From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sun May  1 06:50:09 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:50:09 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org>
References: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <42747C21.6040308@optusnet.com.au>

> This is why I say that Peak Oil sites provide biased news.  They search
> the press for all the bad things, but won't reprint good news (that
> is, news which goes against their theories).  Unfortunately I have not
> found a site which focuses on good news on this topic, so it is hard to
> acquire a balanced picture.  I did order the book by Huber but it would
> be nice to see a blog or some other source that discusses topics on a
> day to day basis.  Of course an unbiased site would be best, but I've
> given up hope in that regard!  At this point I just try to find a mix
> of information sources.
> 
> Hal

You weren't kidding about the websites being biased.
The sites from both sides read like they were
written by paranoid conspiracy theorists on a binge.

However, occasionally they do make testable claims,
eg. from http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

"In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration
well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of
40,230 feet. Since then,  Russian oil majors including Yukos have
quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and
put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia
as the world's biggest single oil producer"

It seems the truth is probably somewhere in the middle - most
reports claim that Kola SG-3 was not intended as an oil well,
but was for research into the Earth'c crust - however the
Russians apparently do have a large number of productive
deep wells that shouldn't be productive according to western
oil theories.

It is difficult to check either side's claims online, as all
the links seem to run around the same few unsubstantiated
articles, which all cite each other as evidence.

The latest figures I could find said that in 2001 Russia was
second in production and http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
says they are expected to continue increasing production.

Even disregarding the abiotic theories we don't seem to have
a problem. www.eia.doe.gov seems to be one of the more balanced
sites, and they give production, reserve, and growth figures
that say peak oil is not going to be a problem for many decades.

-David





From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sun May  1 08:36:01 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 01:36:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE
In-Reply-To: <42701DBF.5040608@neopax.com>
References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4270175C.1060609@cox.net> <42701DBF.5040608@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050501013610742ed0@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/27/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> 
> > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully
> > replicable,
> > fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses
> > are dismissive.
> >
> > Look: Its a first try. Yes, the result is not exothermic, but since
> > the science is
> > well understood, scientists can use this as a basis for improvement.
> > With just a bit
> 
> It's not the first benchtop fusion device and is about 7 orders of
> magnitude inferior to the best Farnsworth fusor.
> http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm

For what it's worth, here's the last sentence of the Nature paper
detailing the research:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/nature03575.html

"We have shown that small (about centimetre-sized) pyroelectric
crystals can produce ion beams (see also Supplementary Fig. 1 and
Supplementary Movie 2) of sufficient energy and current to drive
nuclear fusion. We anticipate increasing the field ionization current
by using a larger tip, or tip array, and by operating at cryogenic
temperatures. With these enhancements, and in addition using a
tritiated target, we believe that the reported signal could be scaled
beyond 10^6 neutrons s^-1. Pyroelectric crystals may also have
applications in electrostatic fusion devices, such as the Farnsworth
fusor, and as microthrusters in miniature spacecraft."

--

Personally, I'm curious if this breakthrough is applicable to
accelerator transmutation of nuclear waste:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/atw/ATWreport.html
http://apt.lanl.gov/atw/
http://www.google.com/search?q=accelerator+transmutation+of+nuclear+waste


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun May  1 16:16:47 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 12:16:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4271D395.9020606@pobox.com>
	<470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050501111933.034bd2e0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:42 AM 29/04/05 +0200, you wrote:
>I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to
>the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it:
>History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the
>Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough
>reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can.

You have the cart before the horse here.  People rationalize mass murder as 
fighting for "Truth."   But the memes people think are causing genocides, 
wars, terrorism and relates social disruptions are a result of a behavioral 
switch (ultimately gene based).  The switch, in response to environmental 
signals, turns up the gain on xenophobic memes.  The amplified memes then 
divert the attention of a band/tribe/nation into synchronizing their 
warriors for an attack on a neighboring group or destroying some fraction 
of the population based on some perceivable difference or a made up one if 
none are present.

The history of Easter Island is instructive, though so are the rest of the 
wars, genocides, pogroms, etc, Rwanda being a clear example.

>On 4/29/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> > >
> > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that
> > > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say
> > > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth
> > > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and
> > > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas,
> > > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The
> > > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid
> > > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas.
> > >
> > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of
> > > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The
> > > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different.
> >
> > That's a complete non-sequitur.  Morality exists within a human mind.

