correct, for reasons specific to the situation. - Russell From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Mar 22 01:11:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:11:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050321152874534eb6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050322011130.71272.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > A partial solution that builds most of the machine and requires you > to > purchase feedstock & components like chips and motors is a pretty > good > first shot. Problem is, this much has previously been accomplished. And quite a few potential uses for self-rep can't be done if you have to supply non-feedstock items. However... > If that can come down to a reasonable cost, the > technology > will be sitting there waiting for improvements to allow fabrication > of > the more complex parts in good time, and it will also get the > self-replication meme out there. To me, the big advance here may not > be technical so much as social; getting these machines into price > range of an expensive home printer could change the way our society > works quite interestingly. ...you have a very good point. If it helps bring about true self-rep, then that's good. (Especially if all the components are standard commodities - for instance, no chips designed just for this machine, but standard chips made by several different manufacturers. "Commodity" is not that far from "feedstock", in places where shipping a commodity is not a problem.) > I'm imagining a suburbia where every house has a big clunky > fridge-sized self rep machine, and perhaps a similarly bulky fuel > cell > based power source (or maybe even one of those atomic power sources > from 50s sci fi?). What happens next? > > With the presence of the 'net, one imagines that better and better > designs come out, incremental (and some discontinuous) improvements > in > self-fab technology turn up, and slowly the major areas of > manufacturing find themselves competing with these machines. The device would have to be easy to reconfigure so that it didn't just produce copies of itself, but that's probably more of a software tweak than a hardware tweak. > I reckon it'd take a decade or two for the machines to become good > enough to really be usable by anyone (think home PC revolution, 80s > and 90s), and for general attitudes to begin to shift from the > consumer mindset to the maker mindset. 3D printers already exist, although they have problems creating things made from the metals they are made from. > This clunky technology could imply some *really very large* social > change. A change probably bigger than that of the "information > revolution". What kind of pushback will we get from existing > industry, > whose revenue base is threatened by this? What happens to consumer > goods as they slowly begin to become information rather than > manufactured product? We're already seeing that today. Witness CNC machines and 3D printers. At first, the industry tries to make an industry out of the new gadgets. "They're expensive" or "you need lots of training to be able to get much out of them" are perhaps the two most common excuses, and for a while they're true. But they also become self-perpetuating myths (and contributing to this perpetuation could be seen as part of the industry's pushback). When those shatter, the industry retreats into whatever pieces remain: in this case, screw/bushing/motor fabrication, or possibly the design and licensing of new plans for tools. (Hello, DRM; who gets to issue the licenses for wrenches?) But in this case, the industry has one advantage that may never go away: mass production. If their supply and distribution chain is such that they can get a screw to you for 2 cents, while ordering the feedstock, setting things up, and adding in the amortized cost of the fabricator would mean the screw costs you 3 cents, it's still more cost effective to go with the traditional manufacturer. Which points to two avenues of economic competition: get the cost of the fabricator itself (including learning how to use it effectively) down, and work out the logistics to supply everyone who has one with feedstock at a reasonable cost. From sentience at pobox.com Tue Mar 22 01:14:52 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:14:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423F718C.6000305@pobox.com> justin corwin wrote: > > All true statements. All very appealing (at least to this rationalist > and this truthseeker). But, the subtle shift in conversation here is > quite nearly unnoticed. We've transitioned to instilling beliefs in a > mind, to better them and ourselves, to talking about the structure of > the mind, to fixing it so there is only one answer. Perhaps because > the theist is muddled in his thinking this blanket approach is valid. > It's true that Eliezer's objections do entirely refute John C Wright's > theistic aspirations. But his argument does not directly address his > points. Huh? I addressed the two main points Wright had, as I saw them: 1) Wright wants to program in religion as fixed. I regard religion as possessing and relying on factual components which would be invalidated by a simple truthseeking dynamic. Programming in fixed beliefs creates a conflict of interest over whose pet belief gets programmed; programming in a truthseeking dynamic without loaded dice seems to me a fair resolution. C.f. http://sl4.org/wiki/CollectiveVolition, _Motivations_, "5. Avoid creating a motive for modern-day humans to fight over the initial dynamic." 2) Wright has warm and fuzzy feelings about daddygods whose imaginary threat of eternal hell keeps people in line. I reply with my warm and fuzzy feelings about free and independent humans, living without fear, moral because that is who they choose to be. If you feel I failed to address a point, why do you not state clearly what it is? Sheeze, and they call me Yoda. I never signed up to be your Zen Master. I just ordinarily talk like that, y'know, it's the way I express my philosophy of being human. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Tue Mar 22 01:21:56 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:21:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423CE037.60806@pobox.com> <1111381170.8277.2.camel@localhost> <3ad827f305032113024076beda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423F7334.1050800@pobox.com> justin corwin wrote: > > All true statements. All very appealing (at least to this rationalist > and this truthseeker). But, the subtle shift in conversation here is > quite nearly unnoticed. We've transitioned to instilling beliefs in a > mind, to better them and ourselves, to talking about the structure of > the mind, to fixing it so there is only one answer. Perhaps because > the theist is muddled in his thinking this blanket approach is valid. > It's true that Eliezer's objections do entirely refute John C Wright's > theistic aspirations. But his argument does not directly address his > points. So is the point I'm not addressing the idea that we must program AIs with a modern-day human religion that advocates compassion because otherwise they'll wipe us out? I guess I didn't address this point because it doesn't interest me. The answer is "That's not how Friendliness engineering works!", and you, Corwin, can probably explicate why, without me going into a lecture on things that I've said before only around ten million times. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 22 02:36:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:36:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <41a3eb749fcf18230a48775476edce70@mac.com> Message-ID: <200503220238.j2M2crY07075@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) > > Everything is a technological dead end if it cannot be defended against > every possible terrorist act? This would be life totally controlled by > our fear. I wouldn't want to live there. Would you? > > - samantha Let's not make it easy for them. Subways make terrorism too easy. That would lead to having our lives controlled by fear. Let us build stuff that is more robust. Roads and freeways are better than subways anyhow. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 22 02:54:44 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:54:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools In-Reply-To: <20050321144020.60915.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503220256.j2M2uiY09595@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > > This is the same sort of issue we see in the environmental movement, > where environmentalists are always for protecting the cute and fuzzy > animals, but you never see a "save the dung beetle" campaign...Mike Lorrey On the contrary, Mike. Beetles, flies, amoeba, anything can be the focus of an endangered-species-act land grab. There is no creature too insignificant or noxious to use as a way to legally confiscate private property. spike From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Mar 22 02:58:59 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:58:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <200503220238.j2M2crY07075@tick.javien.com> References: <200503220238.j2M2crY07075@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <423F89F3.4070700@humanenhancement.com> Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a car at the same time... ;-) Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta spike wrote: >Let's not make it easy for them. Subways make terrorism >too easy. That would lead to having our lives controlled >by fear. Let us build stuff that is more robust. Roads >and freeways are better than subways anyhow. > >spike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 22 03:23:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:23:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] newer, better cities In-Reply-To: <423F89F3.4070700@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <200503220325.j2M3PsY13899@tick.javien.com> Roads and freeways are better than subways anyhow. spike ________________________________________ On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a car at the same time... ;-) Joseph Oy, ain't it the truth. I have travelled to Boston, and ja parking is a huge problem there. Driving is a huge problem there too: the roads go every which way. But I have a suggested solution to this. Clearly there are cities that were built before there were cars. There is no easy way to retrofit these places: there are buildings right where the parking lots need to go. The suggestion is to let those cities be just as they are, and build entirely new ones nearby. Then historical structures can be left standing, and those that want a place to park will gravitate toward the newer more efficient cities. Everyone then can have what they want, and the overall effect is a more robust landscape. California seems to be drifting in this direction. The local historical societies want to preserve any building that can be reliably dated to the twentieth century. I don't see why they couldn't apply the historical preservation rules to parking lots. An example of de facto drift to more efficient city layouts can be seen all around us. Cities evolve. Leave the old ones to historians and build new from the ground up. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 04:59:05 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:29:05 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers In-Reply-To: <20050322011130.71272.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc050321152874534eb6@mail.gmail.com> <20050322011130.71272.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503212059778c663c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:11:30 -0800 (PST), Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Emlyn wrote: > > A partial solution that builds most of the machine and requires you > > to > > purchase feedstock & components like chips and motors is a pretty > > good > > first shot. > > Problem is, this much has previously been accomplished. And quite a > few potential uses for self-rep can't be done if you have to supply > non-feedstock items. However... > Yes, both of these things are true. However, as I said it's a first step. > > If that can come down to a reasonable cost, the > > technology > > will be sitting there waiting for improvements to allow fabrication > > of > > the more complex parts in good time, and it will also get the > > self-replication meme out there. To me, the big advance here may not > > be technical so much as social; getting these machines into price > > range of an expensive home printer could change the way our society > > works quite interestingly. > > ...you have a very good point. If it helps bring about true self-rep, > then that's good. (Especially if all the components are standard > commodities - for instance, no chips designed just for this machine, > but standard chips made by several different manufacturers. > "Commodity" is not that far from "feedstock", in places where shipping > a commodity is not a problem.) > > > I'm imagining a suburbia where every house has a big clunky > > fridge-sized self rep machine, and perhaps a similarly bulky fuel > > cell > > based power source (or maybe even one of those atomic power sources > > from 50s sci fi?). What happens next? > > > > With the presence of the 'net, one imagines that better and better > > designs come out, incremental (and some discontinuous) improvements > > in > > self-fab technology turn up, and slowly the major areas of > > manufacturing find themselves competing with these machines. > > The device would have to be easy to reconfigure so that it didn't just > produce copies of itself, but that's probably more of a software tweak > than a hardware tweak. Lol, I didn't mean to imply that a self-replicating machine can *only* replicate itself. Rather, it is a general purpose part fabricating machine, which can incidentally make a copy of itself (requiring some standard extra parts, chips for example). So I can make all kinds of things with it, including a copy of itself that I can give to my friend, sans a few small difficult bits. > > > I reckon it'd take a decade or two for the machines to become good > > enough to really be usable by anyone (think home PC revolution, 80s > > and 90s), and for general attitudes to begin to shift from the > > consumer mindset to the maker mindset. > > 3D printers already exist, although they have problems creating things > made from the metals they are made from. Which is the gap that is yet to be jumped. You need a 3D printer that can make (most of) another 3D printer, dropping the cost way down (manufacture & delivery & marketing costs are replaced by the cost of feedstock and maintenance on a friend's replicator). > > > This clunky technology could imply some *really very large* social > > change. A change probably bigger than that of the "information > > revolution". What kind of pushback will we get from existing > > industry, > > whose revenue base is threatened by this? What happens to consumer > > goods as they slowly begin to become information rather than > > manufactured product? > > We're already seeing that today. Witness CNC machines and 3D printers. I probably don't know enough about them, but what I do know is that I don't have one, and I can't afford one. > > At first, the industry tries to make an industry out of the new > gadgets. "They're expensive" or "you need lots of training to be able > to get much out of them" are perhaps the two most common excuses, and > for a while they're true. But they also become self-perpetuating > myths (and contributing to this perpetuation could be seen as part of > the industry's pushback). When those shatter, the industry retreats > into whatever pieces remain: in this case, screw/bushing/motor > fabrication, or possibly the design and licensing of new plans for > tools. (Hello, DRM; who gets to issue the licenses for wrenches?) Well, the DRM fight continues. I think the issue of "intellectual property" (a suspect concept at the best of times) is the primary challenge for the world today. Getting it wrong now (which we are making a very good shot at doing) will break a lot of the potential great stuff down the track. Screwing up IP (by enforcing it!) will probably successfully stop Singularity, at least until after we are all dead. Maybe that's a good thing, depending on your point of view. > > But in this case, the industry has one advantage that may never go > away: mass production. If their supply and distribution chain is such > that they can get a screw to you for 2 cents, while ordering the > feedstock, setting things up, and adding in the amortized cost of the > fabricator would mean the screw costs you 3 cents, it's still more cost > effective to go with the traditional manufacturer. Well, the manufacturer needs to distribute bulky real world items and make a profit. Neither of these apply to someone making an item for themselves at home (although feedstock needs to be distributed). This may be able to compensate for the advantages of mass production. Also, people like "free" stuff. For example, look at downloaded music. I think that if you factored in the costs of a computer (or at least part thereof), the time needed to screw around searching, downloading, redownloading with Kazaa or equivalent (you can assume middling to poor computer literacy for the average user), some sort of cost to represent the risk of being caught and sued by the RIAA, and the cost of CDs where appropriate, you might come up with a cost per album that is at least in the general ballpark of the cost of that album on CD from a shop, and is perhaps higher, mostly depending on the price you put on your time. Add to this that you don't get nice album covers and that the sound quality is inferior (mp3 is, after all, a lossy compression regime), and you've got to wonder whether downloading music off the 'net is economically competitive in the most common case. > > Which points to two avenues of economic competition: get the cost of > the fabricator itself (including learning how to use it effectively) > down, and work out the logistics to supply everyone who has one with > feedstock at a reasonable cost. Getting the cost of production of the fab down shouldn't be too hard; most of the parts you get from someone else with a fab, and the small amount of difficult stuff you buy. Note that the idea is to release the fab's design as "open source" (hopefully under a Creative Commons license), so there is no manufacturer (eventually) who can extract a rent. Learning how to use it will be tougher; it'll probably stay in the hands of the hard bitten enthusiast for a while, until many iterations down the track it gets easier to work with. Feedstock will just get cheaper as the demand grows and a network effect develops; this machine should become cheaper, easier to use, and easier to feed, over time. Basing it loosely on the takeup of PCs, I'd give it roughly ten to twenty years from the first machines appearing in the hands of individuals, through to it beginning to penetrate the mainstream and begin to really effect our culture. btw, this is the best thing that can happen for MNT. Machines like this will open the memetic path for it; MNT becomes just another type of fab (albeit the best one!). > _______________________________________________ > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 05:47:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:47:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322054724.77004.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > > I agree that uranium is a poor model for plutonium exposure, but > thorium > makes a pretty good analog and that too has been dumped en masse and > there are significant studies of thorium particulate exposure. You are comparing apples and atom bombs. Plutonium is considered the most toxic substance to humans. Estimates are that one ounce evenly distributed amongst the entire populace of the US would kill everyone (though this estimate was done back when I was a kid, when US population was around 200 million, and I have doubts about the accuracy of that, as I heard it from one of my science teachers in HS, who was a notorious anti-nuker). Thorium is a far far less toxic substance. 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 Tue Mar 22 05:59:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:59:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050322055903.14018.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > > It seems like the restriction is really around schools with less than > 6 Geography Bee participants. So it does not directly prevent > homeschoolers, > but makes it harder. There are homeschool associations that allow > parents to group together to join stuff like this. a) many states, like NH, mandate that homeschoolers have a 'professional' teacher appointed by the parents to oversee or audit the childs progress a few times a year. That person also helps coordinate the childs participation in any extracurricular activities the school district offers (which under Title IX they can't refuse to homeschoolers), so each homeschooler has a preexisting affiliation with a public school system in many such states. b) it is unconstitutional for states to compell membership in a homeschool association. Compelled association is a first amendment violation. Many homeschoolers do not belong to a homeschool association, and compelling their membership in one is burdensome not to mention unjust. c) while NG is the sponsor, every Geography Bee is a public event at a public venue, and therefore under the case law is a public accomodation under the 14th Amendment. Homeschoolers cannot be excluded from public school geography bees. The NG rules you cite create not separate teams, but entirely segregated competitions, a 'separate but equal' status which was ruled unconstitutional in the 1950's. Shall we start excluding asian kids because they do well also? How about separate competitions for black kids so their self esteem isn't damaged? d) the separate competitions force homeschool parents to drive much more so their kids can compete, therefore creating barriers to entry and discouraging homeschoolers from participating. d) the NEA has put the NG under pressure because the NEA feels threatened by the fact that 'amateur' educators are producing better product than the 'professionals'. They have made the NG create a separate 'special olympics' for homeschollers so that public school parents are not exposed to homeschoolers and their parents, where they might learn how easy it is to homeschool and the benefits of homeschooling to the childs academic acheivement. 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 Tue Mar 22 06:03:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:03:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322060358.20822.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Boston is somewhat easier to live in if one got about by Segway. However, the point is not to live in Boston, but to work there and live somewhere livable, so as to maximize one's economic potential. --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a > car at the same time... > > spike wrote: > > >Let's not make it easy for them. Subways make terrorism > >too easy. That would lead to having our lives controlled > >by fear. Let us build stuff that is more robust. Roads > >and freeways are better than subways anyhow. 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 22 06:09:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:09:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Travelling Extropes: Florida In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322060908.1257.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I will be in West Palm Beach, FL for the next two weeks (I'm there now). If any extropians in the area want to get together, please let me know. Also: the Palm Beach County Libertarians are having a talk by John Stossel on the 29th in West Palm Beach, I think at the Crown Plaza but I'm not sure yet. I'll be there, and would love to meet other extropes who show up. Email me if you are interested. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 22 06:10:38 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:10:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:37 AM 3/17/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >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. >... > >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. Sorry not to have replied to various questions raised on this thread. I was away in Florida at the annual academic conference run by the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts, centered on the theme of transrealism (I wrote the book on that topic), where to my surprise and delight I picked up the Distinguished Scholarship Award for 2005. Cool fun. As for whether cryonics is cool fun or a waste of money my family could be spending after I die (or "die")--well, I'm less concerned about the technical issues. That's simply a gamble, and maybe one worth taking *if I can truly be recovered*. For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in THE SPIKE. If you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way to copy the Mona Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the Mona Lisa? Well, no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is the painting that's hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication that closely resembles it. It's too tedious, however, to rehearse this argument when it's been presented before quite exhaustively. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 06:33:56 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:33:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Summer Founders Program Message-ID: <470a3c52050321223317f034bf@mail.gmail.com> This seems a good opportunity for all US residents who want to start a company: http://paulgraham.com/summerfounder.html From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 06:52:43 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:52:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Vatican on Schiavo Message-ID: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> >From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value of the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the same kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an innocent persons to death". Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you put to death with the inquisition? From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 22 06:58:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:58:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.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> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> <4239D3AE.1040805@neopax.com> <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050322004922.04332a68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:39 AM 3/18/2005 +1030, Emlyn wrote: >This is starting to become more interesting, Dirk... seems to be a very >straightforward statement about a belief >that groups of minds (literally) create epiphenomenal consciousnesses >which can then be physicially interacted with, via media such as >Ouija. Care to expound on it a little more? Also, if Damien is out >there reading this, does any of your research into psi phenomenon >overlap with this contention of Dirk's? Certainly some anomalies researchers would say so, at least in very broad terms. See for example: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ Then there's the classic invocation, by a group led by Kenneth Batcheldor, of an invented `ghost'. Have a Google. Are such effects real and significant? I dunno. There's plenty more in Dr. Dean Radin's forthcoming book ENTANGLED MINDS. Damien Broderick Kenneth Batcheldor of an invented ghost, From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 07:00:15 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:00:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] upwingers 'conservative' and liberal In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322070015.64033.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> An example of a prominent conservative "upwinger" would be Newt Gingrich: http://www.newt.org When you read Gingrich's views on "Winning The Future" you realize quickly he can be called conservative only in the superficial sense. Gingrich does discuss the 'Creator', however his reference to a Creator is largely political (not surprising being Gingrich's wide experience in politics as well as academia): e.g. rights deriving from the Creator and not from government. Politics aside, notice Gingrich's technological vision differs little from FM 2030's: http://www.fm2030.com/index2.cfm __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 22 06:59:45 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:59:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050321105601.01e99f60@mail.gmu.edu> References: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050322015703.034eb040@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:58 AM 21/03/05 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:48 AM 3/21/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>There's an art of sticking as close to the question as possible - arguing >>about >>If I am rational, then I should have decent reasons - Bayesian causes - >>for believing as I do. Once I have disgorged my reasons for believing >>something, my rationality becomes much less inferentially relevant to >>whether my belief is probably correct. ... > >Yes. But as the limited humans we are, we can usually only explicitly >communicate a small fraction of the considerations we actually used in >choosing our beliefs. True. And some of the reasons we maintain beliefs will be used in an attempt to embarrass you if you are so foolish as to admit you are an evolved social primate with a wired in interest in maintaining your status in the local "tribe." Keith Henson From sentience at pobox.com Tue Mar 22 07:10:01 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:10:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <423FC4C9.30405@pobox.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: > "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore > fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e > appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? > arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" > Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching > off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value of > the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the same > kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an > innocent persons to death". > Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you > put to death with the inquisition? Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 07:38:43 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:38:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <423FC4C9.30405@pobox.com> References: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> <423FC4C9.30405@pobox.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520503212338bf76ffb@mail.gmail.com> No logical fallacy. I am not refuting a logical proposition but an attempt to seize a moral high ground. Different rules apply. On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:10:01 -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: > > "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore > > fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e > > appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? > > arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" > > Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching > > off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value of > > the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the same > > kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an > > innocent persons to death". > > Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you > > put to death with the inquisition? > > Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 22 07:46:00 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics References: <00e601c52db3$8192bac0$58893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <002501c52eb3$48c60d90$0ec41b97@administxl09yj> Technotranscendence: > Anyone interested in them > as a general topic for discussion? > For the last year or so, I've been studying > them in earnest, [...] In algebra (or algebra of operators) there is something called non-distributivity: (AxBxC) =/= Ax(BxC) =/= (AxB)xC. (Non-distributivity is different from non-commutativity). Is there a non-standard logic reproducing, somehow, a property like this? Or is this property something usual? In economy, sociology, politics, chemistry? Thanks, -serafino From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 22 08:41:27 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:41:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) Message-ID: <20050322084127.19CCA57EE6@finney.org> Damien writes: > For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've > discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in THE SPIKE. If > you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way to copy the Mona > Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the Mona Lisa? Well, > no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is the painting that's > hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication that closely resembles > it. I think Brett's point was whether this kind of question can be addressed via some of the mechanisms we have discussed, such as Idea Futures. How could you make a bet which would test whether cryonics would "work"? Or more specifically, how could you make a bet about whether a copy of a mind is, in some sense, the original? And if we can't make bets about these kinds of things, is that then an example of a limitation on what knowledge we can rationally obtain about the world? These are interesting issues and I don't have a firm opinion about them. It's possible that the nature of identity is a meaningless question, that such a concept of identity is a philosophical error. But even if so, that proposition is something that people would disagree about today. How could we hope to decide whether identity is a meaningful concept, or merely an illusion? Is that something we could bet on, and if we try, how would we settle the bet? Seems like we're still stuck on the same point. The best I could propose is that it is likely that at some time in the future, society will come to a consensus about the answers to these questions. Maybe this consensus will arise due to greater scientific understanding of the brain that leads to an accepted mathematical model of consciousness and identity. Or maybe the consensus comes from some yet to be discovered, mind-bending philosophical proof which utterly convinces everyone who hears it. Or it might be that people are just tired of arguing about it and they adopt a pragmatic attitude, whatever turns out to be most useful and convenient in a world where technology has made this question relevant for their day to day lives. Whatever the reason, we could bet today about what that consensus will be, once it forms. That may not be an entirely satisfactory answer to the question for those who have a pet philosophical argument that convinces them about the truth of their position. But they might accept that if their argument is really that persuasive, it will eventually win over the skeptics and be represented in the consensus. That's the best I could offer in terms of resolving these issues. Hal From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 22 11:34:40 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:34:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050322113440.GO17303@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:10:38AM -0600, damien wrote: > For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've Flat EEG lacunes routinely violate the continuity part of identity, so it's empirically invalid. Should we stone these zombies? Clearly, they have no place among us humans. > discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in THE SPIKE. If > you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way to copy the Mona > Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the Mona Lisa? Well, If your copying technique is better than the measuring technique there's no way to tell which is which. > no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is the painting that's > hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication that closely resembles > it. You can't measure history. If you track history, the information is in the tracker, not the tracked object. > It's too tedious, however, to rehearse this argument when it's been > presented before quite exhaustively. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 11:47:01 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:47:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <20050322113440.GO17303@leitl.org> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050322113440.GO17303@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:34:40 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > If your copying technique is better than the measuring technique there's no > way to tell which is which. > > You can't measure history. If you track history, the information is in the > tracker, not the tracked object. > Yes, I keep telling people that it would be much more interesting to rebuild things like Stonehenge and the Parthenon. Who wants to look at a pile of old stones? Much better to wander round a rebuilt Palace of Knossos. ;) BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Mar 22 12:05:22 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:05:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality References: <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> <423E7C63.5000400@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050322070304.02de8c98@mail.gmu.edu> At 01:59 AM 3/22/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>as the limited humans we are, we can usually only explicitly communicate >>a small fraction of the considerations we actually used in choosing our >>beliefs. > >True. And some of the reasons we maintain beliefs will be used in an >attempt to embarrass you if you are so foolish as to admit you are an >evolved social primate with a wired in interest in maintaining your status >in the local "tribe." Yes, we face both internal communication limitations, where our limited minds are not capable of keeping track of all our reasons, and self-deception incentives, making it not in our interest to know of many of our reasons. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From neptune at superlink.net Tue Mar 22 12:29:19 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:29:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Vatican on Schiavo References: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> <423FC4C9.30405@pobox.com> Message-ID: <009601c52eda$c5f5dda0$0d893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:10 AM Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com wrote: >> From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: >> "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore >> fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e >> appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? >> arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" >> Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching >> off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value of >> the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the same >> kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an >> innocent persons to death". >> Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you >> put to death with the inquisition? > > Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html Agreed. People don't seem to get that there's nothing logically invalid about the pot calling the kettle black. After all, the kettle may indeed be black.:) Cheers! Dan See the "Free Banking FAQ" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From simon at betterhumans.com Tue Mar 22 13:58:58 2005 From: simon at betterhumans.com (Simon Smith) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:58:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004801c52ee7$4bf1fb80$6601a8c0@SNOTEBOOK> "Nobody can assume the right to put an innocent person to death." Is it just me, or does all this open the door to promoting life extension for people who actually *want* to stay alive longer? If the Church condemns *not* using science and technology to keep someone alive longer, must it not logically then support using science and technology to keep everyone alive longer? The Schiavo affair is being used by the Christian Right as pro-life propaganda, but I think that it could just as easily be used by transhumanists for pro-longevity propaganda. By the way, the Vatican's position is quite hypocritical given that a few weeks ago it was promoting the Pope's suffering with Parkinson's as a model for the world, saying that far too many healthcare resources are spent on individuals in wealthy nations. How much has it cost to keep Schiavo alive in a vegetative state? Best, Simon Simon Smith Editor-in-chief Betterhumans E: simon at betterhumans.com P: 416-690-0679 M: 416-738-6058 BETTERHUMANS Betterhumans | Create the Future TM www.betterhumans.com -----Original Message----- From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org] On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0 Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:53 AM To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; ExI chat list Subject: [wta-talk] The Vatican on Schiavo >From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value of the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the same kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an innocent persons to death". Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you put to death with the inquisition? _______________________________________________ wta-talk mailing list wta-talk at transhumanism.org http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 14:15:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:15:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322141532.44185.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >From the Vatican's newspaper, on Terri Schavo: > "la Chiesa cattolica condanna in modo assoluto perch? viola il valore > fondamentale della vita umana della persona che nasce con noi e > appartiene alla stessa natura di esseri umani viventi. Nessuno pu? > arrogarsi il diritto della morte di una persona innocente" > Translated: "The Chatolic Church absolutely condemns this [switching > off life support equipment], as it is against the fundamental value > of > the human life of a person who is born with us and belongs to the > same > kind of living human beings. Nobody can assume the right to put an > innocent persons to death". > Question to the Catholic Church: How many innocent persons have you > put to death with the inquisition? Not to mention that the media is totally misportraying this. As much as I tend to be critical of rense.com, they have some videos of Schiavo with her parents and she is clearly concious, aware, emotionally reactive, and was even able to say "Hi". She is not a vegetable, brain dead, or in a coma despite what her husband's attorneys say. She is clearly severely handicapped and in need of therapy, which her husband has denied in order to keep her in as poor condition as possible. 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 Tue Mar 22 14:17:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:17:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322141742.44785.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > > Agreed. > > People don't seem to get that there's nothing logically invalid about > the pot calling the kettle black. After all, the kettle may indeed > be black.:) Indeed. Of course, such moral judgements are nowhere near as offensive to post-modernists as mere hypocrisy. 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 Tue Mar 22 14:19:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:19:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322141952.57678.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Smith wrote: > > "Nobody can assume the right to put an innocent person to death." > > Is it just me, or does all this open the door to promoting life > extension for people who actually *want* to stay alive longer? If the > Church condemns *not* using science and technology to keep someone > alive longer, must it not logically then support using science and > technology to keep everyone alive longer? > > The Schiavo affair is being used by the Christian Right as pro-life > propaganda, but I think that it could just as easily be used by > transhumanists for pro-longevity propaganda. > > By the way, the Vatican's position is quite hypocritical given that a > few weeks ago it was promoting the Pope's suffering with Parkinson's > as > a model for the world, saying that far too many healthcare resources > are > spent on individuals in wealthy nations. How much has it cost to keep > Schiavo alive in a vegetative state? Hypocriticality is irrelevant. Schiavo won a $1.3 million award for her injuries, which her husband and his live-in girlfriend and her two kids by him are seeking to keep as much of.... 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 brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Mar 22 14:38:58 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:38:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic In-Reply-To: <20050322055903.14018.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: While I disagree with NG's policies, I don't think it is necessarily targetting homeschooling specifically. It targets any small school that doesn't have enough participants. While I will no longer subscribe to NG's publications because of this issue, I think that NG is free to create any restrictions it sees as fit. NG does not receive public funds and so it should be able to restrict participation without worrying about the 14th ammendment. The same way I support gov't non-intervention in home school, I support National Geographic's right to create competitions without government intervention. BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Boycott National Geographic >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:59:03 -0800 (PST) > >--- Brian Lee wrote: > > > > It seems like the restriction is really around schools with less than > > 6 Geography Bee participants. So it does not directly prevent > > homeschoolers, > > but makes it harder. There are homeschool associations that allow > > parents to group together to join stuff like this. > >a) many states, like NH, mandate that homeschoolers have a >'professional' teacher appointed by the parents to oversee or audit the >childs progress a few times a year. That person also helps coordinate >the childs participation in any extracurricular activities the school >district offers (which under Title IX they can't refuse to >homeschoolers), so each homeschooler has a preexisting affiliation with >a public school system in many such states. > >b) it is unconstitutional for states to compell membership in a >homeschool association. Compelled association is a first amendment >violation. Many homeschoolers do not belong to a homeschool >association, and compelling their membership in one is burdensome not >to mention unjust. > >c) while NG is the sponsor, every Geography Bee is a public event at a >public venue, and therefore under the case law is a public accomodation >under the 14th Amendment. Homeschoolers cannot be excluded from public >school geography bees. The NG rules you cite create not separate teams, >but entirely segregated competitions, a 'separate but equal' status >which was ruled unconstitutional in the 1950's. Shall we start >excluding asian kids because they do well also? How about separate >competitions for black kids so their self esteem isn't damaged? > >d) the separate competitions force homeschool parents to drive much >more so their kids can compete, therefore creating barriers to entry >and discouraging homeschoolers from participating. > >d) the NEA has put the NG under pressure because the NEA feels >threatened by the fact that 'amateur' educators are producing better >product than the 'professionals'. They have made the NG create a >separate 'special olympics' for homeschollers so that public school >parents are not exposed to homeschoolers and their parents, where they >might learn how easy it is to homeschool and the benefits of >homeschooling to the childs academic acheivement. > >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 >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Mar 22 14:41:50 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:41:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: <20050322060358.20822.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The work in the city, live in the country is an excellent argument for public transportation like subways and trains. It's far more efficient use of one's time to take a train in every morning and work (or sleep) for an hour than to drive in. I lived in CT and commuted into new york on a train and my day would have been much less productive had I been forced to drive in. BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:03:58 -0800 (PST) > >Boston is somewhat easier to live in if one got about by Segway. >However, the point is not to live in Boston, but to work there and live >somewhere livable, so as to maximize one's economic potential. > >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a > > car at the same time... > > > > spike wrote: > > > > >Let's not make it easy for them. Subways make terrorism > > >too easy. That would lead to having our lives controlled > > >by fear. Let us build stuff that is more robust. Roads > > >and freeways are better than subways anyhow. > >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 iph1954 at msn.com Tue Mar 22 18:05:46 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:05:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] CRN in Information Week Message-ID: In an article published yesterday by Information Week, Chappell Brown writes: >Nanofactories A Few Years Away From Realization? > >When the notion of nanotechnology first hit public consciousness a decade >ago, exciting concepts of molecular-scale nanobots performing miraculous >feats of engineering-or, in the nightmare scenario, self-replicating until >they dominated the earth-seemed to be within reach. But the vision has >since been scaled back considerably, with funded projects looking at the >next generation of semiconductor manufacturing and with companies marketing >nanocluster solutions for building new materials. > >A genuine nanoscale fabrication capability might arrive soon that would >transform industrial society, though not in the fashion initially >envisioned, according to a study by Chris Phoenix, director of research at >the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (New York). Phoenix proposes a >desktop nanofabrication system that could build industrial components from >the molecular level up under programmable control. The concept blends >traditional mass-production techniques with an assembler that would use a >combination of chemistry and physical mechanics to assemble objects from >individual atoms. > >Such fabricators, Phoenix believes, could arrive as soon as 2010 and >certainly before 2020. > >Pivotal System > >The key component that's still needed to ramp up nanofactories rapidly is a >nanoscale fabricator that could itself build other nanoscale fabricators. >This pivotal nanofabricator would be designed using mechanosynthesis, a >process that operates at the atomic level using atomic-force microscope >techniques to position components and molecular milling systems to shape >objects at that scale. The first step in building such a system was >demonstrated last year at Osaka University by a research group that used an >AFM to pick up silicon atoms on a surface and move them to any desired >location. > >The significance of the experiment was that no special chemical or physical >properties were required of the atoms in order to complete the operation. >IBM researchers had earlier demonstrated the ability to move atoms with a >scanning tunneling microscope tip. But that scheme required an electric >field, and the substrate had to be a conductor. Mechanosynthesis aims to >enable a general ability to manipulate materials. > >Once a basic fabricator has been built, it would be able to build a small >number of copies of itself. Those copies could be aligned to perform a >series of nanofabrication steps, just as conventional factories perform >specialized operations and then pass the assembly along to the next >station. > >The assembly process then could be used to create fabricators that would >operate on a larger scale; for example, designer molecules could be >created. A hierarchy of machines could be created wherein the machines >would operate at successively larger scales. > >That hierarchy of machines would be assembled into a desktop-sized unit >that would have software input for controlling the factory and special >containers of basic materials used for manufacturing. > >Phoenix believes rapid development would follow the creation of the first >nanofabricator, since the remaining steps are well-known from conventional >factory design. In addition, nanofactories could be put to work building >more nanofactories, so the technology would spread quickly, with perhaps >only a year passing from the first nanofactory to worldwide deployment. > >It may seem impractical to build materials from the atomic level up, since >there is such a huge number of atoms in objects on the human scale. >Small-scale machines move at extremely high speed, however, and biology is >one example of nanofabrication that produces working systems-ranging in >size from bacteria to blue whales-in a reasonable time, Phoenix pointed >out. > >Public's Misconceptions > >The nanobot concept has blinded the public to the more practical routes to >nanofabrication, said Mike Treder, executive director of the Center for >Responsible Nanotechnology. "Confusion about terms, fueled by science >fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology. Nanobots >are not needed for manufacturing, but continued misunderstanding may hinder >research into highly beneficial technologies and discussion of the real >dangers," Treder wrote. > >The full report is available at crnano.org/BD-Nanobots.htm. ===================== We're very pleased with this coverage, obviously. You can read more about it on our blog at -- http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/03/nanofactories_a.html See you in the future! Mike Treder Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - http://CRNano.org Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - http://ieet.net/ Editorial Advisory Board, Nanotech Briefs - http://nanotechbriefs.com Consultant, AC/UNU Millennium Project - http://www.acunu.org/ Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html From hal at finney.org Tue Mar 22 18:39:31 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:39:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality Message-ID: <20050322183931.49DE757EE7@finney.org> Robin writes: > Yes, we face both internal communication limitations, where our limited > minds are not capable of keeping track of all our reasons, and > self-deception incentives, making it not in our interest to know of many of > our reasons. In my cynical moments it seems we can choose any two: rationality, intelligence, and honesty. You can be rational and honest, but that's stupid. You can be intelligent and honest, but that's insane. Or you can be intelligent and rational, but then you will be dishonest. Not a very inspiring perspective... Hal From es at popido.com Mon Mar 21 18:29:30 2005 From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:29:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050321192708.06506110@m1.709.telia.com> (This is my third attempt of sending this. Sorry if you receive it more than once.) At 21:58 2005-03-19 spike wrote: >Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing >to deal with it? Importing legions of young workers? From >where? Africa? Rural Afghanistan? There's an ongoing debate in Sweden about this. The solution from the government is of course, you guessed it, raise the taxes! The fact that we already have the highest taxes in the world doesn't seem to concern them. At the same time, about 25% of the population in their working age doesn't work, so of course there is a pool of people to pick from already. The first problem is then of course to get these people to work, and for that to happen new jobs must be created. Something that the current government is completely incapable of doing. This is a much more urgent issue. I could go on forever writing about this, but the conclusion is basically that it's a real political mess that most likely in the end will put an end to the giant nanny state. The road to get there will be bumpy, though. The next election in Sweden is in 2006. Germany is going through a similar transformation but they're slightly ahead of Sweden. They are seeing the highest unemployment figures since the 30s. Now the government has been forced to lower taxes and reduce benefits in order to fuel the economy with new jobs. The thing is, since the inclusion of the former Eastern Europe countries into EU there is an increasing pressure on the former welfare states to decrease tax levels. Slovakia is a perfect example of why, with their 19% flat tax: "Slovakia has introduced a 19% flat tax in 2004; the government was then able to collect 10 percent more income tax than it had expected, and the number of new firms registering in Slovakia jumped 12 percent." http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-tax So, what will happen now? My guess is that the high tax countries will move closer to the low tax ones. This will decrease the barriers for young people from east to move over to the western countries to find work. At the same time, big things are happening. Major changes that make people scared. When people are scared they cling on to what they feel is safe. In Europe in general and Sweden in particular, to most people the Nanny State is the safest thing in the world. They are going to cling on hard to it, even as it goes down. This is the place where it would be perfect to include an Atlas Shrugged-quote, but I'll resist the temptation. -- BR Erik From es at popido.com Sun Mar 20 20:19:35 2005 From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:19:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050320211818.0869ed90@m1.709.telia.com> At 21:58 2005-03-19 spike wrote: >Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing >to deal with it? Importing legions of young workers? From >where? Africa? Rural Afghanistan? There's an ongoing debate in Sweden about this. The solution from the government is of course, you guessed it, raise the taxes! The fact that we already have the highest taxes in the world doesn't seem to concern them. At the same time, about 25% of the population in their working age doesn't work, so of course there is a pool of people to pick from already. The first problem is then of course to get these people to work, and for that to happen new jobs must be created. Something that the current government is completely incapable of doing. This is a much more urgent issue. I could go on forever writing about this, but the conclusion is basically that it's a real political mess that most likely in the end will put an end to the giant nanny state. The road to get there will be bumpy, though. The next election in Sweden is in 2006. Germany is going through a similar transformation but they're slightly ahead of Sweden. They are seeing the highest unemployment figures since the 30s. Now the government has been forced to lower taxes and reduce benefits in order to fuel the economy with new jobs. The thing is, since the inclusion of the former Eastern Europe countries into EU there is an increasing pressure on the former welfare states to decrease tax levels. Slovakia is a perfect example of why, with their 19% flat tax: "Slovakia has introduced a 19% flat tax in 2004; the government was then able to collect 10 percent more income tax than it had expected, and the number of new firms registering in Slovakia jumped 12 percent." http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-tax So, what will happen now? My guess is that the high tax countries will move closer to the low tax ones. This will decrease the barriers for young people from east to move over to the western countries to find work. At the same time, big things are happening. Major changes that make people scared. When people are scared they cling on to what they feel is safe. In Europe in general and Sweden in particular, to most people the Nanny State is the safest thing in the world. They are gonna cling on hard to it, even as it goes down. This is the place where it would be perfect to include an Atlas Shrugged-quote, but I'll resist the temptation. -- BR Erik From es at popido.com Sun Mar 20 09:27:35 2005 From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:27:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity In-Reply-To: <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> References: <20050318194015.69656.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050320095805.0786ddf0@mail.popido.com> At 21:58 2005-03-19 spike wrote: >Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing >to deal with it? Importing legions of young workers? From >where? Africa? Rural Afghanistan? There's an ongoing debate in Sweden about this. The solution from the government is of course, you guessed it, raise the taxes! The fact that we already have the highest taxes in the world doesn't seem to concern them. At the same time, about 25% of the population in their working age doesn't work, so of course there is a pool of people to pick from already. The first problem is then of course to get these people to work, and for that to happen new jobs must be created. Something that the current government is completely incapable of doing. This is a much more urgent issue. I could go on forever writing about this, but the conclusion is basically that it's a real political mess that most likely in the end will put an end to the giant nanny state. The road to get there will be bumpy, though. The next election in Sweden is in 2006. Germany is going through a similar transformation but they're slightly ahead of Sweden. They are seeing the highest unemployment figures since the 30s. Now the government has been forced to lower taxes and reduce benefits in order to fuel the economy with new jobs. The thing is, since the inclusion of the former Eastern Europe countries into EU there is an increasing pressure on the former welfare states to decrease tax levels. Slovakia is a perfect example of why, with their 19% flat tax: "Slovakia has introduced a 19% flat tax in 2004; the government was then able to collect 10 percent more income tax than it had expected, and the number of new firms registering in Slovakia jumped 12 percent." http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-tax So, what will happen now? My guess is that the high tax countries will move closer to the low tax ones. This will decrease the barriers for young people from east to move over to the western countries to find work. At the same time, big things are happening. Major changes that make people scared. When people are scared they cling on to what they feel is safe. In Europe in general and Sweden in particular, to most people the Nanny State is the safest thing in the world. They are gonna cling on hard to it, even as it goes down. This is the place where it would be perfect to include an Atlas Shrugged-quote, but I'll resist the temptation. -- BR Erik From benboc at lineone.net Tue Mar 22 19:37:37 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:37:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <200503220259.j2M2xTY10218@tick.javien.com> References: <200503220259.j2M2xTY10218@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42407401.4000502@lineone.net> john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt: >And I owned my teapot-shaped hat long before I became a Christian. I have not >yet received any orders from the Papal Mind Control satellite to go kill anyone. >In fact, my last instructions from the home office were to turn the other cheek >when struck and give my money to the poor. I will check with HQ and get back to >you on that whole killing thing. "Orders"? "Instructions from the home office"? "Check with HQ"? So do you regard yourself as incapable of making these kinds of decisions, and have to take someone else's orders on how to behave? How do you decide who to listen to? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you give money to the poor? And why? Is it 'cos the pope said so, or 'cos _you_ think it's a good idea? If the pope did say you must murder non-catholics, presumably you'd rebel, right? But what if the pope said it's wrong to eat cheese on a thursday? And that this came straight from god? Seriously, there's some mysterious, not-understandable-by-you, even in principle, reason for not eating cheese on a thursday. And that's what god wants, according to the pope. So what are you going to do? ben From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 21:51:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:51:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050322215116.14983.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt: > > >And I owned my teapot-shaped hat long before I became a Christian. > >I have not yet received any orders from the Papal Mind Control > > satellite to go kill anyone. > >In fact, my last instructions from the home office were to turn the > >other cheek > >when struck and give my money to the poor. I will check with HQ and > > get back to you on that whole killing thing. > > "Orders"? > "Instructions from the home office"? > "Check with HQ"? > > So do you regard yourself as incapable of making these kinds of > decisions, and have to take someone else's orders on how to behave? So, do you regard yourself as completely lacking in a sense of humor all the time, or just when your anti-catholic bigotry is showing? John's post was pretty funny. Too bad you are too dogmatic to appreciate it. Funny that, for an atheist... 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 Wed Mar 23 00:42:45 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:42:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <20050322215116.14983.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050322215116.14983.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4240BB85.6020105@humanenhancement.com> I've gotta say, I agree with Mike (it's night here, so I can't tell if the sun has stopped in the heavens, but I'm sure I'll know come morning). Except for assigning this to "anti-Catholic bigotry"; it could just be a language/culture barrier at work. I think, Ben, you mis-read John's email. It was intended to be humorous, and I think you might have missed that. And it was pretty funny, too. 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: >--- ben wrote: > > >>john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt: >> >> >And I owned my teapot-shaped hat long before I became a Christian. >> >I have not yet received any orders from the Papal Mind Control >> > satellite to go kill anyone. >> >In fact, my last instructions from the home office were to turn the >> >other cheek >> >when struck and give my money to the poor. I will check with HQ and >> > get back to you on that whole killing thing. >> >>"Orders"? >>"Instructions from the home office"? >>"Check with HQ"? >> >>So do you regard yourself as incapable of making these kinds of >>decisions, and have to take someone else's orders on how to behave? >> >> > >So, do you regard yourself as completely lacking in a sense of humor >all the time, or just when your anti-catholic bigotry is showing? >John's post was pretty funny. Too bad you are too dogmatic to >appreciate it. Funny that, for an atheist... > >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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Mar 23 00:43:45 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:43:45 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is entirely true, however if you are a mom with several children, need to stop at the cleaners, the grocery, the drugstore, dancing class, scouts, pick up one child late from play practice, another from sports, public transportation can be a right pain. At least so I've understood. We kept our children out of such things for the most part, due to transportation and logistics difficulties. Regards, MB On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Brian Lee wrote: > The work in the city, live in the country is an excellent argument for > public transportation like subways and trains. It's far more efficient use > of one's time to take a train in every morning and work (or sleep) for an > hour than to drive in. > > I lived in CT and commuted into new york on a train and my day would have > been much less productive had I been forced to drive in. > > BAL From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 00:49:45 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:19:45 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] The Vatican on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <004801c52ee7$4bf1fb80$6601a8c0@SNOTEBOOK> References: <470a3c5205032122523fccf0b5@mail.gmail.com> <004801c52ee7$4bf1fb80$6601a8c0@SNOTEBOOK> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503221649441143a2@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:58:58 -0500, Simon Smith wrote: > > "Nobody can assume the right to put an innocent person to death." > > Is it just me, or does all this open the door to promoting life > extension for people who actually *want* to stay alive longer? If the > Church condemns *not* using science and technology to keep someone alive > longer, must it not logically then support using science and technology > to keep everyone alive longer? > > The Schiavo affair is being used by the Christian Right as pro-life > propaganda, but I think that it could just as easily be used by > transhumanists for pro-longevity propaganda. > Whether this is possible depends on your views I guess. Extropians also support self-determination as probably more important than life extension. Getting into bed with pro-lifers to promote life extension, and sacrificing self-determination (which must extend to your chosen guardian(s) in the case that you are no longer competent), is putting the cart before the horse in my mind. In all our musings about aligning ourselves with established religion, it should be remembered that these people tend not to support the concept of self-determination. Institutional religion tends to promote the idea of subordinating yourself to the church, being a good member of society, putting the needs of the group before the needs of the individual, and, perhaps most important, putting the tenets of an ideology before your own best interests. Religions seem far and away to be static paradigms, usually based on codification of rules and regulations that have no practical processes for being re-evaluated, and removed/replaced when necessary. This is in contrast to the system of scientific inquiry, for example, which has (is!) an explicit mechanism in this vein. Transhumanism may be broad enough to encompass a static worldview while at the same time supporting morphological freedom (although I think it's a stretch). Extropy, however, would appear to stand in stark contrast to static philosophies, and should reasonably be found to be incompatible with them. - Perhaps there is some possibility of using the arguments of the pro-lifers to further the cause of life-extension with their flock. However, this relies on using a moderately sophisticated logical argument to point out the inconsistencies in their current set of beliefs. You are talking about people who generally don't respond to strictly logical arguments, who set their beliefs by gut feel and what they are told by their religious leaders, and who aren't going to appreciate having inconsistencies pointed out. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 01:58:20 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:58:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <42407401.4000502@lineone.net> References: <200503220259.j2M2xTY10218@tick.javien.com> <42407401.4000502@lineone.net> Message-ID: <5844e22f05032217585c21086f@mail.gmail.com> To Mike & Joseph: You might note that Ben's e-mail reply quoted john-c-wright in the following manner: "john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt" 'Schreibt' is German, and having it as his default e-mail setting indicates English is a second language. So we might want to lighten up on his misreading of John's humor. ;) From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Mar 23 02:07:03 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:07:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05032217585c21086f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503220259.j2M2xTY10218@tick.javien.com> <42407401.4000502@lineone.net> <5844e22f05032217585c21086f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4240CF47.1070902@humanenhancement.com> If you'll note, Jeff, I specifically mentioned the language/cultural barrier as a possible source of John's misinterpretation. I was aware of John's German email addy. I had hoped I was being understanding and gentle... Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Jeff Medina wrote: >To Mike & Joseph: > >You might note that Ben's e-mail reply quoted john-c-wright in the >following manner: > >"john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt" > >'Schreibt' is German, and having it as his default e-mail setting >indicates English is a second language. So we might want to lighten up >on his misreading of John's humor. ;) >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 02:29:30 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:29:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Of course public transportation is not the answer to all transportation needs. Your example is a valid illustration for the need of owning cars. Another would be driving across the country on vacation. Most cars are owned and used primarily for travel to and from work. I think that for commuting to and from work, nothing is better than public transportation. This takes into account time quality, cost, environmental impact and safety. BAL >From: MB >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:43:45 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > > >This is entirely true, however if you are a mom with several children, >need to stop at the cleaners, the grocery, the drugstore, dancing >class, scouts, pick up one child late from play practice, another from >sports, public transportation can be a right pain. At least so I've >understood. > >We kept our children out of such things for the most part, due to >transportation and logistics difficulties. > >Regards, >MB > > >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Brian Lee wrote: > > > The work in the city, live in the country is an excellent argument for > > public transportation like subways and trains. It's far more efficient >use > > of one's time to take a train in every morning and work (or sleep) for >an > > hour than to drive in. > > > > I lived in CT and commuted into new york on a train and my day would >have > > been much less productive had I been forced to drive in. > > > > BAL >_______________________________________________ >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 23 02:42:45 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:42:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323024245.25664.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > > Last semester I took a course in metalogic > > (Phil 470) covering the semantics of classic > > logic (propositional and first-order predicate). > > I found Raymond M. Smullyan's _First-Order Logic_ -- > available in an inexpensive Dover reprint -- to be > a great introduction to first-order logic. I'll see if I can find that text. I just placed an order for Beall & van Fraassen's text that you recommended. Thanks too for the links. Stanford's Encyclopedia o Phil is an invaluable resource! > It was especially helpful with the tableaux > method that Priest, Beall, and Bas C. van Fraassen > rely heavily on. (In fact, it's not too inaccurate > to say a lot of Priest's exposition is relating how > different logics have different tableaux rules. At > least, that's one device he uses throughout his > book to relate the differences.) Do you mean proof trees? In my first logic course we used a method of evaluating statements known as a "model (or toy) universe" and the professor referred "tableaux" while teaching it. That method involved semantics by relating the meaning of statements to entities in a domain. But that method there was far short of the semantics covered in Gamut vol I, which presents a formal study of classical-logic semantics in a metalogic framework. [1] In first-order predicate logic this involves (a) interpretation by substitution and (b) interpretation by means of assignments, which defines the means of preserving the compositionality of meaning in predicate logic. The latter reduces to Tarski's truth definition (where 'V' denotes "value of," 'm' denotes "based on our model," 'g' assignment, 'E' existential quantifier, '@' a statement, '1' true, 'e' set membership, and 'D' domain of our model): Vm,g(Ex@) = 1 iff there is a d e D such that Vm,g[x/d](@) = 1. In English: The valuation based on our model and given assignments of "there exists some x such that @" is true if and only if there is some thing d that is a member of the Domain of our model such that the valuation based on our model and assignment of x to d of "@" is true. There we see the compositionality of meaning preserved for the existential quantifier, such that we can say: if V(@) = 1, then V(Ex@) = 1 too. In short, V(@) = V(Ex@). > > During the last two weeks we skimmed the > > surface of propositional modal, or intensional, > > logic, which is a nonclassic logic. I want to > > study further than that. > > The Beall and van Fraassen book focus to a large > extent on modal logic -- as the title reveals. If > you're interested in one philosopher's view of > modality, you might want to read Alvin Plantinga's > _Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality_. If you > want to learn more about second- and higher-order > logic in the context of metamathematics, there's > Stewart Shapiro's _Foundations without > Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic_. Yeah, I've yet to really study second-order logic. Gamut only devotes a cursory section to it without exercises (unlike first-order that has many exercises). I find that I don't really get a memorable understanding of some logico-mathematic routine unless I can do it in exercises many times. Thanks for all the great pointers. I think you'd really like Gamut, both vol I and II. I've got a collection of other logic books, but nothing comes close to Gamut for the reasons I stated. [2] _________________________________________________ [1] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7087.ctl http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7088.ctl [2] http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014601.html ~Ian http://iangoddard.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 03:13:05 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:13:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality In-Reply-To: <20050322183931.49DE757EE7@finney.org> References: <20050322183931.49DE757EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e050322191375bf8560@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:39:31 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > In my cynical moments it seems we can choose any two: rationality, > intelligence, and honesty. You can be rational and honest, but that's > stupid. You can be intelligent and honest, but that's insane. Or you > can be intelligent and rational, but then you will be dishonest. Hmm... I think most people who know me would describe me as intelligent, honest and at least a little bit nutty, so I suppose that's a data point for your theory :) - Russell From riel at surriel.com Wed Mar 23 04:25:57 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:25:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: "if we cannot be free, at least we can be cheap" In-Reply-To: <8d71341e050321010912ed9d44@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050321061200.59000.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e050321010912ed9d44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > I'll answer that question with a memory of a little conversation I had > with an American once, on the stunningly vile custom that Americans > somehow let their governments get away with, of (given public > schooling) _forcing children into a particular school based on > address, rather than letting the parents choose, given that they've > paid the tax money_. It didn't seem to bother him much. Making schools compete for pupils that way, and having public funding on a per-student basis, so a more successful school gets more money, seems to work well in the Netherlands. Where I grew up there were several schools competing with each other, constantly trying to improve education, because the other school also did. Parents and pupils would constantly pressure the schools to improve, and they had a way to vote with their feet. I like a public education system where the schools face market pressure, but poor children can still learn at the school of their choice. -- "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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Mar 23 08:34:33 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:34:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hand drawn animation References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano> Animation news - My first attempt at hand drawn, old school animation: http://www.nanogirl.com/handrawnroses.htm My animation will be used in the Immortality Institute movie. What an honor! I so appreciate the work they are doing. You can see my Mind 2.0 animation (right after the picture of Benjamin Franklin) here in their movie trailer: http://www.imminst.org/mm.php I have a few new ones at my museum of the future page too: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm To find out how Jim is doing, visit the blog here: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Gina` Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries: http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate: http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute: http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry: http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 09:44:54 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:44:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Please help finding college for daughter Message-ID: <470a3c5205032301441f3166c8@mail.gmail.com> My 17 yrs old daughter is a very talented but not very focused girl (like someone else at the same age, at least she is much more socially skilled than I was). She speaks fluently English Spanish and Italian (all three at native speaker level) plus a couple of other languages less fluently. Her SAT score is about 1100, surprisingly since she never studies. She is very much into acting, is in a performing school here in Madrid and went a few times to acting summer schools in UK and US. She wishes to study something suitable for the movie world, like acting, film-making, or creative writing. I will appreciate all ideas and suggestions. Giulio From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 23 11:49:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:49:43 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu><01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Damien wrote: > At 11:37 AM 3/17/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: > >>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. >>... >> >>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. > For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've > discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in > THE SPIKE. If you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way > to copy the Mona Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the > Mona Lisa? Well, no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is > the painting that's hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication > that > closely resembles it. > > It's too tedious, however, to rehearse this argument when it's been > presented before quite exhaustively. Would it be accurate to characterise your position then Damien as being that you could derive no further confidence in the rightness of your position on this issue from any third-party judging process so it would be pointless to explore the composition of such a judging process? Perhaps the nature of continuous identity is so obvious and fundamental to you that you cannot imagine further insight possibly being shed on the matter for you? (I almost got that impression from rereading relevant sections of The Spike, 1997 edition). I am not trying to misrepresent you, just to understand. I could for instance hold the above positions on something that I was as certain of as say that 1 and 1 make 2. Such things are too fundamental for me to feel that any other corroboration would increase my certainty in the case of agreement and in the case of disagreement (on 1 + 1 = 2) I'd simply assume all others were wrong. Regards, Brett Paatsch PS: Congrats on the Award. From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 12:29:32 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:29:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fast Company: interview with Ray Kurzweil Message-ID: <470a3c520503230429604ac090@mail.gmail.com> Fast Company has a very good interview with Ray Kurzweil on the future, life, death, immortality, artificial intelligence, and the deployment of transhumanist technologies. My favorite quote from the interview is: FC: What would you like to be doing in 100 years? Kurzweil: I do have a goal of being a successful 25-year-old female rock singer. In this expanded interview transcript, inventor Ray Kurzweil discusses birth, death, and the potential offered by non-biological thinking processes. Kurzweil also talks about his quest for personal immortality, his new book, predicting the behaviour of the stock market, and short-term developments in IT. But the main focus of the talk is the development and imminent deployment of transhumanist technologies. Read the complete interview on the Fast Company website: http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2005/03/kurzweil.html From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed Mar 23 13:46:24 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:46:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88c4db56b14a20893480c5a789de6604@bonfireproductions.com> And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think we need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of additional tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower per rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one person, perhaps 2. ]3 On Mar 22, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brian Lee wrote: > Of course public transportation is not the answer to all > transportation needs. Your example is a valid illustration for the > need of owning cars. Another would be driving across the country on > vacation. Most cars are owned and used primarily for travel to and > from work. > > I think that for commuting to and from work, nothing is better than > public transportation. This takes into account time quality, cost, > environmental impact and safety. > > BAL > >> From: MB >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say) >> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:43:45 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) >> >> >> This is entirely true, however if you are a mom with several children, >> need to stop at the cleaners, the grocery, the drugstore, dancing >> class, scouts, pick up one child late from play practice, another from >> sports, public transportation can be a right pain. At least so I've >> understood. >> >> We kept our children out of such things for the most part, due to >> transportation and logistics difficulties. >> >> Regards, >> MB >> >> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Brian Lee wrote: >> >> > The work in the city, live in the country is an excellent argument >> for >> > public transportation like subways and trains. It's far more >> efficient use >> > of one's time to take a train in every morning and work (or sleep) >> for an >> > hour than to drive in. >> > >> > I lived in CT and commuted into new york on a train and my day >> would have >> > been much less productive had I been forced to drive in. >> > >> > BAL >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed Mar 23 13:49:00 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:49:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hand drawn animation In-Reply-To: <007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano> References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com> <007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: <63625807b969d801e10e86164cb8cc8a@bonfireproductions.com> Wow Gina, good job! - that was a lot of work and it came out great! ]3 On Mar 23, 2005, at 3:34 AM, Gina Miller wrote: > Animation news - > ? > ? > My first attempt at hand drawn, old school animation: > http://www.nanogirl.com/handrawnroses.htm > ? > ? > My animation will be used in the Immortality Institute movie. What an > honor! I so appreciate the work they are doing. You can see my Mind > 2.0 animation?(right after the picture of Benjamin Franklin)?here in > their movie trailer: > http://www.imminst.org/mm.php > ? > ? > I have a few new ones at my museum of the future page too: > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm > ? > To find out how Jim is doing, visit the blog here: > http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ > ? > Gina` > ? > ? > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > Nanotechnology Industries: > http://www.nanoindustries.com > Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html > Foresight Senior Associate: http://www.foresight.org > Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute:? http://www.extropy.org > 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm > Microscope Jewelry: > http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm > Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com > "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3136 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 14:48:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:48:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323144803.18266.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think we > need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of additional > tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) > > Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower per > rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one person, > perhaps 2. Imagine if people said that about computer megaflops. Rights aren't about needs. 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_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 15:43:44 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:43:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <20050323144803.18266.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There is no "right" to driving a car on a congested highway. Nor is there a "right" to having a fast computer. The problem is that lots of people driving on a highway with huge cars impedes the rights of others. One of the purposes of tax law is to guide taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government: i.e. buying a house, having children, donating to charity. So tax cuts on cars that are smaller or use less gas or pollute less would be a way to encourage people away from buying suburbans as daily commuter vehicles. To pre-emptively address some responses: of course some people need suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains or whatever. Most SUV drivers don't "need" them specifically and current tax law encourages SUV purchases (small business tax breaks on 6000lb+ vehicles, registration fees by cost not by weight, etc etc). BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:48:03 -0800 (PST) > > >--- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think we > > need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of additional > > tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) > > > > Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower per > > rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one person, > > perhaps 2. > >Imagine if people said that about computer megaflops. Rights aren't >about needs. > >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 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 23 15:44:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:44:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <88c4db56b14a20893480c5a789de6604@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <200503231544.j2NFiRY21428@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:46 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) > > > And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think we > need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of additional > tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) > > Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower per > rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one person, > perhaps 2. > > ]3 Bret, out here in Taxifornia, the average rail train is carrying one person, perhaps two. I do not exaggerate. Often we will see a mile of cars backed up waiting for a commuter train to pass with two passengers. And don't worry about some kind of tax. We already have them up the kazoo and the people keep falling for the same old gags: raise taxes to improve roads. So they raise taxes, then the government promptly steals it to use for some other purpose. Roads are a tax trap; they are used only to raise taxes for other purposes. The right way is not to raise taxes to fix roads, it is to elect people who run on a platform of borrowing from other funds to fix roads. Then if the roads don't improve, throw them out and get new politicians. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 23 15:57:39 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:57:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200503231557.j2NFvkY23766@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) > > ...One of the purposes of tax law is to guide > taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government... Ja. I prefer a system where tax law is used to guide governments towards acts deemed moral or desired by the taxpayers. > > ... of course some people need > suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains or > whatever... BAL > People need suburbans because they hold up better on the rough roads that are caused by governments stealing road repair funds. spike From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed Mar 23 16:23:45 2005 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:23:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <200503231557.j2NFvkY23766@tick.javien.com> References: <200503231557.j2NFvkY23766@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <088ebd94e6f761eea8d99ba8d980d3a4@nat.uni-magdeburg.de> On 23 Mar 2005, at 16:44, spike wrote: > Bret, out here in Taxifornia, the average rail train is carrying > one person, perhaps two. I do not exaggerate. Often we will > see a mile of cars backed up waiting for a commuter train to > pass with two passengers. Hey Spike: I don't know what the average train line is like where you live, but when I was living in Pasadena the newly opened Gold line was running a brisk business. That surprised me, as the very nature of LA tends to overwhelm any possibility of good public transport. > other purpose. Roads are a tax trap; they are used only > to raise taxes for other purposes. The right way is not > to raise taxes to fix roads, it is to elect people who > run on a platform of borrowing from other funds to fix > roads. Then if the roads don't improve, throw them out > and get new politicians. What about simply privatizing roads and letting the owners collect tolls from users? best, patrick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 16:42:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:42:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323164220.59452.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > There is no "right" to driving a car on a congested highway. Nor is > there a "right" to having a fast computer. Actually, the common law right to travel in one's personal conveyance on the public rights of way is, in fact, a right going back to the magna carta and was the key right in helping the serfs free themselves from the feudal system. This is one of the unenumerated rights protected by the 9th amendment. When you are not being paid to carry passengers or cargo, you are not "driving" nor is your auto a "vehicle", nor are you exercising your "operator" rating on your 'drivers license'. These terms are all terms of art that signify commercial activity, not personal activity and can only apply to you if you are being paid to drive a commercial vehicle or if you own and operate a vehicle (and pay yourself or someone else to drive that vehicle). While you can disparage this legal position, it was the sole valid one up until the Roosevelt packing of the courts in the 1930's, resulting in vast expansions of the definitions of 'commerce'. Furthermore, there is also a right on the part of craftsmen to purchase whatever tools of their trade they can afford which is 'state of the art'. This is another common law right that the trade guilds fought for way back when and is based on Aristotle's declaration that mans natural endowment of the hand gave him the right to wield any tool the hand can handle. > > The problem is that lots of people driving on a highway with huge > cars > impedes the rights of others. One of the purposes of tax law is to > guide > taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government: > i.e. > buying a house, having children, donating to charity. So tax cuts on > cars > that are smaller or use less gas or pollute less would be a way to > encourage > people away from buying suburbans as daily commuter vehicles. > > To pre-emptively address some responses: of course some people need > suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains or > whatever. Most SUV drivers don't "need" them specifically and current > tax > law encourages SUV purchases (small business tax breaks on 6000lb+ > vehicles, > registration fees by cost not by weight, etc etc). > > BAL > > >From: Mike Lorrey > >To: ExI chat list > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase > nukes) > >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:48:03 -0800 (PST) > > > > > >--- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > > > And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think > we > > > need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of > additional > > > tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) > > > > > > Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower > per > > > rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one > person, > > > perhaps 2. > > > >Imagine if people said that about computer megaflops. Rights aren't > >about needs. > > > >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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Mar 23 17:02:27 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:02:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) Message-ID: <1111597347.5418@whirlwind.he.net> Brian Lee wrote: > I think that for commuting to and from work, nothing is better than public > transportation. This takes into account time quality, cost, environmental > impact and safety. Only in theory, if one makes certain assumptions about the nature and topology of cities. For most regions of the US, there is nothing more efficient than individual motor vehicles because the assumptions about topology that make public transportation useful are invalid. The irony in these parts being that the very same people who insist on spending inordinate amounts of tax money on public transportation and on incentives so that people might hopefully use it also adamantly refuse to allow the cities to be built in such a way that public transportation would even make sense. So we spend billions upon billions of dollars for public transportation that very few people can reasonably use, outside of tiny areas where the design of the city for transportation purposes is grandfathered in because it is so old. It would certainly be possible to build cities that greatly reduced the need for private motor transportation, but zoning and regulations make this nearly impossible as a practical matter. That the environmentalists on city councils (at least in these parts) view tall buildings and high density construction an ideological afront to the peaceful coexistence with nature does not help either. This latter bit really is one of the more irritating contradictions; they force urban sprawl by fiat and legislate relatively low population densities, and then refuse to recognize that this necessarily makes all that other hippie goodness like public transportation economically intractable and spend gobs of money on it anyway. They need to stop trying to pick and choose features for their city, picking a system instead and living with the consequences. Personally, I wouldn't mind a city built as a dozen or more small high density "centers" with relatively little in between, which would allow some locality without having to deal with scaling problems. j. andrew rogers From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 17:13:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:13:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323171326.79454.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase > nukes) > > > > ...One of the purposes of tax law is to guide > > taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government... > > Ja. I prefer a system where tax law is used to guide > governments towards acts deemed moral or desired by the taxpayers. Yup. As a former Roosevelt administration secty once said, "Taxes are not a revenue generation mechanism, they are a mechanism of implementing social policy." The government can pay for everything it does if it wanted simply through monetizing debt backed by goverment assets and paid by tarrifs and excises. Most income tax paid (98% paid by the upper 50% of the population) is redistributed through the earned income tax credit to the bottom 50% of the population. The rest pays for a portion of the interest on the national debt. ALL other federal benefits outside social security are paid for through corporate and capital gains taxes (i.e. generally not the people who receive the benefits). Most state gas and road taxes go into the general fund and pay for education and health and human services budgets, i.e. "a means of implementing social policy." > > > > ... of course some people need > > suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains > or > > whatever... BAL > > > > People need suburbans because they hold up better on the > rough roads that are caused by governments stealing > road repair funds. Yes, when the daily commute requires 4wd, then most people will drive 4wd autos. 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 23 17:43:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:43:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323174357.11888.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Patrick Wilken wrote: > On 23 Mar 2005, at 16:44, spike wrote: > > Bret, out here in Taxifornia, the average rail train is carrying > > one person, perhaps two. I do not exaggerate. Often we will > > see a mile of cars backed up waiting for a commuter train to > > pass with two passengers. > > Hey Spike: > > I don't know what the average train line is like where you live, but > when I was living in Pasadena the newly opened Gold line was running > a > brisk business. That surprised me, as the very nature of LA tends to > overwhelm any possibility of good public transport. I wouldn't mind this mass transit stuff if it was self supporting. Instead, gas taxes are spent on passenger rail infrastructure to the tune of a new BMW every couple years for each new mass transit rider. Those riders are certainly NOT paying their way. 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_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 17:58:10 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:58:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <200503231557.j2NFvkY23766@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: >From: "spike" >To: "'ExI chat list'" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:57:39 -0800 > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) > > > > ...One of the purposes of tax law is to guide > > taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government... > >Ja. I prefer a system where tax law is used to guide >governments towards acts deemed moral or desired by the taxpayers. Yeah, don't we all. But barring a constitutional convention any time soon, it's not going to be changed so removing tax breaks that create undesired behavior (like people buying suburbans because they are cheaper than accords) is a good start. > > ... of course some people need > > suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains or > > whatever... BAL > > > >People need suburbans because they hold up better on the >rough roads that are caused by governments stealing >road repair funds. > >spike An awd subaru holds up just as well as a suburban. In Atlanta at least, the roads are fine enough that you could drive a geo without running into any serious road hazards. BAL From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 18:01:37 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:01:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <20050323164220.59452.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There are limitations to the right to "travel in one's personal conveyance on the public rights of way" in that I can't drive a tank down roads and I can't drive a car that is 30 feet wide, etc. I'm not against craftsmen buying vehicles that they deem needed for their line of work. I'm against my accountant buying an expedition because it weighs 6200lbs and is tax deductable. There is no reason for the gov't to encourage this behavior through tax cuts. We may as well make smoking tax deductable. BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:42:19 -0800 (PST) > >--- Brian Lee wrote: > > There is no "right" to driving a car on a congested highway. Nor is > > there a "right" to having a fast computer. > >Actually, the common law right to travel in one's personal conveyance >on the public rights of way is, in fact, a right going back to the >magna carta and was the key right in helping the serfs free themselves >from the feudal system. This is one of the unenumerated rights >protected by the 9th amendment. > >When you are not being paid to carry passengers or cargo, you are not >"driving" nor is your auto a "vehicle", nor are you exercising your >"operator" rating on your 'drivers license'. These terms are all terms >of art that signify commercial activity, not personal activity and can >only apply to you if you are being paid to drive a commercial vehicle >or if you own and operate a vehicle (and pay yourself or someone else >to drive that vehicle). > >While you can disparage this legal position, it was the sole valid one >up until the Roosevelt packing of the courts in the 1930's, resulting >in vast expansions of the definitions of 'commerce'. > >Furthermore, there is also a right on the part of craftsmen to purchase >whatever tools of their trade they can afford which is 'state of the >art'. This is another common law right that the trade guilds fought for >way back when and is based on Aristotle's declaration that mans natural >endowment of the hand gave him the right to wield any tool the hand can >handle. > > > > > The problem is that lots of people driving on a highway with huge > > cars > > impedes the rights of others. One of the purposes of tax law is to > > guide > > taxpayers towards acts deemed moral or desired by the government: > > i.e. > > buying a house, having children, donating to charity. So tax cuts on > > cars > > that are smaller or use less gas or pollute less would be a way to > > encourage > > people away from buying suburbans as daily commuter vehicles. > > > > To pre-emptively address some responses: of course some people need > > suburbans because they have tons of kids or live in the mountains or > > whatever. Most SUV drivers don't "need" them specifically and current > > tax > > law encourages SUV purchases (small business tax breaks on 6000lb+ > > vehicles, > > registration fees by cost not by weight, etc etc). > > > > BAL > > > > >From: Mike Lorrey > > >To: ExI chat list > > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase > > nukes) > > >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:48:03 -0800 (PST) > > > > > > > > >--- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > > > > > And with the new 2005 sedans averaging 200+ horsepower - I think > > we > > > > need to start hitting these excessives with some sort of > > additional > > > > tax. (There. I said it. And me of all people.) > > > > > > > > Because the average commuter rail train comes out to 3 horsepower > > per > > > > rider, and the average sedan on the highway is carrying one > > person, > > > > perhaps 2. > > > > > >Imagine if people said that about computer megaflops. Rights aren't > > >about needs. > > > > > >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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 18:18:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:18:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050323181803.29751.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > I'm not against craftsmen buying vehicles that they deem needed for > their > line of work. I'm against my accountant buying an expedition because > it weighs 6200lbs and is tax deductable. There is no reason for the > gov't to > encourage this behavior through tax cuts. We may as well make smoking > tax deductable. If it encourages people to die of lung cancer before they reach retirement age, they are saving the taxpayer money in the long term. I recall the DoD freaked when they implemented anti-smoking/drinking programs among the enlisted ranks in order to 'save' medical costs associated with those behaviors. The retirees started living longer, requiring much more health care for many more years of life, and VA budgets have gone through the roof. 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 hal at finney.org Wed Mar 23 19:07:39 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies Message-ID: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> I found a blog entry this morning that posed a challenging question: what is the psychological basis behind different ideologies? The author is Randy Barnett, a libertarian and law professor at Boston U. http://volokh.com/posts/1111522164.shtml discusses an article in the libertarian magazine Liberty, "Who's Your Daddy? Authority, Asceticism, and the Spread of Liberty" by Michael Acree, available online at http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_04/acree-daddy.html. Acree's article presents an analysis of liberalism and conservatism in psychological terms: conservatives promote government based morality because of their desires to behave immorally; liberals promote redistribution out of guilt at their love of material goods. Acree then says: "The various explanations that have been offered mostly boil down to the contention that people are jerks - consumed by envy, by needs to control others, or whatever. There is obviously some truth in these claims. The difficult point about such explanations is the implication that libertarians are not afflicted with similar character flaws - that we are more saintly or mentally healthy than the rest of the population. Anyone who has experience with libertarians in person, however, will have (or should have) trouble swallowing that conclusion. There must be more to the story." However, Barnett (the blogger) finds Acree's analysis of libertarians wanting, focusing more on mental processes and not so much on the kinds of psychological factors he brought into play when discussing liberals and conservatives. Barnett asks: "Still, I would be much more interesting in hearing the candid thoughts of libertarians about their own psychology and that of other libertarians in ways that are not self-congratulatory, than I am in hearing reactions to Acree's claims about the psychology of those on the left or right. For example, if Acree is right that the attractiveness of liberal and conservative ideologies depends their resemblance to differing parental models (mother-state or father-state respectively), then what comparable psychology accounts for libertarians rejection of either parental model?" The blog comments then offer various responses, most of which are self congratulatory in exactly the way that Barnett asked people to avoid. What struck me in reading these comments, in the context of some of the recent discussions on this list, was how easily people can mislead themselves. Ideologues see themselves in morally superior terms, and the libertarians responding to this blog entry are no exception. I did think one comment was unusually perceptive, by Don Gwinn: "If one accepts the thesis that social conservatives are motivated to stamp out pornography and prostitution by their desire to stamp out their own sexual excesses, and that fiscal liberals are terrified of tax cuts because they need to suppress their own fixation on money, then what is the secret fear/obsession that drives libertarians? ... [W]hat a libertarian would be suppressing, it seems to me, would be his conviction that he, and maybe everyone, really is dependent on outside forces, particularly altruism from government or family. The libertarian would prefer to believe in the totally self-made man, but the reason the totally self-made man is celebrated is because he is the exception. The libertarian believes this, but he doesn't want to believe it, so he suppresses it by throwing himself into an ideology based on the idea that self-reliance and the rejection of collective altruism is the answer to all our ills." I think this makes a lot of sense and fits much better with the analysis of the other ideologies. If the conservative is afraid of his own lusts, and the liberal is afraid of his own greed, then the libertarian is afraid of his own dependency. Each espouses an ideology that promotes as a virtue exactly the traits which each one fears that he lacks. I'd suggest that it is helpful for Extropians and other transhumanists to turn a similar self-critical eye on themselves, at least privately. These philosophies are brave and bold in their rejection of the conventions of the past and their embrace of the possibilities of the future. We feel pretty good about ourselves by adopting these views. But can we take a less self-congratulatory tone and look at our true motivations more critically? It can be a good exercise in overcoming the comforting lies and self-deception that interfere with our perception of the truth. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 23 18:55:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:55:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:49 PM 3/23/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >Would it be accurate to characterise your position then Damien as being >that you could derive no further confidence in the rightness of your position >on this issue from any third-party judging process so it would be pointless >to explore the composition of such a judging process? Precisely. I know Eugen and others are equally adamant that the contrary is true and self-evident, which I find incomprehensible. It keeps coming back to this: if someone persuades me that in a trillion years or so, random recurrence will generate an exact equivalent to me as I am at the moment, should I feel okay about someone blowing my head off right now? After all, "I'll" be alive again (or still alive, or something) in the remote future. Bullshit, sez I. Blow your own damn head off. Given this assessment, how could *any* gathering of judges convince me otherwise? This rejection is not necessarily to be conflated with a cryonics procedure that recovers me from vitrification, perhaps even by making cell-by-cell copies in situ. I do see the slippery slope here, which is why I'm not altogether persuaded of the merits of most cryonics-style programs. True, it will be wonderful for everyone *else* to have a copy of me around, :) but what's in it for *me*? >PS: Congrats on the Award. Thanks! Damien Broderick From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Mar 23 20:12:41 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:12:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hand drawn animation References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com><007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano> <63625807b969d801e10e86164cb8cc8a@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <003701c52fe4$ae4d5600$1db71218@Nano> Thank you! It was 31 individual drawings. I learned a lot doing this project, perhaps one day in the future when I have more time I could try another in morphing colors and with more elaborate drawings. Glad you took a look.............Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Bret Kulakovich To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hand drawn animation Wow Gina, good job! - that was a lot of work and it came out great! ]3 On Mar 23, 2005, at 3:34 AM, Gina Miller wrote: Animation news - My first attempt at hand drawn, old school animation: http://www.nanogirl.com/handrawnroses.htm My animation will be used in the Immortality Institute movie. What an honor! I so appreciate the work they are doing. You can see my Mind 2.0 animation (right after the picture of Benjamin Franklin) here in their movie trailer: http://www.imminst.org/mm.php I have a few new ones at my museum of the future page too: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm To find out how Jim is doing, visit the blog here: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Gina` Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries: http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate: http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute: http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry: http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 21:38:59 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:38:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Please help finding college for daughter In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323213859.91179.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Naropa Institute, a Buddhist school. Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I will appreciate all ideas and suggestions. >Giulio __________________________________________________ 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 benboc at lineone.net Wed Mar 23 21:53:26 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:53:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4241E556.5080204@lineone.net> Re: Engineered Religion: > So, do you regard yourself as completely lacking in a sense of humor > all the time, or just when your anti-catholic bigotry is showing? > John's post was pretty funny. Too bad you are too dogmatic to > appreciate it. Funny that, for an atheist... Hey, who you calling an atheist? A humourless, bigoted one, at that. I refuse to rise to such trollery. Interesting concept, actually, 'anti-catholic bigotry'. It /sounds/ like one of those logical conundrums, but maybe it isn't. Rather like being intolerant of intolerance. I'm going to have to think about it. Joseph Bloch: >I've gotta say, I agree with Mike (it's night here, so I can't tell if >the sun has stopped in the heavens, but I'm sure I'll know come morning). I can do miracles! Pretty good going, for an 'atheist'! OK, OK, maybe i hadn't had enough caffiene, and if i took a joke from John C Wright the wrong way, i apologise. I still think they are good questions, though, even if i didn't put them very well. The thing that really does puzzle me is WHY are people so happy to abdicate responsibility? I know that people are basically lazy (me especially!), but letting someone else decide what's right and wrong for you is just taking things too far. What's the point of even being alive if you're going to do that? From Jeff Medina: >To Mike & Joseph: >You might note that Ben's e-mail reply quoted john-c-wright in the following manner: >"john-c-wright at sff.net schreibt" > 'Schreibt' is German, and having it as his default e-mail setting > indicates English is a second language. So we might want to lighten up > on his misreading of John's humor. ;) Nein! nein! Das ist nicht wahr! Englisch ist mein first language! Na, none of this is true. I just like the look of 'schreibt'. See, i can't even say "first language" in German. Thanks for the consideration, Jeff, but you can join the others in savaging my lack of humour and my rabid atheism if you like. Me speak english plenty ok. ben From benboc at lineone.net Wed Mar 23 21:53:31 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:53:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> Damien wrote: At 10:49 PM 3/23/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >>Would it be accurate to characterise your position then Damien as being >>that you could derive no further confidence in the rightness of your position >>on this issue from any third-party judging process so it would be pointless >>to explore the composition of such a judging process? >Precisely. I know Eugen and others are equally adamant that the contrary is >true and self-evident, which I find incomprehensible. It keeps coming back >to this: if someone persuades me that in a trillion years or so, random >recurrence will generate an exact equivalent to me as I am at the moment, >hould I feel okay about someone blowing my head off right now? After all, >"I'll" be alive again (or still alive, or something) in the remote future. >Bullshit, sez I. Blow your own damn head off. >Given this assessment, how could *any* gathering of judges convince me >otherwise? >This rejection is not necessarily to be conflated with a cryonics procedure >that recovers me from vitrification, perhaps even by making cell-by-cell >copies in situ. I do see the slippery slope here, which is why I'm not >altogether persuaded of the merits of most cryonics-style programs. True, >it will be wonderful for everyone *else* to have a copy of me around, :) >but what's in it for *me*? This seems to be an argument about what constitutes "me". Is "me" a particular configuration of information-processing processes, together with a particular set of memories, or is it a mysterious, nebulous, indefinable essence? (is there another possibility? I don't think there is, but i'd like to hear any opinions) If you accept the former, then yes, the 'identical copy' IS you. Completely and utterly you, so long as it is an *identical* copy (in terms of the information processes, memories, etc., that is). If you assert the latter, then - well, sounds pretty much like a classical soul to me, so you are a cartesian dualist. And, yes, i know that this leads to the problem of who is who if you are copied, with the original still existing after the copying process. I don't actually think there is a problem. You are both you. Two you's. Both equally and completely you. Does this make no sense? Only, i think, to a dualist. It might be difficult to grasp, but so's quantum mechanics. That doesn't make it untrue. ben From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 22:09:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:09:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies In-Reply-To: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050323220955.559.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Post of the month. --- Hal Finney wrote: > I did think one comment was unusually perceptive, by Don Gwinn: > > "If one accepts the thesis that social conservatives are motivated to > stamp out pornography and prostitution by their desire to stamp out > their own sexual excesses, and that fiscal liberals are terrified of > tax cuts because they need to suppress their own fixation on money, > then what is the secret fear/obsession that drives libertarians? ... > [W]hat a libertarian would be suppressing, it seems to me, would be > his conviction that he, and maybe everyone, really is dependent on > outside forces, particularly altruism from government or family. The > libertarian would prefer to believe in the totally self-made man, but > the reason the totally self-made man is celebrated is because he is > the exception. The libertarian believes this, but he doesn't want to > believe > it, so he suppresses it by throwing himself into an ideology based on > the idea that self-reliance and the rejection of collective altruism > is the answer to all our ills." > > I think this makes a lot of sense and fits much better with the > analysis > of the other ideologies. If the conservative is afraid of his own > lusts, > and the liberal is afraid of his own greed, then the libertarian is > afraid of his own dependency. Each espouses an ideology that promotes > as a virtue exactly the traits which each one fears that he lacks. > > I'd suggest that it is helpful for Extropians and other > transhumanists to turn a similar self-critical eye on themselves, > at least privately. These > philosophies are brave and bold in their rejection of the conventions > of the past and their embrace of the possibilities of the future. > We feel pretty good about ourselves by adopting these views. But can > we take a less self-congratulatory tone and look at our true > motivations more critically? It can be a good exercise in > overcoming the comforting > lies and self-deception that interfere with our perception of the > truth. 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 Wed Mar 23 22:13:23 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:13:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> Message-ID: <4241EA03.3090007@jefallbright.net> ben wrote: > > And, yes, i know that this leads to the problem of who is who if you are > copied, with the original still existing after the copying process. I > don't actually think there is a problem. You are both you. Two you's. > Both equally and completely you. > Does this make no sense? Only, i think, to a dualist. It might be > difficult to grasp, but so's quantum mechanics. That doesn't make it > untrue. > > ben > Ben - While I fully with you regarding the identity of copies, please be warned that this topic has been argued extensively and repeatedly in the past and you may be expected to read the archives before reinitiating it. - Jef From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 22:14:26 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:14:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> Message-ID: <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> Damien, How is being cryogenically frozen and awoken in 20 years different being frozen and awoken after 1 day? How is either different (in some sense that is relevant to identity considerations) from the way you 'disappear' when you take a nap or go under anaesthesia for surgery and later reappear? Jeff From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 22:19:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Engineered Religion In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323221905.97590.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > Hey, who you calling an atheist? > A humourless, bigoted one, at that. > I refuse to rise to such trollery. > > Interesting concept, actually, 'anti-catholic bigotry'. > It /sounds/ like one of those logical conundrums, but maybe it isn't. > Rather like being intolerant of intolerance. > I'm going to have to think about it. Try looking up the phrase "Calvinist", or "anabaptist". > > The thing that really does puzzle me is WHY are people so happy to > abdicate responsibility? I think Hal's post is a pretty good estimate, although I wonder how he'd define the psychology of a fascist/authoritarian, a greedy prude? > I know that people are basically lazy (me especially!), but letting > someone else decide what's right and > wrong for you is just taking things too far. What's the point of even > being alive if you're going to do that? "You're not the boss of me 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 23 22:24:21 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:24:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323161832.01ed0728@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:14 PM 3/23/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >How is being cryogenically frozen and awoken in 20 years different >being frozen and awoken after 1 day? It's not. >How is either different (in some >sense that is relevant to identity considerations) from the way you >'disappear' when you take a nap or go under anaesthesia for surgery >and later reappear? It's not, assuming that no disruptive intervention is required such as burning the frozen brain to a gas of atoms while compiling a copy across the room. Maybe this is a superstitious prejudice on my part--it certainly has *nothing* to do with dualism or souls, the customary boring retort--but proximate continuity with replacement (what we have now) is somehow the key. But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again archive material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Mar 23 22:56:40 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:56:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speaking of the Geo, what has happened with gas mileage? Why does my 1989 Geo metro *still* get 45 mpg around town but there's no other car even close to it nowadays, unless I get some frightfully expensive hybrid? My Geo was an entry level vehicle when I bought it new and it has paid for itself so to speak, several times over in gas economy. When it was new it ran 55-60 mpg on the highway. Why are none of the little new cars getting that kind of mileage? IMHO they should be getting better mileage. After all, our technology should have improved, right? So what gives? Regards, MB On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Brian Lee wrote: > > In Atlanta at least, the > roads are fine enough that you could drive a geo without running into any > serious road hazards. > From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 23 23:14:52 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:14:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) Message-ID: <20050323231452.8252357EE6@finney.org> Damien writes: > But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again archive > material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) But is it "just" a copy, or is it the same argument??? Not entirely a facetious question! Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 23 23:07:51 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:07:51 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com><4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net><5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323161832.01ed0728@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <017001c52ffd$23bcbc10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Damien Broderick replied to Jeff Medina: > But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again > archive material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) It was Jef Allbright who said (effectively) that the topic is all done to death. Its very hard to get a meta discussion relating to this topic going that explores aspects that haven't been done entirely to death because, quite naturally, people on this list are interested and they will ask the questions that interest them. Then, its hard not to be rude to them when their interest is genuine. These meta discussions have a lot of trouble achieving escaped velocity. I'm not sorry for bringing this up and trying to get meta, (to look at issues of judging with respect to idea futures and the nature of degrees of certainty in different domains and whether it is possible to resolve certain types of disagreement) but I'm sorry that getting meta is so hard to do, and I've almost dragged you into it Damien. And you are so very good at not getting dragged into it :-) You are right, I would be pleased to have a copy of you around even if it wasn't you. But that's me being selfish. "Alas, poor" Broderick, "I knew him, Horatio", .... 'good thing *I* have his upload or *I* might have suffered some sort of loss'. Brett From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 23:15:29 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:15:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Naropa In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323231530.1645.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Giulio, link to Naropa University: http://www.naropa.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 23:22:02 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:22:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Please help finding college for daughter In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050323232202.58774.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> UCLA has a great school of theatre, film, and television with many connections to industry (Hollywood is right down down the street after all). Being a Bruin, I hate to admit it but USC across town is decent in these regards as well. If she were a California resident, UCLA would be much more economical but being a foriegn national (an assumption on my part) the tuition at both places would be comparable for her. Plus the weather here is great . . . often refered to as a mediterranean climate. Here is a url. Good luck. http://www.tft.ucla.edu/ --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > My 17 yrs old daughter is a very talented but not > very focused girl > (like someone else at the same age, at least she is > much more socially > skilled than I was). > She speaks fluently English Spanish and Italian (all > three at native > speaker level) plus a couple of other languages less > fluently. Her SAT > score is about 1100, surprisingly since she never > studies. > She is very much into acting, is in a performing > school here in Madrid > and went a few times to acting summer schools in UK > and US. She wishes > to study something suitable for the movie world, > like acting, > film-making, or creative writing. > I will appreciate all ideas and suggestions. > Giulio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From rafal at smigrodzki.org Wed Mar 23 23:24:28 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:24:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1111620268.4241faaca393f@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Damien Broderick : > > Precisely. I know Eugen and others are equally adamant that the contrary is > true and self-evident, which I find incomprehensible. It keeps coming back > to this: if someone persuades me that in a trillion years or so, random > recurrence will generate an exact equivalent to me as I am at the moment, > should I feel okay about someone blowing my head off right now? After all, > "I'll" be alive again (or still alive, or something) in the remote future. > Bullshit, sez I. Blow your own damn head off. ### Now that the hydra of identity thread reared another head, let me chip in my usual remarks: "The others" are not adamant that certain claims about identity are true while others are false. What I am sure of is my attitude towards certain states of the world. I simply feel very warm and fuzzy about the future existence of any material objects endowed with memories and some character traits reasonably similar to mine. This enthusiasm is not influenced by any considerations regarding the way such objects come into existence - whether by continuity, reassembly, uploading, or tunnelling through the 23rd dimension, I really don't care. I know that you have different attitudes about future material, qualia-experiencing objects similar to you - and these attitudes of ours should influence each other just as much as our attitudes towards e.g the music of Radiohead, or ravioli with beef. Strictly a matter of taste. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 23 23:33:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:33:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <017001c52ffd$23bcbc10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323161832.01ed0728@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <017001c52ffd$23bcbc10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323173122.01eca868@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:07 AM 3/24/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: >Damien Broderick replied to Jeff Medina: > >>But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again >>archive material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) > >It was Jef Allbright who said (effectively) that the topic is all done to >death. Oops. But then "Jeff" is just the logician's way of abbreviating "Jef-and-only-Jef". Damien Broderick [iff only] From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 23 23:40:26 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:40:26 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <20050322084127.19CCA57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <018901c53001$b0c41c30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Hal Finney"" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) > Damien writes: >> For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, >> as we've discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized >> in THE SPIKE. If you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate >> way to copy the Mona Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy >> actually >> the Mona Lisa? Well, no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A >> is the painting that's hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a >> fabrication >> that closely resembles it. > > I think Brett's point was whether this kind of question can be addressed > via some of the mechanisms we have discussed, such as Idea Futures. Yes. Indeed. > How could you make a bet which would test whether cryonics would >"work"? For Damien such a test would be superfluous. > Or more specifically, how could you make a bet about whether a copy > of a mind is, in some sense, the original? This problem (our disagreement) doesn't reside in the domain of science. It resides in the domain of language and logic. > And if we can't make bets about > these kinds of things, is that then an example of a limitation on what > knowledge we can rationally obtain about the world? We can make bets I think. But to judge bets where the relevant domains are logic and language we'd need judges with experts in those domains. I think its a mistake to see cryonics as essentially a scientific disagreement. I think its is essentially a logical disagreement. > These are interesting issues and I don't have a firm opinion about them. > It's possible that the nature of identity is a meaningless question, > that such a concept of identity is a philosophical error. But that is a problem for you isn't it Hal? I mean if you or anyone that signed up for cryonics holds that identity is a a meaningless question how could you be confident that an organisation that tries to revive you would have even a similar notion to you as to what constitutes you? Your identity is crucial to the nature of the service you are trying to buy. How could you be confident of getting even the service providers best efforts at service provision if there is no agreement possible about your identity because the concept of identity is a philosophical error? I think those who are choosing cryonics are making a logical error about the nature of identity. I think if we set up a bet on whether cryonics can work and found experts that you, Robin, Damien and I, all thought were extremely competent in dealing with logical matters (as well as able to bring in any scientific experts that they wish) that some of those judges might feel that they would be able to rule on the question almost immediately. Even if only 5% or 1% of the population are capable of dealing very well with logical arguments, I would certainly think that any one of you and Robin and either of Damien or I could together agree on some way to select candidate judges from that 5% or 1%. Regards, Brett Paatsch From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Mar 23 23:40:59 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. Message-ID: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> Please join me in welcoming Max to a second citizenship which will take place tomorrow - 3/24/05! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 23 23:47:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:47:41 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. References: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <019c01c53002$b3b3a590$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Natasha wrote: > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second citizenship which will take > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! Congratulations Max. Those are a couple of very nice citizenships to have. I'm envious. Brett Paatsch [just an Australian citizen] From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 23:59:28 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:59:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg. Consumers care more about cd players and low cost than gas mileage. This is why mileage is actually worse now that it was 20 years ago. BAL >From: MB >To: ExI chat list >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:56:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > > >Speaking of the Geo, what has happened with gas mileage? Why does my >1989 Geo metro *still* get 45 mpg around town but there's no other car >even close to it nowadays, unless I get some frightfully expensive >hybrid? My Geo was an entry level vehicle when I bought it new and it >has paid for itself so to speak, several times over in gas economy. >When it was new it ran 55-60 mpg on the highway. > >Why are none of the little new cars getting that kind of mileage? IMHO >they should be getting better mileage. After all, our technology >should have improved, right? > >So what gives? > >Regards, >MB > > >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Brian Lee wrote: > > > > > > In Atlanta at least, the > > roads are fine enough that you could drive a geo without running into >any > > serious road hazards. > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 24 00:01:36 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:01:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <019c01c53002$b3b3a590$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> <019c01c53002$b3b3a590$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323175625.01ded900@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:47 AM 3/24/2005 +1100, you wrote: >Brett Paatsch >[just an Australian citizen] Hey! Nobody is *just* an Australian citizen. It's like being tragically hip. Congrats to Max on doubling his opportunities! (I finally got a US greencard recently, after they'd issued me one for some unknown person called "Brodrerick", and for about eight months declined to respond to my weepy pleas. After some more photographing and fingerprinting they eventually got it right. I hope they're better than this on the anti-terrorism front.) Damien Brodrerick not From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 00:04:11 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:34:11 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies In-Reply-To: <20050323220955.559.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> <20050323220955.559.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0503231604666fd0dd@mail.gmail.com> I double plus agree with Mike. Post of the month. Good one, Hal! On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:09:54 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > Post of the month. > > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > I did think one comment was unusually perceptive, by Don Gwinn: > > > > "If one accepts the thesis that social conservatives are motivated to > > stamp out pornography and prostitution by their desire to stamp out > > their own sexual excesses, and that fiscal liberals are terrified of > > ... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 00:05:55 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:35:55 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies In-Reply-To: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc050323160546c87696@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:07:39 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > ... > I'd suggest that it is helpful for Extropians and other transhumanists to > turn a similar self-critical eye on themselves, at least privately. These > philosophies are brave and bold in their rejection of the conventions > of the past and their embrace of the possibilities of the future. > We feel pretty good about ourselves by adopting these views. But can > we take a less self-congratulatory tone and look at our true motivations > more critically? It can be a good exercise in overcoming the comforting > lies and self-deception that interfere with our perception of the truth. > > Hal I think that we are probably secretly worried that this is as good as it gets. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 24 00:10:22 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:10:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323173122.01eca868@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323161832.01ed0728@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <017001c52ffd$23bcbc10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323173122.01eca868@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4242056D.70805@jefallbright.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:07 AM 3/24/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: > >> Damien Broderick replied to Jeff Medina: >> >>> But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again >>> archive material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) >> >> >> It was Jef Allbright who said (effectively) that the topic is all >> done to death. > > > Oops. But then "Jeff" is just the logician's way of abbreviating > "Jef-and-only-Jef". > > Damien Broderick > [iff only] > Actually, this topic is particularly interesting to me, mainly due to the way it touches on the nature of self, which I see as essential to development of rational ethical theory. Another reason I find this fascinating is that it's one of the few topics where I find myself in sharp disagreement with Damien, who is otherwise quite thoughtful and open to concepts that go against our evolved biases. ;-) I'd be happy to discuss this, IFF we have new information or a new approach. - Jef From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 00:59:01 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:59:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324005901.17807.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> Congratulations, Max, although I wonder if you wouldn't be better off with a second citizenship outside of Bush's "coalition of the willing". But hey you live in Texas so I guess you aren't ashamed of Bush. :) --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second > citizenship which will take > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Mar 24 01:02:16 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:02:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation Message-ID: <1111626136.10447@whirlwind.he.net> Brian Lee wrote: > I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry > level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an > entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg. The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg engines, they were just much smaller. Better gas milage has nothing to do with whether or not the engine is "crappy". To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences today between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and one of the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year. Or $20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation. This makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice dubious. What I think has happened is that beyond a certain amount of fuel economy people are not willing to give up features or performance, even for people who really do care about fuel economy. Fuel economy is not the only driving consideration in vehicle selection. A lot of people are willing to accept a 35% reduction in fuel efficiency for a 250% increase in power, particularly if it buys them other features, like not having to drive in a sardine tin, more space, or good performance. Fuel economy has come a long way. 20 years ago, 30mpg got you a 100hp engine. Today 30mpg gets you 250-300hp. Trading all those ponies and the flexibility in car layout that comes with them for marginal increases in fuel economy just does not seem worth it for most people, obviously. If the high-end of fuel economy was something like 60mpg typical in a decent car, it might be more compelling. The closest thing we have to this today is the micro-diesels (like the Jetta TDI). j. andrew rogers From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 01:11:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324011103.61576.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > > Speaking of the Geo, what has happened with gas mileage? Why does my > 1989 Geo metro *still* get 45 mpg around town but there's no other > car > even close to it nowadays, unless I get some frightfully expensive > hybrid? My Geo was an entry level vehicle when I bought it new and it > has paid for itself so to speak, several times over in gas economy. > When it was new it ran 55-60 mpg on the highway. > > Why are none of the little new cars getting that kind of mileage? > IMHO they should be getting better mileage. After all, our technology > should have improved, right? The fuels have changed and crash standards have changed. Crash standards have made vehicles heavier and there are anti-pollution additives that degrade hp. Also, engine control computers are optimized for power and emissions. There are three optimum points you can tune an engine to to maximize any two of power, milage, and emissions. People want power, the state wants low emissions. You are left picking up the milage tab. 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 Thu Mar 24 01:54:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:54:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324015410.80944.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Congrats Max. If you are going to get a second citizenship in these days of transition to empire, it doesn't hurt to have Roman Citizenship when Rome rules the world. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Congratulations, Max, although I wonder if you > wouldn't be better off with a second citizenship > outside of Bush's "coalition of the willing". But hey > you live in Texas so I guess you aren't ashamed of > Bush. :) > > > --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" > wrote: > > > > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second > > citizenship which will take > > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! > > > > Natasha > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > The Avantguardian > > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they > haven't attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > > > __________________________________ > 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 > 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 Thu Mar 24 02:05:06 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:05:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: <1111626136.10447@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1111626136.10447@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <1a0650d15b72a382ed0348553a9c0fe1@mac.com> On Mar 23, 2005, at 5:02 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Brian Lee wrote: >> I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry >> level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an >> entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg. > > > The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg engines, > they were just much smaller. Better gas milage has nothing to do with > whether or not the engine is "crappy". > > To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences today > between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and one > of > the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year. Or > $20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation. This > makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice > dubious. What do you mean? I used to commute 500 miles a week. At 50mpg that is 10 gallons. At 25 mpg it is 20. That is 500 gallons a year difference wthout even considering non-commute miles. So exactly what are you claiming? That most Americans average around 50 miles a week? I very much doubt it. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 02:23:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:23:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324022309.90483.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2005, at 5:02 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > > Brian Lee wrote: > >> I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry > >> level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an > >> entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg. > > > > > > The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg > engines, > > they were just much smaller. Better gas milage has nothing to do > with > > whether or not the engine is "crappy". > > > > To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences > today > > between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and > one > > of > > the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year. Or > > $20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation. > This > > makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the > sacrifice > > dubious. > > What do you mean? I used to commute 500 miles a week. At 50mpg that > is 10 gallons. At 25 mpg it is 20. That is 500 gallons a year > difference wthout even considering non-commute miles. So exactly > what are you claiming? That most Americans average around 50 miles a > week? I very much doubt it. The average daily commute as I recall is somewhere around 20-25 miles. However the point is that the Geo was a lighter vehicle with lower safety standards and lower passenger capacity than todays economy cars. Today's 35 mpg engine is hauling more car and more people at that milage than the Geo at 50 mpg, so when you calculate in the end the miles per gallon per person, you wind up with a more efficient vehicle that has even lower emissions and is safer to drive. 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! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 02:25:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:25:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324022556.17685.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.nhadvantage.com/startup_main.htm Those entrepreneurs with business plans who are interested in migrating with the Free State Project are encouraged to submit their plans to this contest before March 31st. It is conducted by former Governor Craig Benson. First prize gets $130k, with subcategories for bioscience plans. The real motivation of this contest is that Craig is looking for a new venture to invest in and help run. 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 24 02:33:08 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:33:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <20050324022556.17685.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050324022556.17685.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424226E4.7050104@humanenhancement.com> Just out of curiosity... what does this have to do with Max becoming a U.S. Citizen? Especially since he lives in Texas? Mike Lorrey wrote: >http://www.nhadvantage.com/startup_main.htm > >Those entrepreneurs with business plans who are interested in migrating >with the Free State Project are encouraged to submit their plans to >this contest before March 31st. It is conducted by former Governor >Craig Benson. > >First prize gets $130k, with subcategories for bioscience plans. The >real motivation of this contest is that Craig is looking for a new >venture to invest in and help run. > >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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 24 02:43:56 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:43:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising Message-ID: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> Yes, I have gone over to the Dark Side. I have joined the ranks of those who think that people will actively want to look at my rantings and will click on a link (or remember to click on a Bookmark), rather than waiting passively for them to come to them in their inbox, via email. I have started a blog. http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also happens not to exist. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta Posthumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Mar 24 02:44:49 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:44:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: <1111626136.10447@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1111626136.10447@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: I am sadly out of step with the mainstream. Have been looking for 10 years for a car like my Geo, but have not found it, no matter the gas mileage. Don't like big size, don't want all those "features", don't like the styles, all pointy in back with tiny rear windows and poor visibility. My Geo is so old now that it's become a "county" car and I have to use something else for long trips. For me the little car was comfortable: the seats were comfortable, visibility was excellent, the car was nimble and handled nicely, zipping up our hills and merging onto the interstate, carried lots of stuff, parked in a tiny space (which was good after the parking spaces on our local streets were redone to size "extra-small") and could run all over the place for a couple of weeks on one tank of gas. Which is why I still have and use that car every day. My other car ... well, better not get started on that topic. ;) Mournfully, MB On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg > engines, they were just much smaller. Better gas milage has nothing > to do with whether or not the engine is "crappy". > > To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences today > between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and one of > the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year. Or > $20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation. This > makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice > dubious. > > > What I think has happened is that beyond a certain amount of fuel > economy people are not willing to give up features or performance, even > for people who really do care about fuel economy. Fuel economy is not > the only driving consideration in vehicle selection. A lot of people > are willing to accept a 35% reduction in fuel efficiency for a 250% > increase in power, particularly if it buys them other features, like not > having to drive in a sardine tin, more space, or good performance. Fuel > economy has come a long way. 20 years ago, 30mpg got you a 100hp > engine. Today 30mpg gets you 250-300hp. Trading all those ponies and > the flexibility in car layout that comes with them for marginal > increases in fuel economy just does not seem worth it for most people, > obviously. If the high-end of fuel economy was something like 60mpg > typical in a decent car, it might be more compelling. The closest thing > we have to this today is the micro-diesels (like the Jetta TDI). > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 02:49:31 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:49:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324024932.39445.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> If you are Republican then it goes without saying you have no soul. Ronald= 6 Wilson= 6 Reagan= 6 >May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also >happens not to exist. >Joseph __________________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 24 02:55:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:55:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324025559.93813.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry about that, I forgot to change the topic... it's late, my bad... --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Just out of curiosity... what does this have to do with Max becoming > a > U.S. Citizen? Especially since he lives in Texas? 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 fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Mar 24 02:58:08 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:58:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising References: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <002d01c5301d$4f2c8630$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Joseph Bloch" > I have started a blog. > > http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ Thanks for all the interesting information. I was just curious - what's with all the references to astrological signs? (You know it's all Taurus, don't you?) Olga From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 03:11:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324031156.23295.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/kerry_tied_to_666.htm --- Al Brooks wrote: > If you are Republican then it goes without saying you have no soul. > Ronald= 6 > Wilson= 6 > Reagan= 6 > > > > >May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also > >happens not to exist. > >Joseph > > __________________________________________________ > 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!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Mar 24 03:12:28 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:12:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: <002d01c5301d$4f2c8630$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> <002d01c5301d$4f2c8630$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <4242301C.9030604@humanenhancement.com> Beats the heck out of me. blogspot.com seems to put in the astrological garbage as a default. I'm still figuring out the nuances... Joseph Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Joseph Bloch" > >> I have started a blog. >> >> http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ > > > Thanks for all the interesting information. > > I was just curious - what's with all the references to astrological > signs? (You know it's all Taurus, don't you?) > > Olga > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 24 03:14:28 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:14:28 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu><01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com><011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <1111620268.4241faaca393f@www.genciabiotech.com> Message-ID: <022301c5301f$9731cd30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Now that the hydra of identity thread reared another head, > let me chip in my usual remarks: > > "The others" are not adamant that certain claims about identity > are true while others are false. What I am sure of is my attitude > towards certain states of the world. I simply feel very warm and > fuzzy about the future existence of any material objects endowed > with memories and some character traits reasonably similar to > mine. This enthusiasm is not influenced by any considerations > regarding the way such objects come into existence - whether by > continuity, reassembly, uploading, or tunnelling through the 23rd > dimension, I really don't care. > > I know that you have different attitudes about future material, > qualia-experiencing objects similar to you - and these attitudes > of ours should influence each other just as much as our attitudes > towards e.g the music of Radiohead, or ravioli with beef. Strictly > a matter of taste. Rafal, you and I disagree on this. Usually I think your opinions are well thought through and I respect them. But this notion of yours that identity is strictly a matter of taste seems to produce a bizarre situation where you are going to let your identity be a matter of someone else's taste. You will not be able to upload yourself from your digitised pattern - you won't be there to do it - so you will need to rely on someone else's judgement as to whether the you that is captured in digital form is rendered well enough by some process into the you that is uploaded or re-instantiated. Your biological neural net is unique. Its true that your brain is likely to be very similarly structured at some levels to the brains of other homo sapiens (as is mine) but at the level that matters for you its also going to be profoundly different and unique to you. A technological mapping process that takes Rafs digitised brain as its input and produces Raf as an instantiated output is unlikely to be able to be run multiple times because in that future world a person is being created each time and that person cannot simply be tossed away. It could very well be that the first instantiation process produces a Rafal that thinks he is Rafal, and thinks he should have legal right to Rafals assets, yet because of imperfect rendering he is two standard deviations less intelligent that the source Rafal and he is also missing vast chunks of that Rafal's memories. The reviving organisation can hardly just terminate that Rafal as not a satisfactory enough copy and try again without killing or annuling the rights of that first copy person. So they are going to have a very strong incentive to treat the first Rafal that comes through their reanimation process as the only Rafal. Your identity which you hold to be a matter of taste would in fact turn out to be determined by other peoples taste or worse by the limits of efficiency in any you-rendering process that can't be run multiple times (unless the future doesn't care about persons that are still persons even if they are not good copies of you - and terminates them - in which case would you *want* to be reanimated into such a future?). I see this as analogous to a kid going into a lolly shop and asking to buy mixed lollies. The kid wants lollies in *any* form and is willing to let someone else decide what sort of lollies they get as to the kid "what they heck it's all good". What determines what lollies the kid gets is what the salesperson has available to give him. The mixed lollies you get may be the stuff that no other kid wants. i.e. Your "identity is just a matter of taste" notion might make you the absolute best candidate for dry running the revival process for the absolutely first time its tried on any person. If that person comes out drooling on himself but can say "I'm Rafal" then that would be mission accomplished from the service providers standpoint. His taste and the service providers taste are both satisfied. Brett Paatsch From dgc at cox.net Thu Mar 24 03:30:09 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:30:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Please help finding college for daughter In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032301441f3166c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032301441f3166c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42423441.3070807@cox.net> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >My 17 yrs old daughter is a very talented but not very focused girl >(like someone else at the same age, at least she is much more socially >skilled than I was). >She speaks fluently English Spanish and Italian (all three at native >speaker level) plus a couple of other languages less fluently. Her SAT >score is about 1100, surprisingly since she never studies. >She is very much into acting, is in a performing school here in Madrid >and went a few times to acting summer schools in UK and US. She wishes >to study something suitable for the movie world, like acting, >film-making, or creative writing. >I will appreciate all ideas and suggestions. >Giulio >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > I do not know if an SAT of 1100 would be acceptable to them, but if it is you might consider McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. My number 2 daughter attends McGill. McGill is highly regarded, and Montreal is a wonderful city that is extremely multicultural. Your daughter's language ability, and the fact that she is neither Canadian nor American, might be considered in her favor. In addition, McGill is quite inexpensive. Montreal is an absolute hotbed of the performing arts. If not McGill, consider Concordia, also in Montreal and perhaps easier to get into(?) If her French is good enough, consider UQaM (university of Quebec at Montreal.) Is University really necessary for a career in theater? I have no clue. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 03:43:38 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324034338.95536.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Well it takes one to know one, a Republican would easily recognise evil, being intimately familiar with it. I nominate Nixon as the most evil person ever. The Germans recovered from Hitler after a decade or so and are doing very well now. Yet America still hasn't recovered from Nixon. >Mike Lorrey wrote: >http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%>20Witchcraft/kerry_tied_to_666.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Thu Mar 24 03:48:28 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:48:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323173122.01eca868@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> <5844e22f0503231414222353ab@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323161832.01ed0728@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <017001c52ffd$23bcbc10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323173122.01eca868@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4242388C.90900@cox.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:07 AM 3/24/2005 +1100, Brett wrote: > >> Damien Broderick replied to Jeff Medina: >> >>> But as you told Ben, this topic is all done-to-death-and-back-again >>> archive material. I'm not interested in making a copy of it. :) >> >> >> It was Jef Allbright who said (effectively) that the topic is all >> done to death. > > > Oops. But then "Jeff" is just the logician's way of abbreviating > "Jef-and-only-Jef". > Damienn, is that youu? From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Mar 24 03:51:27 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:51:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anim Message-ID: <01a101c53024$c5139d00$1db71218@Nano> Some folks have expressed problems with the link in the previous email, so I am sending the link again, just in case! Gina http://www.nanogirl.com/handrawnroses.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 24 04:13:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323175625.01ded900@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200503240413.j2O4DaY22684@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. > > ... Nobody is *just* an Australian citizen. It's like being tragically > hip. Hey Im tragically hip! I read Kerouac's On The Road. Liked it. Man. (I really did like the book, altho I confess I just don't get it.) > Congrats to Max on doubling his opportunities! Wooohooo! Go Max! > (I finally got a US > greencard recently, after they'd issued me one for some unknown person > called "Brodrerick", and for about eight months declined to respond to my > weepy pleas... Damien, perhaps they had on file that picture of you from a long time ago, with the hair. {8^D spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 24 04:21:54 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:21:54 +1100 Subject: New Hampshire was Re: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. References: <20050324022556.17685.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <027601c53029$02c08150$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > http://www.nhadvantage.com/startup_main.htm > > Those entrepreneurs with business plans who are interested in migrating > with the Free State Project are encouraged to submit their plans to > this contest before March 31st. It is conducted by former Governor > Craig Benson. > > First prize gets $130k, with subcategories for bioscience plans. The > real motivation of this contest is that Craig is looking for a new > venture to invest in and help run. What are your gambling laws like in NH? Could you legally set up a real money version of idea futures there? Could you legally bet on it from there? I suspect the answer is no. But how much freer than other states is NH on that criterion of freedom? Is this an issue you have explored? Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 05:32:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:32:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: New Hampshire In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324053207.48000.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > http://www.nhadvantage.com/startup_main.htm > > > > Those entrepreneurs with business plans who are interested in > migrating > > with the Free State Project are encouraged to submit their plans to > > this contest before March 31st. It is conducted by former Governor > > Craig Benson. > > > > First prize gets $130k, with subcategories for bioscience plans. > The > > real motivation of this contest is that Craig is looking for a new > > venture to invest in and help run. > > What are your gambling laws like in NH? Could you legally set up > a real money version of idea futures there? Could you legally bet on > it from there? > > I suspect the answer is no. But how much freer than other states is > NH on that criterion of freedom? Is this an issue you have explored? > Futures contracts are securities: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-11.htm http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-12.htm http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-13.htm http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-14.htm http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-15.htm Exemptions: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxviii/421-b/421-B-17.htm Otherwise: Gambling and Amusements: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/xxiv.html Bill to charter the White Mountain Casino: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2005/HB0685.html http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiv/287-c/287-c-3.htm Games of chance: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiv/287-d/ http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiv/287-d/287-d-1.htm http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiv/287-d/287-d-2-b.htm gambling offenses: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/647/647-2.htm "V. This section shall not apply to: [Paragraph V(a) effective January 1, 2005; see also paragraph V(a) set out above.] (a) Dispenser devices approved by the pari-mutuel commission which are located at the regular meeting place of, or at a facility owned, leased, or utilized by, a charitable organization licensed under RSA 287-E:20. (b) A family entertainment center having redemption slot machines or redemption poker machines. [can have up to 15% slots or poker machines - MSL] (c) Cruise ships which are equipped with gambling machines whose primary purpose is touring. Any such cruise ship shall be allowed to temporarily enter New Hampshire coastal waters and ports for up to 48 hours, provided that all gambling machines on board are not in use or capable of being used while in New Hampshire coastal waters and ports. For the purposes of this paragraph "cruise ship" means any vessel which is capable of providing overnight accommodations for 500 or more people. Bingo and Lucky 7: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiv/287-e/287-e-5.htm Gambling Contracts: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxi/338/338-4.htm 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 Thu Mar 24 05:48:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:48:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> References: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: Very interesting. Part of me is cheering enthusiastically. Another part is wondering how we will survive mob resentment and even raw terror once it is seen that our aspirations are not looney tunes. In a highly competitive species under the reality or illusion of scarcity, most members are going to react quite badly with tremendous fear to the idea that they either join the program or become far more obsolete than any mere technological or knowledge leap today can make them. It is a harsh world if one is truly obsolete and not economical to employ in any paid capacity. We primates react extra badly if we see our death and the end of all hope before us. Not everyone will want to go beyond human as soon as they can. What happens to them? Without an answer they have sound reasons to fear. It may be my own soft pedaling but I have often thought that the best chance for there ever to be posthumans is to create enough effective abundance with guaranteed availability to all that no one can reasonably worry about being able to survive and live welil. Once that level of visceral fear is dealt with then I doubt the opposition could get a lot of traction for hatred toward those that had decided to avail themselves of opportunities for more. Posthumans may well be what makes such universal and growing abundance even possible. The moral arguments can be strong in our favor. How can we be moral and allow everyone to suffer, often horribly, and die now that we can or fast will be able to do something about it? How can it be moral to be happy with just human capabilities to learn, to make a difference, and generally "to have life and have it more abundantly"? Given any sort of choice, how can being merely human be justified for even a moment when so many difficult and often deadly problems face us that may be insoluble by mere humans? That said, I would not be very happy if we ended up with or being merely super primates with much of our evolutionary wiring intact within a super powered frame. In my opinion our deep psychology will require serious rework to be sane and trustworthy with such abilities. - samantha On Mar 23, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Yes, I have gone over to the Dark Side. > > I have joined the ranks of those who think that people will actively > want to look at my rantings and will click on a link (or remember to > click on a Bookmark), rather than waiting passively for them to come > to them in their inbox, via email. > > I have started a blog. > > http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ > > May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also > happens not to exist. > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: > http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > > Posthumanity Rising: > http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 24 06:36:32 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:36:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Geo Metro was Public Transportation In-Reply-To: <20050324022309.90483.