Indeed.  And minds, having been built by genes, are biased in certain very 
predictable ways.  "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion to how 
closely they are related."  "Don't fight with strangers unless they are 
competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives."

> > Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13
> > billion years before ever humans showed on the scene.  I'm not sure what
> > "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to
> > "external reality" then I'm all for external reality.

What I said above is the absolute truth *and* external reality.  If you 
don't belive it (and my tribe is facing a bleak future) we will try to kill 
every one of you heretics (except we might keep your tribe's young women).

:-)

Keith Henson



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun May  1 17:00:31 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 10:00:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SWA) Odd Numbers
Message-ID: <42750B2F.9030207@mindspring.com>

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/20060990-b221-11d9-8c61-00000e2511c8.html

Levitt is no theorist; he does not rely on fancy statistical
techniques but on lateral thinking.



-- 
"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 natasha at natasha.cc  Sun May  1 18:55:28 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 13:55:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] test
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050501135521.02ba1a90@pop-server.austin.rr.com>



Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050501/65c46de4/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun May  1 19:00:16 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 12:00:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality
In-Reply-To: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com>
References: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <42752740.3020206@jefallbright.net>

john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:

>Dear Mr. Allbright, My apologies for the delay in penning this reply, but other
>matters have whelmed me. You have given me much to think about, and,
>unfortunately, much to say, so I apologize for the length of this letter. 
>
>You will see in the letter that my understanding is limited and weak. Your
>conception comes from something alien to my rationalistic tradition, so perhaps
>you can explain your conception to me in simple terms. Please do not interpret
>my disagreement as any sign of disrespect.
>
>Now, to the matter:
>
>To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality
>has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere
>survival as the ground of morality; second, it is mute to determine what objects
>should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already
>universal in any case; third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it
>were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral
>code. 
>  
>

Dear Mr. Wright, I appreciate your interest and thank you for
challenging this thinking and the effectiveness of my presentation of
concepts which, while outside the range of popular thought, especially
in the western tradition, are in my opinion both timely and pertinent to 
our society as technology leads to qualitatively greater awareness of
ourselves, our environment, and our intentional actions within our
environment.

In response to your post, I would like to first summarize briefly the 
key foundational points of the theory, and then proceed with some 
preliminary steps toward practical application.

This metaethical theory is grounded in the observation that there is an
external reality, that appears to be stable and reliable, that we can
model with increasing but never perfect accuracy, measurable by
experiment. This assertion has been debated for millenia, but I have
no time or interest for such debate and would refer anyone interested to
the widely available philosophical corpus. To avoid useless argument, I
say I take this position on faith, but I believe it is the crux of
rationality.

Because all moral decisions are based on values, and values are
necessarily subjective, it is necessary that we define Self, and
contrary to popular conception, this effective moral Self, the locus of
all intention, is not constrained to one's physical organism. This
inclusive Self, representing one's interests and intentions and thereby
identification with the surrounding world, is seen as the agent of moral
action.

This theory of metaethics does not provide absolute answers to specific 
moral questions, but does say that answers can be found, which are 
dependent on context, and that with increasing context moral solutions 
will be seen as increasingly "true" (meaning increasingly corresponding 
to ultimate objective reality.) Within any given context, "right action"
is action that works from the point of view of the moral agent, and with
increasing context (of agents, type of interactions, and number of
interactions) actions that work will increasingly be seen as actions 
that are "right".

This theory moves the focus of thought about morality, from the obsolete
concept of absolute moral laws handed down (which were in fact based on
what worked over long periods of time), to a more aware focus on
determining answers of subjective "right" and "wrong" based on
scientific understanding of what works at the appropriate level of
context. In a very practical sense, it highlights that all moral issues 
involve transactions between Self and Other, and that principles of 
effective interaction between Self and Other can form the basis of moral 
guidance in unknown moral situations.

Fundamental to effective interaction between Self and Other is the
concept of synergy, or positive sumness. In contrast to the Malthusian
perspective that growth for one agent necessarily means loss for the
other (and assuming a closed system), it is increasingly apparent from 
game theory, economics, and even hard physics that there is a universal 
tendency to favor win-win interactions, where the mutual interaction of 
two sub-systems results in a combined system with new characteristics, 
determined, but not predicted by the component systems. I refer to this 
synergistic enhancement, from the point of view of Self, as "growth" 
[lacking another suitable word or short phrase for the concept.]