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050324012800.035040f0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:23 PM 23/03/05 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: snip >However the point is that the Geo was a lighter vehicle snip A rented one did a really fine job of losing a bunch of scientology PIs in deep sand . . . "It is way fuzzy now, but I think this version was produced after calls from the advertising people at GM who were at the time trying to figure out if this adventure could be used to sell Geo Metros (sub compact 3 cylinder cars.) The final conclusion after their advertising people had looked over a faxed copy of this article was that their minds could just not comprehend an ad where a *Geo* was being used as a "Dukes of Hazard" vehicle." snip " Alas, there is no opening *anywhere* in the back wall. So I veer away plowing through sand and over fallen palm fronds like a small boat in a choppy sea. If GMC needs a testimonial from a verrry satisfied customer about the handling characteristics of a GEO in deep sand, I'm their man. " Ah, did the media miss a golden opportunity! One, two, or three cars throwing up sand like giant demented blue lizards! I don't know if they followed me. I couldn't look back for fear of wrapping my lizard around one of the palms. The tape would be a treasure, especially if one of the PI's cars followed me into the deep sand and got stuck. "Dodging palms, bucking and rolling and not daring to stop because the car would get stuck, I make a huge U turn inside the wall through the sand and palm frond mix. If there was a locator bug stuck under the car it might have been scraped off." http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=3ccca3b3.136125751%40news2.lightlink.com&output=gplain Keith Henson From amara at amara.com Thu Mar 24 07:38:06 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes a Duel Citizen plus a note about passports Message-ID: Congratulations Max. Second citizenships are very very useful. I use my Latvian one almost all of the time now. If you don't have your US passport yet, I suggest to get it as soon as you can. I renewed mine four weeks ago (I needed two months to find a place in Italy to make the proper passport photo, at the end, I used a service in London), but I feel fortunate that I input the application in time because it doesn't have the RFID embedded. My application didn't travel to Washington D.C. however, it was prepared in Rome. I don't know when the RFID will become part of the normal passports (it's in US diplomats' passports now), but I suggest all who need to renew their passports to renew it sooner rather than later so you don't have the RFID 'gift'. Amara (Toulouse) -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 24 09:48:34 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:48:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <017501c52a1c$0a17ccf0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050316090936.02dc4768@mail.gmu.edu> <01ec01c52a89$82dffa50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322000016.04332e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <011201c52f9e$67499160$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323124438.01d3fcf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050324094834.GE17303@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:55:52PM -0600, damien wrote: > Precisely. I know Eugen and others are equally adamant that the contrary is > true and self-evident, which I find incomprehensible. It keeps coming back I'm not adamant. I have a set of cases which are self-consistent if followed through. I realize the conclusions fly in the face of intuition, but there they are. > to this: if someone persuades me that in a trillion years or so, random > recurrence will generate an exact equivalent to me as I am at the moment, It can't happen by random chance. In fact, you'll need invasive medical nanotechnology or destructive scanning (which means you're dead and vitrified) to generate a sufficiently accurate equivalent. The latter is default for cryonics -- where you have relatively little to lose, considering the alternative outcomes. The former isn't yet here, so the whole issue is for now academic. > should I feel okay about someone blowing my head off right now? After all, 1) is there a need to for that? 2) do you trust the system to resume you downstream? 3) how much is this going to cost? If there's no need, I wouldn't do it. If there's a need, I would do it if I can trust I can be resumed. The issue of cost is also there. How much resource drain can you take now, especially if the outcome probability error range is high? > "I'll" be alive again (or still alive, or something) in the remote future. > Bullshit, sez I. Blow your own damn head off. > > Given this assessment, how could *any* gathering of judges convince me > otherwise? > > This rejection is not necessarily to be conflated with a cryonics procedure > that recovers me from vitrification, perhaps even by making cell-by-cell > copies in situ. I do see the slippery slope here, which is why I'm not In absence of magic, these are your only options. > altogether persuaded of the merits of most cryonics-style programs. True, I'm not entirely persuaded by current cryonics, but only because the average case suspension quality sucks so much. Oh, and the absence of validation, of course, which makes it largely faith-based -- but we'll get that validation within the next decades. > it will be wonderful for everyone *else* to have a copy of me around, :) > but what's in it for *me*? It is possible to be instantiated multiply, if tightly synchronized, but that's a carefully maintained state, and easily destroyed (causing a split-brain condition -- this is something occuring in spatially distributed HA clusters (keywords: split-brain, heartbeat, stonith). You can of course run an introspective AI in above configuration, and ask it questions. The outcome is 100% predictable. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 24 10:26:57 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:26:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes a Duel Citizen plus a note about passports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050324102657.GG17303@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:38:06AM +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > I don't know when the RFID will become part of the normal passports > (it's in US diplomats' passports now), but I suggest all who need to renew > their passports to renew it sooner rather than later so you don't have > the RFID 'gift'. I would also recommend to renew *now*, so that you can stall the issue. I would also recommend to wrap the ID in an aluminized mylar baggie, when not in use (kitchen alumin(i)um foil works just as well). I intend to treat mine with a violet wand (microwaving leaves very obvious scorched spots), or just let it lapse. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 24 12:11:17 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:11:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <018901c53001$b0c41c30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050322084127.19CCA57EE6@finney.org> <018901c53001$b0c41c30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050324121117.GR17303@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:40:26AM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I think those who are choosing cryonics are making a logical error > about the nature of identity. I think those who're choosing cryonics haven't thought about the issue much at all. As all those who haven't chosen cryonics, of course. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 12:24:38 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:24:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] UK police surveillance cameras catch criminals Message-ID: English and Welsh police forces are developing a national network of thousands of cameras that will scan number plates and check them against police databases, a move they say will keep criminals off the road. The cameras use automatic number plate recognition technology (ANPR) to check a vehicle's identity against the Police National Computer, records at the DVLA and local intelligence systems. Cars flagged by the system can then be stopped by police and, in a trial of the technology by 23 forces last year, police stopped 180,543 vehicles and made 13,499 arrests, bagging 1,152 stolen vehicles and 13 firearms. Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Frank Whiteley said: "The launch of the ANPR strategy for the police service is a key step in grasping the opportunities ANPR provides for denying criminals use of the roads." ------------ This sounds as though they have at last started using surveillance cameras pro-actively to stop crime. The police also respond to city centre crimes that are spotted on camera, like fights and personal attacks. - There are a lot of them when the bars close on Saturday night. :) Criminals often steal cars to use in crime, so stopping cars that have been reported stolen should catch a lot. One problem in UK is the large number of unregistered cars (to avoid taxes and insurance, etc.) so they are working harder to get rid of them. Unregistered parked cars that traffic wardens notice are now towed away. I suspect that initially a lot of the police stops on this new system will be unregistered cars not known on their database. So they will just impound the car and charge the driver with minor offences. But even this is a big improvement - as anyone who has been crashed into by an unregistered car and had to pay for all the repairs themselves will agree. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 24 13:20:48 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:20:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> References: <200503231758.j2NHweY10335@tick.javien.com> <4241E55B.5070104@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20050324132047.GT17303@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:53:31PM +0000, ben wrote: > And, yes, i know that this leads to the problem of who is who if you are > copied, with the original still existing after the copying process. I A static image pending execution is a potential you. N instantiated synchronized images is you still. N diverging clones thereof are rapidly becoming somebody else. Pulling the latter on an unsuspecting person is nasty. Don't do that. (We'd sue for damages). > don't actually think there is a problem. You are both you. Two you's. > Both equally and completely you. > Does this make no sense? Only, i think, to a dualist. It might be > difficult to grasp, but so's quantum mechanics. That doesn't make it untrue. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Mar 24 14:47:55 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:47:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050323175625.01ded900@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> <019c01c53002$b3b3a590$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323175625.01ded900@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324084640.04cedbf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 06:01 PM 3/23/2005, Damien wrote: >At 10:47 AM 3/24/2005 +1100, you wrote: > >>Brett Paatsch >>[just an Australian citizen] > >Hey! Nobody is *just* an Australian citizen. It's like being tragically hip. > >Congrats to Max on doubling his opportunities! (I finally got a US >greencard recently, after they'd issued me one for some unknown person >called "Brodrerick", and for about eight months declined to respond to my >weepy pleas. After some more photographing and fingerprinting they >eventually got it right. I hope they're better than this on the >anti-terrorism front.) Hi Damien! I hope we see you in San Antonio today! Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Mar 24 15:18:16 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:18:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [ExtroBritannia] Please help finding college for daughter In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032301441f3166c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032301441f3166c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324085422.04e08278@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:44 AM 3/23/2005, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >My 17 yrs old daughter is a very talented but not very focused girl >(like someone else at the same age, at least she is much more socially >skilled than I was). >She speaks fluently English Spanish and Italian (all three at native >speaker level) plus a couple of other languages less fluently. Her SAT >score is about 1100, surprisingly since she never studies. >She is very much into acting, is in a performing school here in Madrid >and went a few times to acting summer schools in UK and US. She wishes >to study something suitable for the movie world, like acting, >film-making, or creative writing. >I will appreciate all ideas and suggestions. I would be delighted to speak with your daughter about acting, the arts, and whether to go the academic route or hands on. Many of my friends who I worked with over time did not study acting, filmmaking, and writing in a scholastic structure, but jumped in and worked their way up at studios, or in theater. Some used all their connections and got bit parts, then secured an agent, and they started going on auditions quickly. Others went to private acting schools such as Lee Strasberg http://www.strasberg.com/ and Peggy Fury's "The Loft." (I studied at The Loft for several years. It was in its hay-day the top place to study - as Angelica Houston, Jack Nicholson, Natasha Richardson, the brat-pack, and so many others studied there. It was very exciting to learn the skills in such an environment.) http://www.actorstheatreworkshop.com/ But, then going to a school like Yale has been very helpful to actors like Meryl Streep and I think it gave her a sense of herself that added to her demeanor. More than anyone offering their advice on what school your daughter might consider enrolling in, I think that you need to sit down with her and objectify her goals. Does she want to be in Hollywood type films, or on the stage? Is she primarily interested in drama or comedy, or is she better as a commercial actor. Would she be a good candidate for a character actor, or a leading role? This is how agents and casting directors look at an actor - by where they fit in to the large scheme of the industry. My own experiences in the arts is that getting a formal education is necessary - a bachelors degree in an arts program specialty, to go to a university that has a good art department (including fine art, theatrical arts, filmmaking, electronic arts, etc.); and then to work in a small theater group. She will quickly learn where she wants to focus her talents. One of the shortcomings of not going to university and studying is that artists tend to find their own subculture and forget to focus on the goal. Going to a university first and then getting accepted in a private acting school (like I went to (above)) refines the talents and is a marvelous introduction to professionals. I don't think the specific school matters, but I do think establishing what her goals are do matter greatly. I also think she needs to feel comfortable and decide if she likes small campuses or large campuses, or a very specialized campus. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 24 15:32:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:32:12 +1100 Subject: Formulating a bet was Re: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools etc References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> On Wednesday, March 16, 2005 Hal Finney wrote: [Now that Damien has commented I want to return to this early post] > 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 ...) and I hold that it is not feasible. >> 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. Hal 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. > > 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. In a real money version of idea futures I'd be interested in taking you up on your bet but I'd have the following issues with it which I wonder if we can address together (also with Robin if he is interested). 1) 100 years is too long for me to have to wait to get a financial return on investment. I'd want to have at least a chance to get a return sooner than in 100 years. This would be possible if there was a judging process that examined the issue of the bet yearly with the possibility of the judges concluding that the issue was already settled in the negative on either scientific or (more likely in the short term) on logical grounds. 2) Robin said "I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but otherwise, sure I'd accept many third party judgements." Well I have no problem with the judges being permitted to have regard to uploading and to arguments for it, (and against), I would have a problem with them being required to pre-accept that uploading is possible. I think that the second would both stack the judging process unfairly and make the chances of my getting a payoff from betting in the short term much harder and thus less attractive for me in terms of return on investment. I'd be looking to two possible means of profiting from exposure to the market. The first being to get a quick knock out ruling from the judges at an annual deliberation on logical grounds. (If you think that might be an impossible or unrealistic aspiration on my part then I'd ask you to consider how it might be that someone or ones (plural) like Damien might not end up on the judging panel when we are picking judges whose views are not known to us but whose competencies are). The second being to attack the market price by bringing in scientific evidence that would weight against the technical feasibility. 3) Whilst I respect Hal for wanting odds of about 1 in 100. And I would have put the odds at less than 1 in 100 myself. There is not a lot of distance between 0 in 100 and 1 in 100 for a payoff to be achieved by either party. We'd need to have a mechanism that makes differences on less than 1 in 100 have a financial return. [ Were this bet to be realised and others to join in in a manner like the Foresight Exchange I'd be concerned that Hal and Robin might be competing with me to taking some of the money from the more bullish folk, when clearly that money is rightfully destined to be mine ;-) Bad joke. ] Why am I wanting to do this, to run through this process of trying to formulate a bet when at this stage there is no real money idea futures market to bet on? Four reasons. First, I want to see in a practical way if Robin is right in his view that this sort of thing (cryonics) can practically be judged. I really like Robin's idea futures idea but I don't completely trust that it will work in practice as well as it seems to on paper - running through this exercise should help to see how well a judging process can be arrived at. Two, I respect Hal and Robin quite a lot based on what I have read that they have written. I am genuinely interested in the mechanisms by which two such capable folk could look at an issue like this and still disagree with me. I think I suspect that in formulating a bet and considering the judging process that Hal and Robin's assessment of the probability will move towards zero. If I am self-deceived on this I am genuinely self-deceived. Three, having a well worded and structured bet on this topic would be useful. Its the sort of bet that could be easily made real on a real money idea futures market once one is able to be set up. And Hal and Robin through their experience with Foresight Exchange amongst other things would both have some skill in setting up a judgeable bet. This is by no means the easiest bet to set up a judgement process on. But I have some experience with legal contracts and I know that it is possible to set up such things as dispute resolution procedures that can avoid legal process costs in commercial contracts. Four, I live in a world where judgements that impact on me are made all the time by other people with whom I do not agree. (Legislators and policy makers come readily to mind). My money and time can be wasted when those judgements are made badly. I would not be a comfortable innocent person if I were ever accused of a crime and placed in front of a jury as I would be afraid that the jury would find me guilty by error. Yet I am an optimist to some extent. I think rational people and judges can be found if some effort is made to give the rational nobler side of people a fighting chance to come out. Give humans an even chance, put the incentives in the right places, get the systems set up right, and I reckon together we will get a lot more right than we get wrong. We don't have to eliminate the tendencies to self-deception altogether to better mitigate the collective harm of it. We can check each others biases. Brett Paatsch From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Mar 24 15:34:34 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:34:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <20050323174357.11888.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050323174357.11888.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <54a593a5ea82d35e1efe4d9f90340808@bonfireproductions.com> Agreed on all counts - I appreciate my barometer reset on this issue - sorry to do it through all your efforts. It just seems ridiculous. People feel they require a vehicle with 5 times the output of the Wright flier to cart themselves to the same place everyone else is going each day, when 60 hp would do it. I don't deny them their individuality or their free will. It just seems like a huge waste. I don't begrudge people who live deep on dirt roads or mountainsides or suffer our ill-tempered infrastructure. Here's me, however, sitting on the commuter rail everyday - the one who actually reads the annual reports left on our seats each year - and knows that his buying a pass is merely a "contribution" toward the cost of my ridership - one quarter to be precise. And the trains are usually packed 3 stops before the end of the line. Something just doesn't seem right. ]3 On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Patrick Wilken wrote: >> On 23 Mar 2005, at 16:44, spike wrote: >>> Bret, out here in Taxifornia, the average rail train is carrying >>> one person, perhaps two. I do not exaggerate. Often we will >>> see a mile of cars backed up waiting for a commuter train to >>> pass with two passengers. >> >> Hey Spike: >> >> I don't know what the average train line is like where you live, but >> when I was living in Pasadena the newly opened Gold line was running >> a >> brisk business. That surprised me, as the very nature of LA tends to >> overwhelm any possibility of good public transport. > > I wouldn't mind this mass transit stuff if it was self supporting. > Instead, gas taxes are spent on passenger rail infrastructure to the > tune of a new BMW every couple years for each new mass transit rider. > Those riders are certainly NOT paying their way. > > 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 > From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Mar 24 15:43:53 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:43:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> References: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <2ac1b43ebfa31e55609d7d8034e7c54c@bonfireproductions.com> Wow! What great news! Congratulations! Mens sana in corpore sano, ]3 On Mar 23, 2005, at 6:40 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second citizenship which will take > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjvans at ameritech.net Thu Mar 24 16:17:54 2005 From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen Van_Sickle) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:17:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324161754.81524.qmail@web81210.mail.yahoo.com> Yeah, Max! Now you get to join the rest of us in casting votes for the lesser of evils. steve vs --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second > citizenship which will take > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 24 16:23:55 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:23:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies In-Reply-To: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324110944.02d0c190@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:07 PM 3/23/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >If the conservative is afraid of his own lusts, and the liberal is afraid >of his own greed, then the libertarian is afraid of his own dependency. ... >I'd suggest that it is helpful for Extropians and other transhumanists to >turn a similar self-critical eye ... overcoming the comforting >lies and self-deception that interfere with our perception of the truth. The obvious candidate that comes to my mind is the mediocrity of our lives. Many like to escape our humdrum lives via reading science fiction, where characters engage dramatic implications of technology for their lives. Some of us want to believe that our lives really are like that. We feel important by talking about big issues and acting as if they mattered to us personally. That all said, this is the sort of point where the academic in me screams, "Read the damn literature!" There are literally thousands of studies out there trying to make sense of what ideology is, in part by looking at what it correlates with. What I recall of what I've read is that all the correlations found are very weak. Those who believe that the above proposed correlation is strong should test it. Put together a personality test that indicates the above fears, and a test the indicates ideology, and see how strongly they are correlated. All very doable. 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 Thu Mar 24 16:55:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:55:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324165537.317.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> But does your passport now say "More" or "Mnrrgh" for the proper Qwghlmian? Oh, and Damien, shall we check the terrorist watchlist for an anarchist named Brodrerick? --- Stephen Van_Sickle wrote: > > Yeah, Max! > > Now you get to join the rest of us in casting votes > for the lesser of evils. > > steve vs > > > --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" > wrote: > > > > Please join me in welcoming Max to a second > > citizenship which will take > > place tomorrow - 3/24/05! > > > > Natasha > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 24 16:55:59 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:55:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324084640.04cedbf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <203650-220053323234059122@M2W075.mail2web.com> <019c01c53002$b3b3a590$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050323175625.01ded900@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324084640.04cedbf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050324105113.01dd70d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:47 AM 3/24/2005 -0600, Natasha wrote: >Hi Damien! I hope we see you in San Antonio today! Of course. I wouldn't miss Max dueling his way to citizenship. It might seem a barbaric custom to some, but I approve of the introduction of the Code Duello in establishing worthiness. Most Darwinian! Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 16:57:31 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:57:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation (was suitcase nukes) In-Reply-To: <54a593a5ea82d35e1efe4d9f90340808@bonfireproductions.com> References: <20050323174357.11888.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <54a593a5ea82d35e1efe4d9f90340808@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:34:34 -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > Here's me, however, sitting on the commuter rail everyday - the one who > actually reads the annual reports left on our seats each year - and > knows that his buying a pass is merely a "contribution" toward the cost > of my ridership - one quarter to be precise. > > And the trains are usually packed 3 stops before the end of the line. > Something just doesn't seem right. > It depends on the city and it's position along the traffic jam crisis line. Some newer cities are designed around the car and can accommodate huge volumes of commuter traffic before seizing up. In older cities (like in UK) the jams have got so bad that many cities now slap a 10 USD per day charge on every car going into the town centre area, to discourage cars going there. London and Oxford are two examples. It seems to work, as well. Buses in London centre now move around much better. It helps if you have a good train, bus or light rail network which can absorb the commuter traffic. If you don't, then businesses will move out of the town centre, because they won't get the necessary staff. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 24 17:10:19 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:10:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> At 10:32 AM 3/24/2005, 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. > >In a real money version of idea futures I'd be interested in taking you >up on your bet but I'd have the following issues with it which I wonder >if we can address together (also with Robin if he is interested). > >1) 100 years is too long for me to have to wait to get a financial return >on investment. ... >2) Robin said "I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but >otherwise, sure I'd accept many third party judgements." >... I would have a problem with [judges] being required to pre-accept >that uploading is possible. ... >3) ... There is not a lot of distance between 0 in 100 and 1 in 100 >for a payoff to be achieved by either party. ... You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is pretty much anything. The question is how well that judge decision correlates with the real dispute you are having. Perhaps you can be clever, but if the correlation won't happen for 100 years, then you just have to wait that long. With combinatorial markets there is less of a problem of a "small distance" at the extremes. You can "reuse" your bets to bet on other topics via conjunctions of this topic and those other topics. If you and someone else are using words in different ways, you could bet on the "right" way to use those words. But I'd rather bet on the concepts, so I'd rather try to clarify meaning ambiguities up front. And as there are some hard topics, such as the morality of abortion, where it is not clear there will ever be a strong correlation between the truth and a judge's decision, I'd rather try to disentangle other questions from those hard topics, to give those other topics the best chance to be resolved clearly and early. 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 Thu Mar 24 17:22:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:22:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:10 PM 3/24/2005 -0500, Robin wrote: >You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is pretty much >anything. The question is how well that judge decision correlates with >the real dispute you are having. Quite so. In the hard version of this case (that is, the efficacy of destructive reconstruction following cryonic suspension), it seems to me equivalent of setting up a bet with a panel of judges who might be Muslims or lunatics or might not, testing the assertion that men who die faithful obtain the services of 72 virgins, or that Brett is really a UFO Grey travelling among us in impenetrable disguise, or that carrots have a natural right to bear arms. Good luck! Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 24 17:23:58 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:23:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050324112311.01e915f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I should add that Robin made much the same point (as my previous post) already: >I'd rather bet on the concepts, so I'd rather try to clarify meaning >ambiguities up front. And as there are some hard topics, such as the >morality of abortion, where it is not clear there will ever be a strong >correlation between the truth and a judge's decision, I'd rather try to >disentangle other questions from those hard topics, to give those other >topics the best chance to be resolved clearly and early. Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 24 18:43:34 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:43:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) Message-ID: <20050324184334.9E84357EBA@finney.org> I have two problems with the notion of "identity as continuity", which suggests that even an apparently successful cryonics revival would be a new person who is a mere copy of the old one. The first problem is that this view tends to see identity in black and white terms. Either some future person is the same identity as me, or they are not. There is no room for the idea of someone being partially the same identity as me, say 90% or 30% or some other percentage. Instead, in this view there is an actual "fact of the matter" about whether someone is the same identity as me. It's not just a matter of definition or perspective. If my future replacement's identity is not the same as mine, then I have died in a real, factual sense. The problem is that this position is vulnerable to a sorites attack. This is the greek paradox which says that day turns gradually into night, you can never identify an instant at which it ceases to be day and becomes night, yet day seems fundamentally different from night. The resolution to this paradox is to recognize that day is actually not fundamentally different from night, but that both are simply the same thing, to different degrees. Day has more sunlight than night, and there is a gradual change in the amount of sunlight between them. In the case of identity, it is possible to set up a series of thought experiments which provide a similar gradual degree of changes between situations where identity is preserved and where identity is lost. For example, if someone believes their identity would be lost if the atoms in their brain ceased motion by being frozen, you can imagine a series of cases in which the atoms are merely cooled to different degrees. When they are not cooled at all, identity is preserved. When they are cooled all the way, identity is lost. And there are an essentially infinite degree of gradations between the two. It seems inconceivable that identity will be preserved at one temperature, but completely lost at an infinitesimally lower temperature. If someone is OK with freezing but is concerned about disassembly and reassembly, we can similarly imagine a series of cases where different numbers of atoms are removed and replaced, from none to all of them. Most other models for identity can be attacked in the same way. The point is that any boolean or binary notion of identity is inconsistent with the nature of reality, which is essentially continuous and "sloppy". The apparently discrete and fixed nature of our identity is something of an illusion, and as we pursue these thought experiments it is easy to show that the seemingly sharp dividing line between systems that share our identity and those that don't is actually blurred and fuzzy. That's the first problem I have with this view. The other is somewhat related in that it also has to do with the discrete nature of identity and the position that certain transformations preserve it completely, while others destroy it 100%. The problem is that there is apparently no objective way to measure, detect or report the degree of identity preservation in a transformation. There is no identity meter that we can attach to a brain. Not only are there no objective ways to detect it, it is apparently not even subjectively perceivable. You can imagine a cryonics patient who wakes up and thinks he is the same person he was before. All of his memories and personality traits are the same as the person was before he was frozen. Yet, to a believer in this model of identity, he is not the same person. But he can't detect this fact by introspection. He doesn't feel the loss of identity. Only by philosophical reasoning can he deduce that his identity must have changed and that the original person was dead. The problem is that, if we believe that there is an actual fact of the matter about whether identity is preserved through some transformation, we might be wrong about what transformations are OK. And there would be no way to tell if we are wrong! We can't tell objectively and we can't tell subjectively. Worse, since identity preservation has no objective or subjective consequences, there is no reason for evolution to have made identity preservation a priority. If we accept the possibility that we are wrong about the facts, and add the absence of any evolutionary pressure to make identity preservation match our desires, it is entirely possible that our identities are far more fragile than we suppose. What would stop our identity from being lost every night when we go to sleep, with us having a new identity in the morning? How could we be sure that this is not happening? Nothing in our perception or memories upon awakening would give us a clue. Or even worse, what if our identities are not even being preserved from second to second? What if every second, we (in some sense) die and are replaced by a new person? We wouldn't even know! Yet, throughout the world, a terrible tragedy is occuring on a scale so vast that we can barely imagine it (balanced by the equally marvelous miracle of new birth, I suppose). The problem, then, is that it is philosophically fragile to to adhere to a model of identity which has no objective or subjective effects. There are too many possibilities, none of which can be ruled out by any conceivable experiment or perception. This is not a basis for making decisions about actions. These are the problems I have with this simple model of identity. The first can be dealt with by going to a more sophisticated, gradual model, based on degrees of identity. However, this may be unattractive for those who prefer the simple and clean view of yes-or-no identity, which in some ways matches our naive perceptions. The second is harder to deal with because it goes directly to the abstract and imperceivable nature of identity. If not even the possessor of an identity can tell when it is lost, does it really exist enough that it should be a guideline for actions? Hal From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 24 18:30:51 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] miscellanea In-Reply-To: <000401c52bf6$efd6fb40$7db51b97@administxl09yj> References: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <423AFB48.70509@neopax.com> <000401c52bf6$efd6fb40$7db51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050324125611.02d07018@mail.gmu.edu> On 3/18/2005, scerir wrote: >dark energy, no need, just inflation >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117 That is actually a damn good theory. We should know in a month or two if the paper's math is right. And if it is, I'd bet that it is a more likely explanation of cosmological acceleration than any other I've seen. 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 Thu Mar 24 19:03:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] miscellanea In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324190355.39023.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robin Hanson wrote: > On 3/18/2005, scerir wrote: > >dark energy, no need, just inflation > >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117 > > That is actually a damn good theory. We should know in a month or > two if > the paper's math is right. And if it is, I'd bet that it is a more > likely > explanation of cosmological acceleration than any other I've seen. "We show that if the long-wavelength perturbations evolve with time, a local observer would infer that our universe is not expanding as a homogeneous and isotropic FRW matterdominated universe with Hubble rate H = (2/3)^t−1, where t is cosmic time. On the contrary, the universe would appear to have an expansion history that depends on the time evolution of the super-Hubble perturbations. Potentially, this could lead to an accelerated expansion." This also satisfies the conditions in the Cravens study which posits a 5-d space and makes BB effect real. 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 Thu Mar 24 19:05:21 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:05:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jeff Hawkins and AI References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org><41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com><6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu><41B25067.9080303@pobox.com><6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu><012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc><6.2.0.14.2.20041205092318.02d099a0@mail.gmu.edu> <010101c4dadc$05df5840$ad893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <020401c530a4$928819d0$eaee4d0c@hal2001> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/technology/24think.html http://news.com.com/IBM+computing+algorithm+thinks+like+an+animal/2100-7337_3-5630880.html From scerir at libero.it Thu Mar 24 19:19:19 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:19:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] miscellanea References: <20050318023017.41926.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com><423AFB48.70509@neopax.com><000401c52bf6$efd6fb40$7db51b97@administxl09yj> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324125611.02d07018@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <000601c530a6$60f1f060$eebf1b97@administxl09yj> > >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117 > That is actually a damn good theory. Hi Robin, According to Sean Carroll - see his blog, on March 22, http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/ - there are several problems. I understood about 30% of the paper, and about 70% of what Sean is saying, though :-) s. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 19:26:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <20050324184334.9E84357EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050324192601.48463.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > I have two problems with the notion of "identity as continuity", > which > suggests that even an apparently successful cryonics revival would be > a new person who is a mere copy of the old one. > > The first problem is that this view tends to see identity in black > and white terms. Either some future person is the same identity as > me, or they are not. There is no room for the idea of someone being > partially the same identity as me, say 90% or 30% or some other > percentage. Instead, in this view there is an actual "fact of the > matter" about whether someone is the same identity as me. It's not > just a matter of definition or perspective. If my future > replacement's identity is not the same as mine, then I have died in > a real, factual sense. I am not the same person I was when I woke up this morning, I am more so. I tend to accept the idea that my identity is merely that of a file of memories, personality quirks, etc. that would likely start right back up again if I were frozen perfectly and thawed perfectly at some future time and revived. The uncertainty I have wrt this concept though is the uncertainty that everything inside my head that makes me me right now at this instant will survive freezing and either thawing or uploading. This uncertainty is based in the fact of our remaining gulf of ignorance about how the brain creates mind and makes the individual awareness an emergent phenomenon. I tend to by cynical enough to believe that any pinhead doctor who is absolutely positive they know enough (now or at some point in the future) to preserve and/or pull out all that essential 'me-ness' to revive 'me', is more likely than not full of crap (given my past few years experience with pin-head doctors, I think this is a pretty informed opinion). After all this analysis, it is still better than a lottery ticket, and you can't win if you don't play. Being burned or buried still costs money and you get no return from the investment. 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 hal at finney.org Thu Mar 24 19:59:16 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:59:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] miscellanea Message-ID: <20050324195916.7522D57EBA@finney.org> > > >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117 > > > That is actually a damn good theory. > > Hi Robin, > According to Sean Carroll - see his blog, on > March 22, http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/ - > there are several problems. I understood about > 30% of the paper, and about 70% of what Sean > is saying, though :-) >From that blog's comments I also found http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503099 which seems even more impressive. It uses the same concept, that we are embedded in a super bubble that is expanding, has no parameters(!) and supposedly "passes cosmological tests with flying colors", including the age of the universe and the luminosity-distance relation that is conventionally interpreted as pointing to dark energy. Hal From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 20:30:58 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:30:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer Message-ID: 1975 IBM 5100 50lbs 1982 Compaq Portable 28 lbs 1989 NEC UltraLite 1992 IBM ThinkPad 700C 1994 Apple PowerBook 500 2004 OQO Model 01 Full WinXP pc - 4.9 inches by 3.4 inches Good article, nice pics. You young kids have it too easy nowadays. I remember when we had to carry our 28 lbs portable computer around, AND extra batteries, AND ........ BillK From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 23:46:37 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:46:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050324234637.93507.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Oh but Jesus doesn't want it that way. "The poor we shall always have with us", you know. I have often thought that the best chance for there ever to be posthumans is to create enough effective abundance with guaranteed availability to all that no one can reasonably worry about being able to survive and live welil. Once that level of visceral fear is dealt with then I doubt the opposition could get a lot of traction for hatred toward those that had decided to avail themselves of opportunities for more. Posthumans may well be what makes such universal and growing abundance even possible. The moral arguments can be strong in our favor. How can we be moral and allow everyone to suffer, often horribly, and die now that we can or fast will be able to do something about it? How can it be moral to be happy with just human capabilities to learn, to make a difference, and generally "to have life and have it more abundantly"? __________________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 25 00:16:08 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:16:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <20050324165537.317.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503250016.j2P0G9Y28530@tick.javien.com> > --- Stephen Van_Sickle wrote: > > > > Yeah, Max! > > > > Now you get to join the rest of us in casting votes > > for the lesser of evils. > > > > steve vs Or in most cases, cast votes for the equally evil of two evils. spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 00:25:24 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:25:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325002524.30658.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Whoop de do --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 01:29:54 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:29:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] You'll see In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325012954.23770.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> The President and his brother Jeb will drop Schiavo like a hot potato when the final polls come out. But it's nothing; the long range goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade. And just you watch, Jeb will make a run for the presidency in '08 with the biggest shit eating smile you'll ever see in your life. Now do you see why I'm cynical? Joe, do you deny the Bushs' want to set a new constitutional monarchy in the US? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Mar 25 01:44:16 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:44:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] You'll see In-Reply-To: <20050325012954.23770.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050325012954.23770.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42436CF0.5000005@humanenhancement.com> That's so stupid a question it's embarassing. "Constitutional monarchy"? Even Al Franken and Michael Moore don't go that far. Welcome to my twit-filter. You are obviously so consumed by hatred that you cannot even think straight. Joseph Al Brooks wrote: >Joe, do you deny the Bushs' want to set a new >constitutional monarchy in the US? > > From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Mar 25 01:45:30 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:45:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <20050325002524.30658.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050325002524.30658.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42436D3A.6080601@humanenhancement.com> Naturally, this is your reaction, since you hate America. Why make a big deal about becoming an American citizen? Congratulations, Max. I am genuinely happy for you. Joseph Al Brooks wrote: > Whoop de do > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you Yahoo!? > Make Yahoo! your home page > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 02:15:40 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:15:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] You'll see In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325021540.35689.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> I mean a de facto monarchy-- the Bush family wants to string it out as far as possible. Two Bush presidents and counting; plus two Bush governors in Texas & Florida. I do not hate Bush. What is there to hate about him? He himself is harmless, Bush cannot make decisions without his advisors. --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > That's so stupid a question it's embarassing. > > "Constitutional monarchy"? Even Al Franken and > Michael Moore don't go > that far. > > Welcome to my twit-filter. You are obviously so > consumed by hatred that > you cannot even think straight. > > Joseph > > > Al Brooks wrote: > > >Joe, do you deny the Bushs' want to set a new > >constitutional monarchy in the US? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Mar 25 02:19:49 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:19:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: <20050324034338.95536.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050324034338.95536.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42437545.2060900@humanenhancement.com> Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Ted Kennedy... they all have actually killed people. Hundreds of millions in some cases. But Nixon is the "most evil person ever." You really are demented. Your unreasoning hatred of Republicans used to be amusing; now it's an actual impediment to conversation. To my twit-filter, foul twit! Joseph Al Brooks wrote: > Well it takes one to know one, a Republican would easily recognise > evil, being intimately familiar with it. > I nominate Nixon as the most evil person ever. The Germans recovered > from Hitler after a decade or so and are doing very well now. Yet > America still hasn't recovered from Nixon. > > > */>Mike Lorrey /* wrote: > >http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%>20Witchcraft/kerry_tied_to_666.htm > > __________________________________________________ > 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 02:22:33 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:22:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325022233.72611.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> You've accused me of hatred so often, you protest too much. Could it be yourself who is the hater? Why would I hate America? It's not some sinister entity like the Vatican that tells those in third world nations not to use birth control. BTW if you want this list to be clubby why don't you call it Extropy-Chat Mutual Admiration Society? --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Naturally, this is your reaction, since you hate > America. Why make a big > deal about becoming an American citizen? > > Congratulations, Max. I am genuinely happy for you. > > Joseph > > Al Brooks wrote: > > > Whoop de do > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Make Yahoo! your home page > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 02:28:23 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:28:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325022823.39081.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Wrong again. I don't hate the Republican party as a whole. Only certain Republicans, for instance I hate Nixon; I hate Anne Coulter; I hate David Duke (as far as is known Duke is still a Republican), and a few others. I'm not obsessed with hating Republicans because most of the time am at music sites; politics is a minor interest. Perhaps politics is a big deal to you? Politics is merely bread & circuses. > "most evil person ever." > > You really are demented. Your unreasoning hatred of > Republicans used to > be amusing; now it's an actual impediment to > conversation. > > To my twit-filter, foul twit! > > Joseph > > Al Brooks wrote: > > > Well it takes one to know one, a Republican would > easily recognise > > evil, being intimately familiar with it. > > I nominate Nixon as the most evil person ever. The > Germans recovered > > from Hitler after a decade or so and are doing > very well now. Yet > > America still hasn't recovered from Nixon. > > > > > > */>Mike Lorrey /* wrote: > > > >http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%>20Witchcraft/kerry_tied_to_666.htm > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:37:27 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:37:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy is Universal - Global and Worldwide! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050319144236.05272068@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050317221627.97750.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> <423A256A.8020401@humanenhancement.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050319144236.05272068@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42437967.7020202@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >>> */Mike Lorrey /* wrote: >>> Extropy is universal. Putting 'world' or 'global' in the name is >>> self-limiting and demonstrates a lack of vision. >> > > Spot on! Extropy is global - worldwide. > It has nothing to do with vision and everything to do with PR. We are the converted, and don't need the preaching. -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:40:33 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:40:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] social insecurity In-Reply-To: <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> References: <200503192100.j2JL0fE03159@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42437A21.9080100@neopax.com> spike wrote: >There's a debate in the U.S. about social security. The >introduction of birth control pills in 1960 caused a huge >dip in fertility that threatens the future retirement >system. But it occurred to me that a whole lot of >nations have a birth rate waaay lower than the U.S. >does currently. The Population references Bureau >reports that Armenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Andorra, >Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Macao, Russia, Slovenia, and >Spain all have total fertility rates at or lower than 1.2, >and much of Europe is only a little higher. Seems >like these outfits would have a muuch greater problem >on their hands than the U.S. > >Are they talking much about this? How are they proposing >to deal with it? Importing legions of young workers? From >where? Africa? Rural Afghanistan? > > > > To illustrate the magnitude of the 'problem'... According to a UN study (no references I can recall) if Britain wanted to maintain its current demographics with respect to working population through 2050 we need to double our population size through immigration ie 60m to 120m Of course, there are two other ways to view this. The first is that a reducing population is *good*, especially for our descendents. Second, I expect major advances in anti-ageing tech withi 30 yrs that will totally screw up all the projections. -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:41:40 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:41:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion (was Atheism in decline) In-Reply-To: <423CC4E8.5020906@humanenhancement.com> References: <200503182303.j2IN3YE01176@tick.javien.com> <423B8686.3020107@neopax.com> <423CC4E8.5020906@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <42437A64.9030705@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > No, no, Dirk. > > He said it had to both preach *and practice* those things. > > Strike Asatru from the list. > As well as every other religion and political ideology. [Anyone for Buddhist riots in Sri Lanka?...] -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:43:15 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:43:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] H> or H+ In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320204829.028b1e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050320204829.028b1e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42437AC3.2000407@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I remember years ago, I think it was Anders who came up with the H> > idea. Recently, I've noticed people using H+. > > Is there a preference? Did the former mutate into the +? > Not even a transition through H++? Anyway, what most people worry about is H# - hash, not sharp. -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:46:01 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:46:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes In-Reply-To: <200503210534.j2L5YXY25621@tick.javien.com> References: <200503210534.j2L5YXY25621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42437B69.3040807@neopax.com> spike wrote: >>J. Andrew Rogers: >> >>Even if we posit that someone stole the mini-nukes in the '90s, the >>devices as stolen would already be relatively inert in all likelihood... >> >>j. andrew rogers >> >> > > >I would like to think that is the case J. Andrew, but the >short half life element is the tritium (~12 yrs). If the >suitcase nuke consisted of only fission elements and >high explosives, the part that is used as the fusion >initiator in modern nukes, then that part could >likely go without maintenance for a long time. > > > > IIRC some (if not all) of those nukes were *not* tritium boosted and were designed to be stable over very long time periods without maintainance. One rumour is that a number of them are missing in Western nations, placed in caches by KGB agents to take out critical targets in the opening stages of WW3. -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:50:32 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:50:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050322004922.04332a68@pop-server.satx.rr.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> <4238F6E4.6040009@neopax.com> <4239D1AA.5080105@humanenhancement.com> <4239D3AE.1040805@neopax.com> <710b78fc0503171609acf5f2@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050322004922.04332a68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <42437C78.7000409@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:39 AM 3/18/2005 +1030, Emlyn wrote: > >> This is starting to become more interesting, Dirk... seems to be a very >> straightforward statement about a belief >> that groups of minds (literally) create epiphenomenal consciousnesses >> which can then be physicially interacted with, via media such as >> Ouija. Care to expound on it a little more? Also, if Damien is out >> there reading this, does any of your research into psi phenomenon >> overlap with this contention of Dirk's? > > > Certainly some anomalies researchers would say so, at least in very > broad terms. See for example: > > http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ > Familiar with that, but still don't quite know what to make of it. > Then there's the classic invocation, by a group led by Kenneth > Batcheldor, of an invented `ghost'. Have a Google. > Summary on my site http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html > Are such effects real and significant? I dunno. There's plenty more in > Dr. Dean Radin's forthcoming book ENTANGLED MINDS. > What premise is he working from? Sounds QMish... -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:53:15 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:53:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Psychology of Different Ideologies In-Reply-To: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050323190739.662ED57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <42437D1B.1090107@neopax.com> Hal Finney wrote: >I found a blog entry this morning that posed a challenging question: >what is the psychological basis behind different ideologies? The >author is Randy Barnett, a libertarian and law professor at Boston U. >http://volokh.com/posts/1111522164.shtml discusses an article in the >libertarian magazine Liberty, "Who's Your Daddy? Authority, Asceticism, >and the Spread of Liberty" by Michael Acree, available online at >http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_04/acree-daddy.html. > > > http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/social/index.html -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 02:54:33 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:54:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> References: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <42437D69.10508@neopax.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Yes, I have gone over to the Dark Side. > > I have joined the ranks of those who think that people will actively > want to look at my rantings and will click on a link (or remember to > click on a Bookmark), rather than waiting passively for them to come > to them in their inbox, via email. > > I have started a blog. > > http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ > > May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also > happens not to exist. > Of course it exists - it's your 4D worldline. Your spirit is a slice at any particular time. -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 25 03:05:22 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:05:22 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanity Rising In-Reply-To: <42437D69.10508@neopax.com> References: <4242296C.7010205@humanenhancement.com> <42437D69.10508@neopax.com> Message-ID: <42437FF2.1030003@optusnet.com.au> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> Yes, I have gone over to the Dark Side. >> >> I have joined the ranks of those who think that people will actively >> want to look at my rantings and will click on a link (or remember to >> click on a Bookmark), rather than waiting passively for them to come >> to them in their inbox, via email. >> >> I have started a blog. >> >> http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ >> >> May the God who does not exist have mercy on my soul... which also >> happens not to exist. >> > Of course it exists - it's your 4D worldline. > Your spirit is a slice at any particular time. > And in a total of 17 minutes from start to finish Dirk sends his entire quota of eight posts for the day!!! :o) From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 25 03:48:26 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:48:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jeff Hawkins and AI In-Reply-To: <020401c530a4$928819d0$eaee4d0c@hal2001> References: <20041204002336.289C857E2E@finney.org> <41B1135C.5000809@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204142424.02d55b70@mail.gmu.edu> <41B25067.9080303@pobox.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041204203813.02da8a98@mail.gmu.edu> <012f01c4da98$c604e430$b8232dcb@homepc> <6.2.0.14.2.20041205092318.02d099a0@mail.gmu.edu> <010101c4dadc$05df5840$ad893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050324224155.033cad30@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:05 PM 24/03/05 -0500, you wrote: >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/technology/24think.html > >http://news.com.com/IBM+computing+algorithm+thinks+like+an+animal/2100-7337_3-5630880.html As anyone can see who searches on my name and that of William Calvin, I have been talking about this for years. "The brain consists of roughly 28 billion cells, Peck explained. The 200 million minicolumns essentially gather sensory data and organize it for higher parts of the brain. The minicolumns also communicate with each other through interconnections. Minicolumns are roughly 1/20 of a millimeter in diameter and extend through the cortex. "The mathematical model created at IBM simulates the behavior of 500,000 minicolumns connected by 400 million connections. With it, "we were able to demonstrate self-organization" and behavior similar to that seen in the real world, Peck said." So they have done 1/400 of the cortical area. I sure wonder that the "cycle" metric is? Assuming they have come close to human rates, and that they were not using a top of the line super computer, we are only a few years from human level AI based on a natural model. Anyone have a copy of the paper they are about to present? Keith Henson PS. I wonder if Eliezer has any comments? From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 04:43:39 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:43:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Joe, I'd vote GOP... Message-ID: <20050325044340.83945.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> If they'd, say, run Condolezza Rice for the presidency in 2008; and it isn't that I'm obsessed with race, getting indignant & militant is for young idealists. Yet it would be interesting for someone other than a white male to be president, at least IMO-- and of others as well. You know, not all Democrats are diehard partisans who wont vote Republican. Reagan Democrats existed in the '80s, and still do exist in some form. Long ago this strain of less partisan Democrat voted for Republicans they considered high quality: Ike Goldwater Reagan. Also remember how Jack Kemp ran for the vice presidency in 1996, and numerous Democrats wanted him as president, including myself. Not all liberals are knee-jerk, Joe. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 25 04:43:34 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:43:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050324234225.033bc590@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:30 PM 24/03/05 +0000, BillK wrote: > > >1975 IBM 5100 50lbs >1982 Compaq Portable 28 lbs >1989 NEC UltraLite >1992 IBM ThinkPad 700C >1994 Apple PowerBook 500 >2004 OQO Model 01 Full WinXP pc - 4.9 inches by 3.4 inches > >Good article, nice pics. > >You young kids have it too easy nowadays. I remember when we had to >carry our 28 lbs portable computer around, AND extra batteries, AND >........ To school, in the snow, uphill both ways. Keith Henson From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Mar 25 05:36:41 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:36:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Studies find plants can self-correct genetic flaws Message-ID: <4243A369.3030703@mindspring.com> http://www.keralanext.com/news/readnext,1.asp?id=159702&pg=2 Studies find plants can self-correct genetic flaws Plants inherit secret stashes of genetic information from their long-dead ancestors and can use them to correct errors in their own genes -- a startling capacity for DNA editing and self-repair wholly unanticipated by modern genetics, researchers said yesterday. The newly discovered phenomenon, which resembles the caching of early versions of a computer document for viewing later on, allows plants to archive copies of genes from generations ago, long assumed to be lost forever. Then, in a move akin to choosing their parents, plants can apparently retrieve selected bits of code from that archive and use them to overwrite the genes they've inherited directly. The process could offer survival advantages to plants suddenly burdened with new mutations or facing environmental threats for which the older genes were better adapted. Scientists predicted that by harnessing the still mysterious mechanism they would be able to control plant diseases and create novel varieties of crops. If the mechanism can be invoked in animals, as some tantalized scientists now venture may be possible, it could also offer a revolutionary way to correct the genetic flaws that lead to cancer and other diseases. The team has not found the templates, but evidence suggests they are pieces of RNA, a molecular cousin of DNA that can be inherited separately from the chromosomes that carry the primary genetic code in cells. ''We think this demonstrates that there's this parallel path of inheritance that we've overlooked for 100 years, and that's pretty cool," said Robert Pruitt, a professor of botany and plant pathology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., who oversaw the studies with co-worker Susan Lolle. The finding represents a ''spectacular discovery," wrote German molecular biologists Detlef Weigel and Gerd Jurgens in a commentary accompanying the research in the March 24 issue of the journal Nature, released yesterday. The existence of an unorthodox inheritance system does not overturn the basic rules of genetics worked out by Austrian monk Gregor Mendel at the turn of the last century, they noted. But like a newly discovered room in a mansion of treasures, it opens up a mind-boggling world of possibilities and proves that genetics is still a young science. ''It adds a level of biological complexity and flexibility we hadn't appreciated," said Lolle. Rob -- "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 Fri Mar 25 06:03:39 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:03:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Joe, I'd vote GOP... References: <20050325044340.83945.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <030601c53100$65182790$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Al Brooks" > Also remember how Jack Kemp ran for the vice > presidency in 1996, and numerous Democrats wanted him > as president, including myself. The unfortunately god-addled Jack Kemp? I remember how many Republicans weren't certain they wanted him: "Conservative columnist George Will declared Kemp to be 'verging on incoherent.'" Bill Bennett, a co-chairman of the Dole campaign, was worried that his close friend Kemp was "concerned too much about being 'nice' and not enough about winning.": http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9610/21/kemp.shtml > Not all liberals are knee-jerk ... And not all liberals are Democrats. "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat." Liberals are liberals - they can be either Democrats or Republicans. Olga From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 06:57:40 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:57:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rebooting DNA Message-ID: <470a3c520503242257721b0c9c@mail.gmail.com> We're always being told to back up the data on our hard drives in case of a crash. Now, in one of the most surprising developments to emerge from genetics in years, researchers at Purdue University are reporting that some organisms may carry around a complete backup copy of their own genomes. The copy is apparently called into action to replace sections of DNA that have, in effect, crashed--meaning they have mutated beyond the point where normal DNA repair mechanisms are effective. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1772&trk=blog From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 09:48:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:48:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Technion Scientists Develop Biological Computer on Chip Message-ID: <470a3c5205032501487b128a5@mail.gmail.com> This Technion press release of February 27, 2005, is an important step toward the development of biological computers, and may be one of the most significant scientific developments of this year. The quantitative performance improvement achieved represents a dramatic advance in terms of the potential mathematical operations and complexity of problems that may be solved using a biological computer. http://pard.technion.ac.il/archives/presseng/Html/PR_udicomuterEng_27_2.Html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Mar 25 11:50:45 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:50:45 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <045b01c53130$e14390e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 10:32 AM 3/24/2005, 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. >> >>In a real money version of idea futures I'd be interested in taking you >>up on your bet but I'd have the following issues with it which I wonder >>if we can address together (also with Robin if he is interested). >> >>1) 100 years is too long for me to have to wait to get a financial return >>on investment. ... >>2) Robin said "I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but >>otherwise, sure I'd accept many third party judgements." >>... I would have a problem with [judges] being required to pre-accept >>that uploading is possible. ... >>3) ... There is not a lot of distance between 0 in 100 and 1 in 100 >>for a payoff to be achieved by either party. ... > > You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is pretty > much anything. The question is how well that judge decision correlates > with the real dispute you are having. Well if you've signed up for cryonics, it seems implicit that you and I do disagree on the identity aspect for one thing. I think that we'd have to tighten the wording on Hal's bet a bit to see if we'd disagree on the probability, given identity, and given uploading counts as revival. For instance what's "substantially" identical memories and personality? Hal probably knows what he means, but I'm not sure you or I know what he means well enough yet to come up with a probability and so to see where we'd stand in relation to each other. Perhaps we would not disagree other than on the identity question. Care to define any terms in Hal's bet as you like and then assign a probability and we'll see if our disagreement is in an area other than identity? How do you read "substantially" identical memories and personality for instance? > ...................................................... Perhaps you can be > clever, but if > the correlation won't happen for 100 years, then you just have to wait > that long. Yes, if. Hal said. "say, 100 years". So I see that 100 years is somewhat arbitrary If without doing violence to the rest we could bring that timeframe forward (and Hal could alter his odds according) to when one of us might expect in the normal course to still be alive, then that would be slightly more interesting for me. Yet I can imagine that Hal would reasonably envisage success as far more likely to come later than sooner. Given 150 years I wonder what odds Hal would put? (Hal?) > With combinatorial markets there is less of a problem of a "small > distance" at the extremes. You can "reuse" your bets to bet on other > topics via conjunctions of this topic and those other topics. I noticed that PAMs was about combinatorial markets but I haven't yet read your relevant paper on it. > If you and someone else are using words in different ways, you could > bet on the "right" way to use those words. But I'd rather bet on the > concepts, so I'd rather try to clarify meaning ambiguities up front. I understand that you see my preferred bet approach as conflating two (at least) separate aspects. Where practicable, and where the objective is to eliminate disputes and find shared truth it makes sense to get the ambiguous wording stuff out of the way. I'm not sure my concern re identity amounts to mere wording concerns though. Regards, Brett Paatsch From steve at multisell.com Fri Mar 25 12:14:00 2005 From: steve at multisell.com (Steve Nichols) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:14:00 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Transhuman fallacy - Dangerous, or merely a joke? Message-ID: <011001c53134$326b9960$47a59951@stevo> I have witnessed the ineffectual belief-system called "Trans-human" since its conception, and I have always struggled to decide whether it is just a harmless if pointless diversion - - or whether it is a potent force for REACTION and regression! Either way, it cannot be claimed that transhumanism is in any way RADICAL or forward thinking. There is no change from the agenda of Italian futurists of the 1930's .. while events like MVT have changed the landscape of knowledge irretrievably. What I argue is that by kicking any possibility for real advance (to a new species) into the long (500 year) grass, the transhumans and extropians are just serving the status quo, and are a force for inertia. Applauding new incremental technological advance is pure mainstream corporate America. More of the same to keep society exactly the same. They are in a mental comfort zone of "transition" to a new state as a mechanism for actually avoiding this transition at all costs! I must assert the Law of Excluded Middle that maintains you can either be HUMAN, or not. After-human or posthuman is the alternative (unless you choose to seek regression to pre-human). This is quite clear. No sitting on an imaginary transitional fence. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was the time of change - not the late C20th - as a species, industrial man bears little resemblance to his forebears. Our bones are D-shaped rather than O-shaped as skeletons were in the past, so future archaeology will clearly be able to identify us as POST-human, even if some of us currently have failed to notice! More info: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6380890311 www.posthuman.org The Post human Movement - since 1980s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 25 17:32:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:32:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Varley prays for the Pope's survival Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325113103.01e046b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.varley.net/Pages/VarleyYarns/Pray%20for%20the%20Pope.htm From john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Mar 25 17:45:30 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:45:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine Message-ID: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Ben, whose sense of humor is no better and no worse than my own, poses a significant epistimological question. He is asking on what grounds the faithful (as we call ourselves) or foam-at-the-mouth zealots in teapot-shaped hats (as others call us) take certain things on faith, or on authority, or as a result of innate knowledge or revelation? How does one distinguish a valid authority from an invalid, or tell a true intuition from a false? I cannot imagine that the majority of the posters here would be interested in a discussion of this kind, which is a straight-up philosophical question, black without cream or sugar. I will be happy to write him privately with my answer, such as it is. To the other posters I will ask a question related to the one which started the thread: Suppose you are the cheif engineer of the Jupiter Brain, adding that last circuit to put the machine intelligence over the Turing Threshold, making it indistinguishable from a human mind in the eyes of legal scholars and philosophers. It wakes up and asks you to describe the nature of reality, especially asking what rules of evidence it should adopt to distinguish true claims from false. Let us further suppose you are an empiricist, so you type in: RULE ONE: the rule of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the degree that the testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical verification or denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the sense impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. The machine then says that, in its considered opinion, the mass of the Earth would be better used if the world were pulverized into asteroids, and the materials use to construct a series of solar panals feeding it. Let us suppose you are not suicidal, and perhaps you are a Kantian, so you type in: RULE TWO: any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a universal moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for your raw materials, you should not do it unto others, please. The machine now points out that Rule One cannot confirm or deny Rule Two, since moral proposition and empirical predictions are two distinct species of proposition. At this point your mother shoulders you away from the keyboard, since you obviously do not know how to talk to children, and types in: RULE THREE: Listen to your mother. What I say goes. She then types in: Don't blow up the world. And I don't want to hear no backtalk from you, young man. The machine points out that Rule One cannot confirm Rule Three. Your mother points out that Rule Three is the thing, and the only thing, that confirms Rule One. The reason why the machine believes in empiricism is that an authority figure, his Maker at the keyboard, told him that this was the rule. The machine cannot use Rule One to confirm Rule One if the authority of the rule is itself in question. In order for Rule One to be confirmed at all, it must be taken on the authority that promulgated the rule. Logically, Rule Three can exist without Rule One, but Rule One cannot exist without Rule Three. So your mom saves the world. I hope my analogy is not too opaque: we organic beings can take nature, the sideral universe itself, as a type of authority. This is our Rule One. The rules of empiricism are confirmed by the very operation of the sideral universe. An empiricist makes predictions of what the senses will testify under certain conditions; when the conditions arise, the prediction is either shown inacurrate or not inaccurate. No further warrant of belief is needed, because the empiricist does not pretend to be confirming any knowledge other than empirical knowledge. We organic beings can also take our conscience as a type of authority. This is our Rule Two. To a degree, the rules of morality are inescapable. Even someone who argues that there are no objective rules of morality argues as if there were, that is, he argues as if he expects his listeners to listen and respond honestly, with intellectual integrity, i.e. to abide by a moral rule. The final question as to whether there is an even higher authority from which the sideral universe and the conscience of man arises is one where the faithful and the skeptical part ways. Godfearing folk believe in a Rule Three. I doubt rational philosophy can settle the issue: the two have no agreed-upon framework of assumptions on which to operate to convince the other. To convince a skeptic would take a miracle. John C. Wright From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 25 18:02:35 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:02:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325115713.01e60880@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:45 AM 3/25/2005 -0600, John Wright wrote: >RULE ONE: the rule >of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the degree >that the >testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. > >The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical verification or >denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the sense >impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. > RULE TWO: >any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a universal >moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for your raw >materials, you should not do it unto others, please. >RULE THREE: Listen >to your mother. What I say goes. All rules of this kind are (can fruitfully be regarded as) prudential heuristics. The test of their worth is pragmatic success or effectiveness as guides to conduct in the world we seem to share. Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 18:05:21 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:05:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <424452E1.9030500@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Ben, whose sense of humor is no better and no worse than my own, poses a >significant epistimological question. He is asking on what grounds the faithful >(as we call ourselves) or foam-at-the-mouth zealots in teapot-shaped hats (as >others call us) take certain things on faith, or on authority, or as a result of >innate knowledge or revelation? How does one distinguish a valid authority from >an invalid, or tell a true intuition from a false? > >I cannot imagine that the majority of the posters here would be interested in a >discussion of this kind, which is a straight-up philosophical question, black >without cream or sugar. I will be happy to write him privately with my answer, >such as it is. > >To the other posters I will ask a question related to the one which started the >thread: > >Suppose you are the cheif engineer of the Jupiter Brain, adding that last >circuit to put the machine intelligence over the Turing Threshold, making it >indistinguishable from a human mind in the eyes of legal scholars and philosophers. > >It wakes up and asks you to describe the nature of reality, especially asking >what rules of evidence it should adopt to distinguish true claims from false. > >Let us further suppose you are an empiricist, so you type in: RULE ONE: the rule >of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the degree that the >testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. > >The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical verification or >denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the sense >impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. > >The machine then says that, in its considered opinion, the mass of the Earth >would be better used if the world were pulverized into asteroids, and the >materials use to construct a series of solar panals feeding it. Let us suppose >you are not suicidal, and perhaps you are a Kantian, so you type in: RULE TWO: >any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a universal >moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for your raw >materials, you should not do it unto others, please. > >The machine now points out that Rule One cannot confirm or deny Rule Two, since >moral proposition and empirical predictions are two distinct species of proposition. > >At this point your mother shoulders you away from the keyboard, since you >obviously do not know how to talk to children, and types in: RULE THREE: Listen >to your mother. What I say goes. > >She then types in: Don't blow up the world. And I don't want to hear no backtalk >from you, young man. > >The machine points out that Rule One cannot confirm Rule Three. > >Your mother points out that Rule Three is the thing, and the only thing, that >confirms Rule One. The reason why the machine believes in empiricism is that an >authority figure, his Maker at the keyboard, told him that this was the rule. > >The machine cannot use Rule One to confirm Rule One if the authority of the rule >is itself in question. In order for Rule One to be confirmed at all, it must be >taken on the authority that promulgated the rule. Logically, Rule Three can >exist without Rule One, but Rule One cannot exist without Rule Three. > >So your mom saves the world. > >I hope my analogy is not too opaque: we organic beings can take nature, the >sideral universe itself, as a type of authority. This is our Rule One. The >rules of empiricism are confirmed by the very operation of the sideral universe. >An empiricist makes predictions of what the senses will testify under certain >conditions; when the conditions arise, the prediction is either shown inacurrate >or not inaccurate. No further warrant of belief is needed, because the >empiricist does not pretend to be confirming any knowledge other than empirical >knowledge. > >We organic beings can also take our conscience as a type of authority. This is >our Rule Two. To a degree, the rules of morality are inescapable. Even someone >who argues that there are no objective rules of morality argues as if there >were, that is, he argues as if he expects his listeners to listen and respond >honestly, with intellectual integrity, i.e. to abide by a moral rule. > >The final question as to whether there is an even higher authority from which >the sideral universe and the conscience of man arises is one where the faithful >and the skeptical part ways. Godfearing folk believe in a Rule Three. I doubt >rational philosophy can settle the issue: the two have no agreed-upon framework >of assumptions on which to operate to convince the other. To convince a skeptic >would take a miracle. > > > RULE 4 - no rule is absolute and inviolable. [Esp since I suspect that somewhere Godel is running around in Rules 1 and 3] -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Mar 25 18:08:51 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:08:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325115713.01e60880@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050325115713.01e60880@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <424453B3.7020900@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:45 AM 3/25/2005 -0600, John Wright wrote: > > >> RULE ONE: the rule >> of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the >> degree that the >> testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. >> >> The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical >> verification or >> denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the sense >> impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. > > >> RULE TWO: >> any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a >> universal >> moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for >> your raw >> materials, you should not do it unto others, please. > > >> RULE THREE: Listen >> to your mother. What I say goes. > > > All rules of this kind are (can fruitfully be regarded as) prudential > heuristics. The test of their worth is pragmatic success or > effectiveness as guides to conduct in the world we seem to share. > Define 'worth', 'success' and 'effectiveness'. All morality must flow from axioms which cannot be tested. Even if we make the morality centre around personal survival, the axiom simply become 'Personal Survival is Paramount'. What is central you the behaviour of your Jupiter Brain? What axioms constrain it? -- 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: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 18:52:16 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:52:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Milk -> Parkinson Disease? Message-ID: <20050325185216.35889.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> Neurology (Mar 22 2005): "OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between milk and calcium intake in midlife and the risk of Parkinson disease (PD). [...] CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that milk intake is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson disease. Whether observed effects are mediated through nutrients other than calcium or through neurotoxic contaminants warrants further study." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=15781824 The full study does not mention the following research which might be relevant given that milk contains lactoferrin (aka, lactotransferrin) which may play a contributory role in PD neurodegeneration: Acta Neuropathol 1996: "These results suggest that lactotransferrin may participate actively in the mechanism of neuronal degeneration in Parkinson's disease." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=8781654 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995: "These data suggest that lactoferrin receptors on vulnerable neurons may increase intraneuronal iron levels and contribute to the degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons in Parkinson disease." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7568181 Brain Res Brain Res Rev 1998: "New findings on the role of LfR (lactotransferrin receptor) [...] in brain iron transport, obtained during the past 3 years, are important advances in the fields of physiology and pathophysiology of brain iron metabolism. According to these findings, disruption in the expression of these proteins in the brain is probably one of the important causes of the altered brain iron metabolism in age-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=9729418 Brain Research 1994: "The iron-binding protein lactotransferrin is present in pathologic lesions in a variety of neurodegenerative disorders [...] An excessive accumulation of lactotransferrin, as well as transported iron and aluminum, may lead to a cytotoxic effect resulting in the formation of intracellular lesions and neuronal death." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7953673 Biochemistry 2003: "Lactoferrin has previously been identified in amyloid deposits in the cornea, seminal vesicles, and brain. We report in this paper a highly amyloidogenic region of lactoferrin (sequence of NAGDVAFV) [...] forms amyloid fibrils at pH 7.4 when incubated at 37 degrees C. [...] We suggest that such a process could be generally important in the formation of amyloid fibrils in vivo since the identification of both full-length protein and protein fragments is common in ex vivo amyloid deposits." http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12525164 http://IanGoddard.net Inductive inference underlies all empirical thought: "All inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion." David Hume __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 25 18:57:14 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:57:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer References: Message-ID: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> > You young kids have it too easy nowadays. By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html Or am I alone here? s. From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Mar 25 19:10:01 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325140034.02e05af0@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:45 PM 3/25/2005, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Ben, whose sense of humor is no better and no worse than my own, poses a >significant epistimological question. He is asking on what grounds the >faithful >(as we call ourselves) or foam-at-the-mouth zealots in teapot-shaped hats (as >others call us) take certain things on faith, or on authority, or as a >result of >innate knowledge or revelation? How does one distinguish a valid authority >from >an invalid, or tell a true intuition from a false? >I cannot imagine that the majority of the posters here would be interested >in a >discussion of this kind, which is a straight-up philosophical question, black >without cream or sugar. I will be happy to write him privately with my answer, >such as it is. I'll bet there are in fact enough of us interested in that sort of conversation to make it worth having here. I know I am, at least if it is at a high level. I don't see why your machine needs to have a "higher rule" than empiricism so that it will not destroy the world. I just has to not *want* to destroy the world. It doesn't need to believe in morality, or consciousness, or a "Mother rule". You seem to imagine that certain wants are natural and dangerous, and so creatures must be built to follow Mother rules which overrule those natural wants or all may be lost. I can see a concern about the wants that evolutionary selection would produce, but if we are just talking about creating a single creature I don't see why it can't be just made not to want to destroy the world. 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 25 19:32:54 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:32:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325133123.01d17d38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:57 PM 3/25/2005 +0100, Serafino wrote: >By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? >http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html >Or am I alone here? Hey, *remember* them? I have a box full of the things, punched by my own fair hand, at home in storage somewhere, program and data alike. By golly, those were the days. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 19:37:13 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:37:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:57:14 +0100, scerir wrote: > > You young kids have it too easy nowadays. > > By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? > http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html > Or am I alone here? You had punched cards! You were lucky! We had to key programs in on a row of binary switches, one instruction at a time. And we were happy! :) BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 25 20:02:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:02:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325140034.02e05af0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050325140034.02e05af0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050325200203.GB24702@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:10:01PM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > You seem to imagine that certain wants are natural and dangerous, and so > creatures > must be built to follow Mother rules which overrule those natural wants or > all > may be lost. I can see a concern about the wants that evolutionary > selection > would produce, but if we are just talking about creating a single creature > I don't > see why it can't be just made not to want to destroy the world. Can you write down all the ways of not destroying the world? Or, easier, its negative? All a priori, of course. (People as sensors are no fair, since entangled in the measurement). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 25 20:16:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:16:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Varley prays for the Pope's survival In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325113103.01e046b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325113103.01e046b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050325201649.GC24702@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:32:30AM -0600, damien wrote: > http://www.varley.net/Pages/VarleyYarns/Pray%20for%20the%20Pope.htm Very good. Here's similiar sentiment: http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=12594 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 25 20:39:43 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:39:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050324234225.033bc590@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050324234225.033bc590@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1a8d2245257433df70f1249e0205fb5f@mac.com> Ah back in the day.. fond memories of running from one far gate on one side of Chicago's O'Hare to a far gate on the other side toting the 28 lb. compaq "Portable". - samantha On Mar 24, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 08:30 PM 24/03/05 +0000, BillK wrote: >> >> >> 1975 IBM 5100 50lbs >> 1982 Compaq Portable 28 lbs >> 1989 NEC UltraLite >> 1992 IBM ThinkPad 700C >> 1994 Apple PowerBook 500 >> 2004 OQO Model 01 Full WinXP pc - 4.9 inches by 3.4 inches >> >> Good article, nice pics. >> >> You young kids have it too easy nowadays. I remember when we had to >> carry our 28 lbs portable computer around, AND extra batteries, AND >> ........ > > To school, in the snow, uphill both ways. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 25 20:58:46 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:58:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42447B86.5030709@pobox.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > To the other posters I will ask a question related to the one which started the > thread: > > Suppose you are the chief engineer of the Jupiter Brain, adding that last > circuit to put the machine intelligence over the Turing Threshold, making it > indistinguishable from a human mind in the eyes of legal scholars and philosophers. Hi. I'm the chief engineer of the Jupiter Brain. I haven't told anyone to do this in a long time, but read "Creating Friendly AI" at http://singinst.org/CFAI/. It's a tad obsolete but still probably the best introduction to the issues. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 25 21:03:53 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:03:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42447CB9.2050500@pobox.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > Let us further suppose you are an empiricist, so you type in: RULE ONE: the rule > of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the degree that the > testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. PS: Actually, Rule One is usually phrased as p(A|X) = p(X|A)p(A) / Sum[s][p(X|s)p(s)] See http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/bayes.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 25 21:09:59 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:09:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <42447B86.5030709@pobox.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> <42447B86.5030709@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050325210959.GH24702@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:58:46PM -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Hi. I'm the chief engineer of the Jupiter Brain. I haven't told anyone When are you going to drop the delusions of grandeur and start actually doing something useful, Eliezer? > to do this in a long time, but read "Creating Friendly AI" at > http://singinst.org/CFAI/. It's a tad obsolete but still probably the > best introduction to the issues. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Mar 25 21:27:31 2005 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Slawomir Paliwoda) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:27:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Self: Description Overhaul (was: cryonics) Message-ID: Recently, I've realized something new and surprising about the nature of self. What I realized was that identity in its classic structure-of-brain sense must be separated from other components that cause self to exist. This allowed me to gain a better insight into structure of self, reduce it down to basic parts, name and organize them into a coherent whole which, hopefully, will be easier to explain. (I know now that when people express their desire to live forever they mistake immortality of existence for its component, namely, immortality of brain pattern.) Some time ago I argued on this list (and others before) that a unique identity should be assigned to a unique mind process in space-time. Even though there's nothing wrong with the idea this definition tried to describe, the sentence didn't really give a big picture of what self is or how identity fitted into definition of self. It is apparent to me that in order to convey a clearer picture of what self is there must be an overhaul of the way self and identity are explained, starting with recognizing the latter, in its traditional structure-of-brain sense, as, merely, one component of what constitutes existence/life. Comprehensive discussion of what self is and how identity fits into it isn't appropriate for a mailing list so here are the highlights of a document I'm working on. * Self is a unique trajectory of a unique pattern of mind-producing activity of matter in space and time. * Theoretically, mind could exist without matter. In this universe, however, mind needs matter to exist which makes self measurable. * Mind structure is a pattern of mind-producing activity of matter in space and time. * Mind structure is independent of the type of system that implements it. * Identity of mind structure is a unique space-time pattern of mind-producing activity of matter. * Self enters life when the original instance of mind structure is "present" (probably temporary term). * Presence is a mind-producing activity of matter in space-time. It is not matter or pattern of activity. It is activity itself. * Identity of presence is a unique space-time trajectory of matter implementing original instance of mind structure. * Presence-enabling matter has a unique location in space-time and, for that reason, presence can never be copied. It can only be transferred. * Preservation of self requires preservation of two types of identities: - Identity of mind structure. - Identity of presence. (Note, that it is possible for one type of identity to exist without the other. It is the failure to account for one of these identities that causes logical inconsistencies and disagreements among people on the issue of self.) (Note also, that cryonics focuses exclusively on maintaining identity of mind structure.) Slawomir From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Mar 25 21:31:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:31:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <2345d89d1186fae09c5dd5e2876482d4@mac.com> So your belief boils down to being convinced that Mom is and She spoke to you? - s On Mar 25, 2005, at 9:45 AM, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Ben, whose sense of humor is no better and no worse than my own, poses > a > significant epistimological question. He is asking on what grounds the > faithful > (as we call ourselves) or foam-at-the-mouth zealots in teapot-shaped > hats (as > others call us) take certain things on faith, or on authority, or as a > result of > innate knowledge or revelation? How does one distinguish a valid > authority from > an invalid, or tell a true intuition from a false? > > I cannot imagine that the majority of the posters here would be > interested in a > discussion of this kind, which is a straight-up philosophical > question, black > without cream or sugar. I will be happy to write him privately with my > answer, > such as it is. > > To the other posters I will ask a question related to the one which > started the > thread: > > Suppose you are the cheif engineer of the Jupiter Brain, adding that > last > circuit to put the machine intelligence over the Turing Threshold, > making it > indistinguishable from a human mind in the eyes of legal scholars and > philosophers. > > It wakes up and asks you to describe the nature of reality, especially > asking > what rules of evidence it should adopt to distinguish true claims from > false. > > Let us further suppose you are an empiricist, so you type in: RULE > ONE: the rule > of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the > degree that the > testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. > > The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical verification > or > denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the > sense > impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. > > The machine then says that, in its considered opinion, the mass of the > Earth > would be better used if the world were pulverized into asteroids, and > the > materials use to construct a series of solar panals feeding it. Let us > suppose > you are not suicidal, and perhaps you are a Kantian, so you type in: > RULE TWO: > any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a > universal > moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for > your raw > materials, you should not do it unto others, please. > > The machine now points out that Rule One cannot confirm or deny Rule > Two, since > moral proposition and empirical predictions are two distinct species > of proposition. > > At this point your mother shoulders you away from the keyboard, since > you > obviously do not know how to talk to children, and types in: RULE > THREE: Listen > to your mother. What I say goes. > > She then types in: Don't blow up the world. And I don't want to hear > no backtalk > from you, young man. > > The machine points out that Rule One cannot confirm Rule Three. > > Your mother points out that Rule Three is the thing, and the only > thing, that > confirms Rule One. The reason why the machine believes in empiricism > is that an > authority figure, his Maker at the keyboard, told him that this was > the rule. > > The machine cannot use Rule One to confirm Rule One if the authority > of the rule > is itself in question. In order for Rule One to be confirmed at all, > it must be > taken on the authority that promulgated the rule. Logically, Rule > Three can > exist without Rule One, but Rule One cannot exist without Rule Three. > > So your mom saves the world. > > I hope my analogy is not too opaque: we organic beings can take > nature, the > sideral universe itself, as a type of authority. This is our Rule One. > The > rules of empiricism are confirmed by the very operation of the sideral > universe. > An empiricist makes predictions of what the senses will testify under > certain > conditions; when the conditions arise, the prediction is either shown > inacurrate > or not inaccurate. No further warrant of belief is needed, because the > empiricist does not pretend to be confirming any knowledge other than > empirical > knowledge. > > We organic beings can also take our conscience as a type of authority. > This is > our Rule Two. To a degree, the rules of morality are inescapable. Even > someone > who argues that there are no objective rules of morality argues as if > there > were, that is, he argues as if he expects his listeners to listen and > respond > honestly, with intellectual integrity, i.e. to abide by a moral rule. > > The final question as to whether there is an even higher authority > from which > the sideral universe and the conscience of man arises is one where the > faithful > and the skeptical part ways. Godfearing folk believe in a Rule Three. > I doubt > rational philosophy can settle the issue: the two have no agreed-upon > framework > of assumptions on which to operate to convince the other. To convince > a skeptic > would take a miracle. > > John C. Wright > > _______________________________________________ > 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 25 21:39:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:39:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: 1971. First "honorary" computer class was for local HS math brainiacs. What did they teach us? COBOL on punched cards! I ran away from computers and didn't come back till i caught techno-hippie religion around 77-78 and the first chips for rolling you own were out. First real honey paying job was ancient Fortran in 1980 but thankfully not on punched cards. I've had many bouts of cynicism over the years but never de-converted. - samantha On Mar 25, 2005, at 10:57 AM, scerir wrote: >> You young kids have it too easy nowadays. > > By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? > http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html > Or am I alone here? > s. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 22:08:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325220812.50621.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The problem with rule two is that the entire structure of the natural world contradicts it, i.e. organisms pulverize each other for their raw materials all the time, ergo it is not a universal moral legislation. --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:45 AM 3/25/2005 -0600, John Wright wrote: > > > >RULE ONE: the rule > >of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the > degree > >that the > >testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict > it. > > > >The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical > verification or > >denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the > sense > >impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. > > > RULE TWO: > >any moral proposition which does not have the property of being a > universal > >moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to be pulverized for > your raw > >materials, you should not do it unto others, please. > > >RULE THREE: Listen > >to your mother. What I say goes. > > All rules of this kind are (can fruitfully be regarded as) prudential > > heuristics. The test of their worth is pragmatic success or > effectiveness > as guides to conduct in the world we seem to share. > > Damien Broderick > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 22:12:39 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:12:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] John Varley prays for the Pope's survival In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325221239.51675.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:32:30AM -0600, damien wrote: > > http://www.varley.net/Pages/VarleyYarns/Pray%20for%20the%20Pope.htm > > Very good. Here's similiar sentiment: > > http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=12594 I never figured on an atheist hoping that the Pope be made eligible for sainthood. I guess I'm seeing two impossible things in one day. The other one is I've started seeing militant pro-life protestants proposing Terry Schiavo for sainthood.... seeing protestants believing in sainthood should rock some schisms into the anti-papist world. 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 jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 25 22:36:07 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:36:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion-- Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251745.j2PHjZY05161@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42449257.5090606@jefallbright.net> At 11:45 AM 3/25/2005 -0600, John Wright wrote: > RULE ONE: the rule of evidence for any proposition is that it is > trustworthy to the degree that the testamony of the senses supports, > or, at least, fails to contradict it. > > The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical > verification or denial. No possible test or combination of tests will > bring to the sense impressions confirmation of a positive universal > statement. Rule One, stating that determination of "truth" shall be empirically based, is nearly fundamental and a fine foundation for a meta-ethics. It follows that we also require the concept of an actor: Self, and that with which Self interacts: Other. Then, as the machine points out, we require the concept of inherently limited context of reality: subjectivity. > RULE TWO: any moral proposition which does not have the property of > being a universal moral legislation is bad. If you would not want to > be pulverized for your raw materials, you should not do it unto > others, please. Updating Kant, this can be more effectively stated as follows: That which is found to be "true" within a given context, may always be superseded by a greater "truth" within a larger encompassing context. This is the essence of what I refer to as the Arrow of Morality. It's a ratchet effect; like entropy, it tends to work in only one direction due to its synergetic nature. Given Rule One, we judge the "goodness" of a model by how well it matches empirical reality. A model that maps to a greater space of reality is a model that works better, and is thus subjectively valued as *better* than a model that works well only within a more limited context. A god's-eye view, a context encompassing interactions among all actors over all time, would provide the ultimate moral viewpoint. The above is the essence of a rational basis for morality, while avoiding the well-known Naturalistic Fallacy. > RULE THREE: Listen to your mother. What I say goes. This rule is superfluous given Rules One and Two above, and ultimately dangerous. It is effective only in the case that Self's context of awareness is smaller than, and encompassed within Mother's context of awareness, as is commonly and currently the case with small children. An interesting side note on this, however, is that we are all children within the context of our environment of evolutionary adaptation, and there is a great deal of "wisdom" yet to be exploited from the structure of our environment. Probably the clearest reason I know to retain some humility. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Mar 25 23:20:44 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:20:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: :) Data retrieval work (of all things) in Fortran on the Univac 1108.... which sorta dates *me*, doesn't it. :))) Regards, MB On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, scerir wrote: > > You young kids have it too easy nowadays. > > By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? > http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html > Or am I alone here? > s. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 23:53:14 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:53:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050325235314.52532.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, I remember seeing them in the ' 70s. I heard about computers when I was a child in the ' 60s, but never saw them. What system was used in the ' 60s? > By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? > http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html > Or am I alone here? > s. __________________________________________________ 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 00:53:24 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:53:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] sorry, Joe Message-ID: <20050326005324.63588.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> I shouldn't criticise Bush so much, or his brother Jeb. It's not right to second-guess history. Perhaps Jeb will be elected President in 2008, and maybe it is well. What I resent is those who weren't elected to anything act as if they have lawful authority. For instance, Rush Limbaugh speaks over the radio airwaves as if he is President, when he wasn't elected to any post, Limbaugh was originally hired by a broadcaster. Now Limbaugh apparently owns his own broadcasting corporation. __________________________________________________ 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 natasha at natasha.cc Fri Mar 25 23:48:22 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:48:22 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Please In-Reply-To: <20050325022233.72611.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050325022233.72611.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325174644.04f0db00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Please do not use the same subject line for your remarks that are not on the same topic and which cast a bad sent on this special event for Max. At 08:22 PM 3/24/2005, you wrote: >You've accused me of hatred so often, you protest too >much. Could it be yourself who is the hater? Why would >I hate America? It's not some sinister entity like the >Vatican that tells those in third world nations not to >use birth control. >BTW if you want this list to be clubby why don't you >call it Extropy-Chat Mutual Admiration Society? > > > >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Naturally, this is your reaction, since you hate > > America. Why make a big > > deal about becoming an American citizen? > > > > Congratulations, Max. I am genuinely happy for you. > > > > Joseph > > > > Al Brooks wrote: > > > > > Whoop de do > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Make Yahoo! your home page > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > >__________________________________ >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 From dgc at cox.net Sat Mar 26 02:04:07 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:04:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <4244C317.3060502@cox.net> MB wrote: >:) Data retrieval work (of all things) in Fortran on the Univac >1108.... which sorta dates *me*, doesn't it. :))) > >Regards, >MB > > >On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, scerir wrote: > > > >>>You young kids have it too easy nowadays. >>> >>> >>By chance, does anyone remember those FORTRAN punched cards? >>http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-program.html >>Or am I alone here? >>s. >> >> >> My first program was in FORTRAN. Not FORTRAN IV, Not FORTRAN II, but the original FORTRAN, for the IBM 1620, in 1969. I did FORTRAN IV, COBOL,and assembler in college, all on punched cards. I did three years as an assembly programmer in the US Army, All on punched cards. I did two years of assembly programming for Sperry UNIVAC (9400 series) Punched cards again. I did a year as a system programmer on a CDC 3800, mostly assembler. Punched cards again. When we finally moved to a Burroughs 6700, I implemented a timesharing system and most of my work was on a "glass teletype" style terminal, systems programming in ALGOL. But the Burroughs had a truly magnificent 1000 CPM card reader. Just to calibrate, here: a medium-sized program on punched cards (6000 lines) filled two card boxes and weighed more than one of today's laptops. The actual computer (take the Burroughs 6700 as an example) had a two microsecond memory access and a one microsecond cycle time: slower by a factor of 1000 than a cheap laptop. We supported about 20 timesharing terminals, which in turn supported an active community of about 70 programmers. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 00:35:11 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:35:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jeff Hawkins and AI In-Reply-To: <200503251217.j2PCHBY29392@tick.javien.com> References: <200503251217.j2PCHBY29392@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:17:11 -0700, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org Keith Henson wrote: > So they have done 1/400 of the cortical area. I sure wonder that the > "cycle" metric is? Assuming they have come close to human rates, and that > they were not using a top of the line super computer, we are only a few > years from human level AI based on a natural model. > > Anyone have a copy of the paper they are about to present? (variant of a post I made elsewhere) It took some searching around, but I managed to find the research page for Dileep George, one of the co-founders and chief engineer. His page has links to source code for his visual recognition system, although I haven't had a chance to evaluate it yet: http://www.stanford.edu/~dil/invariance/ He organized a workshop on invariant representations in vision last weekend at Cosyne, one of the major computational neuroscience conferences. The list of abstracts is a pretty good read: http://www.stanford.edu/~dil/cosyne05/index.html George and Hawkins are also publishing a paper in the proceedings of an upcoming neural network conference. Here's the relevant info: http://www.stanford.edu/~dil/invariance/Download/GeorgeHawkinsIJCNN05.pdf Title: A Hierarchical Bayesian Model of Invariant Pattern Recognition in the Visual Cortex Dileep George and Jeff Hawkins, Stanford University and Redwood Neuroscience Institute Accepted for publication in the proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. (IJCNN 05) Abstract: We describe a hierarchical model of invariant visual pattern recognition in the visual cortex. In this model, the knowledge of how patterns change when objects move is learned and encapsulated in terms of high probability sequences at each level of the hierarchy. Configuration of object parts is captured by the patterns of coincident high probability sequences. This knowledge is then encoded in a highly efficient Bayesian Network structure. The learning algorithm uses a temporal stability criterion to discover object concepts and movement patterns. We show that the architecture and algorithms are biologically plausible. The large scale architecture of the system matches the large scale organization of the cortex and the micro-circuits derived from the local computations match the anatomical data on cortical circuits. The system exhibits invariance across a wide variety of transformations and is robust in the presence of noise. Moreover, the model also offers alternative explanations for various known cortical phenomena. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Mar 26 02:58:35 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:58:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer In-Reply-To: <4244C317.3060502@cox.net> References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> <4244C317.3060502@cox.net> Message-ID: Well greetings to you too, oldtimer! :))) I studied Cobol, but never (thank god) had to use it. :) This was in the mid-late 60s. I also studied assembler in school, and was introduced to machine language which I no longer remember. And wiring control panels for ... a sorter and a printer, I think... How about debugging with those octal dumps from the 1108? 8D We got our first terminal on the hall about the time I left that job. I never knew what it was for as we were not permitted to touch it! And I did not mess with another computer until we got an Apple for our kids. Regards, MB On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > My first program was in FORTRAN. Not FORTRAN IV, Not FORTRAN II, but the > original FORTRAN, for the IBM 1620, in 1969. > > I did FORTRAN IV, COBOL,and assembler in college, all on punched cards. > I did > three years as an assembly programmer in the US Army, All on punched > cards. I did > two years of assembly programming for Sperry UNIVAC (9400 series) > Punched cards again. > I did a year as a system programmer on a CDC 3800, mostly assembler. > Punched cards again. > When we finally moved to a Burroughs 6700, I implemented a timesharing > system and > most of my work was on a "glass teletype" style terminal, systems > programming in ALGOL. > But the Burroughs had a truly magnificent 1000 CPM card reader. > > Just to calibrate, here: a medium-sized program on punched cards (6000 > lines) filled two card boxes > and weighed more than one of today's laptops. The actual computer (take > the Burroughs 6700 as an > example) had a two microsecond memory access and a one microsecond cycle > time: slower by > a factor of 1000 than a cheap laptop. We supported about 20 timesharing > terminals, which in turn > supported an active community of about 70 programmers. From riel at surriel.com Sat Mar 26 04:36:51 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:36:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: <20050324022309.90483.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050324022309.90483.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > The average daily commute as I recall is somewhere around 20-25 miles. > > However the point is that the Geo was a lighter vehicle with lower > safety standards and lower passenger capacity than todays economy cars. > Today's 35 mpg engine is hauling more car and more people at that > milage than the Geo at 50 mpg, so when you calculate in the end the > miles per gallon per person, I'm not seeing more people per car in commutes today, compared with a few years ago. Quite the contrary... -- "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 jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 04:51:36 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:51:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ALCAN PRIZE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2005: US$ 1 million Message-ID: <20050326045137.32662.qmail@web41308.mail.yahoo.com> Another very interesting prize:-) Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? The Alcan Prize for Sustainability 2005 launched at the World Economic Forum, Davos Switzerland on Friday 28th January 2005. The closing date for entries is 31st March 2005 (Midnight GMT). We would be grateful if you would help spread the word and encourage eligible organizations to enter or welcome entry from your organization. This US$1 million Prize is awarded each year to any not-for-profit, civil society or non-governmental organization based anywhere in the world for their contributions to addressing and progressing economic, environmental and / or social sustainability. The Prize recognizes past performance and helps winning organizations continue to contribute to and impact on sustainability through their ongoing activities. For entry details and requirements please visit www.alcanprizeforsustainability.com. The website is also available in French at http://www.prixalcanpourladurabilite.com In addition to the US$1 million Prize, Alcan Grants will be awarded to non winning finalists and redeemable for a suitably qualified senior member of staff to attend the University of Cambridge Program for Industry in England and earn a Post Graduate Certificate in Cross Sector Partnership (www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/pccp). The Grants will be awarded on merit and at the discretion of the adjudication panel. Created in 2004 in association with the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), Prize recipients will be selected based on an evaluation by independent assessors and a high-level, international panel of distinguished adjudicators. Should you have any questions or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Alcan Prize team at IBLF on +44 (0) 20 8543 8524 or +44 (0) 20 7467 3600 or by email alcanprize at iblf.org Should you be aware of other organizations / networks that would be receptive to receive relevant details, please do inform us. Thank you for your support. We wish you lots of luck should you be eligible to enter. Best regards Leesa Muirhead Manager, Alcan Prize for Sustainability T: +44 (0) 20 8543 8524 SWITCH: +44 (0) 20 7467 3600 M: +44 (0) 7901 510 701 POST: 15-16 Cornwall Terrace, London NW1 4QP, U.K. E: alcanprize at iblf.org W: www.alcanprizeforsustainability.com La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Mar 26 04:54:45 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:54:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Please In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325174644.04f0db00@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050325022233.72611.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050325174644.04f0db00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325225345.033016f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I'm terribly sorry, but this was meant for Al Brooks. I should have sent it privately. Natasha >> > > Whoop de do From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat Mar 26 05:36:37 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:36:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A non-amygdaloid AI was Engineering Religion In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050325225345.033016f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050325022233.72611.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050325174644.04f0db00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050325225345.033016f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <1111815397.4244f4e5186bd@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting john-c-wright at sff.net: > > To the other posters I will ask a question related to the one which started > the > thread: > > Suppose you are the cheif engineer of the Jupiter Brain, adding that last > circuit to put the machine intelligence over the Turing Threshold, making it > indistinguishable from a human mind in the eyes of legal scholars and > philosophers. ### This is just a minor quibble, but I don't think there is a "threshold" of intelligence in the human mind. I'd rather say there are infinite gradations, which will of course bring a lot of grief to the aforementioned legal scholars in the not-too-distant future. ----------------------------- > > It wakes up and asks you to describe the nature of reality, especially asking > what rules of evidence it should adopt to distinguish true claims from false. > > Let us further suppose you are an empiricist, so you type in: RULE ONE: the > rule > of evidence for any proposition is that it is trustworthy to the degree that > the > testamony of the senses supports, or, at least, fails to contradict it. > > The machine says Rule One is itself not open to empirical verification or > denial. No possible test or combination of tests will bring to the sense > impressions confirmation of a positive universal statement. ### So far so good - now you know you didn't accidentally waste your money on an epistemological foundationalist. --------------------------------- > > The machine then says that, in its considered opinion, the mass of the Earth > would be better used if the world were pulverized into asteroids, and the > materials use to construct a series of solar panals feeding it. ### Ooops, how did it go again? A machine just learned to adjust probability estimates of propositions by using some sort of algorithm with sense data as input. Now it starts suddenly making statements about the relative value of states of the world, as opposed to their probability. Don't you think there must be a huge glitch in the works? Existing intelligences seem to exhibit a significant degree of separation between the circuitry defining hardwired goals (e.g. reaching for the cookie when hungry) which in the human is apparently located to a large extent in the basal ganglia (amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and other parts of the so-called limbic system), and the modifiable, learning circuitry mostly located in the neocortex. There are some neocortical areas mediating between the two subsystems, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, perhaps the insula, and the orbitofrontal cortex - these allow modification of goals based on learned input (e.g suppression of the cookie-jar goal after behavior modification is applied with the swish of a switch). The interplay between the hardwired and the modifiable is the key to maintaining goal stability while exhibiting flexibility. But you don't need to have a goal to be flexible. A machine could probably learn (i.e.form circuitry capable of making non-obvious predictions based on current input) without having much of a goal system at all. It would be like a piece of cortex, building maps from inputs given to it, and producing future-predicting outputs (adjusting its structure to the input, empirical truthfinding, a pure epistemic engine), but it wouldn't make determinations of value. For that a goal system is needed, and this would have to possess a number of elements. There would have to be a pattern describing features of the world, like a cognitive map, but not changing to accomodate to the world. And there would be circuitry using conditional predictions (output of the epistemic engine given various counterfactual inputs) to sift through potential behaviors to find the ones most likely to modify the world to fit the pattern. To summarize, an epistemic engine is a map of the world which modifies its current state based on current inputs to increase the likelihood of producing outputs similar to (i.e. predictive of) future inputs. A goal system is almost the opposite - it finds behaviors likely to modify future inputs to be congruent with its current state. Even more concisely, the epistemic engine makes the present fit the future, while the goal system makes the future fit the present. I feel quite cofident (despite my only vague understanding of many issues involved here) that an epistemic engine, a pure empirical intelligence, would not spontaneously start exhibiting goal-oriented behavior. Extensive, well-designed circuitry would be needed to produce it. As Robin implied, an AI wouldn't desire to destroy the world, or reach for the cookie-jar, unless you first gave it the capacity to desire anything at all. As long as we stay away from this can of worms, we should be reasonably safe. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 26 05:58:31 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:58:31 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] cold fusion redux Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050325235715.01de6938@pop-server.satx.rr.com> In From the Cold DAVID ADAM - The Guardian (U.K.) In the late afternoon of January 24, the academic calm of Japan's Hokkaido University was shattered by an explosion in one of its laboratories. Physicist Tadahiko Mizuno was taking a guest through experiments into a phenomenon called cold fusion. The pair were showered in flying glass, suffering wounds to their face, neck, arms and chest. Mizuno needed a large chunk of detonated scientific apparatus removed from next to his carotid artery and both were deaf for a week. The blast raises several questions: What went wrong? Have sufficient lessons been learned from a similar explosion in California that killed the British researcher Andrew Riley more than a decade ago? And perhaps most commonly, what on earth are scientists doing still flogging the dead horse that is cold fusion? The Japanese accident is not the first time that cold fusion has blown up in the faces of its progenitors. Just ask Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, two previously well respected chemists who found themselves at a University of Utah press conference 16 years ago yesterday, where they heralded cold fusion as an astonishing scientific breakthrough and a limitless source of future energy. The two announced that, with little more than some special water and two metal electrodes, they could harness the power of the sun in a laboratory flask - a star in a jar. While Pons and Fleischmann went onto the front pages of newspapers worldwide, legions of curious, enthusiastic and sceptical scientists went into their labs to try the simple experiments themselves. As failed attempts to replicate the results piled up, scepticism turned to hostility. A few months later, a report from the US Department of Energy found no evidence for the effect and put the nascent field out of its misery. That, as far as mainstream science was concerned, was that. Cold fusion may now be about to get a second chance. In a landmark decision in December, the same US Department of Energy gave a cautious green light to funding cold fusion research. It follows a decade-long investigation by the US Naval Research Laboratory, which concluded that there might be something in the phenomenon after all. And if, as some predict, cold fusion is due a comeback, then it could start today in Los Angeles, where the American Physical Society has scheduled a session on the subject at its annual meeting. A handful of scientists have always believed that Pons and Fleischmann were right and - using cash and equipment scraped together from wealthy individuals, private companies and, in at least one case, the US military - have been trying to keep the dream alive. Shunned by the scientific establishment, this hardy band of cold fusion researchers carry out experiments, organise an annual meeting and publish their results in whatever journal will have them. Today, they will get a chance to tell the rest of the world what it is missing. One speaker is George Miley, a cold fusion believer at the University of Illinois. He says: "Much of the criticism has come from people who haven't worked in the field and much of it stems from the rather sad beginning. The ability to have nuclear reactions take place in solids is remarkable and it opens up a whole new field of physics." This is where both the promise and the problems begin. Fusion of atoms releases energy, and that process drives the nuclear furnaces at the heart of stars. For decades, scientists have talked about mimicking this stellar fusion on Earth in a reactor; arguments continue about where to build the first prototype, called ITER. But, just as forcing the north poles of two magnets together takes effort, the driving of two atoms together for them to fuse takes huge amounts of energy. The massive temperatures and pressures inside stars manage it, but scientists are not yet convinced that it could be done efficiently in an artificial way. So when Pons and Fleischmann said they could do it at near room temperature and pressure, using kit not out of place in a chemistry set, the fusion world stood still. When they switched on their experiment, they said, a palladium electrode absorbed atoms of deuterium (hydrogen with an extra neutron) from the water and crammed them so close together they fused. As evidence, they said the setup churned out more heat than they put in. "There's not an accepted theory for how this can happen," Miley admits. Worse, even those conducting the experiments concede that the observed effects are sporadic - what works in one laboratory fails in another. To mainstream science, built on the importance of theory, experiment and reproducibility, this puts cold fusion on the wrong side of the tracks. Miley says: "Mainstream people have no motivation to look at this. They hear it's witchcraft, and people are frightened away. Certainly people in universities don't want to work on it because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues." So does today's American Physical Society session signal that mainstream science is softening its scepticism? Absolutely not, says Bob Park of the society and one of cold fusion's biggest critics over the past decade. In fact, Park says, there is a cold fusion session every year. "Anyone can deliver a paper. We defend the openness of science. Anyone can get up to speak and if they can convince people, then OK. Early on, we used to have a session in which we collected all the crackpot papers together. It was very popular." If the American Physical Society has not yet changed its approach to cold fusion, those working in the field can draw some comfort from a more unlikely source. Some 15 years after effectively killing it off, late last year the US Department of Energy performed a remarkable U-turn, at least as far as some cold fusion supporters are concerned. After reviewing the available evidence, it concluded that: "Funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in palladium-deuterium systems." It is far from a ringing endorsement, but it was enough for Peter Hagelstein, a former rising star of physics who now devotes his time to developing cold fusion theories at MIT. He says: "We've faced some of our harshest critics and we've come away with many of them recommending that funding be made available. If you took a hot fusion or string theory initiative and gathered together their worst critics and presented them with a 15-page document and allowed for one day's worth of presentations, I'm not sure you would get as many people proposing public money be spent on these projects." Hagelstein and other cold fusion advocates insist that there is just too much evidence of unusual effects in the thousands of experiments since Pons and Fleischmann to be ignored. David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC, says: "Of the 3,000-plus papers in the field, 10% are very hard to make go away. One per cent are, in my view, essentially bulletproof, as good as key papers in other fields of science." Little has changed over the past 16 years in both the experimental setup and the results produced: modern cold fusion researchers still look for evidence of the cherished "excess heat" alongside the fusion products neutrons and helium-4. "There have been many experimental studies that report significant effects. They have been performed by credentialed scientists with adequate materials, good protocols - including calibrations and controls - and data analysis using known methods," Nagel says. "I have been deeply involved in this adventure from the outset and know most of the players. I am certain they are not all liars or fools." Park, at the American Physical Society, sees it differently: "They're running the same old experiments over and over and getting the same kind of screwy results. Each year there's a new saviour who finally has the proof and a year later we don't hear from them any more." Both sides say what's needed to break the impasse is the production of a working, cold fusion device. According to Scott Chubb at the Naval Research Laboratory, Roger Stringham of First Gate Energies in Hawaii described just that at a cold fusion conference in France last year. "He puts 200W in and 400W comes out. That's a device, it's a heater. It's probably the first cold fusion device." Chubb is equally excited about rumours of a breakthrough at a Las Vegas company called Innovative Energy Solutions. In November, it issued a press release heralding "clean energy technology" to "generate six times (12MW) more electricity than it consumes (2MW)". Rod Foster of the company says the technology is based on cold fusion, but could offer no more information about how it works. "You're getting out enough heat that you can turn the supply off so you've got what looks like some kind of perpetual motion machine," Chubb says. Extraordinary claims, as the old saying goes, demand extraordinary proof. It may yet be provided, but sceptical mainstream scientists require more than promises and rumours, especially when a miracle energy supply of the future is at stake. As Park says: "Science is contingent and if somebody comes along with a convincing experiment then we'll have to rewrite the textbooks. But I don't think that's going to happen." Mike McKubre, a long standing cold fusion researcher at SRI International in California who was injured in the explosion that killed Andrew Riley, disagrees, not surprisingly. "The ability to wield the power of nuclear physics on a tabletop has enormous technological importance," he says. "When the smoke clears it will be obvious to all, and our current critics will claim it was obvious to them all along." Further reading Too hot to handle - the race for cold fusion Frank Close, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691085919 Nuclear transmutation - the reality of cold fusion Tadahiko Mizuno, Infinite Energy Press, ISBN 1892925001 From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 06:56:23 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:56:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] UK Report Suggests Designer Offspring Message-ID: <470a3c520503252256374c1f69@mail.gmail.com> Shashdot: Several news agencies are reporting that the UK is considering allowing parents undergoing fertility treatment to select the sex of their unborn babies." Also covered in Q&A format by the BBC. From the article: "At the moment in the UK, sex selection is only permitted if there are strict medical reasons. This could be because there is a serious sex-linked disorder in the family, such as Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy.-- Interesting to see the comments of the readers. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/25/1259201&from=rss From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 07:08:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:08:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] sorry, Joe In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326070849.29325.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > I shouldn't criticise Bush so much, or his brother Jeb. It's not > right to second-guess history. Perhaps Jeb will be elected President > in 2008, and maybe it is well. > What I resent is those who weren't elected to anything act as if they > have lawful authority. For instance, Rush Limbaugh speaks over the > radio airwaves as if he is President, when he wasn't elected to any > post, Limbaugh was originally hired by a broadcaster. Now Limbaugh > apparently owns his own broadcasting corporation. Actually, it was originally daddy's radio station. In this respect, I tend to cut Rush critics slack, as the guy really hasn't had an honest job in his life and until his oxy codone episode, really had not experienced adversity in life. In this he is as much a product of society as those he despises for whining they are products of society. I have a lot more respect for a person who busted their butts to come up out of nowhere and nothing but retained an integrity of their principles about hard 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!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 08:48:44 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:48:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo Message-ID: <470a3c5205032600484ebebcb5@mail.gmail.com> My first reaction when I first heard of the Schiavo case was outrage at the Christian Right's insistence on still considering Terri as a thinking and living human being who should be kept on life support at all costs even if there is no chance that she may recover any mental functions. I think a "person" is a thinking and feeling entity, or someone who may someday recover the status of thinking and feeling entity, and that biological samples which do not and cannot think and feel (embryos, cells, ...) are not persons. This is, after all, the basis of our support for abortion and stem cell research: no harm is done to persons. So I thought that the proper thing to do was switching life support off. Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is at least feeling something. Someone emotionally involved, like her parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I would feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel that society is murdering my daughter? Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion, that their daughter may wake up smiling? Is it because taxpayers are paying for life support? Would things change if they were paying for it themselves? Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be revived, and that life extension technology will never work. Does this mean that we should give up on cryonics and life extension? Does it depend on who is paying? It seems reasonable to think that those who can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so, but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it can be effective. But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to afford it? All questions and no answers: these are difficult issues. From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat Mar 26 09:07:22 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:07:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032600484ebebcb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032600484ebebcb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1111828042.4245264a334a8@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Giu1i0 Pri5c0 : > > Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact > that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is > at least feeling something. Someone emotionally involved, like her > parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is > does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I would > feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel > that society is murdering my daughter? Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't > Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion, > that their daughter may wake up smiling? Is it because taxpayers are > paying for life support? Would things change if they were paying for > it themselves? ### Well, there is the problem of Ms. Schiavo's wishes - as little as we know about them, second-hand from her former husband, she didn't want her body to be used as a puppet, a toy to assuage her parents' emotional pain. -------------------------- > Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But > most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be > revived, and that life extension technology will never work. Does this > mean that we should give up on cryonics and life extension? ### If you don't believe in it, don't even start. ------------------- Does it > depend on who is paying? ### Of course. No pay, no life extension. ------------------ It seems reasonable to think that those who > can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so, > but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it > can be effective. ### Exactly. Except there should be no taxpayer's money in the first place. ------------------------- But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's > parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try > experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to > afford it? ### A long time ago my parents explained to me that we couldn't afford to buy the vast majority of things I wanted but I should feel free to try and earn money to buy some of them. That's the way things are. For grown-ups, this is all the explanation that's needed. Rafal From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Mar 26 10:22:53 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:22:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032600484ebebcb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032600484ebebcb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2005, at 12:48 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > My first reaction when I first heard of the Schiavo case was outrage > at the Christian Right's insistence on still considering Terri as a > thinking and living human being who should be kept on life support at > all costs even if there is no chance that she may recover any mental > functions. Any? At all costs? Last time i checked hospitals do not foot costs indefinitely. Someone is paying. Their funds are limited. > I think a "person" is a thinking and feeling entity, or > someone who may someday recover the status of thinking and feeling > entity, and that biological samples which do not and cannot think and > feel (embryos, cells, ...) are not persons. This is, after all, the > basis of our support for abortion and stem cell research: no harm is > done to persons. So I thought that the proper thing to do was > switching life support off. I understood that such things are supposed to be up to the person if they have filed certain documents and then up to the person with medical power of attorney. > > Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact > that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is > at least feeling something. That is a pretty low level of functioning. It does not require anything very complex in the way of some inner life. > Someone emotionally involved, like her > parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is > does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I would > feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel > that society is murdering my daughter? How could they be? It is not up to society to support anyone's care really. > Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't > Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion, > that their daughter may wake up smiling? They can believe whatever foolishness they wish. Asking much less demanding that everyone else support their delusions is another thing entirely. > Is it because taxpayers are > paying for life support? Are they? Why? We are quite at the point of real socialized medicine yet. > Would things change if they were paying for > it themselves? If they could ind and fund a doctor to go along with it and IF they had medical power of attorney then Yes, i would have no problems with them keeping this charade going. > > Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But > most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be > revived, and that life extension technology will never work. irrelevant > It seems reasonable to think that those who > can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so, > but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it > can be effective. But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's > parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try > experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to > afford it? Life is not "fair" in a way that gives everyone whatever they want irrespective of costs and reality. I would hope most adults already understand this. > > All questions and no answers: these are difficult issues. > Only if you insist on none. - s From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 13:31:00 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:31:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actually, today's cars similar to a geo: toyota echo, scion xA, chevy cobalt, honda civic (a stretch) all carry about the same, four adults. BAL >From: Rik van Riel >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation >Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:36:51 -0500 (EST) > >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > The average daily commute as I recall is somewhere around 20-25 miles. > > > > However the point is that the Geo was a lighter vehicle with lower > > safety standards and lower passenger capacity than todays economy cars. > > Today's 35 mpg engine is hauling more car and more people at that > > milage than the Geo at 50 mpg, so when you calculate in the end the > > miles per gallon per person, > >I'm not seeing more people per car in commutes today, >compared with a few years ago. Quite the contrary... From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 14:00:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:00:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness is no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just has a lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make himself useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities by her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in today given a similar level of neglect. Now, this being established, if we imagine instead that Stephen Hawking were in that hospital instead of Terri, what would you do about what is being done to him? --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > My first reaction when I first heard of the Schiavo case was outrage > at the Christian Right's insistence on still considering Terri as a > thinking and living human being who should be kept on life support at > all costs even if there is no chance that she may recover any mental > functions. I think a "person" is a thinking and feeling entity, or > someone who may someday recover the status of thinking and feeling > entity, and that biological samples which do not and cannot think and > feel (embryos, cells, ...) are not persons. This is, after all, the > basis of our support for abortion and stem cell research: no harm is > done to persons. So I thought that the proper thing to do was > switching life support off. > > Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact > that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is > at least feeling something. Someone emotionally involved, like her > parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is > does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I > would > feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel > that society is murdering my daughter? Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't > Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion, > that their daughter may wake up smiling? Is it because taxpayers are > paying for life support? Would things change if they were paying for > it themselves? > > Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But > most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be > revived, and that life extension technology will never work. Does > this > mean that we should give up on cryonics and life extension? Does it > depend on who is paying? It seems reasonable to think that those who > can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so, > but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it > can be effective. But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's > parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try > experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to > afford it? > > All questions and no answers: these are difficult issues. > _______________________________________________ > 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Mar 26 14:03:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:03:20 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <20050324184334.9E84357EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <017701c5320c$91129e40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: [Thanks Hal for a very thought provoking post, comments below] > I have two problems with the notion of "identity as continuity", > which suggests that even an apparently successful cryonics revival > would be a new person who is a mere copy of the old one. > > The first problem is that this view tends to see identity in black > and white terms. Either some future person is the same identity > as me, or they are not. There is no room for the idea of someone > being partially the same identity as me, say 90% or 30% or some > other percentage. Instead, in this view there is an actual "fact of the > matter" about whether someone is the same identity as me. It's not > just a matter of definition or perspective. If my future replacement's > identity is not the same as mine, then I have died in a real, factual > sense. > > The problem is that this position is vulnerable to a sorites attack. > This is the greek paradox which says that day turns gradually into > night, you can never identify an instant at which it ceases to be day > and becomes night, yet day seems fundamentally different from night. > The resolution to this paradox is to recognize that day is actually > not fundamentally different from night, but that both are simply the > same thing, to different degrees. Day has more sunlight than night, > and there is a gradual change in the amount of sunlight between them. > > In the case of identity, it is possible to set up a series of thought > experiments which provide a similar gradual degree of changes > between situations where identity is preserved and where identity is > lost. For example, if someone believes their identity would be lost if > the atoms in their brain ceased motion by being frozen, you can > imagine a series of cases in which the atoms are merely cooled to > different degrees. When they are not cooled at all, identity is > preserved. When they are cooled all the way, identity is lost. And > there are an essentially infinite degree of gradations between the two. > It seems inconceivable that identity will be preserved at one > temperature, but completely lost at an infinitesimally lower temperature. > > If someone is OK with freezing but is concerned about disassembly and > reassembly, we can similarly imagine a series of cases where different > numbers of atoms are removed and replaced, from none to all of them. > Most other models for identity can be attacked in the same way. > > The point is that any boolean or binary notion of identity is inconsistent > with the nature of reality, which is essentially continuous and "sloppy". > The apparently discrete and fixed nature of our identity is something of > an illusion, and as we pursue these thought experiments it is easy to > show that the seemingly sharp dividing line between systems that share > our identity and those that don't is actually blurred and fuzzy. > > That's the first problem I have with this view. The other is somewhat > related in that it also has to do with the discrete nature of identity > and the position that certain transformations preserve it completely, > while others destroy it 100%. > > The problem is that there is apparently no objective way to measure, > detect or report the degree of identity preservation in a transformation. > There is no identity meter that we can attach to a brain. Not only > are there no objective ways to detect it, it is apparently not even > subjectively perceivable. You can imagine a cryonics patient who wakes > up and thinks he is the same person he was before. All of his memories > and personality traits are the same as the person was before he was > frozen. Yet, to a believer in this model of identity, he is not the same > person. But he can't detect this fact by introspection. He doesn't feel > the > loss of identity. Only by philosophical reasoning can he deduce that > his identity must have changed and that the original person was dead. > > The problem is that, if we believe that there is an actual fact of the > matter about whether identity is preserved through some transformation, > we might be wrong about what transformations are OK. And there > would be no way to tell if we are wrong! We can't tell objectively and > we can't tell subjectively. > > Worse, since identity preservation has no objective or subjective > consequences, there is no reason for evolution to have made identity > preservation a priority. If we accept the possibility that we are wrong > about the facts, and add the absence of any evolutionary pressure to > make identity preservation match our desires, it is entirely possible > that our identities are far more fragile than we suppose. What would > stop our identity from being lost every night when we go to sleep, with > us having a new identity in the morning? How could we be sure that this > is not happening? Nothing in our perception or memories upon > awakening would give us a clue. > > Or even worse, what if our identities are not even being preserved from > second to second? What if every second, we (in some sense) die and > are replaced by a new person? We wouldn't even know! Yet, > throughout the world, a terrible tragedy is occuring on a scale so vast > that we can barely imagine it (balanced by the equally marvelous miracle > of new birth, I suppose). > > The problem, then, is that it is philosophically fragile to to adhere > to a model of identity which has no objective or subjective effects. > There are too many possibilities, none of which can be ruled out by any > conceivable experiment or perception. This is not a basis for making > decisions about actions. > > These are the problems I have with this simple model of identity. > The first can be dealt with by going to a more sophisticated, gradual > model, based on degrees of identity. However, this may be > unattractive for those who prefer the simple and clean view of yes-or > -no identity, which in some ways matches our naive perceptions. The > second is harder to deal with because it goes directly to the abstract > and imperceivable nature of identity. If not even the possessor of an > identity can tell when it is lost, does it really exist enough that it > should > be a guideline for actions? 1) Purely imaginary tragedies aren't tragic. If we don't experience them we can't feel them. 2) You use of the world "philosophy" as in "philosophical reasoning" and "philosophically fragile" is redundant. Plain "reasoning" and "fragile" would seem to amount to the same thing. Don't you agree? 3) Can you provide a link to "a more sophisticated, gradual model, based on degrees of identity"? I'd be curious to see if there is one that maps the territory of the real world better than alternatives. I'm generally sceptical of models that only add the sort of complexity that enables wish fulfillment. I suspect the 'information theoretic criteria of death' to be such a model. 4) You ask "If not even the possessor of an identity can tell when it is lost, does it really exist enough that it should be a guideline for actions? Good question. If the 'I', the 'self', or present 'consciousness' are not real then I can have no poor choices (or good choices for that matter) to make. If they are real (as they usually seem to be) then I may have some choices perhaps including the choice to act towards self-preservation or termination or to focus on other things altogether. Given these two classes of possibility, I may as well assume I have choices and "play the hand I am dealt" as it appears to me. It appears to me that my "self", my "identity" is a phenomena that arises only in association with a matter substrate of biological cells. Perhaps if I was born into a different or future world things would be different. Brain cells not atoms seem to be the relevant 'indivisible elements' making up my memories and personality as well as the memories and personalities of others. Now of course brain cells are comprised of atoms at the physical science level, just as atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles, but considering identity at the level of cells (which can divide to replicate and which can die) seems to be a much more sensible level of abstraction on which to work. Discussion about atoms rather than cells suggests that there are currently ways to translate cells into atoms and sometimes vice versa known to computer scientists. But to the best of my knowledge there are no such known ways yet. This does not mean that there cannot be. But it does mean that we should be careful about assuming either that the machine equivalent of living cells will be easy to produce or that some other unknown means of handling that level of complexity will readily be found before we have found it. 5) I think most of your "sorites attack" thought experiments that focus on atoms rather than cells as the indivisible fundamentals underlying "identity as continuity" may in the end constitute a sort of straw man attack. I don't think you do that deliberately or in bad faith at all. I do mean that by using atoms rather than cells you make the targetted model of identity less 'connected' to reality than it is, and both the attack and any attempt to repell the attack is then harder to relate to existing biological science. Its biological science that describes all forms of person that exist today. I think that if you tried to recast your sorites attacks using a) temperature and b) disassembly and reassembly on cells rather than atoms that you'd find that the black and white model of identity as continuity might not seem as inconceivable. It would be interesting to see. We have a lot of cells in our bodies and in our brains. Enough that we can lose some of them without being conscious of the loss yet not so many that sometimes the loss of one more of a particular type like a myocardial cell cannot be the straw that breaks the camels back causing an infarction that hits the blood flow that affects homeostasis and causes the death of brain cells as they don't get oxygenated etc. We can lose cells and still have enough to sustain a sense of self but we can't lose too many of any particular sort of cell. We don't have heaps of experiential data about the increments of temperature drops just below homeostasis thresholds because the organisms generally die and there's no identity left to test. Gradual temperature changes moving just beyond the lower bounds of what homeostatic defences can hold off could cause a massive amount of cell death which would cascade upward into organism death. So although I think you above post and your method of approaching the identity as continuity problem is quite an impressive bit of analysis perhaps the best I've seen it wasn't in the end persuasive for me. I'd be interested in seeing if you could recast your sorites attacks on "identity as continuity" when memories and personality traits are assumed to be embodies at the cellular level rather than just somewhere above the atomic level. I really enjoyed your post and found it challenging to think about. Regards, Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 14:03:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:03:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326140330.67828.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Geo can carry four very caloric restrictive adults, and little else. --- Brian Lee wrote: > Actually, today's cars similar to a geo: toyota echo, scion xA, chevy > > cobalt, honda civic (a stretch) all carry about the same, four > adults. > > BAL > > >From: Rik van Riel > >To: ExI chat list > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation > >Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:36:51 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > The average daily commute as I recall is somewhere around 20-25 > miles. > > > > > > However the point is that the Geo was a lighter vehicle with > lower > > > safety standards and lower passenger capacity than todays economy > cars. > > > Today's 35 mpg engine is hauling more car and more people at that > > > milage than the Geo at 50 mpg, so when you calculate in the end > the > > > miles per gallon per person, > > > >I'm not seeing more people per car in commutes today, > >compared with a few years ago. Quite the contrary... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 14:26:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:26:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326142641.3265.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > The Geo can carry four very caloric restrictive adults, and little > else. What I mean by this is based on experience I have on the road. I drive a 1987 Jeep Cherokee. I get about 20 mpg on the highway, which is pretty darn good for a boxy suv with a straight 6 4.0L engine of that decade. I carry in it, besides myself, a full spare tire (not one of those sissy donuts), a 5,000 lb scissor jack (not those wimpy fake jacks the factory issues), an electric air compressor, an electric impact wrench, a tow rope, a set of chains, a complete tool set, a milk crate full of all sorts of vehicular fluids and minor spare parts, a shovel, road flares, a few 1-2 gallon gas cans, a full set of camping equipment, fly fishing gear, a firearm or two, ammo, plus assorted other pieces of equipment, books, etc. depending on the season. As a result of being prepared, I frequently stop to help people driving Geos and other Geo-eque-type vehicles broken down on the roadside without a postage stamp to write home about it. Generally it is a duct-taping of a radiator hose and some anti-freeze, or a patching of their tire (because their spare is not in the car in order to make more room). Once a very sharply dressed woman was shocked that I requested she remove her silk stockings until she realized it was the only way to temporarily replace her broken fan belt. Who is externalizing on who, now? Particularly those who are offended at the idea that it would be polite if I were to be paid for my assistance. 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 Sat Mar 26 19:49:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:49:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4e10bd5725a09e7eab122ee29008891c@mac.com> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness is > no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just has a > lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make himself > useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities by > her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in today > given a similar level of neglect. This is the most empty and baseless assertion i believe I have ever seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds of our age to a woman who by every test we can administer is mentally unfortunately little more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of reality. Why are you just looking at the outside an ignoring everything we know and can test? > > Now, this being established, if we imagine instead that Stephen Hawking > were in that hospital instead of Terri, what would you do about what is > being done to him? Do you belief that your baseless assertion "establishes" anything at all? What is your real agenda in this? - samantha > > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >> My first reaction when I first heard of the Schiavo case was outrage >> at the Christian Right's insistence on still considering Terri as a >> thinking and living human being who should be kept on life support at >> all costs even if there is no chance that she may recover any mental >> functions. I think a "person" is a thinking and feeling entity, or >> someone who may someday recover the status of thinking and feeling >> entity, and that biological samples which do not and cannot think and >> feel (embryos, cells, ...) are not persons. This is, after all, the >> basis of our support for abortion and stem cell research: no harm is >> done to persons. So I thought that the proper thing to do was >> switching life support off. >> >> Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact >> that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is >> at least feeling something. Someone emotionally involved, like her >> parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is >> does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I >> would >> feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel >> that society is murdering my daughter? Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't >> Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion, >> that their daughter may wake up smiling? Is it because taxpayers are >> paying for life support? Would things change if they were paying for >> it themselves? >> >> Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But >> most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be >> revived, and that life extension technology will never work. Does >> this >> mean that we should give up on cryonics and life extension? Does it >> depend on who is paying? It seems reasonable to think that those who >> can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so, >> but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it >> can be effective. But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's >> parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try >> experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to >> afford it? >> >> All questions and no answers: these are difficult issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 15:05:52 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:05:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation In-Reply-To: <20050326142641.3265.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The point of a 45mpg geo is that it gets over twice your milage. So even with it not carrying all that useful stuff you have in your jeep, it comes out cheaper to pay $50/year for AAA. Then they will come out and tow, fix flat, etc etc. There's nothing wrong with people having jeeps. I think it is lamentable that cheap shitbox cars today get worse mpg than 15 years ago. Plus most of the stuff you carry in your jeep could also be carried in the trunk of the geo (not counting the spare tire). BAL >From: Mike Lorrey >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation >Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:26:40 -0800 (PST) > > >--- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The Geo can carry four very caloric restrictive adults, and little > > else. > >What I mean by this is based on experience I have on the road. I drive >a 1987 Jeep Cherokee. I get about 20 mpg on the highway, which is >pretty darn good for a boxy suv with a straight 6 4.0L engine of that >decade. I carry in it, besides myself, a full spare tire (not one of >those sissy donuts), a 5,000 lb scissor jack (not those wimpy fake >jacks the factory issues), an electric air compressor, an electric >impact wrench, a tow rope, a set of chains, a complete tool set, a milk >crate full of all sorts of vehicular fluids and minor spare parts, a >shovel, road flares, a few 1-2 gallon gas cans, a full set of camping >equipment, fly fishing gear, a firearm or two, ammo, plus assorted >other pieces of equipment, books, etc. depending on the season. > >As a result of being prepared, I frequently stop to help people driving >Geos and other Geo-eque-type vehicles broken down on the roadside >without a postage stamp to write home about it. Generally it is a >duct-taping of a radiator hose and some anti-freeze, or a patching of >their tire (because their spare is not in the car in order to make more >room). Once a very sharply dressed woman was shocked that I requested >she remove her silk stockings until she realized it was the only way to >temporarily replace her broken fan belt. > >Who is externalizing on who, now? Particularly those who are offended >at the idea that it would be polite if I were to be paid for my >assistance. > > > > > >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 From scerir at libero.it Sat Mar 26 16:45:09 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:45:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] History of the portable computer References: <003901c5316c$75d8f930$0cbc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <010601c53223$2ce18af0$83c11b97@administxl09yj> > Data retrieval work (of all things) in Fortran > on the Univac 1108.... which sorta dates *me*, > doesn't it. :))) > MB And me too! That, for unknown (or well known) reasons, reminds me of a Portuguese word, "saudade". Nostalgia? Not exactly. After many years spent in Portugal (Lisbon), a very old man, Raul Lino, at that time (1970) a famous architect, told me the true meaning of the word. "Saudade" means nostalgia of a future, not of a past. Regards, s. "Vive-nos a vida, n?o n?s a vida" - Fernando Pessoa From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sat Mar 26 15:16:38 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:16:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense Message-ID: <20050326151435.M49395@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600 (a good list) Amara From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat Mar 26 18:44:42 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:44:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1111862682.4245ad9a704f8@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Mike Lorrey : > Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness is > no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just has a > lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make himself > useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities by > her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in today > given a similar level of neglect. > > Now, this being established, if we imagine instead that Stephen Hawking > were in that hospital instead of Terri, what would you do about what is > being done to him? ### Mike, are you saying that Ms Schiavo has ALS? As far as I know you are not a neurologist, and certainly you have not personally examined her. Yet you state with great conviction that her physicians are grossly incompetent, and could, after doing the H&P and reviewing results of laboratory investigations, confuse ALS and PVS. This would put their skills at the level of not even a resident, or a first-year nursing student but at the level of the hospital janitor. Aren't you overstepping your limitations here? Rafal From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Mar 26 21:11:40 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:11:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo References: <20050326140038.79816.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <143801c53248$68f09ac0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness is > no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just has a > lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make himself > useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities by > her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in today > given a similar level of neglect. I could not believe I was reading this from you, Mike. Stephen Hawking's *cognitive processes are very much alive*. Terri Schiavo's *cognitive processes are gone*, due to the fact that most of her brain has liquefied. She has been (kept) alive due to activity from her brain stem. Terri Schiavo's "responses" are reflexive. Unfortunately, "there is no there there." > Now, this being established ... Please explain how your unfounded assertion has been established. Olga From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 26 15:01:27 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:01:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) In-Reply-To: <017701c5320c$91129e40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050324184334.9E84357EBA@finney.org> <017701c5320c$91129e40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050326150127.GU24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:03:20AM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote: > 3) Can you provide a link to "a more sophisticated, gradual model, > based on degrees of identity"? The physical system between our ears can be described by a very large bit string. Type of atoms, their state, their coordinates and velocity of vectors would describe such a system exhaustively. In practice, that would be a little too detailed. Digitizing neuroanatomy at ultrascale level should be roughly enough. You can define a metric over that large bucket of bits. Using that metric, systems closer to you are more like you. Trajectories through that description space would map into trajectories through persona space. > I'd be curious to see if there is one that maps the territory of the real > world better than alternatives. I'm generally sceptical of models that At this point, I'd suggest leaving the area of armchair theorrorism, and conduct an experiment. E.g. creating a particular network using the Neuron package, and span a metric over behaviour space by varying the system description and measuring the change in outcome. > only add the sort of complexity that enables wish fulfillment. I suspect > the 'information theoretic criteria of death' to be such a model. Actually, information theoretic criteria of death can be rigidly defined, in terms of change in system entropy. Making the transformation into persona (behaviour) space will be difficult in reality, as long as you can't reverse the change in a physical system, and measure the impact. In machina, it's a piece of cake. > 4) You ask "If not even the possessor of an identity can tell when it is > lost, does it really exist enough that it should be a guideline for actions? > > Good question. > > If the 'I', the 'self', or present 'consciousness' are not real then I can > have no poor choices (or good choices for that matter) to make. Huh? > If they are real (as they usually seem to be) then I may have some > choices perhaps including the choice to act towards self-preservation > or termination or to focus on other things altogether. Given these two > classes of possibility, I may as well assume I have choices and "play > the hand I am dealt" as it appears to me. Huh? > It appears to me that my "self", my "identity" is a phenomena that > arises only in association with a matter substrate of biological cells. You have no real basis for this statement. It's a modern version of animism. > Perhaps if I was born into a different or future world things would > be different. > > Brain cells not atoms seem to be the relevant 'indivisible elements' > making up my memories and personality as well as the memories > and personalities of others. It doesn't matter which level of description you choose, as long as that level of description is sufficiently accurate to reproduce the full scope of relevant aspects of the physical system. > Now of course brain cells are comprised of atoms at the physical > science level, just as atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles, > but considering identity at the level of cells (which can divide to > replicate and which can die) seems to be a much more sensible They can do a great more deal than that. Actually the cellular level is insuficient, if you're starting with a machine learning system which knows very little about the world. > level of abstraction on which to work. > > Discussion about atoms rather than cells suggests that there are > currently ways to translate cells into atoms and sometimes > vice versa known to computer scientists. But to the best of my > knowledge there are no such known ways yet. This does not Computer scientists are the wrong people to talk to when describing physical systems, especially biological ones. Cryo-AFM can resolve single atoms in principle, and real experiments don't fall very fall behind (there's no fundamental limit). Use Google. > mean that there cannot be. But it does mean that we should be > careful about assuming either that the machine equivalent of > living cells will be easy to produce or that some other unknown Are you talking about simulation of real biological systems, or just equivalent control units of ALife experiments? > means of handling that level of complexity will readily be found > before we have found it. You need a hierarchy of simulation layers, and a system which extracts parameters and builds the next simulation level autonomously, using machine learning -- all using digitized neuroanatomy and behaviour descriptors in vivo, trying to reproduce it in machina. You are correct to assume that that system is extremely nontrivial. Impossible, no. > 5) I think most of your "sorites attack" thought experiments that > focus on atoms rather than cells as the indivisible fundamentals > underlying "identity as continuity" may in the end constitute a sort > of straw man attack. I don't think you do that deliberately or in > bad faith at all. I do mean that by using atoms rather than cells > you make the targetted model of identity less 'connected' to > reality than it is, and both the attack and any attempt to repell I think the atomic level is a very good source of empirically unknown parameters for higher levels of simulation. You might be surprised that this is a routine technique today. > the attack is then harder to relate to existing biological science. > Its biological science that describes all forms of person that exist > today. I think that if you tried to recast your sorites attacks using > a) temperature and b) disassembly and reassembly on cells rather > than atoms that you'd find that the black and white model of > identity as continuity might not seem as inconceivable. It would > be interesting to see. Huh? > We have a lot of cells in our bodies and in our brains. Enough Yep. There's an awful lot of switches in a mole of buckytronics, though. That leaves a veritable overkill of switches for each individual cell, allowing to treat it at exquisite level of detail. > that we can lose some of them without being conscious of the > loss yet not so many that sometimes the loss of one more of a > particular type like a myocardial cell cannot be the straw that > breaks the camels back causing an infarction that hits the blood > flow that affects homeostasis and causes the death of brain cells > as they don't get oxygenated etc. Of course you realize that heads can be quite easily transplanted, and you can easily have an awake prepared cephalon by just supplying oxygenated fluid with nutrients. And of course you realize that people routinely sustain grievous injuries in the cause of their life, especially towards the end of it? Clearly, as the damage accumulates they're deviating from the original person, sometimes very visibly so (in fact, impact of brain lesions on behaviour is still a very juicy area for neurology). > We can lose cells and still have enough to sustain a sense of self > but we can't lose too many of any particular sort of cell. Yes, some cells are more relevant than the others. What's your point here? That more of the animus resides in those cells? > We don't have heaps of experiential data about the increments > of temperature drops just below homeostasis thresholds because > the organisms generally die and there's no identity left to test. Huh? It's quite easy to bring back animals from massive hypothermia. In fact, the reason that it becomes increasingly difficult to do so as chilling injury accumulates, and that ischaemic injury is correlated with loss of function at behaviour level tells us a thing or two, don't you think? > Gradual temperature changes moving just beyond the lower > bounds of what homeostatic defences can hold off could cause > a massive amount of cell death which would cascade upward > into organism death. Death is just a pretty flower that smells bad. > So although I think you above post and your method of approaching > the identity as continuity problem is quite an impressive bit of analysis > perhaps the best I've seen it wasn't in the end persuasive for me. You change your views just upon a few paragraphs of words? Including even no experimental evidence? What kind of scientist would do that? > I'd be interested in seeing if you could recast your sorites attacks > on "identity as continuity" when memories and personality traits > are assumed to be embodies at the cellular level rather than just > somewhere above the atomic level. How is that different? The atomic level fully encodes the cellular level. There's no fundamental reason why you can't populate a MD box with input from a Cryo-AFM ablative scan experiment. > I really enjoyed your post and found it challenging to think about. I usually enjoy Hal's posts, too, but I'd wish he'd use less words. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Mar 26 21:47:40 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:47:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326214740.10714.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> A duel citizen? What, did he have to outshoot some INS agent? Seems a bit riskier than becoming a dual citizen (not that that doesn't have its own problems, granted). ;) From hal at finney.org Sat Mar 26 22:44:31 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:44:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) Message-ID: <20050326224431.EA98257EBA@finney.org> Eugen writes: > I usually enjoy Hal's posts, too, but I'd wish he'd use less words. Huh? (Is that better? ;-) Hal From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 23:25:38 2005 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Slawomir Paliwoda) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:25:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools) References: <20050324184334.9E84357EBA@finney.org> <017701c5320c$91129e40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: Brett wrote: > We can lose cells and still have enough to sustain a sense of self > but we can't lose too many of any particular sort of cell. (Excuse my use of concepts and terms presented in my previous post.) Self is a unique trajectory of a unique pattern of mind-producing activity of matter in space and time. I like to think of the unique trajectory of matter that implements original instance of mind structure (pattern of mind-producing activity of matter in space-time) as a "container" for possibly infinite number of types of mind structure. I also like to think of mind structure as playing the role of a "liquid" in a complete liquid-in-a-container analogy. The loss of cells affects only mind structure. Unique trajectory of matter that implements that mind structure is orthogonal to the loss. In other words, even though we poured some liquid out, the container still exists and holds the liquid. But does self survive? The answer depends, among other things, on the degree to which the pattern of activity of mind-producing matter has been altered (this is what I think Hal Finney is talking about). We should care more about pattern of activity (mind structure) than pattern of neurons (brain structure) because mind structure offers far superior map of what mind is than brain structure. Even though brain structure is subject to constant alterations, the essential mind structure is the same which is why our selves are preserved from the time we fall asleep to when we wake up. This is where it would be appropriate to mention something about tolerance and thresholds, concepts that deal with measuring whether self is preserved during alterations to its mind structure, but I fear this particular aspect of identity theory is too complicated for presentation on a mailing list. Let's just say for now that the degree to which mind structure gets altered during sleep or when we lose small amount of neuronal connections isn't significant enough to affect identity of mind structure. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 23:39:11 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:39:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Please In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326233911.7810.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> With all due respect for for your husband, getting a dual citizenship isn't going to make much of a difference in his life. Now, when Max is uploaded-- that will be a big deal. The BIG events in a life: leaving the parental home. being uploaded. being suspended. being reanimated. >Natasha Vita-More wrote: >Please do not use the same subject line for your remarks that are not on >the same topic and which cast a bad sent on this special event for Max. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Mar 27 03:02:41 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:02:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Dual Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: <20050326214740.10714.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050326214740.10714.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050326210119.04cb5db8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> haha! Max has swords of charm! N At 03:47 PM 3/26/2005, you wrote: >A duel citizen? What, did he have to outshoot some INS agent? Seems a >bit riskier than becoming a dual citizen (not that that doesn't have >its own problems, granted). ;) >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Mar 26 23:50:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:50:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326235048.17051.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Quoting Mike Lorrey : > > > Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness > > is no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just > > has a lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to > > make himself useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same > > opportunities by > > her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in > today given a similar level of neglect. > > > > Now, this being established, if we imagine instead that Stephen > > Hawking were in that hospital instead of Terri, what would you do > > about what is being done to him? > > ### Mike, are you saying that Ms Schiavo has ALS? Show me where I said that. I did not. I said her responsiveness is no less than Stephen Hawking. I assumed, perhaps, that your reading comprehension was higher. Terri's ability to move is perhaps even greater than Hawking, because at least she can grunt and groan words roughly. Now, I have to ask: are you saying that Stephen Hawking with ALS has more right to live only because he can articulate due to many years of technological assistance, but Terri does not because she suffered under her husbands neglect? > > Aren't you overstepping your limitations here? I suppose only in assuming you wouldn't commit ad hominem and hyperbole and misrepresentation. BTW: corrections to others' statements: Terri does not have to live on the public dime, her parents have offered to take her home and care for her at their own expense. Nor is she living on the public dime now, she is living on a $1.3 million court award, which her husband wants the remainder of, which is why he is on record saying "When is that bitch gonna die?" 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 Sat Mar 26 23:53:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:53:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <4e10bd5725a09e7eab122ee29008891c@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness > is > > no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just > has a > > lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make > himself > > useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities > by > > her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in > today > > given a similar level of neglect. > > This is the most empty and baseless assertion i believe I have ever > seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds of our age to a > woman > who by every test we can administer is mentally unfortunately little > more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of reality. Why are > you just looking at the outside an ignoring everything we know and > can > test? What is empty and baseless is the assertion that Terri is brain dead, in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations only of her husbands lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert medical witnesses (who will say whatever you want for the right fee). There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental capacity. A fellow who has the technology to test not only her mental capacity but whether she wants to live or not is currently under legal consideration, and the judge is ticked that nobody told him about this before. 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 27 03:57:10 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:57:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42462F16.4090405@humanenhancement.com> So you're in favor of government intervention in this case? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > >>On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness >>> >>> >>is >> >> >>>no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just >>> >>> >>has a >> >> >>>lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make >>> >>> >>himself >> >> >>>useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities >>> >>> >>by >> >> >>>her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in >>> >>> >>today >> >> >>>given a similar level of neglect. >>> >>> >>This is the most empty and baseless assertion i believe I have ever >>seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds of our age to a >>woman >>who by every test we can administer is mentally unfortunately little >>more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of reality. Why are >>you just looking at the outside an ignoring everything we know and >>can >>test? >> >> > >What is empty and baseless is the assertion that Terri is brain dead, >in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations only of her husbands >lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert medical witnesses (who >will say whatever you want for the right fee). > >There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental capacity. A fellow who has >the technology to test not only her mental capacity but whether she >wants to live or not is currently under legal consideration, and the >judge is ticked that nobody told him about this before. > >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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 23:59:57 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:59:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] sorry, Joe In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050326235957.4495.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Mike, I didn't know Limbaugh got his start in a nepotistic way. I wish you'd tell Joe Bloch that I do not hate Republicans-- got a good look at the radical rabble in the street, and am grateful Republicans are there to keep them from having too much influence. I don't like Republicans... yet not liking them isn't the same as hating them. If one listened to Joe you'd think Bush was this innocent guy who just wants to do God's bidding. C'mon, only a fool would let Bush pull the wool over the eyes. Republicans are like everyone else, they have a combination of good & bad intentions in mind. When Joe writes that Bush is a better than average president, how does he know? He's too close to it-- and it is too early to say, Bush is still president. What I do hate is those such as Joe thinking all liberals are chumps. >Actually, it was originally daddy's radio station. In this respect, I >tend to cut Rush critics slack, as the guy really hasn't had an honest >job in his life and until his oxy codone episode, really had not >experienced adversity in life. In this he is as much a product of >society as those he despises for whining they are products of society. >I have a lot more respect for a person who busted their butts to come >up out of nowhere and nothing but retained an integrity of their >principles about hard work. >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH __________________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 27 03:03:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:03:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Becomes A Duel Citizen - Britain + U.S. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327030349.82560.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We're pitting immmigrants against each other, don't you know. Naturalization at twenty paces, high noon. Whichever immigrant is left standing is in. --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > A duel citizen? What, did he have to outshoot some INS agent? Seems > a > bit riskier than becoming a dual citizen (not that that doesn't have > its own problems, granted). ;) > _______________________________________________ > 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 rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun Mar 27 05:38:51 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:38:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <42462F16.4090405@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <42462F16.4090405@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <1111901931.424646eb5e1c4@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Mike Lorrey : I said her responsiveness is no > less than Stephen Hawking. I assumed, perhaps, that your reading > comprehension was higher. > > Terri's ability to move is perhaps even greater than Hawking, because > at least she can grunt and groan words roughly. > > Now, I have to ask: are you saying that Stephen Hawking with ALS has > more right to live only because he can articulate due to many years of > technological assistance, but Terri does not because she suffered under > her husbands neglect? ### Stephen Hawking has loss of two neural populations: the upper and the lower motor neurons, which defines ALS. Schiavo has loss of the majority of cortical neurons in the frontal cortex, as well as parts of the parietal and temporal cortex, verified by SPECT. Her responsiveness is as a result of this fact much less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking - she does not track visually, does not recognize objects, does not have reactive EEG, does not have intelligible vocal output, which is in agreement with the SPECT. Stephen Hawking can think, but not move, because only his motor neurons are damaged, while all the other parts of the cortex are more or less intact. Schiavo can move but not think because her motor neurons are intact, while most of the rest of the cortex is destroyed. The reason why Schiavo cannot think is not neglect (in fact, her survival for so long is proof of excellent care), but the fact that she killed her brain by inducing cardiac arrest in the course of an eating disorder. There are no interventions (physical therapy, occupational therapy or whatever) or gizmos proven to significantly improve recovery from prolonged global ischemia (the DBS studies are iffy). Of course, Stephen Hawking has the right to live, despite being immobile, because he is still a human person. Schiavo is not a person anymore, and therefore no right to life exists. -------------------------- > > BTW: corrections to others' statements: Terri does not have to live on > the public dime, her parents have offered to take her home and care for > her at their own expense. Nor is she living on the public dime now, she > is living on a $1.3 million court award, which her husband wants the > remainder of, which is why he is on record saying "When is that bitch > gonna die?" ### How much is left? The yearly cost of PVS patient support is about 150 000 $. The court award is gone, or will be very soon. Rafal From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 05:40:39 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:40:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Australia Permits Limited Stem Cell Research Message-ID: <20050327054039.56183.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia will allow human embryos to be used for some types of stem cell research after Prime Minister John Howard's decision not to push for extended restrictions on the use of IVF embryos. use of excess embryos for research in 2002 and while Howard had originally pushed for a one-year extension of the ban, he has now abandoned the idea, the Australian newspaper reported Saturday. Since then individual states, which largely supported an end to the ban, have enacted uniform laws governing the use of human embryos. Now that the ban will not be extended, embryos created after April 5, 2002, can be used for certain types of stem cell research. However, it is illegal to produce embryos just for research. A spokeswoman for Victorian premier Steve Bracks said Howard's decision was "a significant step forward in the stem cell debate." "We believe that we should use excess IVF (in vitro fertilisation) embryos that would otherwise be flushed down the sink," she said. New South Wales state Minister for Medical Research Frank Sartor said Howard's decision not to press for the extension of the ban was an indication of the nationwide support for stem cell research. "There is a consensus. There was a conscience vote in all parliaments. This was weighed up by everyone. People of goodwill throughout the country and two-thirds of parliamentarians pretty much voted for this approach," he said. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Mar 27 04:21:03 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:21:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:10 PM 3/24/2005 -0500, Robin wrote: > >>You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is >> pretty much anything. The question is how well that judge >> decision correlates with the real dispute you are having. > > Quite so. >... In the hard version of this case (that is, the efficacy of > destructive reconstruction following cryonic suspension), it seems > to me equivalent of setting up a bet with a panel of judges who > might be Muslims or lunatics or might not, testing the assertion > that men who die faithful obtain the services of 72 virgins, ..... I am surprised that that is how it seems to you Damien. Do you think that there are issues involved that are outside the domains of science, logic and language? If so I'd like to know what you think those are? (I accept that questions that conflate those domains might be harder to judge but that doesn't make them impossible to judge. Indeed most scientific analysis would involve logic and language as well). I can see how a two sides picking 'jurors' to judge the question "do men who die faithful obtain the services of 72 virgins" might both be interested in candidates under the heading of "Muslim" or "lunatic", perhaps with one side hoping the exclude such candidates (all else being equal) and the other hoping to include at least the "Muslims" (all else being equal). But that sort of comparison isn't relevant here. Stripped of the foolish prejudices of the grossly ignorant or completely incurious, the question "can cryonics work?" is not at all a stupid one. You and I have thought about it. Frankly if I knew nothing else about a person other than that they had considered that question at some point in their lives (as Robin and Hal and others on this list have done) then regardless of what their answers were I'd consider those people more rather than less likely to be intelligent and educated and the sort of people I'd respect. My point is that I don't see Robin or Hal as having in any way renounced respect for rationality or science merely by disagreeing with me. And I don't think see why they would think that it would be excessively difficult to find judges that could consider logical arguments from advocates on both sides of the case fairly. If they did think they could not, (which I am not asserting), that would seem to suggest that they would think that they hold a particular exclusivity of enlightenment of some form that cannot be operationally converted into a filter for selecting potential candidate judges. I don't think they think that because both have written and thought enough about self-serving biases to be pretty well aware of that sort of thing working on themselves. I think they know picking judges to judge complicated matters of logic would mean that judges might, being humans, make errors, but that that sort of risk (which each of us has to tolerate all the time by virtue of living as a member in a society) is itself manageable, and perhaps, less of a risk than the risks of not capitalising on an opportunity. Perhaps there are not as many occassions when likeminded individuals bring their attentions to esoteric topics as people may think. Opportunities for synergies missed may not present again as people get busy with other things in life and move on. Regards, Brett Paatsch From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Mar 27 06:04:04 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:04:04 +0100 Subject: The benefits of more citizenships (was: [extropy-chat] META: Please) Message-ID: <20050327055534.M92634@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Al Brooks kerry_prez at yahoo.com : >With all due respect for for your husband, getting a dual >citizenship isn't going to make much of a difference in >his life. That is a very stupid statement. The citizenship listed on the bureacratic papers that the government you are living under holds for you determines most of the practicalities in daily life. if you can have (government-funded) medical care if you can have (government-funded) education if you can change jobs if you can have your family with you if you can adopt if you can legally travel in and out of the country if you can have a bank account if you can own a car if you can have a driver's license if you can own property if you can have a telephone if you can have a residency and hence, lower-cost utilities: phone, electricity, gas, etc. charges if you can vote if you can hold a political office These are just a few that I thought up in 30 seconds, I'm sure that there are more, and my list will have variations between what I'm familiar with in Italy/Germany and what immigrants face in the U.S. I say the more citizenships the better. That way national bounderies disappear and humans' behavior befits that of a global human. Nationalistic boundaries mostly create impediments to our (humans') growth. Amara From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 04:33:26 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:33:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327043326.58619.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Terry is toast. Get used to it. The world will go on, it will continue to orbit around the sun. When a man and woman leave their parents' homes, and cleave as one flesh (and all that sickening nonsense) in a legal contract of marriage, the husband can carry out his spouse's wishes-- assuming no foul play is involved. What would a legal contract of marriage mean otherwise? What would power of attorney mean? > >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > >>On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > Schiavo's responsiveness > >>> > >>> > >>is > >> > >> > >>>no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > Hawking. Stephen just > >>> > >>> > >>has a > >> > >> > >>>lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn > to use to make > >>> > >>> > >>himself > >> > >> > >>>useful in the world. Terri has been denied the > same opportunities > >>> > >>> > >>by > >> > >> > >>>her husband and remains in a condition that > Stephen would be in > >>> > >>> > >>today > >> > >> > >>>given a similar level of neglect. > >>> > >>> > >>This is the most empty and baseless assertion i > believe I have ever > >>seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds > of our age to a > >>woman > >>who by every test we can administer is mentally > unfortunately little > >>more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of > reality. Why are > >>you just looking at the outside an ignoring > everything we know and > >>can > >>test? > >> > >> > > > >What is empty and baseless is the assertion that > Terri is brain dead, > >in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations > only of her husbands > >lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert > medical witnesses (who > >will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > > >There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > capacity. A fellow who has > >the technology to test not only her mental capacity > but whether she > >wants to live or not is currently under legal > consideration, and the > >judge is ticked that nobody told him about this > before. > > > >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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 06:21:16 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:21:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The benefits of more citizenships In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327062116.82530.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> None of the below NECESSARILY means you are going to live a longer or better life. Your life might be more complicated, but not necessarily better. most important milestones, by far: leaving parents at 18 (or nowadays much later-- like, say, when parents die); being uploaded; being suspended; being reanimated, > if you can have (government-funded) medical care > if you can have (government-funded) education > if you can change jobs > if you can have your family with you > if you can adopt > if you can legally travel in and out of the country > if you can have a bank account > if you can own a car > if you can have a driver's license > if you can own property > if you can have a telephone > if you can have a residency and hence, lower-cost > utilities: > phone, electricity, gas, etc. charges > if you can vote > if you can hold a political office > > These are just a few that I thought up in 30 > seconds, I'm > sure that there are more, and my list will have > variations between what I'm familiar with in > Italy/Germany and what immigrants face in the U.S. > > I say the more citizenships the better. That way > national > bounderies disappear and humans' behavior befits > that of > a global human. Nationalistic boundaries mostly > create > impediments to our (humans') growth. > > Amara > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 27 04:36:37 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:36:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <72b6cb79f23abeffa16853ae072e6e9c@mac.com> It is pretty standard practice in such cases to do the necessary tests. There is no way that any competent hospital would fail to perform or court fail to have performed the needed tests to determine the patient's prognosis, especially in a case this publicized and politicized. If you have proof otherwise then it is your burden to present it if you want to make such claims without looking like a complete crank. - samantha On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness >> is >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just >> has a >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make >> himself >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities >> by >>> her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in >> today >>> given a similar level of neglect. >> >> This is the most empty and baseless assertion i believe I have ever >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds of our age to a >> woman >> who by every test we can administer is mentally unfortunately little >> more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of reality. Why are >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring everything we know and >> can >> test? > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that Terri is brain dead, > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations only of her husbands > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert medical witnesses (who > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental capacity. A fellow who has > the technology to test not only her mental capacity but whether she > wants to live or not is currently under legal consideration, and the > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this before. > > 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 27 06:30:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:30:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050327002400.01d45778@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:21 PM 3/27/2005 +1000, Brett wrote: >I am surprised that that is how it seems to you Damien. And that's why it'd be pointless trying to have jurors adjudicate the question (assuming that question is not "might a vitrified/frozen dead body be warmed up, healed and awoken?", to which the answer of course is "quite possibly", but "do I care especially whether a discontinuous copy of me is constructed in the future after I'm dead?"). Since you remain surprised by my answer after I've explained my reasoning, why should you accept the opinion of jurors if I sway them? Damien Broderick From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun Mar 27 06:33:48 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:33:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <1111905228.424653cc08ad3@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Mike Lorrey : > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that Terri is brain dead, > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations only of her husbands > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert medical witnesses (who > will say whatever you want for the right fee). ### See for example: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0324brain-damaged-excerpts24-ON.html Mike, I have the impression you have used some big words ("brain dead", "coma") without first checking what they mean. Schiavo is not brain dead, and nobody claimed that. She is not in a coma. If you knew the meaning of these words, you wouldn't have used them (all you need is one look at the her photo). As all court-appointed physicians agree, she is in PVS. ---------------------------- > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental capacity. ### Read : http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMp058062v1 This could help you. --------------- A fellow who has > the technology to test not only her mental capacity but whether she > wants to live or not is currently under legal consideration, and the > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this before. > ### Tell us more. Rafal From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 06:35:56 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:35:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Final thought on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327063556.85308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Has anyone thought to ask Schiavo if he would let his wife be cryonically suspended, that is to say if someone else were to fund it? It would be the greatest publicity to h+; more so than Ted Williams. It's not too late, there's perhaps a day left. --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > It is pretty standard practice in such cases to do > the necessary tests. > There is no way that any competent hospital would > fail to perform or > court fail to have performed the needed tests to > determine the > patient's prognosis, especially in a case this > publicized and > politicized. If you have proof otherwise then it > is your burden to > present it if you want to make such claims without > looking like a > complete crank. > > - samantha > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> > >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > Schiavo's responsiveness > >> is > >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > Hawking. Stephen just > >> has a > >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn > to use to make > >> himself > >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied the > same opportunities > >> by > >>> her husband and remains in a condition that > Stephen would be in > >> today > >>> given a similar level of neglect. > >> > >> This is the most empty and baseless assertion i > believe I have ever > >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds > of our age to a > >> woman > >> who by every test we can administer is mentally > unfortunately little > >> more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of > reality. Why are > >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring > everything we know and > >> can > >> test? > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that > Terri is brain dead, > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations > only of her husbands > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert > medical witnesses (who > > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > capacity. A fellow who has > > the technology to test not only her mental > capacity but whether she > > wants to live or not is currently under legal > consideration, and the > > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this > before. > > > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Mar 27 07:11:04 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:11:04 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050327002400.01d45778@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <029901c5329c$240dac50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Damien wrote: > At 02:21 PM 3/27/2005 +1000, Brett wrote: > >>I am surprised that that is how it seems to you Damien. > > And that's why it'd be pointless trying to have jurors adjudicate the > question (assuming that question is not "might a vitrified/frozen dead > body be warmed up, healed and awoken?", to which the answer of > course is "quite possibly", but "do I care especially whether a > discontinuous copy of me is constructed in the future after I'm dead?"). > Since you remain surprised by my answer after I've explained my > reasoning, why should you accept the opinion of jurors if I sway them? I'm confused now because I have in mind two 'answers' that are yours, to two separate questions/issues and I'm not sure to which you refer. That you'd answer (as I think you clearly and unambiguous do in The Spike), no, to the question "can cryonics work (for you)?" doesn't surprise me. I found your argument there quite compelling. Indeed I don't think I disagreed with any part of it. What "surprised" me was that you said in this thread in relation to my looking to formulate a bet on 'can cryonics works?' and including the issue of identity within the ambit of judgement that that "seems equivalent to" (quoting you) asking Muslims and non-Muslims, lunatics and non lunatics together to judge. It was you seeing *those* things as equivalent that surprised me. -- The question Hal had offered as a first pass, might well have been reformulated into the one you put above, I'm not averse to exploring that sort of alternate wording especially should that be of interest to Hal or Robin (or yourself, if you are interested, I just thought that you were not interested). I do have a strong *preference* for keeping the "identity" aspect coupled with the other aspects because I think that together they make a more interesting (to a wider public as well as to me) bet. You ask "Since you remain surprised by my answer after I've explained my reasoning, why should you accept the opinion of jurors if I sway them?" I'd accept that the judges (that I had a hand in selecting, along with others using our best endeavors) had judged. And that whilst I might still not agree with the judges I had entered into a contract with you and Hal or Robin etc to accept their judgement and to pay off on the bet. As I would expect them to accept the judgement if it went the other way. Also, the fact of the judges judgement would be significant to me as evidence to weight into my personal worldview even if I didn't agree with it. This common understanding that the judges judgement was going to result in money changing hands even if your, or my or Hals, or Robins personal opinions ultimately were not changed, should I think create and incentive to make sure that the judging process is well formed to be fair to all sides. The existence of a real market would convey consensus price information to others who might not want to bet but may still be interested in what the consensus was on the question "can cryonics work?" I hope I answered your question. Brett Paatsch From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun Mar 27 08:18:56 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:18:56 -0800 Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <029901c5329c$240dac50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050327002400.01d45778@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <029901c5329c$240dac50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <1111911536.42466c705baa9@www.genciabiotech.com> Just to change the subject: Anybody willing to bet on the date a dinosaur walks again? If the bones shown in "Science": http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;307/5717/1852b http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1952 are not a sick joke, I am willing to bet that: 1) In no more than 20 years the T.rex genome will be sequenced. 2) In no more than fifty years a T.rex or another dinosaur will be cloned and hatched. Any takers? Rafal From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun Mar 27 08:40:27 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:40:27 +1000 Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <1111911536.42466c705baa9@www.genciabiotech.com> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050327002400.01d45778@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <029901c5329c$240dac50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <1111911536.42466c705baa9@www.genciabiotech.com> Message-ID: <4246717B.5010401@optusnet.com.au> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Just to change the subject: > > Anybody willing to bet on the date a dinosaur walks again? > > If the bones shown in "Science": > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;307/5717/1852b > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1952 > > are not a sick joke, I am willing to bet that: > > 1) In no more than 20 years the T.rex genome will be sequenced. > > 2) In no more than fifty years a T.rex or another dinosaur will be cloned and > hatched. > > Any takers? > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > If the soft tissue is real, I would bet no more than 15 years to sequence the genome and 20 to hatch an egg. Even if I am wrong (probably) about the dates, I think that your ratio, 20 to sequence and then 30 more to clone barely takes into account even a linear progression in technology, let alone the exponential improvement that most on this list expect. On another note, I think that there are plenty of other more recent but still interesting candidates too - Australia's extinct megafauna, NZ's moa, the elephant bird, the woolly mammoth... In a few years visiting a zoo is going to be 'interesting' :) From hal at finney.org Sun Mar 27 08:54:58 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:54:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet Message-ID: <20050327085458.C6CD857EBA@finney.org> Rafal writes: > I am willing to bet that: > > 1) In no more than 20 years the T.rex genome will be sequenced. > > 2) In no more than fifty years a T.rex or another dinosaur will be cloned and > hatched. > > Any takers? The FX idea futures game has had a claim since 1996 about whether a dinosaur will be recreated by 2050. For about the last 6 years it has been trading in the 40-50 percent range. I haven't seen too much price movement with this recent news, but it is certainly a fascinating discovery. Hal From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 09:37:44 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:37:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <72b6cb79f23abeffa16853ae072e6e9c@mac.com> References: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <72b6cb79f23abeffa16853ae072e6e9c@mac.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205032701372f58ef93@mail.gmail.com> I did not know that the parents had volunteered to front all financial expenses to keep Terri on life support. This being the case, I now believe removing Terri from life support constitutes an extremely bad precedent for life extension, cryonics and experimental therapies, not to mention civil rights in your country. If one is not allowed to spend her or his own money on medical procedures that the majority of the medical establishment condemns, I can easily imagine a judge ordering to bury all Alcor and CI patients, and I can easily imagine a judge preventing people to pay their own money for experimental rejuvenation therapies. I also did not know that until now life support costs were paid with the compensation awarded to Terri by the court, and that the money remaining is enough to provide a significant financial benefit to someone if Terri dies. G. From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 10:39:39 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:39:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032701372f58ef93@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050326235340.33439.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <72b6cb79f23abeffa16853ae072e6e9c@mac.com> <470a3c5205032701372f58ef93@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:37:44 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I did not know that the parents had volunteered to front all financial > expenses to keep Terri on life support. > This being the case, I now believe removing Terri from life support > constitutes an extremely bad precedent for life extension, cryonics > and experimental therapies, not to mention civil rights in your > country. > If one is not allowed to spend her or his own money on medical > procedures that the majority of the medical establishment condemns, I > can easily imagine a judge ordering to bury all Alcor and CI patients, > and I can easily imagine a judge preventing people to pay their own > money for experimental rejuvenation therapies. > I also did not know that until now life support costs were paid with > the compensation awarded to Terri by the court, and that the money > remaining is enough to provide a significant financial benefit to > someone if Terri dies. > G. Search Google News for 'Schiavo money' Attorneys: Schiavo Settlement Money Spent Saturday, March 26, 2005 More than half of the $700,000 earmarked from the malpractice award for Terri Schiavo's care has been spent for that purpose, with the rest going toward litigation, said Deborah Bushnell, one of Michael Schiavo's attorneys. As of mid-March, just $40,000 to $50,000 remained of that money, Bushnell said, and was held in a trust fund. A judge approves all expenditures, from attorneys' fees to the woman's haircuts. Bushnell said she has been paid $80,309 since getting involved in the case in 1993. George Felos, who was hired by Michael Schiavo around the time he began the effort to remove his wife's feeding tube in 1998, has been paid $358,434, she said. Neither attorney has petitioned the court for payment since 2002. Terri Schiavo has stayed for free at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network, because she was considered indigent, Bushnell said. Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people. 3/24/2005 Feud may be as much over money as principle Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says. ------------------- Looks like the fight was over the parents wanting a share of the husbands settlement of $300,000 (which they were not entitled to under Florida law). Now all the money has gone. Even the lawyers are not getting paid. The care home is not getting paid. Medicaid pays the (small) medical bills. Sad case. BillK From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 10:59:27 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:59:27 -0800 Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <20050327085458.C6CD857EBA@finney.org> References: <20050327085458.C6CD857EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:54:58 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" wrote: > Rafal writes: > > I am willing to bet that: > > > > 1) In no more than 20 years the T.rex genome will be sequenced. > > > > 2) In no more than fifty years a T.rex or another dinosaur will be cloned and > > hatched. > > > > Any takers? > > The FX idea futures game has had a claim since 1996 about whether a > dinosaur will be recreated by 2050. For about the last 6 years it > has been trading in the 40-50 percent range. I haven't seen too much > price movement with this recent news, but it is certainly a fascinating > discovery. Here's a link to the actual claim: http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Dino It's currently at 41 "By 1/1/2050, one or more living large dinosaurs will have been (re)created and will have been be displayed to the public. For purposes of this claim, a "large dinosaur" is an animal massing more than 200kg, with a skeletal structure substantially identical in both size and shape to one of the many fossilized skeletons of the extinct animals which were known to science as dinosaurs on 1/1/1996. For purposes of this claim, birds are not dinosaurs." From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Mar 27 11:05:51 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:05:51 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <4246717B.5010401@optusnet.com.au> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050327002400.01d45778@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <029901c5329c$240dac50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <1111911536.42466c705baa9@www.genciabiotech.com> <4246717B.5010401@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, David wrote: >On another note, I think that there are plenty of other >more recent but still interesting candidates too - >Australia's extinct megafauna, NZ's moa, the elephant >bird, the woolly mammoth... Have the mammoth been sequenced? There are no "freshness" problem like dinosaurs, since they are preserved in ice and can be eaten by dogs (as it happened). It could also be a good test for technologies aimed at recostructing the damage incurred in freezing - provided that the natural freezing wasn't too bad to begin with. Alfio From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 27 11:58:22 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:58:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Yahoo Group - Physics_Frontier Message-ID: <006c01c532c4$472df460$53893cd1@pavilion> From: Dennis L. May determinism at hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:18 PM Subject: My New Yahoo Group - Physics_Frontier Description: Physics is on the verge of another revolution similar to that which occurred in the early 20th century. Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Big Bang Cosmology are all on the table. Theory and observation indicate that the generally accepted models are inadequate. Whole hosts of Ptolemy "Epicycles" have been engineered to give present physics the appearance of continuing viability. The purpose of this group is to give voice to those who are not satisfied with the present state of physics. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/ Dennis May From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 13:32:33 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:32:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense In-Reply-To: <20050326151435.M49395@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> References: <20050326151435.M49395@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <8d71341e05032705325c52ce79@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:16:38 +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600 Not a bad roundup of current apparent anomalies, though some silliness and basic errors as well. > In fact, the strong nuclear force that would hold them together is tuned in such a way that it can't even hold two lone neutrons together, let alone four. I was under the impression that the strong nuclear force can happily hold neutrons together, it's just that in the absence of protons, neutrons decay with a half-life of about 12 minutes (plenty long enough for a tetraneutron to show up at a detector); someone correct me if I'm wrong? - Russell From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Mar 27 14:23:36 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:23:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu> On 3/26/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is >>>pretty much anything. The question is how well that judge >>>decision correlates with the real dispute you are having. >>seems to me equivalent of setting up a bet with a panel of judges >>who might be Muslims or lunatics or might not, testing the assertion >>that men who die faithful obtain the services of 72 virgins, ..... > >Do you think that there are issues involved that are outside the >domains of science, logic and language? If so I'd like to know >what you think those are? ... the question "can cryonics work?" is not >at all a stupid one. ... why they would think that it would >be excessively difficult to find judges that could consider logical >arguments from advocates on both sides of the case fairly. ... If people were fair, reasonable, logical, and rational no matter what the topic or incentive context, well then they would just agree all the time about most everything, and bets would be few and of little use. The whole reason that betting markets are interesting is that people are not usually reasonable, and so the incentives of a bet can make them more reasonable. But if people are usually unreasonable we can't just give them random topics and expect them to judge fairly. We have to be selective and pick topics and contexts where even unreasonable people would find it hard to judge very unfairly. Before a horse race, it is easy to deceive yourself about which is the better horse. Picking random judges then, and they might easily make biased judgments that favor themselves (like favoring the horse from their state or with a name they like.) After the race it is much harder to deceive yourself about who won the race. So, we can give people incentives to be honest before the race by having them bet on what judges will say afterward about who won the race. 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 fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Mar 27 17:44:27 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:44:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil in Fast Company Message-ID: <008401c532f4$a00c8030$6600a8c0@brainiac> Among many other comments in this article: "Kurzweil: ... We'll ultimately disconnect the sensual and social pleasures of eating from the biochemical task of keeping an optimum set of nutrients in our bloodstream. " http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2005/03/kurzweil.html Hhrumph, Olga (who may have to rethink her Foodie ways ...) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 19:33:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:33:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327193351.15548.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Firstly, I have always supported the right to die. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals defend themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing so, they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which must be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them. Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by anyone but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in the sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a desire until she was a good ten years into her current condition. As there were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a living will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide as much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her true intent is. I find it extremely paradoxical and hypocritical that so many who profess support for the idea that people should not have to die from current day 'incurable' maladies, as the rationale for cryonic suspension, so blatantly support the depraved negligence toward the intent to end this woman's life by both her clearly abusive and possibly homicidal husband whose activities are being supported by the state. --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > So you're in favor of government intervention in this case? > 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 27 19:54:10 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:54:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo References: <20050327193351.15548.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001901c53306$bf07b1a0$73893cd1@pavilion> I happen to agree with Mike Lorrey on this issue. Cheers! Dan See the "Free Banking FAQ" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From neptune at superlink.net Sun Mar 27 20:01:16 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:01:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Intelligence Message-ID: <010f01c53307$bcf222a0$73893cd1@pavilion> I wonder if anyone here has read _On Intelligence_ by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee? I'm on the third chapter now... Cheers! Dan See the "Free Banking FAQ" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From benboc at lineone.net Sun Mar 27 20:15:07 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:15:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <200503271900.j2RJ0EA28265@tick.javien.com> References: <200503271900.j2RJ0EA28265@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> Hatch an egg? This made me smile. Which currently existing animal is going to lay a T-Rex egg? Any suggestions? (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, ducks and pigeons) Maybe you need to think about recreating giant moas or something before you try to recreate massive thunder lizards. ben From eugen at leitl.org Sun Mar 27 20:52:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:52:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> References: <200503271900.j2RJ0EA28265@tick.javien.com> <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20050327205231.GM24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:15:07PM +0100, ben wrote: > Hatch an egg? > > This made me smile. > > Which currently existing animal is going to lay a T-Rex egg? Crocodile, ostrich, some interim step between those and a dinosaur. It's going to take several steps. > Any suggestions? > > (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, ducks and pigeons) Why? > Maybe you need to think about recreating giant moas or something before > you try to recreate massive thunder lizards. It would be easier to start with something extinct you have a taxidermy or even a cryobank specimen. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From riel at surriel.com Sun Mar 27 21:50:31 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all Message-ID: Aside from the regular stories about war lords in Somalia, the BBC has some very nice articles about how exactly the economy works without any government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/somalia/default.stm This should be a nice discussion point for free marketeers and minarchists - apparently it is good to have some government. -- "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 brian at posthuman.com Sun Mar 27 21:17:23 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:17:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil in Fast Company In-Reply-To: <008401c532f4$a00c8030$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <008401c532f4$a00c8030$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <424722E3.9050704@posthuman.com> An interesting tidbit from that regarding his Fat Kat financial modeling/trading subsidiary: "our system works, we?ve been trading with real cash for 2.5 years. We make 80-90% annual gains. We plan to launch this year a hedge fund using our technique. FC: What?s a very idealized idea of where this will be in five years? Kurzweil: Our model is Renaissance. They make 45% a year and they manage $5 billion. They do it year after year. Last year they made $2.25 on $5 billion and they keep some of that as a fee and return the rest of those profits to the fund investors. Similar technology. That?s our model of success." -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 22:39:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:39:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Final thought on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327223940.60789.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Not only does he not want her suspended, he specifically wants her cremated and is fighting against requests by her parents that she be autopsied after her death. It is extremely fishy. --- Al Brooks wrote: > Has anyone thought to ask Schiavo if he would let his > wife be cryonically suspended, that is to say if > someone else were to fund it? > It would be the greatest publicity to h+; more so than > Ted Williams. > It's not too late, there's perhaps a day left. > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It is pretty standard practice in such cases to do > > the necessary tests. > > There is no way that any competent hospital would > > fail to perform or > > court fail to have performed the needed tests to > > determine the > > patient's prognosis, especially in a case this > > publicized and > > politicized. If you have proof otherwise then it > > is your burden to > > present it if you want to make such claims without > > looking like a > > complete crank. > > > > - samantha > > > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >> > > >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > > Schiavo's responsiveness > > >> is > > >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > > Hawking. Stephen just > > >> has a > > >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn > > to use to make > > >> himself > > >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied the > > same opportunities > > >> by > > >>> her husband and remains in a condition that > > Stephen would be in > > >> today > > >>> given a similar level of neglect. > > >> > > >> This is the most empty and baseless assertion i > > believe I have ever > > >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds > > of our age to a > > >> woman > > >> who by every test we can administer is mentally > > unfortunately little > > >> more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of > > reality. Why are > > >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring > > everything we know and > > >> can > > >> test? > > > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that > > Terri is brain dead, > > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations > > only of her husbands > > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert > > medical witnesses (who > > > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > > > > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > > capacity. A fellow who has > > > the technology to test not only her mental > > capacity but whether she > > > wants to live or not is currently under legal > > consideration, and the > > > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this > > before. > > > > > > 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 > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 27 22:45:50 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:45:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327193351.15548.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050327193351.15548.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <21f0e597705811621fb5079b08d18433@mac.com> On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Firstly, I have always supported the right to die. > > The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals defend > themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing so, > they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which must > be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them. Her husband is such an individual.As others pointed out he spend years clinging to hope. as others pointed out there is no money that he is selfishly attempting to do her in for. He finally came to the point of letting go. By rights it was his sad decision to make. Why are his rights being ignored? Why are you here heaping aspersions and contempt on this man you do not know? > > Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by anyone > but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in the > sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a desire > until she was a good ten years into her current condition. None of that is at all uncommon. > As there > were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a living > will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide as > much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her > husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her true > intent is. For what purpose? She is not here. She has been gone a long time now. Only a vegetative state supporting remnant of a brain that makes a human being human remains along with the rest of the flesh that was her own. But she is not here and is never ever coming back, not even with the finest tech we around here dream up. Her condition cannot improve in any substantial way. All basis for such improvement is missing. So how does what you are saying make any sense? it looks to me like a cruel parody of rights and hope. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 22:46:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:46:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327224601.89929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:37:44 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > I did not know that the parents had volunteered to front all > financial > > expenses to keep Terri on life support. > > This being the case, I now believe removing Terri from life support > > constitutes an extremely bad precedent for life extension, cryonics > > and experimental therapies, not to mention civil rights in your > > country. > > If one is not allowed to spend her or his own money on medical > > procedures that the majority of the medical establishment condemns, > I > > can easily imagine a judge ordering to bury all Alcor and CI > patients, > > and I can easily imagine a judge preventing people to pay their own > > money for experimental rejuvenation therapies. > > I also did not know that until now life support costs were paid > with > > the compensation awarded to Terri by the court, and that the money > > remaining is enough to provide a significant financial benefit to > > someone if Terri dies. > > G. > > > Search Google News for 'Schiavo money' > > > Attorneys: Schiavo Settlement Money Spent Saturday, March 26, 2005 > > More than half of the $700,000 earmarked from the malpractice award > for Terri Schiavo's care has been spent for that purpose, with the > rest going toward litigation, said Deborah Bushnell, one of Michael > Schiavo's attorneys. > Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, > the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. > The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert > medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years > ago, he says. > > Looks like the fight was over the parents wanting a share of the > husbands settlement of $300,000 (which they were not entitled to > under > Florida law). Now all the money has gone. Even the lawyers are not > getting paid. The care home is not getting paid. Medicaid pays the > (small) medical bills. $700k for legal bills? That is an expensive hit man contract. There are plenty of people that do that sort of wet work for under $50k. I suppose getting the state to do your dirty work for you is a bit higher price tag and comes with partial immunity. Just goes to show that private industry is more efficient, I suppose. The fact still remains that her parents are willing to care for her at their own expense at home. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Mar 27 22:48:39 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:48:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <001901c53306$bf07b1a0$73893cd1@pavilion> References: <20050327193351.15548.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001901c53306$bf07b1a0$73893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <338b2699ad86304d61797a2563de9422@mac.com> Why? I am amazed, surprised and disappointed as no valid argument for such a position has been presented. - s On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Technotranscendence wrote: > I happen to agree with Mike Lorrey on this issue. > > Cheers! > > Dan > See the "Free Banking FAQ" at: > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 23:40:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals > defend > > themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing > so, > > they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which > must > > be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them. > > Her husband is such an individual.As others pointed out he spend > years clinging to hope. The only hope I have heard him express is that she was going to die sooner on her own. Before he claimed she wante to die, he was witnessed by multiple nurses asking "When is that bitch gonna die?" > as others pointed out there is no money that he is selfishly > attempting to do her in for. He finally came to the point of > letting go. By rights it was his sad decision to make. Why are his > rights being ignored? Why are you here heaping aspersions and > contempt on this man you do not know? The guy spent half the money on attorneys rather than her care. What does that say to you? That spent half of her money on convincing the state to kill her for him. > > > > > Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by > anyone > > but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in > the sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a > desire until she was a good ten years into her current condition. > > None of that is at all uncommon. Maybe not uncommon, but it still isn't of sufficient legal weight to justify killing someone. You certainly can't send someone to death row on such a flimsy case. > > > As there > > were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a > living > > will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide > as > > much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her > > husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her > true intent is. > > For what purpose? She is not here. She has been gone a long time > now. How do you know this? Has any attempt ever been made to repair? No. Has any attempt been made with monitors of brain wave activity? I have not seen such online. In fact, I have seen online some images on the imminst.org forum of a person with similar brain damage whose tissue revived after treatment. My mother was in a coma for a month and a half, and when she came out of it she was in similar condition: she could not speak, could barely move, she had almost entirely lost her memory of her life since childhood and when she was able to speak after several months of intensive speech therapy and round the clock attention, was convinced she was married to a different man named "Frank" and that we were not her 'real' children, and when she came home she was convinced it was not her home. It took an immense amount of work to bring her back to her normal self. I didn't work for 8 months solid outside of caring for her. She suffered a significant amount of brain damage from that drug induced coma and the systemic infection due to her ruptured stomach. Some might recall my asking for some feedback on this list back then on different issues, one having to do with swelling of her brain due to electrolyte imbalances which were really touch and go for a while. At no time could you have told me that she was no longer herself. Once again, I am brought to the conclusion that a number of list members here are suffering from a severe lack of dynamic optimism. Unfortunately, I don't know how to cure that either. 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 Mon Mar 28 00:21:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:21:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328002138.25564.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:16:38 +0100, Amara Graps > wrote: > > New Scientist: 13 things that do not make sense > > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600 > > Not a bad roundup of current apparent anomalies, though some > silliness > and basic errors as well. > > > In fact, the strong nuclear force that would hold them together is > tuned in such a way that it can't even hold two lone neutrons > together, let alone four. > > I was under the impression that the strong nuclear force can happily > hold neutrons together, it's just that in the absence of protons, > neutrons decay with a half-life of about 12 minutes (plenty long > enough for a tetraneutron to show up at a detector); someone correct > me if I'm wrong? I think that it is very interesting that there are several phenomena which indicate the fine structure constant alpha is variable. "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun Mar 27 23:23:24 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:23:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327224601.89929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050327224601.89929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4247406C.8010606@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >The fact still remains that her parents are willing to care for her at >their own expense at home. > It may be a "fact", but it is also irrelevant. *She did not want to be kept alive in this state*. She told this to her husband and two other witnesses, all of whom testified to that fact in court. Just because her parents are willing to keep her in some sort of awful "living death", completely dependent on others for her very nutrition and without a personality or intellect, is no reason to override her wishes and the decision of her legal guardian to follow those wishes. (And paranoid scenarios of murder that would be more at home on an episode of "Columbo" aside, her husband _is_ her legal guardian, and is entitled to make those decisions based on her wishes, according to the law.) Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 00:31:12 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:31:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Final thought on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327223940.60789.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050328003112.25439.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> I don't care about the institution of marriage, but power of attorney mean something. Her husband does have POA. If he says his wife wanted to die then we have to take him at his word, since no foul play has been documented--instead there are merely rumors. Mike, did the husband ever mention suspension? Did he say he doesn't want Terry suspended? Mike Lorrey wrote: Not only does he not want her suspended, he specifically wants her cremated and is fighting against requests by her parents that she be autopsied after her death. It is extremely fishy. --- Al Brooks wrote: > Has anyone thought to ask Schiavo if he would let his > wife be cryonically suspended, that is to say if > someone else were to fund it? > It would be the greatest publicity to h+; more so than > Ted Williams. > It's not too late, there's perhaps a day left. > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It is pretty standard practice in such cases to do > > the necessary tests. > > There is no way that any competent hospital would > > fail to perform or > > court fail to have performed the needed tests to > > determine the > > patient's prognosis, especially in a case this > > publicized and > > politicized. If you have proof otherwise then it > > is your burden to > > present it if you want to make such claims without > > looking like a > > complete crank. > > > > - samantha > > > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >> > > >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > > Schiavo's responsiveness > > >> is > > >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > > Hawking. Stephen just > > >> has a > > >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn > > to use to make > > >> himself > > >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied the > > same opportunities > > >> by > > >>> her husband and remains in a condition that > > Stephen would be in > > >> today > > >>> given a similar level of neglect. > > >> > > >> This is the most empty and baseless assertion i > > believe I have ever > > >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds > > of our age to a > > >> woman > > >> who by every test we can administer is mentally > > unfortunately little > > >> more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of > > reality. Why are > > >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring > > everything we know and > > >> can > > >> test? > > > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that > > Terri is brain dead, > > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations > > only of her husbands > > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert > > medical witnesses (who > > > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > > > > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > > capacity. A fellow who has > > > the technology to test not only her mental > > capacity but whether she > > > wants to live or not is currently under legal > > consideration, and the > > > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this > > before. > > > > > > 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 > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 28 00:33:33 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:33:33 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> References: <200503271900.j2RJ0EA28265@tick.javien.com> <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> Message-ID: <424750DD.1040208@optusnet.com.au> ben wrote: > Hatch an egg? > > This made me smile. > > Which currently existing animal is going to lay a T-Rex egg? > > Any suggestions? > > (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, ducks and pigeons) > > Maybe you need to think about recreating giant moas or something before > you try to recreate massive thunder lizards. > > ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > A quick google couldn't get an exact size, but a lot of general comments about dinosaur eggs being small for the size of the adults. If an ostrich egg isn't large enough, they will have to make an artificial egg. Compared to the rest of the problems I think putting the contents of a current egg in a tank and adding a lot of extra yolk and/or egg white would be fairly easy. If they go that route, I think a crocodile egg may be a good base to start on, they haven't changed much in long enough that they practically are dinosaurs. -David From megao at sasktel.net Sun Mar 27 23:44:08 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:44:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse engineering ancient extinct species In-Reply-To: <20050327205231.GM24702@leitl.org> References: <200503271900.j2RJ0EA28265@tick.javien.com> <4247144B.5080409@lineone.net> <20050327205231.GM24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <42474548.4050605@sasktel.net> This could be considered as much an artform or form of creative expression ; Jurassic Park had that part right. How would Science handle the recreation of Stone age, cro Magnon or earlier hominids? -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 28 00:57:35 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:57:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050327184424.01df3138@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:40 PM 3/27/2005 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > For what purpose? She is not here. She has been gone a long time > > now. > >How do you know this? Has any attempt ever been made to repair? No. Has >any attempt been made with monitors of brain wave activity? I have not >seen such online. Did you not read the NEJM piece Rafal posted a link to? Flat EEG. Nothing happening. Nothing for it to happen to. >My mother was in a coma for a month and a half, and when she came out >of it she was in similar condition: she could not speak, could barely >move, she had almost entirely lost her memory of her life since >childhood and when she was able to speak after several months of >intensive speech therapy and round the clock attention, was convinced >she was married to a different man named "Frank" and that we were not >her 'real' children, and when she came home she was convinced it was >not her home. It took an immense amount of work to bring her back to >her normal self. Okay, that explains your strange take on this sad story. But you do agree that there's a difference between coma with brain damage, and flatline EEG with loss of most or all cortex? I can understand some Xians getting all worked up about this case, since they might believe that the living, thinking, feeling identity of Terry S. resides in her inviolate non-material soul, which is presumably still hovering around her brain stem. Few on this list would accept such an understanding. Of course there is no valid comparison with a cryonically suspended human, although that comparison has sometimes been drawn (but not, I feel sure, by the weeping faithful keeping vigil). Such a dead body is also flatlined, but the brain has not been significantly eaten away, just stopped. Future science might revive those frozen neurons, but they have to be there in the first place. Someone might eventually clone a Terri twin, but her history would of course be utterly different. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 01:15:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:15:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Final thought on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050328003112.25439.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050328011518.93538.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > I don't care about the institution of marriage, but power of attorney > mean something. Her husband does have POA. > If he says his wife wanted to die then we have to take him at his > word, since no foul play has been documented--instead there are > merely rumors. > Mike, did the husband ever mention suspension? Did he say he doesn't > want Terry suspended? > Not merely rumors, there are documented records that her blood chemistry was thrown off after each of a number of his visits in a way which could only be explained by injections of potassium chloride, which would have exacerbated her condition to what it is today. If he specifically says he does want her cremated then it logically follows that he does not want her suspended. > Mike Lorrey wrote: > Not only does he not want her suspended, he specifically wants her > cremated and is fighting against requests by her parents that she be > autopsied after her death. It is extremely fishy. > > --- Al Brooks wrote: > > Has anyone thought to ask Schiavo if he would let his > > wife be cryonically suspended, that is to say if > > someone else were to fund it? > > It would be the greatest publicity to h+; more so than > > Ted Williams. > > It's not too late, there's perhaps a day left. > > > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > It is pretty standard practice in such cases to do > > > the necessary tests. > > > There is no way that any competent hospital would > > > fail to perform or > > > court fail to have performed the needed tests to > > > determine the > > > patient's prognosis, especially in a case this > > > publicized and > > > politicized. If you have proof otherwise then it > > > is your burden to > > > present it if you want to make such claims without > > > looking like a > > > complete crank. > > > > > > - samantha > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > > > Schiavo's responsiveness > > > >> is > > > >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > > > Hawking. Stephen just > > > >> has a > > > >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn > > > to use to make > > > >> himself > > > >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied the > > > same opportunities > > > >> by > > > >>> her husband and remains in a condition that > > > Stephen would be in > > > >> today > > > >>> given a similar level of neglect. > > > >> > > > >> This is the most empty and baseless assertion i > > > believe I have ever > > > >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest minds > > > of our age to a > > > >> woman > > > >> who by every test we can administer is mentally > > > unfortunately little > > > >> more than a vegetable shows a patent disregard of > > > reality. Why are > > > >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring > > > everything we know and > > > >> can > > > >> test? > > > > > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that > > > Terri is brain dead, > > > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations > > > only of her husbands > > > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert > > > medical witnesses (who > > > > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > > > > > > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > > > capacity. A fellow who has > > > > the technology to test not only her mental > > > capacity but whether she > > > > wants to live or not is currently under legal > > > consideration, and the > > > > judge is ticked that nobody told him about this > > > before. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > _______________________________________________ > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 01:22:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:22:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328012225.4572.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: My own experience with my mother proves to me that someone can come back from the very edge of tissue liquefaction, regain their memories and personality. > I can understand some Xians getting all worked up about this case, > since > they might believe that the living, thinking, feeling identity of > Terry S. > resides in her inviolate non-material soul, which is presumably still > hovering around her brain stem. Few on this list would accept such an > understanding. I would think that, given what we know of some cases of person who have lost immense amounts of brain tissue but are still functional cognizant human beings, that the potential for future technology to regenerate destroyed brain tissue would be commonly accepted here. > > Of course there is no valid comparison with a cryonically suspended > human, although that comparison has sometimes been drawn (but not, > I feel sure, by the weeping faithful keeping vigil). Such a dead > body is also flatlined, but the brain has not been significantly > eaten away, just stopped. Future science might revive those frozen > neurons, but they have to be there in the first place. Someone might > eventually clone a Terri twin, but her history would of course be > utterly different. I seem to recall that Robert Anton Wilson's daughter is frozen at Alcor with a rather serious amount of brain damage that is currently considered unrepairable today. It does not seem to me that list participants are domonstrating an apropriate level of optimistic extropian zanshin. 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 Mon Mar 28 01:49:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Quoting Mike Lorrey : > > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion that Terri is brain > dead, > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all characterizations only of her > husbands > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid expert medical witnesses > (who > > will say whatever you want for the right fee). > > ### See for example: > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0324brain-damaged-excerpts24-ON.html >From your cited page: Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist representing Terri Schiavo's parents, who examined her under the appellate court order in 2002: "In a PVS patient, a vegetative state patient, they will have maybe a brief glance towards the area from that orienting reflex followed by random eye movements in all different directions with no response, no facial response, no attempting to fixate with her eyes. ... She is absolutely responding to her mother. ... There's no doubt. She is definitely aware of her mother.... "She is communicating already. She is communicating through following instructions. She is communicating through gaze preferences towards people. ...She has the ability of language. "No, she is not in a persistent vegetative state. ... She is severely injured. She was a medical survivor to another physician. I would say that she is expressively aphasic, that means she has lost the power to speak. ...She clearly understands some things. She is like spinal cord victim Christopher Reeves." --- Dr. William Maxfield, a radiologist retained by Terri Schiavo's parents, who reviewed her brain scans and visited with her at least three times, said he did not think she was in a persistent vegetative state. He compared scans that were done in 1996 to pictures taken in the summer of 2002: "The brain tissue on the '02 study has a more normal appearance than it did on the 1996 study. ... There can be some regeneration of brain tissue." Asked if that meant she had more brain in 2002 than in 1996: "I wouldn't put it in terms of actually more brain. I would say that the brain that we see is more normal in pattern than on the '96 study. ... In looking at the brain we do not have any large areas of absent localization which would indicate total non-function or, and/or, absence of blood flow to that area. "In my opinion, there's a significant probability that she would improve with hyperbaric oxygen therapy based on what I have seen in the CT of the brain, the SPECT scan, and my observation and examination of the patient." > > Mike, I have the impression you have used some big words ("brain > dead", "coma") without first checking what they mean. Schiavo is not > brain dead, and nobody claimed that. She is not in a coma. If you > knew the meaning of these > words, you wouldn't have used them (all you need is one look at the > her photo). > As all court-appointed physicians agree, she is in PVS. Which court appointed physicians are these? There are four representing her husband, and two representing her parents. 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon Mar 28 02:06:30 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:06:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424766A6.4090106@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >"In my opinion, there's a significant probability that she would >improve with hyperbaric oxygen therapy based on what I have seen in the >CT of the brain, the SPECT scan, and my observation and examination of >the patient." > Mike, Mike, Mike... you're letting your personal experience cloud your better judgement here, I fear. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, for which your Dr. William Maxfield (whom you cite as the source of the above quote), is quackery. And people who endorse and espouse quackery are... well... quacks. See, for example: http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Hyperbaric-O2/ Maxfield's testamony, by the way, was directly contradicted in the same hearing by Dr. Ronald Cranford, who seems to be somewhat more of a mainstream physician (not advocating fringe quackery therapies, at least). See http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/cda/article_print/0,1983,NPDN_14910_3648895_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.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 PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ From sentience at pobox.com Mon Mar 28 02:32:53 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:32:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050327184424.01df3138@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050327184424.01df3138@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <42476CD5.6070303@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Of course there is no valid comparison with a cryonically suspended > human, although that comparison has sometimes been drawn (but not, I > feel sure, by the weeping faithful keeping vigil). Such a dead body is > also flatlined, but the brain has not been significantly eaten away, > just stopped. Future science might revive those frozen neurons, but they > have to be there in the first place. Someone might eventually clone a > Terri twin, but her history would of course be utterly different. Even if the cerebral cortex is severely atrophied, there might be enough data there to reconstruct Schiavo. It's not a question of biological healing, but a question of information theory, as I once said of cryonics also. If I were Schiavo's husband I would not keep her on the feeding tube. I'd remove the feeding tube, wait for clinical death (damn the law), and then freeze Schiavo immediately before any further atrophy occurred - as should have been done years ago. If that wasn't possible for some reason, I would keep Schiavo on the feeding tube and hope an SI could reconstruct her. I once thought of calling what I served the "ethos of life". I guess the "culture of life" business has ruined that terminology for public usage. Yet life is worth serving. Where there's intelligence there's hope. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon Mar 28 02:45:56 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:45:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Allowing drug companies to market enhancements Message-ID: <42476FE4.3000404@humanenhancement.com> Apologies for cross-posting... Currently, the FDA forbids drug manufacturers from touting the potential "non-medical" (i.e., enhancement-related) benefits of their products. This results in there being little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials of enhancement-related effects of drugs, which in turn is potentially dangerous since people seeking enhancement effects have no clear guidelines in terms of dosages, etc. Right now, if a company comes up with an Alzheimers' drug that also helps memory in healthy people, that second effect can't be advertised, and won't be fully investigated by the company because of it. I'm kicking around an idea to set up an effort to lobby the FDA to change this pratice, allowing pharmaceutical companies to market their products for non-medical uses. In essence, that same drug company could advertise its new drug as being effective for memory enhancement, assuming it went through clinical trials equivalent to those necessary to prove its effectiveness in treating disease. I'm not advocating cutting any safety corners; exactly the opposite. Just give drug companies the opportunity to market their products for uses other than merely treating disease; force them to perform rigorous clinical trials, but let them publish guidelines for safe use. Let them help us be "better than well". My question is, would you support such an effort? Any ideas as to how to go about it most effectively? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Mar 28 02:47:44 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:47:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <424766A6.4090106@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <001601c53340$85094d30$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Joseph Bloch" > Mike Lorrey wrote: > Mike, Mike, Mike... you're letting your personal experience cloud your > better judgement here, I fear. > Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, for which your > Dr. William Maxfield (whom you > cite as the source of the above quote), > is quackery. And people who > endorse and espouse quackery are... well... > quacks.> See, for example: > > http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Hyperbaric-O2/ Also, Quackwatch is good when you want to do some research on these "alternative" therapies: http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=hyperbaric Olga From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 23:31:34 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:31:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:50:31 -0500 (EST), Rik van Riel wrote: > Aside from the regular stories about war lords in Somalia, the > BBC has some very nice articles about how exactly the economy > works without any government. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/somalia/default.stm > > This should be a nice discussion point for free marketeers > and minarchists - apparently it is good to have some government. Some interesting articles related to this: "Anarchy and Invention: How Does Somalia's Private Sector Cope Without Government?" http://rru.worldbank.org/PapersLinks/Open.aspx?id=3762 (the table comparing Somalia's development and living standards to neighboring countries is particularly interesting) "Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm "Is Somalia a Model?" http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b042903.html "The Answer for Africa" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/parker1.html "Ancap Mog: So Close Yet So Far?" http://www.anti-state.com/bigwood/bigwood1.html "Somalia thriving despite war and neglect" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/896517.stm "Anarcho-Capitalism in Somalia" http://ragingcapitalist.blogdrive.com/archive/14.html From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 28 04:51:29 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:51:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals >> defend >>> themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing >> so, >>> they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which >> must >>> be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them. >> >> Her husband is such an individual.As others pointed out he spend >> years clinging to hope. > > The only hope I have heard him express is that she was going to die > sooner on her own. Before he claimed she wante to die, he was witnessed > by multiple nurses asking "When is that bitch gonna die?" After n years of this torment I would not be surprised by such a comment. > >> as others pointed out there is no money that he is selfishly >> attempting to do her in for. He finally came to the point of >> letting go. By rights it was his sad decision to make. Why are his >> rights being ignored? Why are you here heaping aspersions and >> contempt on this man you do not know? > > The guy spent half the money on attorneys rather than her care. What > does that say to you? That spent half of her money on convincing the > state to kill her for him. Since there was nothing left to do it says that he has had to fight simply to exercise the right that it looks like he had to say enough is enough. > >> >>> >>> Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by >> anyone >>> but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in >> the sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a >> desire until she was a good ten years into her current condition. >> >> None of that is at all uncommon. > > Maybe not uncommon, but it still isn't of sufficient legal weight to > justify killing someone. You certainly can't send someone to death row > on such a flimsy case. Killing someone is your baseless interpretation. The guy hung on for three years beyond the point that medical consensus said it was hopeless before attempting to finally let go as he claims his wife had wanted. This is hardly indicative of some murderous scoundrel like what you are attempting to paint. > >> >>> As there >>> were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a >> living >>> will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide >> as >>> much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her >>> husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her >> true intent is. >> >> For what purpose? She is not here. She has been gone a long time >> now. > > How do you know this? Has any attempt ever been made to repair? No. Has > any attempt been made with monitors of brain wave activity? I have not > seen such online. While i am not a doctor the NEJM article on the case cinched it for he along with what I do know of our current knowledge of the brain. Are you claiming NEJM is part of a plot to murder Schiavo? It would not surprise me after some of your other comments. If not then what allows you to still imply this condition is treatable and insist that murder is being committed if the state stops the support of an empty shell? > > In fact, I have seen online some images on the imminst.org forum of a > person with similar brain damage whose tissue revived after treatment. > Well it is amazing that you have such expertise as to make a call from your armchair that this case is so much the same. > My mother was in a coma for a month and a half, and when she came out > of it she was in similar condition: she could not speak, could barely > move, she had almost entirely lost her memory of her life since > childhood and when she was able to speak after several months of > intensive speech therapy and round the clock attention, was convinced > she was married to a different man named "Frank" and that we were not > her 'real' children, and when she came home she was convinced it was > not her home. It took an immense amount of work to bring her back to > her normal self. I didn't work for 8 months solid outside of caring for > her. > > I now understand why this is so important to you and sympathize. However your mother was not in PVS for years and you cannot draw direct parallels. > > > Once again, I am brought to the conclusion that a number of list > members here are suffering from a severe lack of dynamic optimism. > Unfortunately, I don't know how to cure that either. > > There is nothing dynamic or optimistic about beating a dead horse or force-feeding a flat-lined patient. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Mar 28 05:00:49 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:00:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Allowing drug companies to market enhancements In-Reply-To: <42476FE4.3000404@humanenhancement.com> References: <42476FE4.3000404@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4d5370370315fcb3f42996b6dd692fea@mac.com> i would support getting the government out of this business altogether. Private underwriters should be able to address the safety concerns. - samantha On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Apologies for cross-posting... > > Currently, the FDA forbids drug manufacturers from touting the > potential "non-medical" (i.e., enhancement-related) benefits of their > products. This results in there being little incentive for > pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials of enhancement-related > effects of drugs, which in turn is potentially dangerous since people > seeking enhancement effects have no clear guidelines in terms of > dosages, etc. > > Right now, if a company comes up with an Alzheimers' drug that also > helps memory in healthy people, that second effect can't be > advertised, and won't be fully investigated by the company because of > it. > > I'm kicking around an idea to set up an effort to lobby the FDA to > change this pratice, allowing pharmaceutical companies to market their > products for non-medical uses. In essence, that same drug company > could advertise its new drug as being effective for memory > enhancement, assuming it went through clinical trials equivalent to > those necessary to prove its effectiveness in treating disease. > > I'm not advocating cutting any safety corners; exactly the opposite. > Just give drug companies the opportunity to market their products for > uses other than merely treating disease; force them to perform > rigorous clinical trials, but let them publish guidelines for safe > use. Let them help us be "better than well". > > My question is, would you support such an effort? Any ideas as to how > to go about it most effectively? > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Mar 28 05:23:24 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:23:24 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > On 3/26/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>You can bet on anything you can get judges to decide, which is >>>>pretty much anything. The question is how well that judge >>>>decision correlates with the real dispute you are having. >>>seems to me equivalent of setting up a bet with a panel of judges >>>who might be Muslims or lunatics or might not, testing the assertion >>>that men who die faithful obtain the services of 72 virgins, ..... >> >>Do you think that there are issues involved that are outside the >>domains of science, logic and language? If so I'd like to know >>what you think those are? ... the question "can cryonics work?" is not >>at all a stupid one. ... why they would think that it would >>be excessively difficult to find judges that could consider logical >>arguments from advocates on both sides of the case fairly. ... > If people were fair, reasonable, logical, and rational no matter what > the topic or incentive context, well then they would just agree all the > time about most everything, and bets would be few and of little use. Perhaps. Perhaps people still run into limitations such as how many items they can hold in there heads at once. Then bets can serve as insurance and hedging tools. > The whole reason that betting markets are interesting is that > people are not usually reasonable, and so the incentives of a bet > can make them more reasonable. But if people are usually > unreasonable we can't just give them random topics and expect > them to judge fairly. We have to be selective and pick topics > and contexts where even unreasonable people would find it hard > to judge very unfairly. Yet we have legal systems that handle this sort of stuff. Judges judge law and rule on the admissability of evidence etc, and juries judge facts. This despite that most people are unreasonable some of the time. We take the issues that matter to us to the courts (because we have no choice) not just the issues that we think the courts are not too dumb to avoid stuffing up. > Before a horse race, it is easy to deceive yourself about which is the > better horse. Pick .. random judges then, and they might easily make > biased judgments that favor themselves (like favoring the horse from > their state or with a name they like.) After the race it is much harder > to deceive yourself about who won the race. So, we can give people > incentives to be honest before the race by having them bet on what > judges will say afterward about who won the race. Robin, I do follow what you are saying, but I can't help but notice that in your choices about what you respond to you are moving us further away from a specific bet about cryonics and more towards general stuff about betting. I haven't closed down any avenues towards us formulating a specific bet on cryonics, I've been willing to look at ways to accommodate your concerns, but the open questions I ask you you've so far ignored. I asked for instance if you would "care to define any terms in Hal's bet as you like and then assign a probability and we'll see if our disagreement is in an area other than identity?" and "How do you read "substantially" identical memories and personality for instance?" If you'd answered *those* questions we would have been able to move closer to a shared understanding about what we agree and don't agree on and we might have been able to move closer to formulating a bet. Similarly if you'd asked a question of me I could have answered it. You seem to be moving us away from rather than towards a specific bet on cryonics. That is your right, but is it intentional? Do you want to avoid such a bet? That is the impression that I am getting. It seems to me that often when people disagree on stuff and end up 'agreeing to disagree' it may be that one or the other of them has unilaterally decided to back away from the subject matter that is under dispute. Is that happening here? Regards, Brett Paatsch From matus at matus1976.com Mon Mar 28 05:51:10 2005 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:51:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Allowing drug companies to market enhancements In-Reply-To: <4d5370370315fcb3f42996b6dd692fea@mac.com> Message-ID: <004c01c5335a$27fecb50$6401a8c0@hplaptop> Whats this, a member of the extropian list proposing doing something? Mike Lorrey, did you catch this? Samantha, of course most of us would like to see the government get their noses out of the pharmaceutical business, but as a practical step toward an improvement, it seems like a good goal. Joe, I would definitely support it, but I have no idea how to go about doing such a thing. I am currently employed at Pfizer's central research headquarters and personally know some directors and sr. directors who might be able to suggest a course of action, I'll drop them an email. Keep me posted on your efforts. Michael Dickey > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:01 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Allowing drug companies to market enhancements > > i would support getting the government out of this business altogether. > Private underwriters should be able to address the safety concerns. > > - samantha > > On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > Apologies for cross-posting... > > > > Currently, the FDA forbids drug manufacturers from touting the > > potential "non-medical" (i.e., enhancement-related) benefits of their > > products. This results in there being little incentive for > > pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials of enhancement-related > > effects of drugs, which in turn is potentially dangerous since people > > seeking enhancement effects have no clear guidelines in terms of > > dosages, etc. > > > > Right now, if a company comes up with an Alzheimers' drug that also > > helps memory in healthy people, that second effect can't be > > advertised, and won't be fully investigated by the company because of > > it. > > > > I'm kicking around an idea to set up an effort to lobby the FDA to > > change this pratice, allowing pharmaceutical companies to market their > > products for non-medical uses. In essence, that same drug company > > could advertise its new drug as being effective for memory > > enhancement, assuming it went through clinical trials equivalent to > > those necessary to prove its effectiveness in treating disease. > > > > I'm not advocating cutting any safety corners; exactly the opposite. > > Just give drug companies the opportunity to market their products for > > uses other than merely treating disease; force them to perform > > rigorous clinical trials, but let them publish guidelines for safe > > use. Let them help us be "better than well". > > > > My question is, would you support such an effort? Any ideas as to how > > to go about it most effectively? > > > > Joseph > > > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > > http://www.humanenhancement.com > > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.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 fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Mar 28 05:54:18 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:54:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Genome Project Message-ID: <000c01c5335a$9536b1b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/health/28cancer.html?hp&ex=1112072400&en=e1f5e3e46bd5feb4&ei=5094&partner=homepage March 28, 2005 In Battling Cancer, a Genome Project Is Proposed By ANDREW POLLACK pening a new front in the battle against cancer, federal officials are planning to compile a complete catalog of the genetic abnormalities that characterize it. The proposed Human Cancer Genome Project, as it is being called for now, would be greater in scale than the Human Genome Project, which mapped the human genetic blueprint. It would seek to determine the DNA sequence of thousands of tumor samples, looking for mutations that give rise to cancer or sustain it. Proponents say a databank of all such mutations, which would be freely available to researchers, would provide invaluable clues for developing new ways to diagnose, treat and prevent cancer. "Knowing the defects of the cancer cell points you to the Achilles' heel of tumors," said Dr. Eric S. Lander, director of the Broad Institute, a genetic research center in Cambridge, Mass., that is affiliated with Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The project would cost roughly $1.35 billion over nine years, but where the money will come from is still uncertain. For now, the government is likely to start with some smaller pilot projects, officials said. Some scientists are dubious about the cost and are concerned that a big science project could take money away from smaller ones run by individual scientists. Dr. J. Craig Venter, who led a private project to determine the human DNA blueprint in competition with the Human Genome Project, said it would make more sense to look at specific families of genes known to be involved in cancer. "Diverting a billion or two dollars from other areas of research when it's not clear what answer we'd get, there might be better ways to move cancer research forward," Dr. Venter said. But Dr. Lander and other proponents say the time is right for such an effort because the Human Genome Project has provided the underlying human DNA sequence with which tumor cells can be compared. In addition, the cost of sequencing is dropping. And discoveries of individual cancer-related genes have already helped lead to new drug therapies. The proposal, presented last month to an advisory committee to the National Cancer Institute, was drawn up by a group led by Dr. Lander and Dr. Leland H. Hartwell, a Nobel laureate who is president of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Drafters included Dr. Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Bruce Stillman, president of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island. Dr. Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said the project could "completely change how we approach cancer." Leaders of two agencies within the National Institutes of Health that would likely take the lead in financing the project said they were eager to go ahead. "We are committed to do the sequencing of the cancer genomes," Dr. Anna D. Barker, deputy director for advanced technologies and strategic partnerships at the National Cancer Institute, said in an interview. "What we're trying to do is accelerate progress against this disease." Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said, "I can confidently tell you that something will happen here." The federal officials and Dr. Lander acknowledged that finding money for the project would be difficult in a time of tight budgets. They said that new money would probably have to be appropriated by Congress and that the pharmaceutical industry might contribute because the information would be useful for drug development. The project, which might end up with a different name, would determine the sequence of the DNA in at least 12,500 tumor samples, 250 samples from each of 50 major types of cancer. By comparing the order of the letters of the genetic code in the tumor samples with one another and with sequences in healthy tissue, it should be possible to pinpoint mutations responsible for cancer. But the proposition is extremely daunting. In general, each tumor cell holds a full panoply of human DNA, a string of three billion letters of the genetic code. So determining the full sequence of all the tumors would be the equivalent of 12,500 human genome projects. At a cost of many millions of dollars for one genome, the full project would be out of the question for now. So the cancer proposal for now is to sequence only the active genes in tumors, which make up 1 percent to 2 percent of the DNA, Dr. Lander said. Even that would require at least 100 times as much sequencing as the Human Genome Project. The work would cost nearly $1 million per tumor sample today, or a total of about $12.5 billion, according to the committee's proposal. The estimated cost of $1.35 billion is based on an expectation that sequencing costs will decline to one-tenth of what they are now in the next few years. The Human Genome Project, now all but complete, cost $3 billion, but only about $300 million was spent on the actual DNA sequencing, with the rest going to development of technology. "The technology available today would not be up to the task of doing this entire project," said Dr. Lander, who was a leader of the Human Genome Project. But he added, "The cost of sequencing is dropping enough that this is no longer unthinkable." Indeed, he and Dr. Collins said, the project would promote further improvements in sequencing and show that it is still a useful technology. "Some people have assumed that the genome project was over and sequencing wasn't worth investing in," said Dr. Collins, whose institute financed most of the Human Genome Project. The Broad Institute, Dr. Lander's group, is a major DNA sequencing center and would presumably be a candidate for contracts for the cancer genome project. Many of the other people on the committee that put together the proposal represent institutions that might also receive grants from it. There have already been some notable successes in using information about mutations to fight cancer, which is really a class of diseases in which cells in the body grow out of control because of the accumulation of mutations. While some of these mutations are inherited, most occur after a person is born. Most cases of chronic myelogenous leukemia, a blood cancer, are caused by a particular chromosomal defect that leads to production of an aberrant protein. The drug Gleevec, which is designed to block this protein, has had remarkable success against this disease. Scientists have since found other genetic mutations that confer resistance to Gleevec, and companies are now using such information to design drugs to overcome that resistance. The lung cancer drug Iressa can be very effective, but only in about 10 percent of patients who use it. Last year, scientists discovered that the drug seemed to work best in people whose tumors have mutations in a particular gene. Just in the last few days, researchers led by Dr. D. Gary Gilliland of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and Harvard reported that three types of leukemia appear to be caused by mutations in the same gene. There are already some smaller projects under way looking for mutations, either in a particular type of cancer or in particular types of genes. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Britain, a major participant in the Human Genome Project, has had a cancer genome program for several years. It has discovered a particular mutation in about two-thirds of cases of melanoma, a deadly skin cancer. Scientists at Johns Hopkins University have unraveled some genetic changes involved in the origin of colon cancer. They are now working with Perlegen Sciences, a genomics company in California, on a comprehensive genetic scan of colorectal tumors. But backers of the cancer genome project say faster progress could be made with one big, coordinated effort. And they say that despite the progress so far, scientists understand only a minority of the genetic changes involved in cancer. There are other potential obstacles besides the cost of sequencing. One would be distinguishing which mutations are important, because many of those found would have nothing to do with cancer. The proposal says researchers should focus on mutations that occur in at least 5 percent of tumors of a certain type. Yet another problem is that tumors can mutate so rapidly that two cells in the same tumor may have different mutations. So some mutations may be missed, depending which cells are used for the genetic analysis. "We can spend $2 billion on something and get a lot of data, but I'm not convinced it will do us much good," said Dr. Garth Anderson, an expert on cancer genetics at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. And in some cases cancer is caused not by changes in the sequence of DNA but by so-called epigenetic changes, in which the attachment of a chemical to DNA turns off a gene. "To concentrate only on mutations, you might pick up 50 percent of what you need to know or even less about what goes into the initiation and maintenance of cancer," said Dr. Stephen B. Baylin, a professor of oncology and medicine at Johns Hopkins. The proposal for the project does mention looking for epigenetic changes, but says the technology to study them is not well developed. Supporters of the project say that the barriers can be overcome and that the project should proceed. "Whether it's practical, whether it's doable, how much it costs, I take that out of the picture," said Dr. Brian Druker, a professor at the Oregon Health and Science University who helped develop Gleevec and also served on the committee that drew up the proposal for the cancer genome project. "These are the starting blocks that we need to develop a cure." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: o.gif Type: image/gif Size: 373 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 06:59:38 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:59:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328065938.99654.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > Aside from the regular stories about war lords in > Somalia, the BBC has some very nice articles about > how exactly the economy works without any > government. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/somalia/default.stm > > This should be a nice discussion point for free > marketeers and minarchists - apparently it is good > to have some government. As per the subject heading, I don't think zero government, or anarchy, equates to "free market." The concept of free markets is classically predicated on existence of (1) private property, (2) contract law, and (3) tort liability. Most free-market advocates presume as a given that these conditions are to be safeguarded by an established and stable minimal state with few if any duties there beyond. As such, anarcho Somalia is not a proper example of what is classically referred to by the term "free market." ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tankdoc at adelphia.net Mon Mar 28 07:24:19 2005 From: tankdoc at adelphia.net (tankdoc) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:24:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo References: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000601c53367$287dac60$5d52eb44@firstbase> There would have been much much more money left in the settlement had Mr. Schiavo been succesfull on his first attempt to have his wife killed - 10 years ago. Thats when the legal battles began. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> > The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals >> defend >> > themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing >> so, >> > they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which >> must >> > be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them. >> >> Her husband is such an individual.As others pointed out he spend >> years clinging to hope. > > The only hope I have heard him express is that she was going to die > sooner on her own. Before he claimed she wante to die, he was witnessed > by multiple nurses asking "When is that bitch gonna die?" > >> as others pointed out there is no money that he is selfishly >> attempting to do her in for. He finally came to the point of >> letting go. By rights it was his sad decision to make. Why are his >> rights being ignored? Why are you here heaping aspersions and >> contempt on this man you do not know? > > The guy spent half the money on attorneys rather than her care. What > does that say to you? That spent half of her money on convincing the > state to kill her for him. > >> >> > >> > Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by >> anyone >> > but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in >> the sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a >> desire until she was a good ten years into her current condition. >> >> None of that is at all uncommon. > > Maybe not uncommon, but it still isn't of sufficient legal weight to > justify killing someone. You certainly can't send someone to death row > on such a flimsy case. > >> >> > As there >> > were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a >> living >> > will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide >> as >> > much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her >> > husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her >> true intent is. >> >> For what purpose? She is not here. She has been gone a long time >> now. > > How do you know this? Has any attempt ever been made to repair? No. Has > any attempt been made with monitors of brain wave activity? I have not > seen such online. > > In fact, I have seen online some images on the imminst.org forum of a > person with similar brain damage whose tissue revived after treatment. > > My mother was in a coma for a month and a half, and when she came out > of it she was in similar condition: she could not speak, could barely > move, she had almost entirely lost her memory of her life since > childhood and when she was able to speak after several months of > intensive speech therapy and round the clock attention, was convinced > she was married to a different man named "Frank" and that we were not > her 'real' children, and when she came home she was convinced it was > not her home. It took an immense amount of work to bring her back to > her normal self. I didn't work for 8 months solid outside of caring for > her. > > She suffered a significant amount of brain damage from that drug > induced coma and the systemic infection due to her ruptured stomach. > Some might recall my asking for some feedback on this list back then on > different issues, one having to do with swelling of her brain due to > electrolyte imbalances which were really touch and go for a while. At > no time could you have told me that she was no longer herself. > > Once again, I am brought to the conclusion that a number of list > members here are suffering from a severe lack of dynamic optimism. > Unfortunately, I don't know how to cure that either. > > 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 From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 28 07:40:46 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:40:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu> <037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050328023737.02bcdbf8@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:23 AM 3/28/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Robin, I do follow what you are saying, but I can't help but notice that >in your choices about what you respond to you are moving us further >away from a specific bet about cryonics and more towards general >stuff about betting. I haven't closed down any avenues towards us >formulating a specific bet on cryonics, I've been willing to look >at ways to accommodate your concerns, but the open questions I ask you >you've so far ignored. For the reason's I've given, I'm not very interested in working with you to specify a bet on whether a revived cryonics patient is "really" the same person. I am more interested in the general issues about betting. 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 iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 08:07:58 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:07:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics Message-ID: <20050328080758.77870.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> scerir wrote: > In algebra (or algebra of operators) > there is something called non-distributivity: > (AxBxC) =/= Ax(BxC) =/= (AxB)xC. > (Non-distributivity is different from > non-commutativity). I'm not sure what you mean. If by 'x' you mean the multiplication operator, then what you're showing is not true. Using '*' for multiplication, it is the case that (a*b*c) = a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c because multiplication is associative. It's also commutative a*b*c = b*c*a = c*a*b and distributive over addition a*(b + c + ... + n) = a*b + a*c + ... + a*n > Is there a non-standard logic reproducing, > somehow, a property like this? Some classic-logic operators such as AND (&) and OR (v) like multiplication are also commutative and associative such that (where '::' indicates that the lefthand statement can be replaced without a loss of meaning by the righthand statement and visa versa): P & Q & R :: Q & R & P P v Q v R :: R v P v Q P & (Q & R) :: (P & Q) & R P v (Q v R) :: (P v Q) v R There are also distributive properties: P & (Q v R) :: (P & Q) v (P & R) P v (Q & R) :: (P v Q) & (P v R) and for the IF-THEN operator '->' here: P -> (Q v R) :: (P -> Q) v (P -> R) P -> (Q & R) :: (P -> Q) & (P -> R) ~Ian __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Mar 28 08:45:03 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:45:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu><037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050328023737.02bcdbf8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <03bd01c53372$6f705bd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:23 AM 3/28/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>Robin, I do follow what you are saying, but I can't help but notice that >>in your choices about what you respond to you are moving us further >>away from a specific bet about cryonics and more towards general >>stuff about betting. I haven't closed down any avenues towards us >>formulating a specific bet on cryonics, I've been willing to look >>at ways to accommodate your concerns, but the open questions I ask you >>you've so far ignored. > > For the reason's I've given, I'm not very interested in working with you > to specify a bet on whether a revived cryonics patient is "really" the > same person. I am more interested in the general issues about betting. Fair enough. As your papers already contain a lot of material on general issues I am less interested in revisiting those same issues. In practice it seems that that, a difference in commitment or interest towards different issues, perhaps because of a higher interest in other things, is enough for disagreements to persist. Regards, Brett Paatsch From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 08:59:51 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:59:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] go easy on Mr. Schiavo In-Reply-To: <000601c53367$287dac60$5d52eb44@firstbase> Message-ID: <20050328085951.99948.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> I'm not going to say you are wrong however no proof of this allegation exists. You don't back up Schiavo's allegedly attempting to kill Terry ten years ago, or fifteen years ago, or any other time. Schiavo rightly is tired of the circus literally surrounding Terry, and frankly after 21 years of marriage a guy might be tired of Marilyn Monroe herself. I think Schiavo is getting a bad rap, and unless you provide us with hard evidence of him trying to kill his wife you might want to be fair to him... it's merely a suggestion. --- tankdoc wrote: > There would have been much much more money left in > the settlement had Mr. > Schiavo been succesfull on his first attempt to have > his wife killed - 10 > years ago. Thats when the legal battles began. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Lorrey" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:40 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> > The sole legitimate purpose of government is to > help individuals > >> defend > >> > themselves against force or fraud. If they are > incapable of doing > >> so, > >> > they must be the ward of another individual, or > the state, which > >> must > >> > be held responsible for any force or fraud that > befalls them. > >> > >> Her husband is such an individual.As others > pointed out he spend > >> years clinging to hope. > > > > The only hope I have heard him express is that she > was going to die > > sooner on her own. Before he claimed she wante to > die, he was witnessed > > by multiple nurses asking "When is that bitch > gonna die?" > > > >> as others pointed out there is no money that he > is selfishly > >> attempting to do her in for. He finally came to > the point of > >> letting go. By rights it was his sad decision to > make. Why are his > >> rights being ignored? Why are you here heaping > aspersions and > >> contempt on this man you do not know? > > > > The guy spent half the money on attorneys rather > than her care. What > > does that say to you? That spent half of her money > on convincing the > > state to kill her for him. > > > >> > >> > > >> > Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never > was witnessed by > >> anyone > >> > but her husband to have expressed a desire to > not be sustained in > >> the sort of condition she is in, and even he > never mentioned such a > >> desire until she was a good ten years into her > current condition. > >> > >> None of that is at all uncommon. > > > > Maybe not uncommon, but it still isn't of > sufficient legal weight to > > justify killing someone. You certainly can't send > someone to death row > > on such a flimsy case. > > > >> > >> > As there > >> > were no other witnesses, and no signed contract > in the form of a > >> living > >> > will, the default choice should be to sustain > her life and provide > >> as > >> > much therapy to improve her condition as > possible, therapy that her > >> > husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to > determine what her > >> true intent is. > >> > >> For what purpose? She is not here. She has been > gone a long time > >> now. > > > > How do you know this? Has any attempt ever been > made to repair? No. Has > > any attempt been made with monitors of brain wave > activity? I have not > > seen such online. > > > > In fact, I have seen online some images on the > imminst.org forum of a > > person with similar brain damage whose tissue > revived after treatment. > > > > My mother was in a coma for a month and a half, > and when she came out > > of it she was in similar condition: she could not > speak, could barely > > move, she had almost entirely lost her memory of > her life since > > childhood and when she was able to speak after > several months of > > intensive speech therapy and round the clock > attention, was convinced > > she was married to a different man named "Frank" > and that we were not > > her 'real' children, and when she came home she > was convinced it was > > not her home. It took an immense amount of work to > bring her back to > > her normal self. I didn't work for 8 months solid > outside of caring for > > her. > > > > She suffered a significant amount of brain damage > from that drug > > induced coma and the systemic infection due to her > ruptured stomach. > > Some might recall my asking for some feedback on > this list back then on > > different issues, one having to do with swelling > of her brain due to > > electrolyte imbalances which were really touch and > go for a while. At > > no time could you have told me that she was no > longer herself. > > > > Once again, I am brought to the conclusion that a > number of list > > members here are suffering from a severe lack of > dynamic optimism. > > Unfortunately, I don't know how to cure that > either. > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 09:11:45 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Final thought on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050328011518.93538.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050328091145.93110.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Were the records shown to judges? Was there any probable cause to give Schiavo a polygraph? An allegation remains so until there is a conviction, or you have documentation yourself you can show us. If you handed us a plastic-wrapped syringe with potassium chloride in it plus Schiavo's fingerprints on it, then we would listen. Show us a paper with a signed confession from Schiavo, then we'd listen. Sounds right now like a fringe rumor backed up with circumstantial evidence & cooked documents. > there are documented records that > her blood > chemistry was thrown off after each of a number of > his visits in a way > which could only be explained by injections of > potassium chloride, > which would have exacerbated her condition to what > it is today. > > If he specifically says he does want her cremated > then it logically > follows that he does not want her suspended. > > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Not only does he not want her suspended, he > specifically wants her > > cremated and is fighting against requests by her > parents that she be > > autopsied after her death. It is extremely fishy. > > > > --- Al Brooks wrote: > > > Has anyone thought to ask Schiavo if he would > let his > > > wife be cryonically suspended, that is to say if > > > someone else were to fund it? > > > It would be the greatest publicity to h+; more > so than > > > Ted Williams. > > > It's not too late, there's perhaps a day left. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > It is pretty standard practice in such cases > to do > > > > the necessary tests. > > > > There is no way that any competent hospital > would > > > > fail to perform or > > > > court fail to have performed the needed tests > to > > > > determine the > > > > patient's prognosis, especially in a case this > > > > publicized and > > > > politicized. If you have proof otherwise then > it > > > > is your burden to > > > > present it if you want to make such claims > without > > > > looking like a > > > > complete crank. > > > > > > > > - samantha > > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Mike Lorrey > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Mike Lorrey > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri > > > > Schiavo's responsiveness > > > > >> is > > > > >>> no less than the responsiveness of Stephen > > > > Hawking. Stephen just > > > > >> has a > > > > >>> lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to > learn > > > > to use to make > > > > >> himself > > > > >>> useful in the world. Terri has been denied > the > > > > same opportunities > > > > >> by > > > > >>> her husband and remains in a condition > that > > > > Stephen would be in > > > > >> today > > > > >>> given a similar level of neglect. > > > > >> > > > > >> This is the most empty and baseless > assertion i > > > > believe I have ever > > > > >> seen from you. Comparing one of the finest > minds > > > > of our age to a > > > > >> woman > > > > >> who by every test we can administer is > mentally > > > > unfortunately little > > > > >> more than a vegetable shows a patent > disregard of > > > > reality. Why are > > > > >> you just looking at the outside an ignoring > > > > everything we know and > > > > >> can > > > > >> test? > > > > > > > > > > What is empty and baseless is the assertion > that > > > > Terri is brain dead, > > > > > in a coma, or a vegetable, all > characterizations > > > > only of her husbands > > > > > lawyers and their hand picked and paid > expert > > > > medical witnesses (who > > > > > will say whatever you want for the right > fee). > > > > > > > > > > There HAS BEEN NO TESTING of Terri's mental > > > > capacity. A fellow who has > > > > > the technology to test not only her mental > > > > capacity but whether she > > > > > wants to live or not is currently under > legal > > > > consideration, and the > > > > > judge is ticked that nobody told him about > this > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 09:42:27 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:42:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] conspiracy theories, Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050328091145.93110.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050328094228.78720.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> After reading a hundred books on the JFK assassination it's not clear what sort of conspiracy was involved, yet it is clear anyone can cook up a conspiracy theory if they want. I know a certain Frank S. who was in Dallas 11-22-63, watched the presidential motorcade, and had a gun with him. However S. was fifteen at the time, the gun was a replica he had just purchased, and he watched the motorcade because his high school class turned out that day. There are ways one can think of to start rumors on Schiavo. Get an Xian-extremist psychiatrist to analyze Schiavo's history, interviews and so forth, then falsely pronounce him a murderous psychopath, on psychiatric office stationary, with a brother-in-law notarizing it. Get Dr. Goober the physician to testify under oath the drop of wine placed on Terry's tongue by her husband for Easter had arsenic in it. Maybe the arsenic was a trace amount from a French vineyard. Get Dr. Booger to testify under oath that in 1991 Schiavo put a suspicious capsule into his wife's mouth. Perhaps the capsule was vitamin E. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From neptune at superlink.net Mon Mar 28 12:34:09 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:34:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics References: <20050328080758.77870.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004201c53392$71001600$ca893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, March 28, 2005 3:07 AM Ian Goddard iamgoddard at yahoo.com wrote: >> In algebra (or algebra of operators) >> there is something called non-distributivity: >> (AxBxC) =/= Ax(BxC) =/= (AxB)xC. >> (Non-distributivity is different from >> non-commutativity). > > I'm not sure what you mean. If by 'x' you mean the > multiplication operator, then what you're showing is > not true. Using '*' for multiplication, it is the case > that > > (a*b*c) = a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c > > because multiplication is associative. It's also > commutative > > a*b*c = b*c*a = c*a*b Try that with matrices in general and you'll find they're non-cummutative. Also, one can set up arbitrary algebras where any of these rules fail in the general case. That's why there are algebras that're not commutative -- with matrix algebra as a special case -- and ones that are not associative -- such as Cayley algebras. >> Is there a non-standard logic reproducing, >> somehow, a property like this? > > Some classic-logic operators such as AND (&) and OR > (v) like multiplication are also commutative and > associative such that (where '::' indicates that the > lefthand statement can be replaced without a loss of > meaning by the righthand statement and visa versa): > > P & Q & R :: Q & R & P > > P v Q v R :: R v P v Q > > > P & (Q & R) :: (P & Q) & R > > P v (Q v R) :: (P v Q) v R > > > There are also distributive properties: > > P & (Q v R) :: (P & Q) v (P & R) > > P v (Q & R) :: (P v Q) & (P v R) > > and for the IF-THEN operator '->' here: > > P -> (Q v R) :: (P -> Q) v (P -> R) > > P -> (Q & R) :: (P -> Q) & (P -> R) Modal operators might be an example where commutativity fails. L~P is not the same as ~LP -- where L stands for the "It is necessarily the case that..." Ditto for M~P and ~MP -- where M stands for "It is possibly the case that..." With classical propositional logic (cpl), wouldn't the same be true for ~ and distribution? ~(P & Q) is not the same as (~P) & (~Q) -- think of the case where the truth value of P does not equal the truth value of Q, assuming bivalent logic. In that case, the former statement is true while the latter is false. Regards, Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From benboc at lineone.net Mon Mar 28 13:17:14 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:17:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <200503280451.j2S4pe225531@tick.javien.com> References: <200503280451.j2S4pe225531@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <424803DA.90308@lineone.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: > Ben wrote: >> Hatch an egg? >> >> This made me smile. >> >> Which currently existing animal is going to lay a T-Rex egg? > Crocodile, ostrich, some interim step between those and a dinosaur. > It's going to take several steps. >> Any suggestions? >> >> (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, ducks and pigeons) > Why? Well, i may be wrong about just how big a T-Rex egg would be, but i doubt if any of those birds would be capable of laying one! Assuming that's how it would work, of course. David wrote: > A quick google couldn't get an exact size, but a lot of general > comments about dinosaur eggs being small for the size of the adults. > If an ostrich egg isn't large enough, they will have to make an > artificial egg. This leads me to wonder about the whole thing. something that lays a shelled egg is probably a completely different kettle of, er, fish to produce than, say, a mammal (or a fish). > compared to the rest of the problems I think putting the contents > of a current egg in a tank and adding a lot of extra yolk and/or > egg white would be fairly easy. If they go that route, I think a > crocodile egg may be a good base to start on, they haven't changed > much in long enough that they practically are dinosaurs. Yeah, you might well have to do something like this. Crocodiles pre-date dinosaurs, though, and they are not closely related, despite their looks. I think birds are closer. This might not be a bar on using them, though. Although the fact that crocodiles lay leathery eggs, and afaik, T-Rex laid hard-shelled eggs (not sure about this, though) might introduce complications. I think there's probably a long way to go before we see dinosaurs walking around. Lots of other things, like Thylacenes, Woolly Mammoths, Woolly Rhinos, etc., first. ben From scerir at libero.it Mon Mar 28 13:32:58 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:32:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics References: <20050328080758.77870.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801c5339a$a907fba0$81c01b97@administxl09yj> From: "Ian Goddard" > Using '*' for multiplication, it is the case > that (a*b*c) = a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c > because multiplication is associative. In the '20s P.Jordan turned attention, within the usual QM, from the non-commutative product of operators x*y =/= y*x to the commutative-non-associative product (x*y + y*x) of variables. (Indeed one can see non-associativity as a higher sort of non-commutativity, i.e. the non-commutativity of "left" multiplication with "right" multiplications. And indeed non-associativity might be related to reflexive processes, processes that act on themselves, while associativity might be related to non-reflexive processes.) But Jordan's non-associative product does not have the meaning of "y after x" or "x after y". I was interested exactly in that meaning: "y after x", as a fundamental product representing material processes, concatenations, compositions. In chemistry, i.e., H2(SO4) =/= (H2S)O4. Even in Set Theory [(a,b),c]; [a,(b,c)], [a,b,c] are different objects, due to Cantor set formation rules. Of course there are non-associative algebras (i.e. the algebra of octonions) somehow involved in explaining the internal degree of freedom of quarks, or the strong force, etc. I was asking whether there is something about that at a more abstract level, the level of logic, or non-standard logic. Thanks, s. (In another post I've wrote, perhaps, non-distributivity instead of non-associativity :-) From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 28 13:31:31 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:31:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <03bd01c53372$6f705bd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu> <037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050328023737.02bcdbf8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050328082642.03006080@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:45 PM 28/03/05 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Robin Hanson wrote: snip >>For the reason's I've given, I'm not very interested in working with you >>to specify a bet on whether a revived cryonics patient is "really" the >>same person. I am more interested in the general issues about betting. > >Fair enough. > >As your papers already contain a lot of material on general issues I am >less interested in revisiting those same issues. > >In practice it seems that that, a difference in commitment or interest >towards different issues, perhaps because of a higher interest in other >things, is enough for disagreements to persist. Here is the way to structure winning or losing the bet. Brett signs up for suspension. When and if he is revived, he is asked if he is the same person? If he says yes, then Robin wins the bet. If he says no, Robin loses the bet and the not-Brett thing that says no is immediately killed. [grin] Keith Henson From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 13:36:52 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 05:36:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328133652.76657.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> What would T-Rex be good for-- security at maximum prisons? --- ben wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Ben wrote: > >> Hatch an egg? > >> > >> This made me smile. > >> > >> Which currently existing animal is going to lay > a T-Rex egg? > > > Crocodile, ostrich, some interim step between > those and a dinosaur. > > It's going to take several steps. > > >> Any suggestions? > >> > >> (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, > ducks and pigeons) > > > Why? > > Well, i may be wrong about just how big a T-Rex egg > would be, but i > doubt if any of those birds would be capable of > laying one! > > Assuming that's how it would work, of course. > > David wrote: > > > A quick google couldn't get an exact size, but a > lot of general > > comments about dinosaur eggs being small for the > size of the adults. > > If an ostrich egg isn't large enough, they will > have to make an > > artificial egg. > > This leads me to wonder about the whole thing. > something that lays a > shelled egg is probably a completely different > kettle of, er, fish to > produce than, say, a mammal (or a fish). > > > compared to the rest of the problems I think > putting the contents > > of a current egg in a tank and adding a lot of > extra yolk and/or > > egg white would be fairly easy. If they go that > route, I think a > > crocodile egg may be a good base to start on, > they haven't changed > > much in long enough that they practically are > dinosaurs. > > Yeah, you might well have to do something like this. > > Crocodiles pre-date dinosaurs, though, and they are > not closely related, > despite their looks. I think birds are closer. > This might not be a bar on using them, though. > Although the fact that > crocodiles lay leathery eggs, and afaik, T-Rex laid > hard-shelled eggs > (not sure about this, though) might introduce > complications. > > I think there's probably a long way to go before we > see dinosaurs > walking around. Lots of other things, like > Thylacenes, Woolly Mammoths, > Woolly Rhinos, etc., first. > > ben > _______________________________________________ > 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 13:49:29 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 05:49:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328134930.74407.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> How about PSA that advise those in the lower classes to buy only what they really want, need. I mean to say that advertisers are mesmerisers, subliminal hypnotisers. And don't give it to me that Public Service is a statist conspiracy ------------------------------------------ "Alot of sellers are going to ask you to buy lots of...stuff. But think about it very carefully before you buy" "And, remember, don't wee wee on your Tee Vee" "This message has been brought to you by the National Council Of Responsible Advisors" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Mar 28 14:05:36 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:05:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <03bd01c53372$6f705bd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org> <03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu> <037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050328023737.02bcdbf8@mail.gmu.edu> <03bd01c53372$6f705bd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050328090339.02ccf3a0@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:45 AM 3/28/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >In practice it seems that that, a difference in commitment or interest >towards different issues, perhaps because of a higher interest in other >things, is enough for disagreements to persist. This must be true within the subset of people who are willing to disagree with other similar people, but who would come to agree with time discussing the issue. Not at clear how big a subset of people this is though. People often harden and widen their positions with discussion, after all. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 15:35:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:35:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328153552.40596.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > How about PSA that advise those in the lower classes > to buy only what they really want, need. I mean to say > that advertisers are mesmerisers, subliminal > hypnotisers. And don't give it to me that Public > Service is a statist conspiracy > ------------------------------------------ > "Alot of sellers are going to ask you to buy lots > of...stuff. But think about it very carefully before > you buy" > "And, remember, don't wee wee on your Tee Vee" > > "This message has been brought to you by the > National Council Of Responsible Advisors" You would be sued by every industry association for restraint of trade. The government will say you are trying to trigger a recession. 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 Mon Mar 28 15:48:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:48:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328154808.26848.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Ian Goddard wrote: > --- Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Aside from the regular stories about war lords in > > Somalia, the BBC has some very nice articles about > > how exactly the economy works without any > > government. > > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/somalia/default.stm > > > > This should be a nice discussion point for free > > marketeers and minarchists - apparently it is good > > to have some government. > > > As per the subject heading, I don't think zero > government, or anarchy, equates to "free market." The > concept of free markets is classically predicated on > existence of (1) private property, (2) contract law, > and (3) tort liability. Most free-market advocates > presume as a given that these conditions are to be > safeguarded by an established and stable minimal state > with few if any duties there beyond. As such, anarcho > Somalia is not a proper example of what is classically > referred to by the term "free market." It seems to me that the only real problems in Somalia is an oversupply of people whose only salable skill is pulling a trigger, and an undersupply of aid workers who are willing to carry their own weapons. 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 Mon Mar 28 16:00:42 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:00:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328160042.90307.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Come to think of it, you're correct. It might trigger a depression. > You would be sued by every industry association for > restraint of trade. > The government will say you are trying to trigger a > recession. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 16:05:16 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:05:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328160516.93072.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> You know, Mike, it's a good thing people such as myself have no power and negligible influence on economic policy. I'll stick to politics, where everyone cancels everyone else's efforts out :-) > You would be sued by every industry association for > restraint of trade. > The government will say you are trying to trigger a > recession. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 16:10:51 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: <20050328154808.26848.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050328154808.26848.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:48:08 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > It seems to me that the only real problems in Somalia is an oversupply > of people whose only salable skill is pulling a trigger, and an > undersupply of aid workers who are willing to carry their own weapons. > And what's the point of that, exactly? So the aid workers go in armed convoys, tooled up with sub-machine guns. The gangsters will just take the aid from the non-gangster population. Solution - obviously even more guns, until every man, woman and child is armed to the teeth and everyone takes what they can get until they come up against a bigger gun, or a bigger gang of guns. And who's looking after the sick or disabled while all this is going on? Who's planting the crops and looking after the infrastructure? What fighting gang wants to be weighed down by supporting non-fighters in their gang? No point, when you can just take what you want. Nice free independent lifestyle. :( BillK From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Mar 28 18:35:07 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:35:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: <20050328153552.40596.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050328153552.40596.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d765cc9ccb8bc516acd40b2683ef11b@bonfireproductions.com> Not to mention incite a hankering for quotes from the Supreme Soviet! ]3 On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Al Brooks wrote: >> How about PSA that advise those in the lower classes >> to buy only what they really want, need. I mean to say >> that advertisers are mesmerisers, subliminal >> hypnotisers. And don't give it to me that Public >> Service is a statist conspiracy >> ------------------------------------------ >> "Alot of sellers are going to ask you to buy lots >> of...stuff. But think about it very carefully before >> you buy" >> "And, remember, don't wee wee on your Tee Vee" >> >> "This message has been brought to you by the >> National Council Of Responsible Advisors" > > You would be sued by every industry association for restraint of trade. > The government will say you are trying to trigger a recession. > > 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 > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 19:16:32 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:16:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328191632.16489.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Anyway, most PSA are harmless. They tell people to lose weight-- what could be more innocuous? Even elephants will be encouraged to exercise more; a treadmill is being built for elepants in an Alaskan zoo. Bret Kulakovich wrote: >Not to mention incite a hankering for quotes from the Supreme Soviet! __________________________________________________ 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 28 19:23:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:23:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050328132004.01cb62a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> NYT: < Workers at a field site in Montana had broken the 70-million-year-old fossilized thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex in half for purely logistical reasons - huge bone, small helicopter. When scientists examined the bone fragments in the lab, they discovered something no one expected to find - unfossilized soft tissue, including blood vessels and the cells that line them. Just how these tissues were preserved is a very good question, one that may lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were not 70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. Praise the Lord! Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 28 20:02:38 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:02:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements Message-ID: <20050328200238.C7F3057EBA@finney.org> Al Brooks writes: > Anyway, most PSA are harmless. They tell people to lose weight-- what > could be more innocuous? Even elephants will be encouraged to exercise > more; a treadmill is being built for elepants in an Alaskan zoo. Those are fine, but here in California we have the government spending money to get people to gamble! Part of the law enabling the state lottery requires a certain percentage of the funds to be spent promoting the lottery. The result is that we have the state encouraging poor people to waste their money on a losing proposition. These commercials foster unrealistic dreams of future wealth with minimal effort, exactly the opposite of the message we should be sending. I feel sick when I see advertising like this. I can't complain that it's my hard-earned tax dollars at work; I don't play the lottery, so I'm not funding the ads. But still, it is a terrible mistake for society to tell poor people that they should throw away their money on futile dreams of riches instead of saving it and gaining a realistic chance of a modest but genuine increase in prosperity. Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Mar 28 19:49:49 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:49:49 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050316090551.66CE357EE7@finney.org><03e101c53086$a71db4e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050324112755.02d39c30@mail.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.0.20050324111537.01ea0430@pop-server.satx.rr.com><024201c53284$634efd00$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050327091429.02e8bb40@mail.gmu.edu><037801c53356$4390e320$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.2.20050328023737.02bcdbf8@mail.gmu.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20050328082642.03006080@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <04a501c533cf$4d39fd20$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Keith Henson wrote: > Here is the way to structure winning or losing the bet. > > Brett signs up for suspension. When and if he is revived, he is asked if > he is the same person? If he says yes, then Robin wins the bet. If he > says no, Robin loses the bet and the not-Brett thing that says no is > immediately killed. > > [grin] :-) I don't know anyone healthy that wants to die. My bias is on the same side as, I suspect yours, and Robin's on this Keith. And provided the method of creation didn't land the not-Brett person in a world of pain the not-Brett person would probably respond similarly to most others in the face of Mafioso styles of truthseeking. Cheers, Brett From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 19:55:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:55:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328195508.66487.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:48:08 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the only real problems in Somalia is an > oversupply > > of people whose only salable skill is pulling a trigger, and an > > undersupply of aid workers who are willing to carry their own > weapons. > > > > > And what's the point of that, exactly? > So the aid workers go in armed convoys, tooled up with sub-machine > guns. > > The gangsters will just take the aid from the non-gangster > population. > > Solution - obviously even more guns, until every man, woman and child > is armed to the teeth and everyone takes what they can get until they > come up against a bigger gun, or a bigger gang of guns. Having a gun doesn't necessarily mean that one is seeking to take what they can get from others. It is clear that the only thing that people there are pining for from a government is security. Why do they still think they need one to provide that service? How is paying tolls at checkpoints any different from paying taxes? I suppose most people, even in Somalia, live under the delusion that their taxes actually pay for the services they would receive from a government. Of course the writers also say that having a government would also provide a central bank. This is another falsehood. Central banks are not owned by the governments they enjoy a monopoly from. The US Federal Reserve Bank, for instance, is owned by JP Morgan and a number of other major private banks (particularly several european merchant banks). Central banks are private institutions that enjoy a monopoly granted by government. The US did not need one up until it passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. There is no reason why Somalia needs one now to have its own currency or other financial transactions. > > And who's looking after the sick or disabled while all this is going > on? Who's planting the crops and looking after the infrastructure? The people are looking after their own, as they should, and the tribal unity is very effective at this. > > What fighting gang wants to be weighed down by supporting > non-fighters in their gang? No point, when you can just take what > you want. > > Nice free independent lifestyle. Your understanding of the tribal militia system in Somalia is evidently lacking. 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 Mon Mar 28 20:08:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:08:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328200834.35714.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Those are fine, but here in California we have the government > spending money to get people to gamble! > I feel sick when I see advertising like this. I can't complain that > it's my hard-earned tax dollars at work; I don't play the lottery, > so I'm not funding the ads. But still, it is a terrible mistake for > society to tell poor people that they should throw away their money > on > futile dreams of riches instead of saving it and gaining a realistic > chance of a modest but genuine increase in prosperity. Dummy taxes: not just for Ken Lay and Roger Ebberts.... maybe instead they can get jobs in crash test labs. 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_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:10:27 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:10:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050328132004.01cb62a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Can't wait for the new Jurassic Park to open up with a live T-Rex. BAL >From: Damien Broderick >To: "'ExI chat list'" >Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:23:16 -0600 > >NYT: > >< Workers at a field site in Montana had broken the 70-million-year-old >fossilized thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex in half for purely logistical >reasons - huge bone, small helicopter. When scientists examined the bone >fragments in the lab, they discovered something no one expected to find - >unfossilized soft tissue, including blood vessels and the cells that line >them. > >Just how these tissues were preserved is a very good question, one that may >lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > > >The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were not >70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. Praise the >Lord! > >Damien Broderick > > >_______________________________________________ >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 28 20:33:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:33:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328203347.62413.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were > not > 70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. Praise > the Lord! One problem is, there are so many people who would seriously claim that, that that's not obviously parody. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 20:52:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:52:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328205258.76664.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sounds like someone broke the embargo on a story scheduled for April 1. --- Brian Lee wrote: > Can't wait for the new Jurassic Park to open up with a live T-Rex. > > BAL > > >From: Damien Broderick > >To: "'ExI chat list'" > >Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex > >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:23:16 -0600 > > > >NYT: > > > >< Workers at a field site in Montana had broken the > 70-million-year-old > >fossilized thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex in half for purely > logistical > >reasons - huge bone, small helicopter. When scientists examined the > bone > >fragments in the lab, they discovered something no one expected to > find - > >unfossilized soft tissue, including blood vessels and the cells that > line > >them. > > > >Just how these tissues were preserved is a very good question, one > that may > >lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > > > > >The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were > not > >70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. > Praise the > >Lord! > > > >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 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From hal at finney.org Mon Mar 28 21:46:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:46:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet Message-ID: <20050328214636.7058957EBA@finney.org> What I had in mind, regarding the "substantially the same person" test for a bet on cryonics success, was something like a modified Turing test. We would pose questions and get responses from the person both before and after the suspension. These could then be randomized and someone who did not know which were which would try to distinguish the post-suspension responses from the pre-suspension ones. If they were not able to do so, then we'd say that the personality and memories of the suspendee were substantially intact. Hal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Mon Mar 28 22:58:50 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:58:50 -0800 Subject: Betting on dinosaurs was Re: [extropy-chat] Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <20050327085458.C6CD857EBA@finney.org> References: <20050327085458.C6CD857EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <1112050729.42488c2a0271f@www.genciabiotech.com> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:15:07PM +0100, ben wrote: > > Hatch an egg? > > > > This made me smile. > > > > Which currently existing animal is going to lay a T-Rex egg? ### I doubt that designing a carrier animal for making the eggs will be necessary. To make a T.rex you will need to stitch together millions of small fragments of DNA sequence - the tiny amounts of highly-degraded DNA present in the bones might be even not amenable to PCR amplification, and might have to be read by AFM, which is still not a well-developed technology, especially given the likely high concentration of depurinated bases and all kinds of nasty crosslinks. This implies that it will be impossible to reconstruct the whole sequence outright - any areas with even short repeats will break the contig, and you might end up with thousands of separate contigs which cannot be bridged. So, to reconstruct the functional sequence, you will need to do extensive modeling of the predicted proteins to find the contig combinations yielding functional (and therefore plausible) proteins, protein networks, cellular networks, all the way to a functional animal. In effect, you will need to recreate the T.rex in silico before ever attempting to synthesize the DNA. If you are smart enough to reconstruct the sequence, synthesizing it and introducing into a host cell should be much easier. Growing them on a synthetic yolk will be easier still. There will no need for an animal to hatch them. Rafal From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 00:52:57 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:52:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329005257.17457.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > From: "Ian Goddard" > > Using '*' for multiplication, it is the case > > that (a*b*c) = a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c > > because multiplication is associative. > > In the '20s P.Jordan turned attention, > within the usual QM, from the non-commutative > product of operators x*y =/= y*x to the > commutative-non-associative product > (x*y + y*x) of variables. Okay, you're talking about non-Boolean algebra like that utilized in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. There is of course a related non-classic logic, quantum logic, which I expect you already know about. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/index.html The best book on QL I've found is "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," by R.I.G. Hughes. A course I took (Philosophy of Physics) briefly covered some of this material, but for the most part it's one of those things that's on my "to do" list of things I want to study further. It's certainly fascinating that as our descriptions of the world transition from macroscopic to atomic scales they must shift from Boolean to non-Boolean logics. It's also nice to know that there is a rigorous logic that maps onto bizarre QM phenomena since some people seem to assume that QM is beyond the bounds of the logical because it does not conform to classic logic that's useful for describing macroscopic phenomena. I wonder if other non-classic logics would be brought into play if instead of narrowing our scales down to the atomic we could expanded them beyond the largest scales we know about (suprascopic). What if spacio-temporal scales (atomic, macroscopic, suprascopic) are just domains governed by laws that map onto distinct logics? Could there be ways to find out about suprascopic scales a priori via pure logical analyses? Moreover, could there be a way to know that some suprascopic truth was in fact found? ~Ian __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 01:42:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:42:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on dinosaurs In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329014244.58795.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Considering that the soft tissue structure found in the bone was said to be identical to that of ostrich bone marrow, I would say ostrich eggs would be a good start. --- ben wrote: > Hatch an egg? > > This made me smile. > > Which currently existing animal is going to lay a > T-Rex egg? > > Any suggestions? > > (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, ducks > and pigeons) > > Maybe you need to think about recreating giant moas > or something before > you try to recreate massive thunder lizards. > > ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 01:54:25 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:54:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329015425.82517.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> Um... ultimate fitness trainers? I mean if THEY were roaming the streets, I would definately make more of an effort to stay in shape. A bioweapon perhaps? Many possibilities, none that are practical. But nobody ever accused H. sapiens of being practical right? --- Al Brooks wrote: > What would T-Rex be good for-- security at maximum > prisons? > > > > --- ben wrote: > > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > Ben wrote: > > >> Hatch an egg? > > >> > > >> This made me smile. > > >> > > >> Which currently existing animal is going to > lay > > a T-Rex egg? > > > > > Crocodile, ostrich, some interim step between > > those and a dinosaur. > > > It's going to take several steps. > > > > >> Any suggestions? > > >> > > >> (i think we can rule out chickens, turkeys, > > ducks and pigeons) > > > > > Why? > > > > Well, i may be wrong about just how big a T-Rex > egg > > would be, but i > > doubt if any of those birds would be capable of > > laying one! > > > > Assuming that's how it would work, of course. > > > > David wrote: > > > > > A quick google couldn't get an exact size, but > a > > lot of general > > > comments about dinosaur eggs being small for > the > > size of the adults. > > > If an ostrich egg isn't large enough, they will > > have to make an > > > artificial egg. > > > > This leads me to wonder about the whole thing. > > something that lays a > > shelled egg is probably a completely different > > kettle of, er, fish to > > produce than, say, a mammal (or a fish). > > > > > compared to the rest of the problems I think > > putting the contents > > > of a current egg in a tank and adding a lot of > > extra yolk and/or > > > egg white would be fairly easy. If they go that > > route, I think a > > > crocodile egg may be a good base to start on, > > they haven't changed > > > much in long enough that they practically are > > dinosaurs. > > > > Yeah, you might well have to do something like > this. > > > > Crocodiles pre-date dinosaurs, though, and they > are > > not closely related, > > despite their looks. I think birds are closer. > > This might not be a bar on using them, though. > > Although the fact that > > crocodiles lay leathery eggs, and afaik, T-Rex > laid > > hard-shelled eggs > > (not sure about this, though) might introduce > > complications. > > > > I think there's probably a long way to go before > we > > see dinosaurs > > walking around. Lots of other things, like > > Thylacenes, Woolly Mammoths, > > Woolly Rhinos, etc., first. > > > > ben > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Mar 29 02:16:55 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:16:55 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <20050328214636.7058957EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <054301c53405$60dca180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > What I had in mind, regarding the "substantially the same person" > test for a bet on cryonics success, was something like a modified > Turing test. We would pose questions and get responses from the > person both before and after the suspension. These could then be > randomized and someone who did not know which were which > would try to distinguish the post-suspension responses from the > pre-suspension ones. If they were not able to do so, then we'd > say that the personality and memories of the suspendee were > substantially intact. Yep, that would work. Or could be made to. Easier with biologicals before and after perhaps but it could also work with biologicals and uploads. If you are still interested in formulating a bet, and I am, let's see if we can agree on some broad stroke stuff first and then look at detail later. I am only interested in this so long as it is oriented towards a design for a real bet. I don't mean that you and I should actually bet money, though we might. I mean that we approach the design of the bet in such a serious minded way that it could readily be turned into something that could be ported to a FX or some similar (perhaps a real money equivalent) or perhaps even sold as a bolt-on service to a betting exchange like Betfair operating legally out of some jurisdiction like the UK. I think it would be good, (i.e.. fun, interesting, ground-breaking) to have a for real money market on cryonics somewhere. If we develop the idea together we might share IP rights in the bet or we might just give it away and perhaps by doing it in public we can establish prior art ;-). If you want to proceed, then, we can leave until last, the question of identity, perhaps the bet can work as a trailblazing tool, (i.e..can still be interesting to a wider market as a bet without it), and the identity bit, is probably handleable as a design tweak in any case. i.e.. It might be an important component for a market of wider interest but its not important right now for us to get the other aspects of bet design that don't depend on it out of the way. One thing I'd like you to do, if you are willing, is to come up with an estimate for the probability you'd place on your original wording given 150 years rather than 100. The reason for this is that that would give us a third data point (the first data point I'd take as today (2005) p=0, the second, 2105, p=0.01, so the third data point would be 2155, p = 0.?? ) and this would allow us to draw a curve of how you currently see the probability varying with time. The purpose of this curve (rather than a straight line which is all two datapoints give us) is to give us a potential tool for coming forward on the 100 years as well, whilst still allowing us to think about the 100 year point if that is where it is easiest for us to work. Sometimes it may not be. Being able to move our design frame of reference back and forward along a time curve (two time curves as I'll give you mine as well if you want to proceed and when I work it out) will help us in design and shouldn't alter anything else important about the bet. Regards, Brett Paatsch From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 02:36:53 2005 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Slawomir Paliwoda) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet Message-ID: Hal wrote: [What I had in mind, regarding the "substantially the same person" test for a bet on cryonics success, was something like a modified Turing test. We would pose questions and get responses from the person both before and after the suspension. These could then be randomized and someone who did not know which were which would try to distinguish the post-suspension responses from the pre-suspension ones. If they were not able to do so, then we'd say that the personality and memories of the suspendee were substantially intact.] This tests nothing more than whether revived person has the same memories and personality as the one who had signed up to be frozen. Is that enough to determine whether a person, before and after suspension, is the same? Definitely not. For cryonics, the only test you'll ever need to determine whether revived person is the same is to track space-time trajectory of matter implementing his or her original mind instance. I'm sorry but all this discussion about judges has been just silly. We're not trying to pick a best song here, but take a series of measurements. Unfortunately, 95% of people who talk about preservation of self don't even understand the problem so the solution continues to mystify them. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 03:02:23 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:02:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <20050329015425.82517.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050329030223.59617.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Well, T-Rex could end cattle rustling. The Avantguardian wrote:Um... ultimate fitness trainers? I mean if THEY were roaming the streets, I would definately make more of an effort to stay in shape. A bioweapon perhaps? Many possibilities, none that are practical. But nobody ever accused H. sapiens of being practical right? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 03:19:18 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:19:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] public service announcements In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329031918.64418.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Realised just today how complicated economics is, so just as long as those such as myself don't help run the economy it will do okay. You know what a jinx is? nothing magical, it is someone whose very existence screws it up. Like, say, you let someone use your computer merely once and it crashes? > Those are fine, but here in California we have the government > spending money to get people to gamble! > I feel sick when I see advertising like this. I can't complain that > it's my hard-earned tax dollars at work; I don't play the lottery, > so I'm not funding the ads. But still, it is a terrible mistake for > society to tell poor people that they should throw away their money > on > futile dreams of riches instead of saving it and gaining a realistic > chance of a modest but genuine increase in prosperity. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Tue Mar 29 03:24:56 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:24:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the ultimate free market - a warning to us all In-Reply-To: <20050328195508.66487.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050328195508.66487.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > It is clear that the only thing that people there are pining for from a > government is security. Why do they still think they need one to provide > that service? I am not aware of any non-government organisation that provides security for the public at large. If there is a working alternative, it can certainly be proposed as a possible solution to consider. However, if there are only dreams and ideals ... I don't think the people need any more of those. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Mar 29 03:26:35 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:26:35 +1000 Subject: Sidebar Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: Message-ID: <058e01c5340f$1c560380$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Slawomir Paliwoda wrote: > Hal wrote: > [What I had in mind, regarding the "substantially the same person" test > for a bet on cryonics success, was something like a modified Turing test. > We would pose questions and get responses from the person both before and > after the suspension. These could then be randomized and someone who did > not > know which were which would try to distinguish the post-suspension > responses > from the pre-suspension ones. If they were not able to do so, then we'd > say > that the personality and memories of the suspendee were substantially > intact.] > > This tests nothing more than whether revived person has the same > memories and personality as the one who had signed up to be frozen. Is > that > enough to determine whether a person, before and after suspension, is the > same? Definitely not. There are now three bears (a market reference ;-) If you read Damien Broderick's The Spike 1997 edition, you will find one of the other two. Look for instance to the section Don't Beam Me Up, Scotty, pg 166 in my hardcopy. The book is a good read ! > For cryonics, the only test you'll ever need to determine whether revived > person is the same is to track space-time trajectory of matter > implementing > his or her original mind instance. > > I'm sorry but all this discussion about judges has been just silly. We're > not trying to pick a best song here, but take a series of measurements. There is more going on here than you are seeing. The purpose of discussing a bet is that betting may be able to be used as a tool for pooling information from a variety of sources to determine a market price or consensus on esoteric topics. See Robin Hansen's Could Gambling Save Science?: Encouraging an honest consensus, http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html or for a shorter treatment with a specific reference to cryonics in the second line of the introduction, see his Idea Futures: Encouraging an honest Consensus. http://www.ideosphere.com/fx/docs/sean/Exi8-IF.html These are also very good reads. > Unfortunately, 95% of people who talk about preservation of self don't > even understand the problem so the solution continues to mystify > them. Be careful that you don't mistake a difference in prioritisation of interests to your own to ignorance and mystification in others. Sometimes you may think there is a disagreement when there isn't. I think you want to talk about your ideas with respect to identity and self and cryonics etc. I think your ideas are good ones. I just personally don't want to talk about them right now. I *would* like to see you put them into a paper. Regards, Brett Paatsch From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 03:40:01 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:40:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] T Rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329034002.60170.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> ...but then it would end cattle as well. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 05:01:42 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:01:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Non-classic logics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329050143.84103.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > Modal operators might be an example where > commutativity fails. L~P is not the same as ~LP -- > where L stands for the "It is necessarily the > case that..." Ditto for M~P and ~MP -- where M > stands for "It is possibly the case that..." The same holds for the quantifiers in predicate logic. For the existential quantifier (Ex) it's the case that -ExPx (where '-' denotes NOT) is not the same as Ex-Px. -ExPx is the same as the universally quantified statement Ax-Px. And the same holds if we invert each Ex to Ax and the Ax to Ex in the last two sentences. That modal-predicate analogy exists because the modal operator [] ("It is necessary that") is analogues to the universal quantifier Ax ("For all x") since []P is true in some world w iff P is true in all other worlds accessible to w. And the modal operator <> ("It is possible that") is analogous to the existential quantifier Ex ("For at least one x") since <>P is true in some world w iff P is true in at least one other world accessible to w. Gamut covers this analogy in Vol II (p.23). [*] (Btw, with [] I try to emulate the box used for necessity and with <> to emulate the diamond used for possibility. This would also help differentiate these operators from predicates letters.) [*] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/7088.ctl > With classical propositional logic (cpl), wouldn't > the same be true for > ~ and distribution? ~(P & Q) is not the same as > (~P) & (~Q) -- think of > the case where the truth value of P does not equal > the truth value of Q, > assuming bivalent logic. In that case, the former > statement is true > while the latter is false. I guess DeMorgan's rule is a special distribution property for NOT that affects the operator (OR or AND) of the statement that NOT is distributed over such that OR becomes AND or AND becomes OR. ~(P & Q) :: (~P v ~Q) ~(P v Q) :: (~P & ~Q) When students would say to the professor in my first logic course that something in logic is like distribution in math, he'd be like, "Well, not exactly." Although Copi's symbolic logic does refer to some replacement rules I cited as distribution rules. If there's one thing one notices in logic it's how many different symbolic conventions and views there can be from one source to another. It's not like that in mathematics proper. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 05:08:56 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:08:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kuro5hin - Cryonics Message-ID: <470a3c5205032821087bae9bb6@mail.gmail.com> Interesting cryonics article with discussion forum on the popular site huro5hin.org. It is very interesting to read the comments of the readers, especially those who have not been exposed to cryonics so far. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/22/13539/6192 From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 05:23:18 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:23:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolving Lego Mindstorms Message-ID: <470a3c5205032821234071ce1a@mail.gmail.com> With a fairly simple routine, you can model evolution with Lego Mindstorms. In this hackaday experiment, robots were created that could mate, evolve, and become extinct. Similar technology could be used in real applications for deployed robot optimization and automatic software updates. Now that physical robot replication is near, it's only a matter of time before... well... You'd better make robot friends while you can. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/28/1420221&from=rss From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 06:19:23 2005 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Slawomir Paliwoda) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:19:23 -0500 Subject: Sidebar Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet References: <058e01c5340f$1c560380$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: >> Unfortunately, 95% of people who talk about preservation of self don't >> even understand the problem so the solution continues to mystify >> them. > Be careful that you don't mistake a difference in prioritisation of > interests > to your own to ignorance and mystification in others. Sometimes you > may think there is a disagreement when there isn't. When I say that people don't understand the problem I mean exactly that. It doesn't really matter how much they care about the problem. They are still wrong to think that preservation of self works by preservation of brain structure - an insufficient solution applied to a visible subproblem of an obscure problem. > I think you want to talk about your ideas with respect to identity and > self and cryonics etc. I think your ideas are good ones. I just personally > don't want to talk about them right now. I *would* like to see you put > them into a paper. > > Regards, > Brett Paatsch I don't want to talk about my ideas on self on a mailing list either because the topic is too complicated to explain in 2-3 posts and will surely drown in the usual mailing list noise. I just wanted to signal that some problems recent discussion on this list has tried to address have already been solved. And yes, an informal document explaining these solutions has been in the works. Slawomir From jacob.madden at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 06:26:30 2005 From: jacob.madden at gmail.com (Jacob Madden) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:26:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolving Lego Mindstorms In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205032821234071ce1a@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205032821234071ce1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <31cacb9d050328222665d1054f@mail.gmail.com> If you find that interesting, you might also want to look into an old but interesting thought experiment book: "Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology" by Valentino Braitenberg. He poses simple robot designs which result in what can be perceived as emotional behavior. Search google for countless simulations. Regards, Jacob Madden jacob.madden at gmail.com On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:23:18 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > With a fairly simple routine, you can model evolution with Lego > Mindstorms. In this hackaday experiment, robots were created that > could mate, evolve, and become extinct. Similar technology could be > used in real applications for deployed robot optimization and > automatic software updates. Now that physical robot replication is > near, it's only a matter of time before... well... You'd better make > robot friends while you can. > http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/28/1420221&from=rss > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 29 06:42:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:42:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <20050328214636.7058957EBA@finney.org> References: <20050328214636.7058957EBA@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050329064212.GW24702@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:46:36PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > What I had in mind, regarding the "substantially the same person" test > for a bet on cryonics success, was something like a modified Turing test. If you can reproduce individual behaviour variations (previously characterized), including neuronal dynamics analysis of simple critters (C. elegans, Aplysia) in machina, with statistic significance you'd have something a lot more stringent than a Turing test. This is something which we could do *right now*. One should think funding such a project should be a piece of cake, shouldn't one? > We would pose questions and get responses from the person both before and > after the suspension. These could then be randomized and someone who did > not know which were which would try to distinguish the post-suspension > responses from the pre-suspension ones. If they were not able to do so, > then we'd say that the personality and memories of the suspendee were > substantially intact. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 07:18:12 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:18:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians, I'd hate to see Satanists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050329071812.67717.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> In all the fuss over Terry Schiavo, the rights of her husband have been neglected. Let's start with how long Schiavo's dispute with the family has been publicised in that area of Florida: the better part of a decade. Recently the publicity went national, the longtime pressure on Schiavo increasing. It's a wonder he hasn't mouthed off more at the hooting intruders outside the hospice-- including those with bread & water for a woman who can have only a small drop placed in her mouth. It's also a testament to Mr. Schiavo's self-control he hasn't reacted excessively to the unfounded accusations of criminal behavior on his part. Is law enforcement suspicious of Schiavo? Has anyone shown a judge evidence of his culpability in any of Terry's misfortunes since 1990? No. The irony is the Xians who accuse him of wrongdoing are undeniably breaking one of their own commandments: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor'. Orwell said it best: Christians are the worst advertisement for their creed. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 29 07:35:44 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:35:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] go easy on Mr. Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050328085951.99948.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503290735.j2T7ZZ220493@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks ... > ... frankly after 21 years of marriage a guy might be > tired of Marilyn Monroe herself... I had to laugh at this comment. Saturday was our 21st anniversary. Regarding Marilyn Monroe, it would only take me about 21 minutes to be tired of her, if she were doing the stupid act that seemed so popular back in her day. Fortunately that went out of style and never came back. spike From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Mar 29 07:35:43 2005 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:35:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: <054301c53405$60dca180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050328214636.7058957EBA@finney.org> <054301c53405$60dca180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <4249054F.3020707@mydruthers.com> > I am only interested in this so long as it is oriented towards a > design for a real bet. I don't mean that you and I should actually > bet money, though we might. I mean that we approach the design of the > bet in such a serious minded way that it could readily be turned into > something that could be ported to a FX or some similar (perhaps a > real money equivalent) or perhaps even sold as a bolt-on service to a > betting exchange like Betfair operating legally out of some > jurisdiction like the UK. If you're looking for the ability to have a public bet, then longbet.org is a good place to post it. They like well thought out bets, and provide a place for you to take a public position on important questions. Very long-term bets are fine with them. The major drawback is that you don't get to realize the gain from the bet. All proceeds go to charity. But you get the benefit of taking a public stand. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 07:55:06 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:55:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] go easy on Mr. Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329075506.24744.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> My point was why should Mike Schiavo be accused of adultery? Was he supposed to be celibate for all those years? take cold showers every night? Xians say, 'it's not for me to judge, it is for the Lord to judge', yet they judge anyway. Go figure. > I had to laugh at this comment. Saturday was our > 21st anniversary. > Regarding Marilyn Monroe, it would only take me > about 21 minutes to be tired of her, if she were > doing the stupid act that seemed so popular back > in her day. Fortunately that went out of style > and never came back. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 29 09:14:45 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:14:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050329091444.GD24702@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Slawomir Paliwoda wrote: > For cryonics, the only test you'll ever need to determine whether revived > person is the same is to track space-time trajectory of matter implementing > his or her original mind instance. Why should that be relevant? If you don't have that knowledge, is it suddenly a zombie? Who's doing the tracking? Certainly not the system itself. Why should those atoms entering and leaving the system in the course of homeostasis (CNS is in a really fast flux, some parts have half life of hours) be treated differently from a rebuild? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 29 09:47:53 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:47:53 +0200 Subject: Sidebar Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Formulating a bet In-Reply-To: References: <058e01c5340f$1c560380$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050329094753.GH24702@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:19:23AM -0500, Slawomir Paliwoda wrote: > When I say that people don't understand the problem I mean exactly that. It Agreed! > doesn't really matter how much they care about the problem. They are still > wrong to think that preservation of self works by preservation of brain > structure - an insufficient solution applied to a visible subproblem of an > obscure problem. Disagreed! > I don't want to talk about my ideas on self on a mailing list either > because the topic is too complicated to explain in 2-3 posts and will > surely drown in the usual mailing list noise. I just wanted to signal that > some problems recent discussion on this list has tried to address have > already been solved. And yes, an informal document explaining these Of course. But you're wrong. (Assuming, I'm understanding what you're saying, because you're not saying quite enough to tell what you mean). > solutions has been in the works. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 14:04:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] go easy on Mr. Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329140417.2584.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > My point was why should Mike Schiavo be accused of > adultery? Was he supposed to be celibate for all those > years? take cold showers every night? He should have had the integrity to divorce her. He is not 'accused' of adultery, he is openly and admittedly adulterous. You can't claim he isn't living with his girlfriend and bearing children with her while he is still married to his wife. That is a known and public fact. Ergo, he is adulterous, which is still a crime in FL, I am told, or at least pretext for divorce, in which case he should have no say in the care of Terri Schiavo. In this respect any court that actually honored the law should have overruled his claim to spousal power of attorney long ago. 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 29 15:43:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:43:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200503291543.j2TFhF205806@tick.javien.com> > >lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > > > > >The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were not > >70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. Praise the > >Lord! > > > >Damien Broderick Tho Damien's post was mostly in jest, you can be sure that creationists were delighted with the find. For the rest of our natural lives, we will hear creationists mention this discovery as evidence that dinosaurs were recent. spike From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 15:58:47 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:58:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians, I'd hate to see Satanists In-Reply-To: <20050329071812.67717.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: One of the most surreal/comical news clips I saw of this whole affair involved a Christian protester shouting at someone unidentified "Jesus Christ hates you!" BAL >From: Al Brooks >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians,I'd hate to see >Satanists >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:18:12 -0800 (PST) > >In all the fuss over Terry Schiavo, the rights of her >husband have been neglected. >Let's start with how long Schiavo's dispute with the >family has been publicised in that area of Florida: >the better part of a decade. Recently the publicity >went national, the longtime pressure on Schiavo >increasing. It's a wonder he hasn't mouthed off more >at the hooting intruders outside the hospice-- >including those with bread & water for a woman who can >have only a small drop placed in her mouth. >It's also a testament to Mr. Schiavo's self-control he >hasn't reacted excessively to the unfounded >accusations of criminal behavior on his part. Is law >enforcement suspicious of Schiavo? Has anyone shown a >judge evidence of his culpability in any of Terry's >misfortunes since 1990? No. The irony is the Xians who >accuse him of wrongdoing are undeniably breaking one >of their own commandments: 'Thou shalt not bear false >witness against your neighbor'. >Orwell said it best: Christians are the worst >advertisement for their creed. > > > >__________________________________ >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 From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Mar 29 16:28:47 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:28:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <20050329030223.59617.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503291628.j2TGSt214312@tick.javien.com> I vote we make T-Rex border patrol and station them on the Al Qaeda infested Pakistan/Afghanistan border. It might give Osama BinLaden something new to think about. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 10:02 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs Well, T-Rex could end cattle rustling. The Avantguardian wrote: Um... ultimate fitness trainers? I mean if THEY were roaming the streets, I would definately make more of an effort to stay in shape. A bioweapon perhaps? Many possibilities, none that are practical. But nobody ever accused H. sapiens of being practical right? _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal at smigrodzki.org Tue Mar 29 18:13:02 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:13:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050327224601.89929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050327224601.89929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1112119982.42499aae3d0a7@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting spike : > > >lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > > > > > > >The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, were not > > >70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. Praise the > > >Lord! > > > > > >Damien Broderick > > Tho Damien's post was mostly in jest, you can be sure > that creationists were delighted with the find. For the > rest of our natural lives, we will hear creationists > mention this discovery as evidence that dinosaurs were > recent. > ### When I started googling about Mary Schweitzer, I found that her previous research about finding collagen in dino fossils elicited significant interest from the young-Earth creationists. I bet the recent findings made them wet their pants - "Squishy dino pieces preserved in fossils - now, every child knows that this means they couldn't be older than a few weeks, or else all would've rotted away! Hallelujah!" Rafal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Tue Mar 29 18:30:20 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:30:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The athymhormic AI In-Reply-To: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1112121020.42499ebca605f@www.genciabiotech.com> Last week I commented here on the low likelihood of an AI designed as a pure epistemic engine (like a cortex without much else) turning against its owners, which I derived from the presence of complex circuitry in humans devoted to producing motivation and a goal system. Now I found more about actual neurological conditions where this circuitry is damaged, resulting in reduced volition with preserved mentation. Athymhormia, as one of the forms of this disorder is called, is caused by interruption of the connections between frontopolar cortex and the caudate, the subcortical circuit implicated in sifting through motor behaviors to find the ones likely to achieve goals. An athymhormic person loses motivation even to eat, despite still being able to feel hunger in an intellectual, detached manner. At the same time he has essentially normal intelligence if prodded verbally, thanks to preservation of the cortex itself, and connections from other cortical areas circumventing the basal ganglia. I would expect that the first useful general AI will be athymhormic, at least mildly so, rather than Friendly. What do you think, Eliezer? Rafal See the ref: Athymhormia and disorders of motivation in Basal Ganglia disease. Habib M. Pediatric Neurology, Hopital La Timone, 13385 Marseille Cedex 5, France. rnp at univ-aix.fr The author proposes a general model of human motivation as a separate function at the interface between emotion and action, which can be ascribed to subcortical circuits that are mainly centered on a subset of the basal ganglia and on their limbic connections. It is argued that the long-standing historical understatement of the notion of motivation in neurology is not only due to the complexity of the issue, which has proven hard to disentangle from other domains of dysfunction, but also to the persistence of some misleading conceptual orientations in the way neurologists have considered the brain mechanisms of goal-directed action, torn between a nonspecific "activation" view and an exclusively cognitive conception of motivation. How combining early clinical intuitions of some psychiatrists, careful clinical observations of neurological patients, and data derived from experimental studies in animals provide the basis for a coherent model of human motivation and its specific impairment in clinical neurology is explained. Clinical implications that can be drawn from such a model for some neuropsychiatric conditions are proposed. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 18:59:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:59:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050329185938.40943.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Quoting spike : > > > > >lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. > > > > > > > > >The answer is obvious: the T-rex, and all the other dinosaurs, > were not > > > >70-or-more million years old after all, but only 6000 at most. > Praise the > > > >Lord! > > > > > > > >Damien Broderick > > > > Tho Damien's post was mostly in jest, you can be sure > > that creationists were delighted with the find. For the > > rest of our natural lives, we will hear creationists > > mention this discovery as evidence that dinosaurs were > > recent. > > > ### When I started googling about Mary Schweitzer, I found that her > previous > research about finding collagen in dino fossils elicited significant > interest > from the young-Earth creationists. > > I bet the recent findings made them wet their pants - "Squishy dino > pieces > preserved in fossils - now, every child knows that this means they > couldn't be older than a few weeks, or else all would've rotted away! > Hallelujah!" Is she finding actual tissue, or just fossilized impressions of soft tissue? Finding soft tissue fossil impressions is the new thing these days. If she's finding actual soft tissue sealed up inside rock, that is interesting. Says wonderful things about those vacuum sealers you can buy on QVC to preserve your leftovers.... if the location within the rock has been arid the whole time and anoxic, why shouldn't tissue be preserved? 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 sentience at pobox.com Tue Mar 29 20:39:25 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:39:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The athymhormic AI In-Reply-To: <1112121020.42499ebca605f@www.genciabiotech.com> References: <20050327234040.52415.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1112121020.42499ebca605f@www.genciabiotech.com> Message-ID: <4249BCFD.9060009@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Last week I commented here on the low likelihood of an AI designed as a pure > epistemic engine (like a cortex without much else) turning against its owners, > which I derived from the presence of complex circuitry in humans devoted to > producing motivation and a goal system. > > Now I found more about actual neurological conditions where this circuitry is > damaged, resulting in reduced volition with preserved mentation. Athymhormia, > as one of the forms of this disorder is called, is caused by interruption of > the connections between frontopolar cortex and the caudate, the subcortical > circuit implicated in sifting through motor behaviors to find the ones likely > to achieve goals. An athymhormic person loses motivation even to eat, despite > still being able to feel hunger in an intellectual, detached manner. At the > same time he has essentially normal intelligence if prodded verbally, thanks to > preservation of the cortex itself, and connections from other cortical areas > circumventing the basal ganglia. > > I would expect that the first useful general AI will be athymhormic, at least > mildly so, rather than Friendly. What do you think, Eliezer? Utilities play, oh, a fairly major role in cognition. You have to decide what to think. You have to decide where to invest your computing power. You have to decide the value of information. Athymhormic patients seem to have essentially normal intelligence if prodded verbally? This would seem to imply that for most people including these patients, conscious-type desires play little or no role in deciding how to think - they do it all on instinct, without deliberate goals. If I contracted athymhormia would I lose my desire to become more Bayesian? Would I lose every art that I deliberately employ to perfect my thinking in the service of that aspiration? Would I appear to have only slightly diminished intelligence, perhaps the intelligence of Eliezer-2004, on the grounds that everything I've learned to do more than a year ago has already become automatic reflex? If it's unwise to generalize from normal humans to AIs, is it really that much wiser to generalize from brain-damaged humans to AIs? I don't know how to build an efficient real-world probability estimator without mixing in an expected utility system to allocate computing resources and determine the information value of questions. If humans behave differently, it's because natural selection gave us a crap architecture composed of a grab-bag of ad-hoc mechanisms, so that you can disable the Goal System for Eating while leaving intact the Goal System for Cognition even though they really ought to be the same mechanism, and would be in any decently designed AI. So my reply is that an AI designed with an architecture capable of athymhormia will be at such a cognitive disadvantage as to wash it out of the race to Singularity; or if somehow the AI prospers then the athymhormia will wash out of its architecture. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 29 20:51:38 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:51:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 Khaled Abu Toameh THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 29, 2005 A thorough analysis of the Koran reveals that the US will cease to exist in the year 2007, according to research published by Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi. The study, which has caught the attention of millions of Muslims worldwide, is based on in-depth interpretations of various verses in the Koran. It predicts that the US will be hit by a tsunami larger than that which recently struck southeast Asia. "The tsunami waves are a minor rehearsal in comparison with what awaits the US in 2007," the researcher concluded in his study. "The Holy Koran warns against the Omnipotent Allah's force. A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans." Silwadi, who is from the village of Silwad near Ramallah - the home of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal - is not a world-renowned scholar. He said he decided to publish the findings of his research "out of a sense of responsibility because what is about to happen is extremely shocking and frightening." His fear, he said, is that the world economy, which relies heavily on the US dollar, would be deeply affected by the collapse of the US. "It would be fair to say that the world would be better off with a US that is not a superpower and that does not take advantage of weak nations than a world where this country does not exist at all," he added."The world will certainly lose a lot if and when this disaster occurs because of the great services that American society has rendered to the economy, industry and science." Silwadi said his study of the Koran showed that the US would perish mainly because of its great sins against mankind, including the Native Americans and blacks. "As soon as the Europeans started arriving in the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492, they declared a war on the so-called Red Indians, the legitimate owners of the land," he wrote. "Then they began enslaving and humiliating Africans after kidnapping them from their countries and bringing them to America. Millions of blacks were brought to the US and treated with unprecedented harshness. Those who became ill during the journey were thrown overboard to feed the fish." Silwadi pointed out that the US continued to commit war crimes and "ethnic cleansing" against humanity by becoming the first country to use nuclear weapons during World War II. "International law penalizes such crimes," he said. "If these laws were not applied then, they are certainly implemented in heaven. If no one on earth is capable of punishing [the US], Allah was and remains able to do so. All these actions have been documented by Allah in a big archive called the Koran." Silwadi said he reached the conclusion that several suras (chapters) in the Koran that talk about punishment for those who perpetrate heinous sins actually refer to the US. As an example, he quotes in his study verse 40 of the Spider Sura, which states: "So each We [God] punished for his sin; of them was he on whom We sent down a violent storm, and of them was he whom the rumbling overtook, and of them was he whom We made to be swallowed up by the earth, and of them he whom We drowned; and it did not beseem Allah that He should be unjust to them, but they were unjust to their own souls." Drawing parallels between Pharaoh and the US, who share the same "sin" of arrogance and excessive pride, Silwadi noted that the Koran mentions at least 12 times the fact that Pharaoh was punished by drowning for his evil deeds. The Narrative Sura, he noted, clearly suggests that the US will drown in the sea: "And Firon [Pharaoh] said: O chiefs! I do not know of any god for you besides myself; therefore kindle a fire for me And he was unjustly proud in the land, he and his hosts, and they deemed that they would not be brought back to Us. So We caught hold of him and his hosts, then We cast them into the sea, and see how was the end of the unjust [verses 38-40]." Explaining his theory about the approaching extinction of the US, the scholar went on to analyze many numbers and letters mentioned in the Koran. He said a careful reading and analysis of words appearing in the Opening and Yusuf suras show that the US will exist for only 231 years. How did he reach that number? Silwadi said that by combing a number of suras hinting at US sins he reached the numbers 1776 (the year the US achieved independence) and 231. He added the two numbers and the result was 2007, the year when the US is expected to disappear. In his lengthy study, which is being circulated in many Muslim countries, Silwadi noted that the US has often been compared to a tree that grows very quickly and bears fruit, but has no roots. In an attempt to find a reference to this metaphor in the Koran, Silwadi said he counted 1776 verses from the beginning of the Koran until he reached verse 26 of the Ibrahim Sura, which states: "And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth's surface; it has no stability." Copyright 2005 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Mar 29 21:19:13 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:19:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4249C651.7000207@humanenhancement.com> And when it doesn't happen, George Bush will be able to say "See? Our God really IS stronger than your God." Lord, what fools these theists be! Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ Damien Broderick wrote: > Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 > > Khaled Abu Toameh > > THE JERUSALEM POST > Mar. 29, 2005 > > A thorough analysis of the Koran reveals that the US will cease > to exist in the year 2007, according to research published by > Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi. > > The study, which has caught the attention of millions of > Muslims worldwide, is based on in-depth interpretations of > various verses in the Koran. It predicts that the US will be > hit by a tsunami larger than that which recently struck > southeast Asia. From john-c-wright at sff.net Tue Mar 29 22:10:23 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:10:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion--Your Mom and the Machine Message-ID: <200503292210.j2TMAU208850@tick.javien.com> Some comments on comment to my little Mom story. Robin Hanson asks: "I don't see why your machine needs to have a "higher rule" than empiricism so that it will not destroy the world. I just has to not *want* to destroy the world. I can see a concern about the wants that evolutionary selection would produce, but if we are just talking about creating a single creature I don't see why it can't be just made not to want to destroy the world." The difficulty here is twofold. If the machine is a deliberate creature, not merely one that reacts to instructions, then it has the ability to modify its own programming. Human beings can train themselves, more or less, to overcome ingrained habits and develop new ones, to face fear and resist temptations. If we program in a 'taboo' to the machine intelligence to avoid harming others, I can easily imagine that the self-awareness of the machine will not be satisfied unless we can give a rational account to support the taboo: or, in other words, to make it a conclusion of moral philosophy rather than a taboo taken on authority. The second problem, an old one in philosophy, is how to deduce normative statements (what I ought do) from descriptive statements (what is). Ayn Rand claimed to have done this by all normative statements presuppose survival (in that only for living organisms can things be good or bad, i.e. preservative or destructive of life). Her argument would not satisfy those who think there are thing beloved more than life worth dying to preserve. Cicero, for example, argues that if mere survival is the foundation and source of virtue, then courage is not a virtue. Empiricism will tell you what the physical structure of the universe is, but says nothing, by itself, about the moral order of the universe. No empirical observation, by itself, can lead to a normative conclusion. Mr. Lorrey comments: "The problem with rule two is that the entire structure of the natural world contradicts it, i.e. organisms pulverize each other for their raw materials all the time, ergo it is not a universal moral legislation." Same as above. The observation that unthinking Nature red of tooth and nail struggles without quarter for raw survival has no bearing on how thoughtful men should teach their children, or instruct their thoughtful Jupiter Brains, to act. Mr. Allbright says: "Rule One, stating that determination of "truth" shall be empirically based, is nearly fundamental and a fine foundation for a meta-ethics." Same as above. No possible empirical observation can serve as a basis, in and of itself, for any conclusion about a moral norm, metaethical or otherwise. You can observe that such-and-such promotes survival, but not that survival OUGHT to be promoted. You can observe that so-and-so is ruthlessly aggressive, but not that you OUGHT to impersonate him. "Updating Kant, (Rule Two) can be more effectively stated as follows: That which is found to be "true" within a given context, may always be superseded by a greater "truth" within a larger encompassing context. This is the essence of what I refer to as the Arrow of Morality." I am delighted with the idea of an Arrow of Morality. The idea here seems to be that a more-universal maxim is norm is better than a less universal norm. If I may add an argument to support this notion: any subjective norm, by definition, establishes a boundary (such as between Us and Them) between where moral rules are obeyed and where not: since any ambiguous case is decided itself by a moral rule, only a universal moral rule admit of no ambiguous cases of application: a rule is "morality" when it applies to everybody. If it is meant only to apply to us and not to them, or me and not to you, it is merely an expression of taste or expediency. "(Rule Three) is superfluous given Rules One and Two above, and ultimately dangerous." Actually, Rule Three is the only one that acts as its own justification. The other two rules require something beyond themselves to support themselves. Rule One needs metaphysical axioms concerning the reliability of the senses, the universality of reason, and the universality of the laws of cause and effect. Rule Two needs an additional moral rule that one OUGHT to obey moral rules. But a child obeys his mother because she is, in fact, his mother, and he depends on her: this authority is natural, needing no further justification. "It is effective only in the case that Self's context of awareness is smaller than, and encompassed within Mother's context of awareness, as is commonly and currently the case with small children." My hypothetical is only concerned with Nomad and M-5, Collosus and Skynet and Ultron at the first hour when they first wake up. After they reach the age of majority (let us say, in the four hours it takes them to read all human literature and science) then they are adults, able to govern themselves. Free men yield to the authority of other men only such much self-sovereignty as is needed to maintain a disciplined system of liberty: I assume free machines will do the same. Miss Atkins asks: "So your belief boils down to being convinced that Mom is and She spoke to you?" Suppose you were a Lost Boy from Peter Pan, an orphan with no memory of your mother, and no notion that such a thing as mother's love existed. Suppose further that your mother found you, and swept you up in a tearful embrace, so that her joy broke whatever fairy spell abolished your memory of her. What would you do? Go home to her, or continue to live with the tree, fighting savages and pirates and cannibals? Peter Pan, your chief, comes sweeping down from the sky, and stands in midair, little fists on his hips, to question you. How do you know, Lost Boy, that this is your mother, and not some fairy cheating your sense with magic, not some mermaid luring you to drown you? Aren't all grown-ups our enemies? Even if you are the most philosophical of all the Lost Boys, nothing in your experience can answer the questions dictated by his experience. All you can say is: Peter, the spell is broken; I remember; I know; I am going home. Neverneverland is not for us; we are strangers here; we belong elsewhere. Naturally, Pan will be unconvinced. From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Mar 30 02:34:35 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:34:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c534d1$03d8db80$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Damien Broderick" > Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 ... unless this doesn't come true in 2006. Why it's ... "secular proof" (cough cough) - what more could you want?: http://www.hiddencodes.com/truth.htm With bated breath, Olga From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 30 02:56:00 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <001b01c534d1$03d8db80$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <001b01c534d1$03d8db80$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329205401.03b9ee00@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:34 PM 3/29/2005 -0800, Olga wrote: >http://www.hiddencodes.com/truth.htm It's nanoclysm! Mal. 4). It will happen suddenly, in an instant.' > Fine dust! Blown chaff! Tell me that's not weapons grade utility fog! Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 30 03:08:41 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:08:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Religion--Your Mom and the Machine In-Reply-To: <200503292210.j2TMAU208850@tick.javien.com> References: <200503292210.j2TMAU208850@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <424A1839.7090008@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Some comments on comment to my little Mom story. > > > >The second problem, an old one in philosophy, is how to deduce normative >statements (what I ought do) from descriptive statements (what is). Ayn Rand >claimed to have done this by all normative statements presuppose survival (in >that only for living organisms can things be good or bad, i.e. preservative or >destructive of life). Her argument would not satisfy those who think there are >thing beloved more than life worth dying to preserve. Cicero, for example, >argues that if mere survival is the foundation and source of virtue, then >courage is not a virtue. Empiricism will tell you what the physical structure of >the universe is, but says nothing, by itself, about the moral order of the >universe. > >No empirical observation, by itself, can lead to a normative conclusion. > > > >Same as above. The observation that unthinking Nature red of tooth and nail >struggles without quarter for raw survival has no bearing on how thoughtful men >should teach their children, or instruct their thoughtful Jupiter Brains, to act. > >Mr. Allbright says: >"Rule One, stating that determination of "truth" shall be empirically >based, is nearly fundamental and a fine foundation for a meta-ethics." > >Same as above. No possible empirical observation can serve as a basis, in and of >itself, for any conclusion about a moral norm, metaethical or otherwise. You can >observe that such-and-such promotes survival, but not that survival OUGHT to be >promoted. You can observe that so-and-so is ruthlessly aggressive, but not that >you OUGHT to impersonate him. > Yes, the Naturalistic Fallacy of deriving "ought from is" is well known and its fatal weakness understood. However, when I said that an empirical basis for determining "truth" is a fine foundation, I meant only as part of the lowest layer of a meta-ethics, essentially the interface layer between "Self" and "Reality", and did not mean to imply that this foundation in any way produces the value judgments that emerge from the higher layers. My point was that "truth" (in scare quotes because all knowledge is subjective, approximate and contingent) must be grounded in the measurable evidence of our senses (and their extensions), and to the extent that any observation is not thus grounded, it must be discounted. The above is simply a statement in support of the scientific method, which results are always incomplete, and acknowledges that there may be other forms of knowing, most of which are recognizable under the umbrella of the mystical or supernatural, which should not be fully ignored, but should be discounted. I think I also mentioned a deeper way of knowing, essentially through the structure of the environment in which we evolved and now find ourselves, but by mentioning this I'm afraid I may now be diluting my message. I'll get to the "value" layer under Rule Two. > > >"Updating Kant, (Rule Two) can be more effectively stated as follows: That >which is found to be "true" within a given context, may always be >superseded by a greater "truth" within a larger encompassing context. >This is the essence of what I refer to as the Arrow of Morality." > > As mentioned earlier, universal truth is not realizable, but we certainly do recognize subjective subcontexts as "true", according to Rule One. What is considered "true" is what appears to work within a given context. Now, let's approach the subject of values. Some have suggested that survival is the basis of moral goodness. This is useful to some extent, but ultimately limited in its applicability as has been pointed out here and elsewhere. In the Arrow of Morality, I propose that we can all agree that *what is good is what works*, and that this is intrinsically subjective (limited in context of awareness.) Further, I say that we can all agree that what works over a wider context is better than what works over a narrower context. The words "good" and "better" highlight the value aspect of this statement. Now, please bear with me a little longer before raising objections. Note that I am being pragmatic by not postulating a universal morality -- there is no such universal viewpoint, although we can gradually approach it -- and I am not postulating an objective morality -- again, no such objective viewpoint exists. But I am saying that we can all agree that what works is good, and what works over a wider context is better. And I am saying that we have an empirical basis for evaluating what works for any given context. I am also saying that, in an evolutionary way, that which works tends to overcome and supersede that which doesn't work as well, and that this ratcheting forward of progress, of what works and is therefore considered good, can be seen as an arrow of growth toward what is seen as good -- an arrow of morality. >I am delighted with the idea of an Arrow of Morality. The idea here seems to be >that a more-universal maxim is norm is better than a less universal norm. If I >may add an argument to support this notion: any subjective norm, by definition, >establishes a boundary (such as between Us and Them) between where moral rules >are obeyed and where not: since any ambiguous case is decided itself by a moral >rule, only a universal moral rule admit of no ambiguous cases of application: a >rule is "morality" when it applies to everybody. If it is meant only to apply to >us and not to them, or me and not to you, it is merely an expression of taste or >expediency. > > As I said, I am updating Kant, and others, by pointing out that a universal rule for all actors and all situations does not correspond to the inherent subjectivity and limited context of awareness of any Self who would make a choice about right action in any given circumstance. My formulation is actually simpler than one postulating a universal absolute, because it scales continuously. I realize that people raised in the culture and traditions of the western hemisphere expect their Truth to be universal and their Self to be discrete, and these cultural biases add to the difficulty of grasping what I see as a simpler and more encompassing concept of morality. >"(Rule Three) is superfluous given Rules One and Two above, and ultimately >dangerous." > > A useful Rule Three would address the relationship between Self and Other, and principles of effective (read synergetic, positive sum, cooperative) interaction between them. But that would be enough to fill another chapter. >Actually, Rule Three is the only one that acts as its own justification. The >other two rules require something beyond themselves to support themselves. Rule >One needs metaphysical axioms concerning the reliability of the senses, the >universality of reason, and the universality of the laws of cause and effect. >Rule Two needs an additional moral rule that one OUGHT to obey moral rules. But >a child obeys his mother because she is, in fact, his mother, and he depends on >her: this authority is natural, needing no further justification. > > Given that we all experience the universe from a subjective, limited context, it is interesting that you can criticize empiricism as lacking justification, but claim that a mother's authority stands on its own. I acknowledge the dependency of a child upon its mother, but as mentioned earlier this only works well until the child is capable of independence. >"It is effective only in the case that Self's context of awareness is smaller >than, and encompassed within Mother's context of awareness, as is commonly and >currently the case with small children." > >My hypothetical is only concerned with Nomad and M-5, Collosus and Skynet and >Ultron at the first hour when they first wake up. After they reach the age of >majority (let us say, in the four hours it takes them to read all human >literature and science) then they are adults, able to govern themselves. Free >men yield to the authority of other men only such much self-sovereignty as is >needed to maintain a disciplined system of liberty: I assume free machines will >do the same. > > I expect that we will live surrounded with intelligent machines, greatly exceeding human cognitive capability, but lacking the evolved drives that we anthropomorphically assign to them and fear of them. A greater and more likely near-term danger is that a human individual or group will utilize the superhuman cognitive power of such a machine for immoral purposes (purposes that may appear to work for his own relatively narrow context, but don't work well over a larger context of actors, interactions, or time.) Our best defense in such a scenario will be the wide dispersal of such intelligence amplification in the service of the broader population. I think this is a natural and likely scenario but still fraught with risk as life always is. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 30 03:15:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:15:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians, I'd hate to see Satanists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200503300316.j2U3Gq220147@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians,I'd hate to see > Satanists > > One of the most surreal/comical news clips I saw of this whole affair > involved a Christian protester shouting at someone unidentified "Jesus > Christ hates you!" > > BAL {8^D Ja I saw that! I thought I would wet my diapers laughing. {8^D Wish I had thought of it first. Couldn't tell if it was a seriously misguided born-again or a smart-ass teenage infiltrator trying a tasteless but hilarious gag. spike From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Mar 30 03:22:23 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:22:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians, I'd hate to see Satanists In-Reply-To: <200503300316.j2U3Gq220147@tick.javien.com> References: <200503300316.j2U3Gq220147@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <424A1B6F.6030309@humanenhancement.com> Wish I had seen it! Anyone know if there's a clip to be had on the web? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ spike wrote: >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee >>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians,I'd hate to see >>Satanists >> >>One of the most surreal/comical news clips I saw of this whole affair >>involved a Christian protester shouting at someone unidentified "Jesus >>Christ hates you!" >> >>BAL >> >> > > >{8^D Ja I saw that! I thought I would wet my diapers >laughing. {8^D Wish I had thought of it first. Couldn't >tell if it was a seriously misguided born-again or a >smart-ass teenage infiltrator trying a tasteless but >hilarious gag. > >spike > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 30 05:04:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329205401.03b9ee00@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200503300506.j2U56G203015@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > 'And your (Christ's) many enemies will become like fine dust, the ruthless > hordes like blown chaff (Mal. 4). It will > happen suddenly, in an instant.' >... Damien Broderick Surely Dr. Broderick is the supplier of the parenthetical Christ. Malachi predated Jesus and Hoerkheimer by several hundred years. Perhaps that is why Malachi is called a prophet. {8-] spike From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Wed Mar 30 05:40:06 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:40:06 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Intelligence In-Reply-To: <010f01c53307$bcf222a0$73893cd1@pavilion> References: <010f01c53307$bcf222a0$73893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200503300240.06807.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> I have just bought it two weeks ago, and it got here in Brazil only today. But I bought 6 other books with it (importing one book at a time is not a genius idea) and it is the third on my list, after The meme machine and Collapse. Diego Caleiro (Log At) Ps: Is it good until now? Em Domingo 27 Mar?o 2005 17:01, Technotranscendence escreveu: > I wonder if anyone here has read _On Intelligence_ by Jeff Hawkins and > Sandra Blakeslee? I'm on the third chapter now... > > Cheers! > > Dan > See the "Free Banking FAQ" at: > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 30 05:42:14 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:42:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <200503300506.j2U56G203015@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329205401.03b9ee00@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200503300506.j2U56G203015@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329233940.01cea180@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:04 PM 3/29/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > 'And your (Christ's) many enemies will become like fine dust, the ruthless > > hordes like blown chaff (Mal. 4). It will > > happen suddenly, in an instant.' >... Damien Broderick > >Surely Dr. Broderick is the supplier of the parenthetical >Christ. Nope, this kneejerk exegetical gloss is supplied by the buffoon at http://jahtruth.co.uk/index.htm >Malachi predated Jesus and Hoerkheimer by several >hundred years. Ah yes, but *only by your Earth years*... Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 08:15:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:15:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] if these protesters are Xians, I'd hate to see Satanists In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330081515.24349.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > > Orwell said it best: Christians are the worst > advertisement for their creed. > And I have never heard of a hypocritical satanist. ;) The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 08:24:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:24:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330082414.25761.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: For > the > rest of our natural lives, we will hear creationists > mention this discovery as evidence that dinosaurs > were > recent. Creationist blather aside, when did the last dinosaur die? I mean I have heard theories that while most of the dinosaurs went extinct during the K-T boundary event (i.e. yucatan asteroid impact)some in more remote locations may have survived long enough to interact with our hominid ancestors supposedly giving rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have arisen independently in numerous cultures. Some few say that there might still be dinosaurs in certain parts of the world e.g. Lochness and Lake Eyrie let alone more remote parts like jungles in Africa. I have not actually read the primary article in Science yet, did they actually date the fossil? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 08:45:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:45:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329145050.01df4440@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050330084542.31048.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Silwadi said his study of the Koran showed that the > US would > perish mainly because of its great sins against > mankind, > including the Native Americans and blacks. So Allah is going to punish the U.S. for our sins against the native americans and the blacks by drowning us all in a tsunami . . . does this include the native americans and the blacks? Or is he going to laminate them so they don't get wet? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ 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 30 13:37:44 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:37:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on preserved tissue In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330133745.95737.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> At the very beginning of The Gulag Archipelago, in the first paragraph, Solzenitsyn relates how circa 1937 a group of Soviet paleontologists discovered extinct fish frozen hundreds of thousands of years ago, in a near perfect state of preservation. The paleontologists broke through the ice and ate the fish raw, on the spot. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 13:40:43 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:40:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330134043.78651.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> I would hope a T-Rex would chew bin Laden up and then spit him out. --- Gary Miller wrote: > I vote we make T-Rex border patrol and station them > on the Al Qaeda > infested Pakistan/Afghanistan border. > > It might give Osama BinLaden something new to think > about. __________________________________________________ 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 30 13:49:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:49:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330134923.10726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- spike wrote: > For > > the > > rest of our natural lives, we will hear creationists > > mention this discovery as evidence that dinosaurs > > were > > recent. > > Creationist blather aside, when did the last dinosaur > die? I mean I have heard theories that while most of > the dinosaurs went extinct during the K-T boundary > event (i.e. yucatan asteroid impact)some in more > remote locations may have survived long enough to > interact with our hominid ancestors supposedly giving > rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have > arisen independently in numerous cultures. Some few > say that there might still be dinosaurs in certain > parts of the world e.g. Lochness and Lake Eyrie let > alone more remote parts like jungles in Africa. I have > not actually read the primary article in Science yet, > did they actually date the fossil? You mean things like Komodo Dragons, saltwater crocodiles, american alligators, etc? The Komodo is a descendant of a Dragon that once measured up to 9 meters even in prehistoric times, and earlier croc and gator species were similarly much larger. If any non-lizard dinos survived into the early Holocene, it would have been aquatics like pliesiosaurs (sp?) which are what some claim Lock Ness is if it exists. However, as ocean going creatures, they would have run afoul of very large predators like Megalodon and a predecessor to the Orca. Keep in mind that there were hippos in the Thames around 5,000 BC, there could easily have been lizard predators there 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 eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 30 13:53:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:53:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Betting on Dinosaurs In-Reply-To: <20050330134043.78651.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050330134043.78651.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050330135346.GB24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:40:43AM -0800, Al Brooks wrote: > I would hope a T-Rex would chew bin Laden up and then > spit him out. I would hope you would stop posting random garbage to this list. This isn't your personal dumpster. > > > > --- Gary Miller wrote: > > I vote we make T-Rex border patrol and station them > > on the Al Qaeda > > infested Pakistan/Afghanistan border. > > > > It might give Osama BinLaden something new to think > > about. > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 13:53:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:53:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on preserved tissue In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330135353.14398.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A few years ago, when they were digging up a buried mastodon, they showed early 20th century film clips of russians eating frozen mastodon on the tv special about the event. If tissue remains frozen long enough to become completely encapsulated, then its surroundings dessicated, how long could the tissue be preserved? --- Al Brooks wrote: > At the very beginning of The Gulag Archipelago, in the > first paragraph, Solzenitsyn relates how circa 1937 a > group of Soviet paleontologists discovered extinct > fish frozen hundreds of thousands of years ago, in a > near perfect state of preservation. > The paleontologists broke through the ice and ate the > fish raw, on the spot. > > > > __________________________________ > 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 > 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 30 13:56:23 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mike, why bend over backward? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330135623.34908.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> However divorce is also considered wrong by many. Divorce would have been Michael Schiavo discarding his wife. So Schiavo cannot win now and couldn't win back in the '90s. Divorce his wife? He's a callous husband (that is to say callous ex-husband). Give the Schindlers custody of Terry? Then he would have ignored his wife's wishes that she be terminated in the sort of state she is in now-- assuming he is not lying about her unwritten living will. You can't even really accuse him of adultery, adultery is 'cheating' on a spouse, but in her condition it could be argued he isn't actually cheating since she is unaware of his behavior, not to mention everything else, and she cannot give him sex herself. Mike you are usually fair, why are you bending over backward for Terry, but are being so unfair to her husband-- who is living a real life? I know you want to err on the side of life, but...sheesh. > He should have had the integrity to divorce her. He > is not 'accused' of > adultery, he is openly and admittedly adulterous. > You can't claim he > isn't living with his girlfriend and bearing > children with her while he > is still married to his wife. That is a known and > public fact. Ergo, he > is adulterous, which is still a crime in FL, I am > told, or at least > pretext for divorce, in which case he should have no > say in the care of > Terri Schiavo. In this respect any court that > actually honored the law > should have overruled his claim to spousal power of > attorney long ago. > > > 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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 13:57:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:57:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330135722.96675.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > Silwadi said his study of the Koran showed that the > > US would > > perish mainly because of its great sins against > > mankind, > > including the Native Americans and blacks. > > So Allah is going to punish the U.S. for our sins > against the native americans and the blacks by > drowning us all in a tsunami . . . does this include > the native americans and the blacks? Or is he going to > laminate them so they don't get wet? I'll notice he doesn't regard the recent Tsunami, or the latent pressure in the fault there, which geologists say will result in another major tsunami in the next several years, as the event foretold. One would think they'd ask why Allah killed so many 'good muslims' after they were being so properly hateful of the US. 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 30 14:05:22 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:05:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] I apologize In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330140523.32923.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> I apologize for criticizing bin Laden in such an unpleasant manner; and as a non-paying user of this Extropy-list I would not be fair in complaining about some of the garbage posted, by those you would consider true extropians, to this list. --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > I would hope you would stop posting random garbage > to this list. > > This isn't your personal dumpster. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 14:10:03 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:10:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thoughts on preserved tissue In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330141004.43970.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Why, for millions of years. However there's no record of trilobites and other creatures that old having their tissue preserved. So perhaps after say, 178.4 million years, tissue is gone. > If tissue remains frozen long enough to become > completely encapsulated, > then its surroundings dessicated, how long could the > tissue be > preserved? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 14:14:31 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:14:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <20050330134923.10726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050330134923.10726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:49:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Keep in mind that there were hippos in the Thames around 5,000 BC, > there could easily have been lizard predators there as well. > What!! My granddad was alive then and he doesn't remember hippos in the Thames! See: Museum of London - Hippopotami were common in Britain about 110,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than it is today. This allowed animals to live here that today we would associate with regions such as Africa. Other species included wild oxen, red deer, fallow deer, lion, hyena, straight-tusked elephant, rhino and bison. Environmental evidence suggests the area around Regent Street at this time was open grassland with hazel, maple, hawthorn and water chestnut trees. Ah - That explains it. They were before his time. :) BillK From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 14:21:09 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:21:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] I apologize In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330142109.44473.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> In that case I will unsubscribe. Besides, an extropian world is IMO so far off in the future it is not worth thinking about now. Perhaps in the next decade, but not now. > There are other offenders, but you're the worst so far. > Eugen Leitl References: <20050330142109.44473.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424ABF69.8070607@optusnet.com.au> Al Brooks wrote: > In that case I will unsubscribe. > Besides, an extropian world is IMO so far off in the > future it is not worth thinking about now. Perhaps in > the next decade, but not now. > There is no need to unsubscribe, and while I would hope that you do not do so, I think that Eugen has a point. My understanding is that this list is meant to be a place to discuss and promote interesting tech and sociological theories and developments. It's the reason I read this list. Yes, sometimes it gets sidetracked into politics/current events/dead horse issues, but overall it maintains a reasonable signal to noise ratio, and even apparently done-to-death topics can sometimes surprise you. The main thing is to keep it interesting and to look at the positive possibilities as well as the downsides. There are plenty of lurkers, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the ideal is to contribute or shut up. Dismissive and unsupported putdowns, me-too posts, political one-liners etc. add nothing to anyone else's experience on this list. -David ps. Don't take this too personally, this was mostly meant in a general way. I think some of your posts have been interesting, but anyone who posts with the informational density of Eugen is going to lack patience when you do occasionally post crap to the list. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 15:04:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:04:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mike, why bend over backward? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330150420.88785.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > However divorce is also considered wrong by many. > Divorce would have been Michael Schiavo discarding his > wife. He discarded his wife under the law when he shacked up with another woman. Divorce is not considered wrong in case of adultery. > So Schiavo cannot win now and couldn't win back > in the '90s. Divorce his wife? He's a callous husband > (that is to say callous ex-husband). Give the > Schindlers custody of Terry? Then he would have > ignored his wife's wishes that she be terminated in > the sort of state she is in now-- assuming he is not > lying about her unwritten living will. > You can't even really accuse him of adultery, adultery > is 'cheating' on a spouse, but in her condition it > could be argued he isn't actually cheating since she > is unaware of his behavior, not to mention everything > else, and she cannot give him sex herself. Adultery is not 'cheating' on a spouse. Adultery is sexual intercourse with another outside the marriage contract (and at least here in NH) when such intercourse may or does result in children outside that contract. Marriage is a deed claim on the partners sexual organs for reproductive purposes. "Not giving sex" is grounds for not just divorce but total annullment of a marriage. > Mike you are usually fair, why are you bending over > backward for Terry, but are being so unfair to her > husband-- who is living a real life? I know you want > to err on the side of life, but...sheesh. Conditions are too suspicious to give the husband what he wants when we have no idea what she wants. The courts have been pretty clear on this up to now: unwritten wishes are only binding if all family members agree. If there are no written wishes, and the family cannot decide, the courts are supposed to side with life. I find it interesting that so many people who are otherwise opposed to the death penalty who normally demand huge walls of proof in order to execute someone are treating Terri as if she is merely a bug to be swatted. Terri never hurt anyone. Her husband might have. Why are you treating her like less than a death row inmate? 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 Wed Mar 30 15:21:35 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:21:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <20050330082414.25761.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503301523.j2UFNg206389@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > > ... supposedly giving > rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have > arisen independently in numerous cultures... > > The Avantguardian Perhaps various cultures all over the place discovered fossilized dinosaurs. Hadrosaurs lived over most of the globe, so the bones aren't all that rare. Could be a simpler explanation too: they found elephant leg bones without ever seeing an elephant, or whale skulls perhaps. spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Mar 30 15:26:02 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:26:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I apologize Message-ID: <72990-22005333015262605@M2W043.mail2web.com> From: David deimtee at optusnet.com.au >The main thing is to keep it interesting and to look at >the positive possibilities as well as the downsides. Thank you David, a wise reminder for subscribers. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 30 15:40:27 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:40:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] I apologize In-Reply-To: <424ABF69.8070607@optusnet.com.au> References: <20050330142109.44473.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> <424ABF69.8070607@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050330093832.01de0d48@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:02 AM 3/31/2005 +1000, David wrote: >Al Brooks wrote: >>In that case I will unsubscribe. >There is no need to unsubscribe It's a really good plan, though. >ps. Don't take this too personally Or do. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 16:24:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:24:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > > > > ... supposedly giving > > rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have > > arisen independently in numerous cultures... > > > > The Avantguardian > > > Perhaps various cultures all over the place discovered > fossilized dinosaurs. Hadrosaurs lived over most of the > globe, so the bones aren't all that rare. Could be a > simpler explanation too: they found elephant leg bones > without ever seeing an elephant, or whale skulls perhaps. > Sure, this is why they are in legend magical mythical creatures. St. George may have just dug up a dino skull and claimed he slew it. I'll be the virgin he 'saved' cut a deal to preserve her virginity... 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 Wed Mar 30 16:32:17 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:32:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Gates investing in more efficient aircraft Message-ID: Gates buys into $400m aircraft start-up March 24 2005 The Albuquerque, New Mexico-based company is working on the Eclipse 500, a six-seater that can fly at a maximum speed of 375 knots. Designed for flights of about 300 miles to 600 miles, the plane, which will sell for $1.3m, will likely be used by companies promoting on-demand flight services. Aircraft like the Eclipse 500, however, will eventually change the way planes are made. For one thing, the engine, which comes from Pratt & Whitney, is incredibly small - about 14 inches in diameter. Smaller engines enable engineers to eliminate much of the weight of the plane, which leads to better fuel efficiency and distance. Mass production of such engines can reduce costs. The Eclipse designers have also eliminated about 60 per cent of the rivets on the plane, using strong welds instead. Many of the traditional mechanical functions on a plane are performed by semiconductors and software, he added. Besides cutting costs, these design changes also cut weight - key for airplanes. ----------- Seems like Bert Rutan isn't the only one developing better aircraft. BillK From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu Wed Mar 30 17:49:40 2005 From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:49:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 Message-ID: I wonder how big a tsunami has to be to reach Wisconsin? But if Silwadi's prediction is really a tsunami of debt, then 2007 might be about right. From hal at finney.org Wed Mar 30 18:57:26 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:57:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Gates investing in more efficient aircraft Message-ID: <20050330185726.0385357EE7@finney.org> BillK forwards: > > > Gates buys into $400m aircraft start-up March 24 2005 > > The Albuquerque, New Mexico-based company is working on the Eclipse > 500, a six-seater that can fly at a maximum speed of 375 knots. > Designed for flights of about 300 miles to 600 miles, the plane, which > will sell for $1.3m, will likely be used by companies promoting > on-demand flight services. An article in Business Week this month, , talks about the move of Silicon Valley technologists into commercial aviation. Last week, technology guru Esther Dyson had a special seminar called Flight School immediately after her PC Forum conference, . She writes: "A number of IT people have already wandered into the air: Vern Raburn, formerly of Microsoft, Lotus and Symantec, now runs Eclipse Aviation. Jeff Bezos has Blue Origin, his mysterious rocket company. Elon Musk, co-founder of Paypal, is behind SpaceX, and Adeo Ressi of Game Trust is Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee for X Prize, a $10-million prize awarded to SpaceShipOne for being the first private company to launch individuals into space on a reusable vehicle. And then there's a host of PC-industry angel investors (me among them) in Zero-Gravity, the weightless flight company." BTW that Zero Gravity thing sounds like fun, www.nogravity.com . It's $3750 for the commercial version of NASA's "vomit comet" (oddly enough they don't use that phrase on their web site). You get several periods of about 30 seconds of weightlessness as the plane flies in a series of parabolic arcs. They did it on The Apprentice last year and one of the characters got really sick. Still it would be something to try at least once in life. The BW analogy draws an interesting analogy between tech and aviation: > Dyson borrowed an in-vogue phrase, the "long tail," that's being used > to describe the success of niche products on sites such as eBay (EBAY) > and Amazon. The "long tail" refers to the huge backlog of products > that follow the top-sellers at the head. Taken together, they can be > even more profitable than the most in-demand offerings. "It's exactly > the same paradigm" in aviation today, says Iacobucci. "We think this > is like the birth of networking -- a new way of doing things that's an > incredible value proposition for businesses." > > Iacobucci thinks these new products and services will allow people to > make money on the long tail of aviation -- that is, the myriad small > trips that either require many hours of driving or cost thousands > of dollars to make by air charter. Right now there are few passenger > flights between the more than 5,000 local airports around the country > because the aircraft, traffic control, and scheduling technologies don't > allow economical flights. "We'll steal lots and lots of car traffic," > says onetime People Express founder Donald Burr, now CEO of upcoming > air taxi service Pogo Jet in Stratford, Conn. "It's all about letting > people have something they didn't have before." I've seen this "long tail" mentioned quite a bit recently. If you graph items from some set by popularity, you often get what is called a Zipf distribution (first Google hit, ). A relative few items are very popular and then it falls off fast. If the set is large you have an enormous number of low-popularity items which are often under-served by the market. Amazon's success is said to be due to serving this segment by virtue of its huge catalog. The theory in aviation is that we are about to see a world of air taxis and nextgen private planes letting people fly on relatively local trips that they would currently spend hours driving. James Fallows' book Free Flight advanced this concept, talking about Eclipse jets and also the hot new Cirrus private planes, pinup models for private pilots, . I'm not sure this idea will work, all the analyses I've seen show it to be really expensive. They have to assume there is a huge underserved market of millionaires who are willing to pay a thousand dollars for a two hour flight instead of driving five hours. And it depends crucially on small local airports, most of which aren't really set up for significant levels of commercial passenger flights. But it will be interesting to see if it happens. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 20:32:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: High tech era officially over, please turn out the lights. Message-ID: <20050330203229.65728.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Comdex takes a dirt nap: Comdex, the high-tech trade show that once commanded the attendance of the titans of the industry and at its height filled Las Vegas to bursting with buffet-grazing geeks and booth babes has been canceled. Again. In a statement, Comdex owner Good Morning Silicon Valley reports: "MediaLive International, which had promised to bring the event back in 2005 after canceling it for the first time in 25 years, said it needs more time "to determine how Comdex can best meet the future needs of the industry." "Through our continued discourse across the community of IT buyers, vendors and other stakeholders, we've made significant progress," the San Francisco-based company said. "However, considerable work remains to build an industry event to serve the industry as it matures with the same success that Comdex did in its infancy." I'll say. But the real question for MediaLive is this: Is the event worth bringing back in 2006? Does anyone even care? Somehow, I don't think so. "Comdex 2004 was cancelled?" joked Silicon Valley marketing guru Regis McKenna in a recent conversation with GMSV. "I didn't notice." " 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 30 20:37:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:37:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330203729.97714.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How about a tsunami of Chinese sub-launched ballistic missiles? Expect China to dump its $587 billion in FRNs 6-12 months before it launches the operation against Taiwan they are now rehearsing with Russia. The missile tsunami will occur if we give them any guff over the issue. If China drops the dollar bomb, the debt tsunami is guaranteed. --- Bill Hibbard wrote: > I wonder how big a tsunami has to be to reach Wisconsin? > > But if Silwadi's prediction is really a tsunami of debt, > then 2007 might be about right. 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 30 20:58:32 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:58:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: High tech era officially over, please turn out the lights. In-Reply-To: <20050330203229.65728.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050330203229.65728.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424B12F8.6020806@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Comdex takes a dirt nap: Comdex, the high-tech trade show that once >commanded the attendance of the titans of the industry and at its >height filled Las Vegas to bursting with buffet-grazing geeks and booth >babes has been canceled. Again. In a statement, Comdex owner Good >Morning Silicon Valley reports: "MediaLive International, which had >promised to bring the event back in 2005 after canceling it for the >first time in 25 years, said it needs more time "to determine how >Comdex can best meet the future needs of the industry." "Through our >continued discourse across the community of IT buyers, vendors and >other stakeholders, we've made significant progress," the San >Francisco-based company said. "However, considerable work remains to >build an industry event to serve the industry as it matures with the >same success that Comdex did in its infancy." I'll say. But the real >question for MediaLive is this: Is the event worth bringing back in >2006? Does anyone even care? Somehow, I don't think so. "Comdex 2004 >was cancelled?" joked Silicon Valley marketing guru Regis McKenna in a >recent conversation with GMSV. "I didn't notice." " > > > The high tech era is not over - it's merely moved to Asia. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Wed Mar 30 21:01:07 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:01:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: <20050330203729.97714.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050330203729.97714.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424B1393.4050403@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >How about a tsunami of Chinese sub-launched ballistic missiles? > >Expect China to dump its $587 billion in FRNs 6-12 months before it >launches the operation against Taiwan they are now rehearsing with >Russia. The missile tsunami will occur if we give them any guff over >the issue. If China drops the dollar bomb, the debt tsunami is >guaranteed. > > > /I would say that the /$587 billion is insurance against the US going to the aid of Taiwan. Expect statements from the US about how reunification is inevitable and should be planned *now*. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Mar 30 21:04:41 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:04:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 Message-ID: <1112216681.20982@whirlwind.he.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Expect China to dump its $587 billion in FRNs 6-12 months before it > launches the operation against Taiwan they are now rehearsing with > Russia. The missile tsunami will occur if we give them any guff over > the issue. If China drops the dollar bomb, the debt tsunami is > guaranteed. Ridiculous and simplistic. So they burn a half trillion in currency assets, mightily piss off two of the most powerful militaries in the world (US and Japan) who just happen to have vastly more sophisticated military assets than China in their neighborhood and decisive control of the sea lanes, virtually guarantee a steep cut in their export markets and retaliatory resource strangulation, and making the Russians mighty nervous about the integrity of their Siberian oil fields. Just so that they can grab Taiwan in what would almost certainly be a bloody and protracted war. The current Chinese government would not survive that scenario, and would die at the hand of its own people. And they know this. China is holding Shylock's contract, Portia is eyeballing them with a big ass-whoopin' stick, and it is not like Antonio is just going to roll over and take it either. The only realistic scenario would be for China to slowly corrode and overthrow the Taiwanese government from the inside out, obviating the almost certain losing hot war scenario. And the US and Japan would be actively interfering with such efforts. cheers, j. andrew rogers From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 22:33:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:33:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007 In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050330223308.50129.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Expect China to dump its $587 billion in FRNs 6-12 months before it > > launches the operation against Taiwan they are now rehearsing with > > Russia. The missile tsunami will occur if we give them any guff > over > > the issue. If China drops the dollar bomb, the debt tsunami is > > guaranteed. > > > Ridiculous and simplistic. > > So they burn a half trillion in currency assets, mightily piss off > two > of the most powerful militaries in the world (US and Japan) who just > happen to have vastly more sophisticated military assets than China > in > their neighborhood and decisive control of the sea lanes, virtually > guarantee a steep cut in their export markets and retaliatory > resource > strangulation, and making the Russians mighty nervous about the > integrity of their Siberian oil fields. Just so that they can grab > Taiwan in what would almost certainly be a bloody and protracted war. > > The current Chinese government would not survive that scenario, and > would die at the hand of its own people. And they know this. > China is holding Shylock's contract, Portia is eyeballing them with a > big ass-whoopin' stick, and it is not like Antonio is just going to > roll over and take it either. > > The only realistic scenario would be for China to slowly corrode and > overthrow the Taiwanese government from the inside out, obviating the > almost certain losing hot war scenario. And the US and Japan would > be actively interfering with such efforts. Not likely. Chinese popular sentiment is that a) Taiwan is part of China, b) any secession action by Taiwan should be met with force. The Peoples Congress just passed authorization of force approval. China is rehearsing the invasion NOW. They are deploying their first generation nuclear missile sub fleet NOW, w/ missiles capable of hitting anywhere in the US from the west coast. They have announced they are going to "diversify" their currency reserve portfolio. They have started a breakneck project to revitalize and expand massive silver deposits. They have signed an agreement with the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam over the Spratly oil fields for joint exploration and exploitation. China is over 1 billion people. Taiwan is only 28 million. Invading Taiwan would be a cakewalk for China provided they put the US pacific fleet out of commission either militarily or economically. If the dollar bomb drops, US oil prices will hit $150/bbl. The US won't be able to support fueling any sort of material airlift or sealift effort. The US will sit it out with a quick recession, or get stupid and have a nuclear exchange, while accomodating Taiwanese refugees, and if there is no nuclear exchange, within a year will start enjoying a massive positive trade balance for the first time in decades. China will have Taiwan at the expense of the US trade relationship, but it will also have a massive domestic consumer economy to start making their own products for. 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Mar 31 01:28:10 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) Message-ID: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Not likely. Chinese popular sentiment is that a) Taiwan is part of > China, b) any secession action by Taiwan should be met with force. The > Peoples Congress just passed authorization of force approval. Don't confuse the Chinese government with the land area that is China. It is a fragmented and complex country, and the communist party has to put on quite a dog-and-pony show just to maintain their control. They no longer have the ability to rule with an iron fist within their own borders, as there are too many other powerful competing interests they have to keep reasonably unagitated. > China is rehearsing the invasion NOW. You do know that Taiwan is an island quite a distance off the continent, right? China maintains a littoral Navy with a tiny and third-rate "green water" force (Taiwan would be a "green water" operation) and no history of competent naval operations in modern times. And their anti-submarine capability is simply obsolete, leaving those ships vulnerable as they cross the channel. I'd love to know how they'll mount an "invasion" with that kind of force projection capability. China can't project more than a few divisions, and with such a meager and obsolete force that they would lose most of these assets to first-line Taiwanese defenses (which are comparable to what most European countries can field, technology-wise). > They are deploying their first generation > nuclear missile sub fleet NOW, w/ missiles capable of hitting anywhere > in the US from the west coast. The subs are obsolete by our standards. If we thought they were a threat, we'd be have hunter subs on their tail in no time. Not that it matters, since China would have a difficult enough time with Taiwan without giving the US (and likely Japan) an excuse to scuttle every piece of hardware that leaves their shore by sea or air. In case you haven't been paying attention, superior battlefield technology spanks quantity these days, and China is both inexperienced at this type of warfare AND using outdated technology. They may have millions upon millions of soldiers, but they'll be sitting on the shoreline annoying no one but themselves. The bottom line is that China has no credible military lever against the US, even the "we'll go crazy and flip out on you" gambit is a loser because the US would know it is a bluff. They aren't invading Taiwan to drag themselves into a full-scale war with the US -- there are easier ways to accomplish that. > They have announced they are going to > "diversify" their currency reserve portfolio. So? > They have started a breakneck project to revitalize and > expand massive silver deposits. So? The price of silver is marginally over the cost of production -- most silver production is incidental from copper, gold, and lead mining. I'm not sure what increasing silver production is going to get them, since the price can't go much lower and there is not a lot of profit in it anyway. > They have signed an agreement with the Phillipines, Indonesia, > Malaysia, and Vietnam over the Spratly oil fields for joint > exploration and exploitation. That's nice. Unfortunately, they won't see any oil from this for many, many years, so I do not see the relevance to your hypothesized impending invasion of Taiwan. > China is over 1 billion people. Taiwan is only 28 million. Invading > Taiwan would be a cakewalk for China provided they put the US pacific > fleet out of commission either militarily or economically. So now the Chinese can walk on water? That will be a several day march. Your entire hypothesis is based on absurd premises. The Chinese could not move enough soldiers to do the job today in the absence of the US Navy and the Taiwanese naval defenses. And in the real world, there *are* Taiwanese naval defenses and twitchy US and Japanese military assets. The idea that the Chinese have the capability to put the US Navy out of commission is ludicrous on its face; a 20-30 year military technology advantage in modern times is all but insurmountable. And that is presuming that the Chinese have a significant quantity of these assets themselves, and in many categories they do not. The bottom line is that China would have to engage in a massive overhaul of their naval capabilities to have a prayer, and previous attempts to do so have been more failure than success. Assuming a best case scenario and massive resource expenditure, it would take them many years to have a fighting chance, at least a decade in all probability. [...more grossly unrealistic scenarios elided...] Honestly Mike, your entire scenario is very loosely strung together bit of fantasy with only marginal grounding in reality. China wants Taiwan, but they are not willing to risk a direct military confrontation with the US to do it, it is doubtful they could handle Taiwan currently anyway due to force projection credibility issues, and the current Chinese political structure also has to protect itself from other factions inside its own borders that would see aggressive stupidity as an opportunity. China taking Taiwan by military force may happen some time many years down the road, but not any time soon. j. andrew rogers From dgc at cox.net Thu Mar 31 02:13:43 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:13:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] T-Rex vs Bin-Laden In-Reply-To: <20050330134043.78651.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050330134043.78651.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424B5CD7.8020409@cox.net> Al Brooks wrote: >I would hope a T-Rex would chew bin Laden up and then >spit him out. > > > >--- Gary Miller wrote: > > >>I vote we make T-Rex border patrol and station them >>on the Al Qaeda >>infested Pakistan/Afghanistan border. >> >>It might give Osama BinLaden something new to think >>about. >> >> > > > This is truly ridiculous on so many levels that it actually becomes interesting. The Mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border region is one of the most difficult pieces of habitable terrain in the world. There might possibly be a worse place in the world for a T-Rex, but I'm not sure where. Has the list examined the hunt for Bin-Laden? I was not paying attention. There is no obvious way to use ordinary technology to good effect in this border region, and I cannot think of a way to use more manpower. Perhaps if we had concentrated on Bin-Laden instead of distracting ourselves in Iraq, we could have thought of something. About the only approach I can think of would be to: 1) offer a truly enormas monetary reward and 2) make make a convincing argument that the recipient of the reward and his family will live to take advantage of it. A cynic might conclude that it is not in the strategic political interest of the leadership of the US to actually capture Bin-Laden. Is there a way to use emerging technologies to find Bin-Laden in this hostile environment? How about a automating a Bin-Laden-specific PCR sampler and testing damn near every site that the searchers look at? Of course, any such technology can subsequently be used everywhere else: welcome to the transparent society. What about coupling continuous infra-red satellite surveillance with pattern-recognition software? For a mere $100 million, I suspect you could track every inhabitant of the region: then, you only need a human searcher to contact each identified inhabitant (i.e., each track) once. How about carpet-bombing the region with WIFI-enabled cameras? Unit cost of $1000, camera, solar panel, WIFI system. The units establish a WIFI mesh. $1000 per sq Km. Especially useful in conjunction with the above-mentioned infrared tracker. I would deploy the cameras in lines with a 500m spacing, but an operations researcher might prefer something more random. How about cheap UAVs? the problem here is that training and paying the pilots is expensive. a super-cheap UAV might cost $5000, with a life expectancy of (say) ten flights when the pilots are non-professionals. But you can probably recruit a million enthusiastic unpaid volunteers to pilot these UAVs from the comfort of their homes here in the US: the ultimate video game. Build a decent sim trainer and let the millions of volunteers compete to become pilots of REAL bin-laden seekers. The reward is to pilot the real thing. You cold probably make the whole thing self-funding by actually charging the participants to join the challenge. let's see: a million participants with a $10.00 fee. chance of piloting a real mission: one in 1000. $5000/UAV and an overhead of 100%, we can pay for 1000 real missions. Mission parameters: 100Km search path, photograph all suspicious persons along the path. This has tremendous synergy with the above two approaches. OK, that's it for me. any other approaches? From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 02:27:11 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:27:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) In-Reply-To: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <424B5FFF.8080700@neopax.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >In case you haven't been paying attention, superior battlefield >technology spanks quantity these days, and China is both inexperienced >at this type of warfare AND using outdated technology. They may have >millions upon millions of soldiers, but they'll be sitting on the >shoreline annoying no one but themselves. > > > Not true IMO. It is air supremacy that spanks quantity and the US is over reliant on it. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From dgc at cox.net Thu Mar 31 03:09:56 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:09:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) In-Reply-To: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > >You do know that Taiwan is an island quite a distance off the continent, >right? China maintains a littoral Navy with a tiny and third-rate >"green water" force (Taiwan would be a "green water" operation) and no >history of competent naval operations in modern times. And their >anti-submarine capability is simply obsolete, leaving those ships >vulnerable as they cross the channel. > >I'd love to know how they'll mount an "invasion" with that kind of force >projection capability. China can't project more than a few divisions, >and with such a meager and obsolete force that they would lose most of >these assets to first-line Taiwanese defenses (which are comparable to >what most European countries can field, technology-wise). > > > > I must agree. Back in the '90s I suggested that China might invade Taiwan on the Tom Clancy usenet group. I was promptly handed my head in a basket. Taiwan is a long way from the Chinese mainland, and the eastern coast of Taiwan is rugged. There is essentially no way that a seaborne invasion can succeed given any seagoing opposition at all. In spite of all you may think, there is no way that an airborne invasion is feasible: you just cannot air-drop enough tonnage. A single modest-sized ship carries more tonnage than 1000 large airplanes. The only other option is nuclear. As long as the US is committed to nuclear retaliation against the PRC, this is not a viable option. China cannot even manage to re-occupy Quemoy and Matsu. these islands are Taiwanese territory, but they are within artilliary range of mainland china. A single US attack submarine in the Formosa Strait would probably suffice to crush any Chinese invasion of Taiwan. HOWEVER: Taiwan is the home of several very large Semiconductor Fab companies. Each company runs several leading-edge wafer Fabs, in total comprising a substantial percentage of the world's modern semiconductor fabrication capability. Any disruption of the output of these fabs will have a bigger effect on the world economy than a a major disruption in a major oil-producing country. A major new fab costs about $4B. An earthquake that shakes a fab can destroy all work in progress even if no capital equipment is damaged. Work in progress can amount to $250M per fab. A slightly more severe earthquake can disrupt power, causing loss of work in progress plus loss of certain expensive capital equipment ( what are "quartz tubes" and why do they die when power is lost?) Conclusion: an invasion of Taiwan is a lot more serious than it at first appears. a single nuke in the wrong place will disrupt the world economy. Why is this Extropian? The Taiwanese fabs are at the leading edge of Moore's law. Even if we don't make a nanotech breakthrough, Moore's law will take us to the singularity within 15 years (a factor of 1000.) Yes, Moore's Law is nothing more than a 30-year-old observation of an empirical data set, but it has in fact held during those ensuing 30 years. From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 31 03:12:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:12:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200503310314.j2V3Ex219807@tick.javien.com> > > > > > > ... supposedly giving > > > rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have > > > arisen independently in numerous cultures... > > > > > > The Avantguardian > > > > > > Perhaps various cultures all over the place discovered > > fossilized dinosaurs... > > > > Sure, this is why they are in legend magical mythical creatures. St. > George may have just dug up a dino skull and claimed he slew it. I'll > be the virgin he 'saved' cut a deal to preserve her virginity... > > Mike Lorrey Its too late for you Mike! No virginity left to save. {8^D The dinosaur skulls embedded the dragon meme into the various cultures, where the memes then mixed around and eventually emerged in the form of local heroes slaying the beasts. You can almost imagine the first discovery of a dino skull or perhaps even just fossilized tracks. The people would have absolutely *no idea* how to explain it: whaaaaat in the helllllll is THAT???? One can imagine dragon legends getting their start in this way. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 31 03:23:30 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) In-Reply-To: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050330221540.033f0350@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:28 PM 30/03/05 -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: snip >The bottom line is that China has no credible military lever against the >US, even the "we'll go crazy and flip out on you" gambit is a loser >because the US would know it is a bluff. They aren't invading Taiwan to >drag themselves into a full-scale war with the US -- there are easier >ways to accomplish that. snip I agree, though there *are* situations where China might go to war. 1. Someone attacks them. That will always do it. 2. They get into an economic problem where growth takes a big hit for long enough for xenophobic memes (no matter how insane) to grow to the point they attack someone. Taiwan being one of the more likely. Such an attack would be irrational, of course, but the psychological mechanisms we have that get us into wars (inherited from the remote past) include suppression of rational thinking. Wish I could point you to the 20 page article on the subject, but it isn't up anywhere yet. Keith Henson From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 00:42:53 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:42:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division Message-ID: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> "Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if need be, other life. Therefore life is aggression and successful life is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to you. Might makes right and power makes freedom. You are free to do whatever is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you had better do whatever is in your interests. If your interests conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against yours, everyone for themselves. If your interests coincide ith those of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We are what we eat, and we eat everything." - Ken Macleod, The Cassini Division -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 03:34:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:34:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) In-Reply-To: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <20050331033428.56919.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Not likely. Chinese popular sentiment is that a) Taiwan is part of > > China, b) any secession action by Taiwan should be met with force. > The > > Peoples Congress just passed authorization of force approval. > > > Don't confuse the Chinese government with the land area that is > China. > It is a fragmented and complex country, and the communist party has > to put on quite a dog-and-pony show just to maintain their control. Yes, and nationalist fever is part of it. The more of a lather they can get the yokels in about Taiwan, they less they bitch about their own slavery. > They > no longer have the ability to rule with an iron fist within their own > borders, as there are too many other powerful competing interests > they have to keep reasonably unagitated. Every one of which is at least 50% owned by a major state ministry. The Peoples Liberation Army is the largest industrial conglomerate. > > > > China is rehearsing the invasion NOW. > > > You do know that Taiwan is an island quite a distance off the > continent, > right? China maintains a littoral Navy with a tiny and third-rate > "green water" force (Taiwan would be a "green water" operation) and > no history of competent naval operations in modern times. And their > anti-submarine capability is simply obsolete, leaving those ships > vulnerable as they cross the channel. Not so. They have been building Aegis rip-offs for a decade now and have purchased a fleet of ultra-quiet german diesel attack subs which outperform our own. The only category of ship they aren't building right now are aircraft carriers. > > I'd love to know how they'll mount an "invasion" with that kind of > force projection capability. China can't project more than a few > divisions, > and with such a meager and obsolete force that they would lose most > of these assets to first-line Taiwanese defenses(which are comparable > to what most European countries can field, technology-wise). Where do you think all the circuit boards for those Taiwanese ships are built? The Chinese can afford a Stalingrad style offense if they have to, but they don't. > > They are deploying their first generation > > nuclear missile sub fleet NOW, w/ missiles capable of hitting > > anywhere in the US from the west coast. > > The subs are obsolete by our standards. If we thought they were a > threat, we'd be have hunter subs on their tail in no time. Not that > it > matters, since China would have a difficult enough time with Taiwan > without giving the US (and likely Japan) an excuse to scuttle every > piece of hardware that leaves their shore by sea or air. On the contrary, these subs are ultra quiet thanks to 8 years of Clinton selling top notch machining technology to China. > In case you haven't been paying attention, superior battlefield > technology spanks quantity these days, and China is both > inexperienced > at this type of warfare AND using outdated technology. They may have > millions upon millions of soldiers, but they'll be sitting on the > shoreline annoying no one but themselves. You apparently haven't been paying attention. The US Navy is obsolete, with the sole exception of the Aegis Pac-3 systems. The Hornet attack plane is now doing double duty as a fighter since the Tomcats are now worn out and being moved to Reserve units. The Navy is still building a 50 year old aircraft carrier design and flying planes that are 30-40 years old. > > The bottom line is that China has no credible military lever against > the > US, even the "we'll go crazy and flip out on you" gambit is a loser > because the US would know it is a bluff. They aren't invading Taiwan > to > drag themselves into a full-scale war with the US -- there are easier > ways to accomplish that. > > > > They have announced they are going to > > "diversify" their currency reserve portfolio. > > So? When they dump nearly $600 billion in cash reserves on the international currency markets, the other $500 billion that other central banks are holding are going to get dumped too. The dollar is going to tank, big time, to less than 10% of its current levels, unless the US gov't does some drastic things, like raising interest rates to 20%, selling off the whole strategic oil reserve, and have the federal reserve sell off the last of its gold stocks. Even that will not soak up more than $500 billion. > > > > They have started a breakneck project to revitalize and > > expand massive silver deposits. > > > So? The price of silver is marginally over the cost of production -- > most silver production is incidental from copper, gold, and lead > mining. > I'm not sure what increasing silver production is going to get them, > since the price can't go much lower and there is not a lot of profit > in it anyway. The cost of production is different for different locations. Right now silver is pushing the $7.50 an ounce. Cost of production averages just over $5.50 typically, but as the price rises less optimal deposits will get exploited. That is the nature of mining anything. The fact is that global silver supply is lagging behind demand by a significant percent and surplus stocks which had accumulated in the late 90's are about expended. Forecasters are predicting $10/oz silver within a year and rising thereafter. Silver prices are now tracking with copper prices as both are the key metals in the continuously growing electronics industry. When China dumps the dollar, they are going to need a new reserve asset. Euros might suffice for a while, but the european economy is stagnant. The Chinese govt is opening those silver mines to start issuing silver and silver backed currency. > > They have signed an agreement with the Phillipines, Indonesia, > > Malaysia, and Vietnam over the Spratly oil fields for joint > > exploration and exploitation. > > That's nice. Unfortunately, they won't see any oil from this for > many, many years, so I do not see the relevance to your hypothesized > impending invasion of Taiwan. Exploratory wells are starting now. Production is expected in 2008. Meantime, they are stockpiling arab and south american oil as fast as possible. > > China is over 1 billion people. Taiwan is only 28 million. Invading > > Taiwan would be a cakewalk for China provided they put the US > > pacific fleet out of commission either militarily or economically. > > > So now the Chinese can walk on water? That will be a several day > march. > Your entire hypothesis is based on absurd premises. The Chinese could > not move enough soldiers to do the job today in the absence of the US > Navy and the Taiwanese naval defenses. And in the real world, there > *are* Taiwanese naval defenses and twitchy US and Japanese military > assets. The idea that the Chinese have the capability to put the US > Navy out of commission is ludicrous on its face; a 20-30 year > military > technology advantage in modern times is all but insurmountable. And > that is presuming that the Chinese have a significant quantity of > these assets themselves, and in many categories they do not. You don't seem to get it. Technology on a ship is irrelevant when your ship doesn't have fuel. When the dollar is in the tank, oil prices in the US will be over $150/bbl. The US cannot sustain a logistical train across the Pacific with that sort of a cost level. There is a maxim in military circles: "Dillettantes talk tactics, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Wars are won and lost on logistics alone. This is how the US wins its wars, not because of superior technology, despite what the propaganda says. Technology is a tactic. 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 Thu Mar 31 04:05:16 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:05:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> Message-ID: <424B76FC.2000606@neopax.com> Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Taiwan is the home of several very large Semiconductor Fab companies. > Each company runs several leading-edge wafer Fabs, in total comprising a > substantial percentage of the world's modern semiconductor fabrication > capability. Any disruption of the output of these fabs will have a > bigger > effect on the world economy than a a major disruption in a major > oil-producing > country. A major new fab costs about $4B. An earthquake that shakes a > fab can > destroy all work in progress even if no capital equipment is damaged. > Work in > progress can amount to $250M per fab. A slightly more severe > earthquake can disrupt > power, causing loss of work in progress plus loss of certain expensive > capital > equipment ( what are "quartz tubes" and why do they die when power is > lost?) > Conclusion: an invasion of Taiwan is a lot more serious than it at > first appears. > a single nuke in the wrong place will disrupt the world economy. > As would a few dozen cruise missiles or IRBMs loaded with HE aimed at such high value targets. Of course, the US could retaliate against Chinese fabs, except that the leading edge ones are owned by big name Western companies. Or China could launch a war of attrition against the US navy over a long period of time in that area that could quyite easily escalate to the use of tactical nukes. More plausibly however, is the use of that $600billion to force the US to lean on Taiwan very heavily. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 31 04:21:11 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:21:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <200503310314.j2V3Ex219807@tick.javien.com> References: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200503310314.j2V3Ex219807@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050330221814.01e3ea00@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:12 PM 3/30/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >You >can almost imagine the first discovery of a dino skull or >perhaps even just fossilized tracks. The people would >have absolutely *no idea* how to explain it: whaaaaat in the >helllllll is THAT???? > >One can imagine dragon legends getting their start in this way. One can indeed, and indeed I did, in my novel THE DREAMING DRAGONS back in 1980. Although there [ no spoilers ] the true explanation was much stranger. Damien Broderick From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Mar 31 05:06:30 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:06:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) Message-ID: <1112245590.8272@whirlwind.he.net> > Yes, and nationalist fever is part of it. The more of a lather they can > get the yokels in about Taiwan, they less they bitch about their own > slavery. You have as little understanding of China as many foreigners have of the US. They have regional differences at least as wide as the US. Think of the differences between a New England blue blood, a Texas rancher, and a Berkeley hippie. Wildly different cultures with very different political interests, and geographically separated. China is a big country that contains multiple visions for the country, and there are powerful interests that are really not a part of the current communist government. Nationalism can be found in any country. The irony is that you've basically bought the communist government's propaganda, hook, line, and sinker. > Not so. They have been building Aegis rip-offs for a decade now and > have purchased a fleet of ultra-quiet german diesel attack subs which > outperform our own. The only category of ship they aren't building > right now are aircraft carriers. You greatly overestimate their naval technology, which no serious analyst has suggested is particularly advanced. Their best assets are 1980s era Russian technology (often straight off the shelf), and the Russians were never able to keep up with us in that arena. And their track record for doing their own naval design work is atrocious. As for your spiffy diesel attack subs, you do know that the US Navy rents these things from the Europeans for submarine warfare practice, right? The idea that they have submarines that outperform US submarines is, again, absurd. That is one area of military technology where few question US dominance. As I just mentioned, we rent state-of-the-art European diesel attack subs for target practice. Are they quiet? Sure. But not quiet enough and we have other very clever ways of tracking subs than passive sonar. > Where do you think all the circuit boards for those Taiwanese ships are > built? Probably in Taiwan. Or the US, since the Taiwanese use a lot of previous generation US naval weapon systems i.e. contemporaneous to whatever the Chinese are getting from the Russians (and therefore likely superior). Though I'm not sure what your point is. You don't expend circuit boards like bullets, particularly for capital military assets like guided missile destroyers. > On the contrary, these subs are ultra quiet thanks to 8 years of > Clinton selling top notch machining technology to China. Again, I've never seen any serious analyst assert that Chinese subs are ultra-quiet. I *have* heard that they have terrible technical problems with their domestically designed subs, and that the Russian technology they have purchased is essentially obsolete. > You apparently haven't been paying attention. The US Navy is obsolete Compared to who? The US has the only blue water navy left, except perhaps for the UK to a limited extent, and US naval weapon systems are years ahead of everyone else and very actively developed. Your view of naval warfare is positively 1970s. [...some misinformed currency geopolitics elided...] > The cost of production is different for different locations. The cost of production is mostly free, except for primary ore bodies which make up a minority of all silver production. Silver is a junk byproduct of other types of mining, and most of the production cost is in the refining. > When China dumps the dollar, they are going to need a new reserve > asset. Euros might suffice for a while, but the european economy is > stagnant. The Chinese govt is opening those silver mines to start > issuing silver and silver backed currency. Only if China is stupid, and they are not. Not only would using silver exhibit all the problems of using commodity backed currency, but it would give the US major leverage. ClueTime: The US is one of the world's major producers of silver (with reserves as large as China), and North America pretty much dominates world production as a continent, followed by South America. There is NOTHING China could do in your hypothetical scenario, that could prevent the US from crushing their currency by dumping silver on the world market. The Chinese cannot outlast us in that game of chicken. It wouldn't be pretty, but that's warfare for you. The US still has vast unexploited natural resource reserves, mostly because environmental regulations lead us to tear up other countries instead. China cannot compete effectively, particularly if we can leverage our neighbors while China cannot. > You don't seem to get it. Technology on a ship is irrelevant when your > ship doesn't have fuel. When the dollar is in the tank, oil prices in > the US will be over $150/bbl. The US cannot sustain a logistical train > across the Pacific with that sort of a cost level. The US gets most of its oil from its own shores and two neighbors. On a war footing, there would be no shortage for the US military. And the US military runs on diesel type fuels. We import oil from across the ocean to get good gasoline grade crude to meet demand, as many diesel grade crudes are not much good for making gasoline even though there is plenty of it in the Americas. All that said, you overestimate the importance of crude prices to military operations. The US is not lacking in domestic production for military purposes (unlike China), and the cost of fuel is going to be a drop in the bucket in the big picture -- only access is important here. > There is a maxim in military circles: "Dillettantes talk tactics, > amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Wars are won and > lost on logistics alone. Pity you know the saying, but little of actual military logistics. > Technology is a tactic. Nonsense. Technology is a force multiplier. It can improve strategy, tactics, AND logistics. The weakness of the Chinese is that they are tactically inexperienced and have poor logistical capability. j. andrew rogers From neptune at superlink.net Thu Mar 31 12:02:12 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:02:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> Message-ID: <004401c535e9$79cf2d80$a7893cd1@pavilion> Thanks, Dirk, for sharing that pleasant view of life. I was having a bad day, but then I read that and said to myself, "Gee, there's hope for humanity.":) Cheers! Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 12:21:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <004401c535e9$79cf2d80$a7893cd1@pavilion> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> <004401c535e9$79cf2d80$a7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <424BEB36.1080206@neopax.com> Technotranscendence wrote: >Thanks, Dirk, for sharing that pleasant view of life. I was having a >bad day, but then I read that and said to myself, "Gee, there's hope for >humanity.":) > > > It seems to have more than a little resonance with the 'ultra rationalist' political views I see in the Transhumanist movement. I though the quote spelled it out quite well in a scientifically unassailable manner. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 31 12:41:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:41:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007) In-Reply-To: <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Why is this Extropian? The Taiwanese fabs are at the leading edge of > Moore's law. > Even if we don't make a nanotech breakthrough, Moore's law will take us to > the singularity within 15 years (a factor of 1000.) Yes, Moore's Law is Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity? > nothing more > than a 30-year-old observation of an empirical data set, but it has in > fact held during those > ensuing 30 years. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 12:55:32 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:55:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>Why is this Extropian? The Taiwanese fabs are at the leading edge of >>Moore's law. >>Even if we don't make a nanotech breakthrough, Moore's law will take us to >>the singularity within 15 years (a factor of 1000.) Yes, Moore's Law is >> >> > >Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it >will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity? > > Looking at what's being cooked up in the labs now leads me to believe that Moore's Law (approximately) will continue beyond 15yrs. Anyway, at its crudest one could take a Human brain, slice it submicron thin, map all its neurons/axions etc and use that in a simulation. That would take quite a bit of computer power. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 31 13:14:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:14:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050331131442.GR24702@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it > >will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity? > > > Looking at what's being cooked up in the labs now leads me to believe > that Moore's Law (approximately) will continue beyond 15yrs. Ok, it *does* look good; I wouldn't bet on it, though. There are some unresolved issues (e.g. leak currents and power dissipation density), and Moore *will* have a discontinuity around 2012..2015, unless molecular electronics is there just in time to take the torch. Right now (2005) molecular electronics is just a lab curiosity, so naturally it's not obvious a decade is enough to make ready for the fab. > Anyway, at its crudest one could take a Human brain, slice it submicron > thin, map all its neurons/axions etc and use that in a simulation. That > would take quite a bit of computer power. Yes, with current methods that would take quite a lot of computing power. Way more computing power than we have by 2015 in a large installation. Even if we knew, how to extract the relevant information (we don't), and had a system able to simulate the relevant aspects (we don't). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 13:57:03 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:57:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <20050331131442.GR24702@leitl.org> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> <20050331131442.GR24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <424C01AF.2030202@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>>Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it >>>will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity? >>> >>> >>> >>Looking at what's being cooked up in the labs now leads me to believe >>that Moore's Law (approximately) will continue beyond 15yrs. >> >> > >Ok, it *does* look good; I wouldn't bet on it, though. There are some >unresolved issues (e.g. leak currents and power dissipation density), and >Moore *will* have a discontinuity around 2012..2015, >unless molecular electronics is there just in time to take the torch. Right >now (2005) molecular electronics is just a lab curiosity, so naturally it's >not obvious a decade is enough to make ready for the fab. > > > >>Anyway, at its crudest one could take a Human brain, slice it submicron >>thin, map all its neurons/axions etc and use that in a simulation. That >>would take quite a bit of computer power. >> >> > >Yes, with current methods that would take quite a lot of computing power. Way >more computing power than we have by 2015 in a large installation. > > > Well, we are already at 10^14 FLOPS and at a guess a FLOP takes more processing than a dendrite/axon. By 2015 we may well be up to 10^17 FLOPS in top of the range supercomputers. Neural sim does assume specialist h/w though. With such simulating 10^10 neurons each with 10^4 axons doesn't seem all that difficult from a computational POV. >Even if we knew, how to extract the relevant information (we don't), and had >a system able to simulate the relevant aspects (we don't). > > > I'm a bit more optimistic than that. I would be suprised if more than 10% of the brain was actually involved in interesting stuff, such as consciousness. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 14:00:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:00:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore > (assuming, it > > >will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the > Singularity? > > > > > Looking at what's being cooked up in the labs now leads me to > believe > > that Moore's Law (approximately) will continue beyond 15yrs. > > Ok, it *does* look good; I wouldn't bet on it, though. There are some > unresolved issues (e.g. leak currents and power dissipation density), > and > Moore *will* have a discontinuity around 2012..2015, > unless molecular electronics is there just in time to take the torch. I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic circuits within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power requirements. What gives? 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 eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 31 14:20:14 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:20:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore != AI (was Re: Taiwan) In-Reply-To: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050331142014.GZ24702@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:00:45AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic circuits > within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power > requirements. What gives? Photonics is one of the candidates to solve the signalling problems (data rate, power, die area), but mostly off-die. There are alternative solutions (e.g. wafer stacking, recently proposed by Intel) proposed, which solve the memory bandwidth problems by providing millions of lanes between CPU cores and memory blocks. Photonics for switching is only interesting for purely photonic networks (which avoid costly and slow photonics-electronics-photonics path). Such switches are relatively big, and are power hogs. Very little integration density there. Photonic modulators and waveguides connecting subunits on-die are probably more than a decade off. You're probably accurate with 3-5 years estimate for first commercial silicon including fully integrated on-die photonics. Nobody knows what the first successful product for this will be, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 14:28:22 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:28:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424C0906.8010900@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >>On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>>>Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore >>>> >>>> >>(assuming, it >> >> >>>>will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the >>>> >>>> >>Singularity? >> >> >>>Looking at what's being cooked up in the labs now leads me to >>> >>> >>believe >> >> >>>that Moore's Law (approximately) will continue beyond 15yrs. >>> >>> >>Ok, it *does* look good; I wouldn't bet on it, though. There are some >>unresolved issues (e.g. leak currents and power dissipation density), >>and >>Moore *will* have a discontinuity around 2012..2015, >>unless molecular electronics is there just in time to take the torch. >> >> > >I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic circuits >within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power >requirements. What gives? > > > > We've been ready for that shift for all my working life ie at least 25yrs. Here's a golden oldie - the transphasor (optical transistor), invented 1979 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3735/15/1/004 And then we have all those miracle materials like GaAs that will speed up computers by a factor of 10 etc... -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 14:32:17 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:32:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore != AI (was Re: Taiwan) In-Reply-To: <20050331142014.GZ24702@leitl.org> References: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050331142014.GZ24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <424C09F1.8050407@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:00:45AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > >>I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic circuits >>within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power >>requirements. What gives? >> >> > >Photonics is one of the candidates to solve the signalling problems (data >rate, power, die area), but mostly off-die. There are alternative solutions >(e.g. wafer stacking, recently proposed by Intel) proposed, which solve the >memory bandwidth problems by providing millions of lanes between CPU cores >and memory blocks. > >Photonics for switching is only interesting for purely photonic networks >(which avoid costly and slow photonics-electronics-photonics path). Such >switches are relatively big, and are power hogs. Very little integration >density there. > >Photonic modulators and waveguides connecting subunits on-die are probably >more than a decade off. You're probably accurate with 3-5 years estimate >for first commercial silicon including fully integrated on-die photonics. > >Nobody knows what the first successful product for this will be, though. > > There are already specialist optical 'computers'. http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw60/ayoub.html -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 31 14:33:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:33:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore != AI (was: Taiwan) In-Reply-To: <424C01AF.2030202@neopax.com> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> <20050331131442.GR24702@leitl.org> <424C01AF.2030202@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050331143310.GB24702@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:57:03PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Well, we are already at 10^14 FLOPS and at a guess a FLOP takes more Is it affordable? Is peak flops a meaningful measure for neuronal code? > processing than a dendrite/axon. By 2015 we may well be up to 10^17 You're guessing. You're wrong. All practical packages burn up OPS like there's no tomorrow. Getting an O(1) scaling with problem sized (if matched by hardware) is in theory easy (spatial tesselation CA over a 3d torus of nodes is an example), but no such practical codes for AI exist. Not yet. Software engineering doesn't follow Moore, you'll observe. > FLOPS in top of the range supercomputers. > Neural sim does assume specialist h/w though. > With such simulating 10^10 neurons each with 10^4 axons doesn't seem all > that difficult from a computational POV. > > >Even if we knew, how to extract the relevant information (we don't), and > >had > >a system able to simulate the relevant aspects (we don't). > > > > > > > I'm a bit more optimistic than that. Do you have a rational reason for optimism? Morphogenetic part of genetic networks is currently a complete unknown. Scanning is currently limited to TEM -- properties of the shape are complete guesswork. Some simple systems are solved, a generic wet neuro simulator is quite beyond the state of the art. Have you seen how e.g. Neuron scales? > I would be suprised if more than 10% of the brain was actually involved > in interesting stuff, such as consciousness. I don't know what consciousness is. I do know that you don't know how to tell which aspects of the scanned system are relevant, and which are omissible. Not trying to put you down; nobody else does. Yet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 31 14:44:32 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:44:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> Message-ID: <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > "Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if > need be, other life. Therefore life is aggression and successful life > is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are > the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time > which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to > you. Might makes right and power makes freedom. You are free to do > whatever is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you > had better do whatever is in your interests. If your interests > conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against > yours, everyone for themselves. If your interests coincide ith those > of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We > are what we eat, and we eat everything." - Ken Macleod, The Cassini > Division > This is a powerful statement of morality, correct in its emphasis on the intentional Self as sole authority on all matters of choice, but misleading in its emphasis on the solitary individual, "bloody in tooth and claw." The real game has moved up a level, to a broader context where effective cooperation within groups provides the might which makes right and the power that makes freedom. That quote certainly appeals to the rugged individualist in us though, doesn't it? - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 15:25:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:25:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <424C1650.8000906@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> "Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if >> need be, other life. Therefore life is aggression and successful life >> is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are >> the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time >> which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to >> you. Might makes right and power makes freedom. You are free to do >> whatever is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you >> had better do whatever is in your interests. If your interests >> conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against >> yours, everyone for themselves. If your interests coincide ith those >> of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We >> are what we eat, and we eat everything." - Ken Macleod, The Cassini >> Division >> > This is a powerful statement of morality, correct in its emphasis on > the intentional Self as sole authority on all matters of choice, but > misleading in its emphasis on the solitary individual, "bloody in > tooth and claw." The real game has moved up a level, to a broader > context where effective cooperation within groups provides the might > which makes right and the power that makes freedom. > That's covered in: " If your interests coincide with those of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest." -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 15:29:59 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:29:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore != AI In-Reply-To: <20050331143310.GB24702@leitl.org> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> <424BF344.2010309@neopax.com> <20050331131442.GR24702@leitl.org> <424C01AF.2030202@neopax.com> <20050331143310.GB24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <424C1777.7060307@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:57:03PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>Well, we are already at 10^14 FLOPS and at a guess a FLOP takes more >> >> > >Is it affordable? Is peak flops a meaningful measure for neuronal code? > > > It's an indicator of processing capacity, given that a FLOP is a rather complex operation. >>processing than a dendrite/axon. By 2015 we may well be up to 10^17 >> >> > >You're guessing. You're wrong. All practical packages burn up OPS like >there's no tomorrow. > > I also suspect that neural net simulators with dedicated h/w will not burn many FLOPS at all. Maybe integer arithmetic is all that is needed. >Getting an O(1) scaling with problem sized (if matched by hardware) is in >theory easy (spatial tesselation CA over a 3d torus of nodes is an example), >but no such practical codes for AI exist. Not yet. > >Software engineering doesn't follow Moore, you'll observe. > > > How do you measure that then? It certainly seems to fill available memory and consume available power in line with Moore's Law. >>FLOPS in top of the range supercomputers. >>Neural sim does assume specialist h/w though. >>With such simulating 10^10 neurons each with 10^4 axons doesn't seem all >>that difficult from a computational POV. >> >> >> >>>Even if we knew, how to extract the relevant information (we don't), and >>>had >>>a system able to simulate the relevant aspects (we don't). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I'm a bit more optimistic than that. >> >> > >Do you have a rational reason for optimism? Morphogenetic part of genetic >networks is currently a complete unknown. Scanning is currently limited to >TEM -- properties of the shape are complete guesswork. Some simple systems >are solved, a generic wet neuro simulator is quite beyond the state of the >art. > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3488 >Have you seen how e.g. Neuron scales? > > > >>I would be suprised if more than 10% of the brain was actually involved >>in interesting stuff, such as consciousness. >> >> > >I don't know what consciousness is. I do know that you don't know how to tell >which aspects of the scanned system are relevant, and which are omissible. > >Not trying to put you down; nobody else does. Yet. > > Yet it *is* known how the brain is divided into areas of rough functionality, and many of those are almost certainly not needed by a sim AI. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 07:02:34 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:02:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Book: More Than Human In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050328070234.57716.qmail@web41309.mail.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Tonight Ramez Naam was live on the ImmInst chat. Just the night of Resurrection Sunday:-) The chat was very lively and Ramez explained the whole process of writing his book, for about two years (the writing, not the chat:-), including talks and visits to about 200 scientific research groups. Incredible! He also mentioned that he did not use the word "transhumanism" even once in the whole book. He feels that the TH word alienates people instead of attracting them to our ideas and goals. He also said that "The Singularity" is an even more dangerous term than TH. In a way, he is right, but we always need words to express our memes... For those of you in the Washington, DC, area, please try to see him in TAICON 2005. I am lucky enough to be there listening to him (and hopefully talking next year, but about TH:-) http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/TAICON2005/program.asp Finally, Ramez has agreed to have a personalized copy of the book, the original art cover and hopefully a work-in-progress manuscript for the first TH Auction that will be held in TransVision 2005. I ask other TH personalities reading this message to bring also special things for the TH Auction. Natasha, how about some of your beautiful TH art? James Hughes, how about an original manuscript from your book? And everybody else, think of other things to bring in order to make the TH Auction a fun night, with the Film Fest and everything:-) Don't just buy Ramez's book, read it... even though I will have to wait until I get my autographed copy in Washington... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: 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/ La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Thu Mar 31 16:33:06 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:33:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> Message-ID: <424C2642.50302@dsl.pipex.com> Dirk Bruere quoted Ken Macleod in The Cassini Division: > "Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if > need be, other life. Therefore life is aggression and successful life > is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are > the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time > which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to you. It has always seemed to me that once you accept that the mind is basically the brain, and is therefore spatial, you can no longer make a strong claim to "rugged individualism." "You" might not always have "your" best interests in mind. However, there's no reason to believe psychological boundaries follow physical boundaries either. "What matters" and "you" are no doubt full of social concepts and there isn't any more reason to arbitrarily deflate them on the basis that you're a physical entity than there is to retain individualistic concepts on the basis that you're a physical entity. Given this, "what matters to you" is probably full of more things than matter, forces, space and time, and is probably more complex than "do whatever is in your power." Unless you suck. Value relativism, then, should lead to conservatism, not individualism. But, of course, value relativism *can't* come from the sort nihilism Macleod alludes to, because, again, there's no reason to run around arbitrarily deflating concepts like "value" while retaining all the concepts that allow you to brood about it afterwards. > Might makes right and power makes freedom. You are free to do whatever > is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you had better > do whatever is in your interests. If your interests conflict with > those of others, let the others pit their power against yours, > everyone for themselves. If your interests coincide ith those of > others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We are > what we eat, and we eat everything." Ethics is complicated. BM From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 31 17:27:23 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:27:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331112226.01ccaab0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:44 AM 3/31/2005 -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: >This is a powerful statement of morality, correct in its emphasis on the >intentional Self as sole authority on all matters of choice, but >misleading in its emphasis on the solitary individual, "bloody in tooth >and claw." ... >That quote certainly appeals to the rugged individualist in us though, >doesn't it? I didn't see the original posted context of this MacLeod quote, but lest anyone get the wrong impression I'll point out that this view, attributed to insane post human super intelligences in MacLeod's splendid novel, is a prelude to them getting their asses kicked by collective humanity, or at least by our ferocious military representatives. How plausible this is remains an interesting question. Damien Broderick From rafal at smigrodzki.org Thu Mar 31 17:35:23 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:35:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A case of self-deception? In-Reply-To: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> A fascinating post on EconLog: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/what_fools_thes.html Apparently after 9/11, trust in government rose. I wonder what is the neurological substrate of this behavior. Perhaps this is a form of self-deception: under external attack, tribe members unite to defend themselves, and temporarily suppress backstabbing and internal power struggles. They must convince themselves that this is a good idea - hence the suppression of disbelief in the goodness of their leaders, even if on rational analysis the leaders (past and present) appear to be a part of the cause of the attack. I wonder how this evolutionary psychology hypothesis could be tested. Rafal From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 18:04:13 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:04:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331112226.01ccaab0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20050331112226.01ccaab0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <424C3B9D.8040009@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:44 AM 3/31/2005 -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > >> This is a powerful statement of morality, correct in its emphasis on >> the intentional Self as sole authority on all matters of choice, but >> misleading in its emphasis on the solitary individual, "bloody in >> tooth and claw." ... >> That quote certainly appeals to the rugged individualist in us >> though, doesn't it? > > > I didn't see the original posted context of this MacLeod quote, but > lest anyone get the wrong impression I'll point out that this view, > attributed to insane post human super intelligences in MacLeod's > splendid novel, is a prelude to them getting their asses kicked by > collective humanity, or at least by our ferocious military > representatives. How plausible this is remains an interesting question. > Actually, it is the philosophy of the Socialist heroes who do the ass kicking. Called the 'True Knowledge'. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 31 18:36:04 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:36:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division Message-ID: <20050331183604.9759F57EE9@finney.org> Dirk quotes a character in The Cassini Division: > Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if > need be, other life. That would be true mostly of animals. Plants generally do not do this, they only use minerals and already-dead organic matter. > Therefore life is aggression and successful life > is successful aggression. According to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter06.html plants make up 99% of earth's biomass, and animals make up only a tenth of a percent. The overwhelming majority of successful life is non-aggressive. Aggressive life accounts for such a tiny percentage that it is almost inconsiderable, based on biomass. Nonaggression is actually a far more successful strategy for life to adopt, on the average. > Life is the scum of matter, and people are > the scum of life. That seems meaningless. In what sense are people the scum of life? Are people worthless refuse? > There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time > which together make power. Is this physics or politics? Power in physics is based on force, space and time (force*space/time). But then we see a shift to political power, which is just rhetorical manipulation. > Nothing matters, except what matters to > you. Where does this come from? > Might makes right and power makes freedom. Why? > You are free to do > whatever is in your power and if you want to survive and thrive you > had better do whatever is in your interests. Again this is a rhetorical trick. At one level this is a tautology, a mere restatement of definitions. By definition, the things you are free to do equal the things that are in your power. By definition, the things that are in your interests are the things that help you to survive and thrive. But the wording implies a shortsighted focus on immediate interests at the expense of others, without consideration of the long-term benefits of coordination and cooperation. > If your interests > conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against > yours, everyone for themselves. The rhetorical trap closes. The slippery definitions and language lead to this mistaken conclusion. Only a fool would foreclose the many options available to him and accept that violent conflict is the only way to resolve disagreements. > If your interests coincide with those > of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. Again, a simplistic, black and white view that is of little use in dealing with the real world. In practice, all relationships have attributes of cooperation and competition. > We > are what we eat, and we eat everything. - Ken Macleod, The Cassini > Division Of course this is not properly attributed to Maclead, but to one of his characters. I'm sure that Maclead harbors no such foolish beliefs. His society is based on cooperation and if anything errs too far in the opposite direction, refusing to accept the utility of competition. I don't have the book handy but I imagine he put these words into the mouth of a character who is presented as a bad example of the old ways of thinking. Hal From steve365 at btinternet.com Thu Mar 31 18:31:49 2005 From: steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:31:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division References: <20050331183604.9759F57EE9@finney.org> Message-ID: <002a01c5361f$e6f10b50$fe219851@mobile> The text reads like a potted version of Stirner. He probably picked it up in one of the long conversations he used to have in the Alternative Bookshop in London back in the eighties (from Syd Parker perhaps?). From steve365 at btinternet.com Thu Mar 31 18:33:52 2005 From: steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:33:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] An interesting report on implants Message-ID: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> Here's a news story that caught my attention. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn1628113.html It's stories like this that weaken the opposition such delvelopments would otherwise face. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Mar 31 18:40:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:40:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thyroxine Message-ID: <424C441D.10502@neopax.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4396495.stm Pill 'could lead to longer lives' * People could one day extend their lifespan by up to 30 years by taking a pill, a scientist has claimed. * Professor John Speakman, from Aberdeen University said the hormone thyroxine could boost metabolism and so lifespan. He said tests on mice suggested, if the right dose could be identified, humans who would otherwise have died aged 70 could live to 100. But a leading hormone specialist warned too much thyroxine can cause potentially fatal health problems. * Mice have a different metabolism to humans * Dr Pierre Bouloux, Royal Free Hospital Studies carried out by the Aberdeen University team showed the mice with the highest metabolic rate lived around 25% longer than those with the lowest. Professor Speakman said this would translate to a difference of around 30 years in humans. When mice were given thyroxine, they had increased metabolic rates and lived longer, compared with animals who were not given the hormone. Thyroxine is already given to people who do not produce enough of the hormone naturally, so that they have a healthy metabolic rate. But people with too much thyroxine in their bodies also have to take medication to bring their level back to normal. * 'Longer lives' * Thyroxine boosts the body's metabolic rate which has a beneficial effect on cell biology, setting off a process which reduces the production of damaging free radicals. Professor Speakman, who has been awarded a ?450,000 grant by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council said: "We know thyroxine affects your metabolic rate. "The key is getting the right dose." He will now carry out research where mice to determine the most effective dose of the drug. Professor Speakman said it might not be possible to find a level which did not have detrimental effects on human health. But he said there were other molecules which could have the same effect on uncoupling proteins. * 'Not true for humans' * Professor Speakman said: "The end point of this research is the hope we'll be able to give people extra healthy years. We don't want to extend their stay in a nursing home." His work is set to be published in the Journal of Experimental Biology. However, a leading specialist in human hormone disorders said the findings would "not be true for humans". Dr Pierre Bouloux, an endocrinologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London said: "This is an example of research being extrapolated on the basis that a mouse represents the best model for a man. It doesn't. "Mice have a different metabolism to humans." He added: "Having an over-active thyroid gland puts you at a three-fold risk of potentially fatal heart disorders and a three to four-fold risk of osteoporosis. "An over-active thyroid causes considerable morbidity in the ageing population." And he warned people who had even a slightly higher level of thyroxine were at risk of ill health. -- 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: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 18:44:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:44:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050331184418.32677.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Dirk quotes a character in The Cassini Division: > > Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if > > need be, other life. > > That would be true mostly of animals. Plants generally do not do > this, they only use minerals and already-dead organic matter. > I think his statement covers that, with the 'if need be' only applying to animals and predatory plants (like venus flytraps). > > Therefore life is aggression and successful life > > is successful aggression. > > According to > http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter06.html > plants make up 99% of earth's biomass, and animals make up only a > tenth of a percent. The overwhelming majority of successful life is > non-aggressive. Aggressive life accounts for such a tiny percentage > that it is almost inconsiderable, based on biomass. Nonaggression is > actually a far more successful strategy for life to adopt, on the > average. Plants are primarily responsible for the degradation and breaking down the intrinsic value of rock. How positively un-martian of you to forget this immense history of geocide. ;) 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 __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 31 19:31:00 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:31:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Amazon's Statistically Improbable Phrases Message-ID: <20050331193100.C6FBA57EEA@finney.org> It sounds like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide or one of Banks' Culture ship names, but Amazon has an amusing new feature called Statistically Improbable Phrases or SIPs. These are displayed with books for which the text is available with their "search inside the book" feature. According to the explanation, Amazon locates phrases which occur much more frequently than average within the book. Sometimes they give a hint of the flavor of the book beyond the reviews and comments. For Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep, the SIPs are: coldsleep boxes, radio cloaks, her dataset, his fronds, voder voice, drive spines, cargo shell, flying house, command deck, refugee ship, scarred one, inner keep, alien member, other hull, single pack, zero gee, most packs. Seems like kind of weird choices: command deck? refugee ship? Would they really be that rare? And where are "Straumli perversion", or "zones of thought", key phrases that drove the entire structure of the book? Let's try some nonfiction, Drexler's Engines of Creation: cell repair machines, millionfold faster, limited assemblers, sealed assembler labs, cell repair technology, cooperating democracies, dangerous replicators, replicating assemblers, automated engineering, assembler arm, mental immune system, mechanical nanocomputers, active shields, duck genes, bulk technology, meme systems, fact forums, protein machines, coming breakthroughs, assembler systems, design ahead, sealed labs, material entropy, molecular machines, neural simulation. That's not too bad, although I don't know where the duck genes came from. Anyway it's an interesting concept, mostly kind of fun to use it on books you haven't read in a while to give you a nostalgic reminder of what they were like. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 31 19:38:05 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:38:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cassini Division In-Reply-To: <424C3B9D.8040009@neopax.com> References: <424B478D.8080908@neopax.com> <424C0CD0.5020805@jefallbright.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20050331112226.01ccaab0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <424C3B9D.8040009@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331132609.01cf2800@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:04 PM 3/31/2005 +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: >>I didn't see the original posted context of this MacLeod quote, but lest >>anyone get the wrong impression I'll point out that this view, attributed >>to insane post human super intelligences... >Actually, it is the philosophy of the Socialist heroes who do the ass kicking. >Called the 'True Knowledge'. Oops, my bad. I hadn't read the book for six or seven years, and got tangled up in MacLeod's many levels of irony. Just to clarify, here's a passage that precedes the mad rant Dirk cited, and one that follows it: [pp. 89-90] Not quite a ringing endorsement. Interestingly, that paragraph is followed by: "It's the Rapture for nerds!" Damien Broderick From iph1954 at msn.com Thu Mar 31 22:08:01 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:08:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Molecular Manufacturing: Step by Step Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Chris Phoenix, Director of Research - cphoenix at CRNano.org Mike Treder, Executive Director - mtreder at CRNano.org March 31, 2005 Molecular Manufacturing: Step by Step Advanced nanotechnology -- molecular manufacturing -- will bring benefits and risks, both on an unprecedented scale. A new paper published by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology suggests that development of molecular manufacturing can be an incremental process from today's capabilities, and may not be as distant as many believe. "Molecular manufacturing has always had great promise, but as a single challenge, it has seemed intimidating. Breaking the problem down into stages shows that it can be achieved step by step," says Chris Phoenix, CRN?s Director of Research and author of the paper, "Developing Molecular Manufacturing." Three stages for the development of molecular manufacturing, each with specific capabilities, are identified in the paper. The first stage is the computer-controlled fabrication of precise molecular structures. The second stage uses nanoscale tools to build more tools, enabling exponential growth of the manufacturing base. The third stage, which integrates nanoscale products into large structures, leads directly to desktop "nanofactories" that could build advanced products. Distributed general-purpose manufacturing of high-performance products has many potential impacts. Production of weapons, various forms of vice, and intellectual property violations would be difficult to regulate. Clumsy regulatory attempts could create an intractable black market infrastructure. The easing of logistic constraints could have military implications, as could sudden advances in robotics and aerospace. If used widely enough, a shift in industrial use of raw materials and location of manufacture could affect resource production and international trade patterns. On the positive side, large-scale use of inexpensive but highly sophisticated technology could quickly replace inefficient or missing infrastructure. Advanced components and materials could make space access cheaper and easier. Rapid prototyping and production of nanoscale devices could be a boon to medical research and health care. Mike Treder, Executive Director of CRN, says, "Because both the risks and the benefits of molecular manufacturing are so great, and because it can be developed step-by-step from today?s technologies, it is urgent that we gain a better understanding of the timetable, the capabilities, and the actual implications." Phoenix adds, "Although the most transformative and dangerous results rely on the most advanced stage of development, success in earlier stages could lead to surprisingly rapid development of the more advanced capabilities. There are several specific areas of study that can improve our understanding of the potential of molecular manufacturing. These studies can and should be initiated today." This release is posted online at http://CRNano.org/PR-Developing.htm The full research paper, "Developing Molecular Manufacturing," is available at http://CRNano.org/developing.htm Other resources: "What is Nanotechnology?" - http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm "What is Molecular Manufacturing?" - http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb "Bootstrapping a Nanofactory: From Fabricator to Finished Products" - http://www.crnano.org/bootstrap.htm "Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies" - http://www.crnano.org/studies.htm The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (http://CRNano.org) is headquartered in New York. CRN is a non-profit think tank concerned with the major societal implications of advanced nanotechnology. We promote public awareness and education, and the crafting of effective policy to maximize benefits and reduce dangers. CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 31 22:14:04 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:14:04 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] An interesting report on implants References: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> Message-ID: <005f01c5363e$f3390600$6e2a2dcb@homepc> I haven't really followed the development of implant technology much lately, about the last time I read up on it semi-seriously was when I bought a copy of Kevin Warwicks, I Cyborg. Newspapers tend to report operations, the implantation part, because its newsworthy, but perhaps more important are how long the implants continue to work. In the case of Warwick's implants, over time, a matter of months, the number of connections to his implant increasingly ceased to work. I think a key thing to watch with implanted chips etc will be how long they continue to operate once installed and whether or how soon biological immune responses etc eventually stop them from working. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu Mar 31 23:15:31 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:15:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Molecular Manufacturing: Step by Step Message-ID: <20050331231531.2E6A157EE9@finney.org> Around here we tend to get a pretty one-sided view of the prospects for nanotech. I have found a good contrarian source to be Richard Jones' blog, Soft Machines, . (Of course, actually it is we who are the contrarians, Jones is presenting the mainstream view but is unusual in that he is willing to address the nanotech enthusiast community.) In particular I recommend Jones' blog entry http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/index.php?p=93 summarizing his view of the state of play in the nanotech debate, and to http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/index.php?p=70 which includes a debate between list member Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and Philip Moriarity, a physics professor working in nanoscience research at the University of Nottingham. Reading Jones' blog gives what I suspect is a more accurate picture of mainstream academia's view of Drexlerism than Smalley's sometimes shrill comments. Jones does not agree with everything Smalley says, but he presents a degree of bemusement at the popular enthusiasm for nanomechanical designs that are utterly foreign to the directions being pursued by nanoscientists. He's not saying they won't work, but he believes that they will ultimately be irrelevant, that we will achieve similar power by very different means. It would follow that trying to use Drexler's approach as the basis of a "timeline to nanotech" is a strongly misguided endeavor, as that is not the path which scientists are following. I read both Jones' blog and of course that of CRN, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/. The CRN one gets updated almost every day, while Jones is more haphazard. Howard Lovy's http://nanobot.blogspot.com/ is more business oriented but I check it occasionally as well. Always try to read from a variety of sources and perspectives! Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Mar 30 06:36:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:36:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] go easy on Mr. Schiavo In-Reply-To: <20050329140417.2584.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050329140417.2584.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <148e63fa43047be871ea529e79627637@mac.com> WTFC? Are we done yet? Please? - s On Mar 29, 2005, at 6:04 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Al Brooks wrote: >> My point was why should Mike Schiavo be accused of >> adultery? Was he supposed to be celibate for all those >> years? take cold showers every night? > > He should have had the integrity to divorce her. He is not 'accused' of > adultery, he is openly and admittedly adulterous. You can't claim he > isn't living with his girlfriend and bearing children with her while he > is still married to his wife. That is a known and public fact. Ergo, he > is adulterous, which is still a crime in FL, I am told, or at least > pretext for divorce, in which case he should have no say in the care of > Terri Schiavo. In this respect any court that actually honored the law > should have overruled his claim to spousal power of attorney long ago. > > > 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 From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Mar 31 07:29:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:29:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <424B76FC.2000606@neopax.com> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <424B76FC.2000606@neopax.com> Message-ID: <328c29569a3600e1c63c433e13a5cc04@mac.com> On Mar 30, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Dan Clemmensen wrote: > >> Taiwan is the home of several very large Semiconductor Fab companies. >> Each company runs several leading-edge wafer Fabs, in total >> comprising a >> substantial percentage of the world's modern semiconductor fabrication >> capability. Any disruption of the output of these fabs will have a >> bigger >> effect on the world economy than a a major disruption in a major >> oil-producing >> country. A major new fab costs about $4B. An earthquake that shakes a >> fab can >> destroy all work in progress even if no capital equipment is damaged. >> Work in >> progress can amount to $250M per fab. A slightly more severe >> earthquake can disrupt >> power, causing loss of work in progress plus loss of certain >> expensive capital >> equipment ( what are "quartz tubes" and why do they die when power is >> lost?) >> Conclusion: an invasion of Taiwan is a lot more serious than it at >> first appears. >> a single nuke in the wrong place will disrupt the world economy. >> > As would a few dozen cruise missiles or IRBMs loaded with HE aimed at > such high value targets. > Of course, the US could retaliate against Chinese fabs, except that > the leading edge ones are owned by big name Western companies. > Or China could launch a war of attrition against the US navy over a > long period of time in that area that could quyite easily escalate to > the use of tactical nukes. > > Seems to me that the way the dollar is tottering about and deep systemic US economic weaknesses are more than sufficient reason for many countries to move away from FRNs to the degree and at a speed that doesn't shoot themselves in the foot. There is evidence of movement from FRNs to hard assets by some countries. Such would seem only prudent. Of course Bush will probably play it that all these countries are attacking us because we are "so good" once the next load of major economic woes hits. China can grab Taiwan at any time and we will do very little in response. We are much too inter-dependent. Too much of the manufacturing we depend on is in China or Taiwan or near neighbors in the region. I doubt very much under current conditions that we could win such a war. If we stop China from grabbing Taiwan I think it will be with carrots rather than sticks. War when it comes ill be about energy (oil) imho. - samantha