[While I think the foregoing is very coherent, but abstract, the 
following is more tentative and likely to be updated and revised.]

We can infer some guidelines for effective (synergetic) interaction
between Self and Other.

* All effective moral decisions are from the viewpoint of Self.
As already discussed, this is inherent in the nature of decision-making 
based on values which are necessarily subjective. To
deny the primacy of Self in moral decision-making is to promote 
situations where Self is coerced or taught to obey external authority to 
the exclusion of its own senses and judgments, in effect diminishing 
it's capability to choose and thus to act as a moral agent.
Remember also that the effective intentional Self is not
constrained to the individual organism, but defined as well by its
relationships to its environment and often acts on behalf of its
group identification which may be family, team, tribe, nation, etc.

* All effective moral decisions are intended to further the growth
of Self.
A moral agent must necessarily act in such a way to further its
own interests. For an agent to act otherwise would be considered 
irrational or insane.
"Self-sacrifice" of an individual is often seen as a very moral
act when it furthers the interests of a much larger group with
which the individual identifies.
Suicide, on the other hand is often a very immoral act (doesn't
"work" at any context), when it is the result of the breakdown of
proper functioning of an individual.
Self-defense is not only moral justifiable, but morally required.
Note also the Red Queen Principle, that just keeping up is
actually falling behind. Growth is a requirement, not an option.

* The most effective moral decisions are those that are synergetic.
It is therefore better to convert an enemy to a partner, thus
providing enhanced opportunities for interaction and growth in the
future, rather than to destroy one's enemies. Thus murder is
morally undesirable.
It is therefore better to promote diversity, which provides a
richer environment for future growth, rather than to try to
achieve commonality which may seem safer but leads to stagnation.
 From this it follows that it is good for Self to promote, rather
than diminish Other. Thus theft is morally undesirable.

And so on...

I will read carefully through your long email and respond point by point
as I can, time permitting.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



















From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br  Sun May  1 21:23:30 2005
From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:23:30 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me
Message-ID: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>

The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me

 Hello everyone, I've been in WTA-talk, WTA-Brasil and extropy-chat for seven 
months now, and I have decided to make a balance of the things and thoughts I 
have read during this time, and to postulate a few questions that my mind 
brought up about many aspects of transhumanism and correlated themes. Some of 
them have probably been answered or thought before I got to this e-groups, 
and some may still don't have answers. Anyway, here they are:

1 What is more important, making the transhumanist meme achieve as many minds 
as possible, or be faithful to some pre-determined concept of tranhumanism? 
 For example, when dealing with someone who may get cought by the meme, should 
I speak only about the things in tranhumanism that I know will persuade him 
to look foward to post-humanity happiness, or shoud I also talk about the 
aspects that his moral, religious, and social mentality would consider as 
dangerous, or inapropriate?
 Religions, when trying to pass their memeplexes on usually only talk about 
things that persuade the emotions of the converting person. Politicians also 
do so, as does almost every group trying to achieve strengh. But, when 
talking about transhumanity, it is important to focus the fact that the 
people who hear do not intuitively know they would like to live thousands of 
years being supersmart, as they intuitively know they would like the 
existence of God, or that a politician raised their salary. From this, it 
follows that non completely rational people have a certain degree of 
avoidance of the word tranhumanism, cyborg and similar. So, for this people, 
when chating, I usually focus my persuasiveness on the medical advances of 
technologies, and one or other fact on computational increasing power. But 
this doesn't solve the problem that, when tranhumanity arrives, that person 
will still be intuitively against it, and my country may take so long to 
produce politically legalized tranhuman technology  that I, who am still 18 
years old, will have to recur to cryogeny for having a chance. That leads me 
to my second question. 

2 Cryogeny now or risk latter? It seems to me that the tranhumanist X 
anti-transhumanist debate will, within given time, start to be a serious 
problem, with people like bioluddities, or poor people starting to have a 
real desire to kill someone who is able to live indefinetely. For two 
reasons. One is that it is  imoral, anti natural, etc...  and the other, will 
be the people who cannot do so themselves (poor people) that will feel deep 
unfairness in this choosing of who lives and who does not (with reason).
 Those who are the precursors of the movement (the older ones now) will be 
having serious risk at that time, and for them, it could be the best 
probability to be cryogenated alive, rather than killed by a bomb. 

Two problems with the simulation argument  

3 What about the risk of being turned off? 
 Supose that we start to develop increasingly better and better AGI, like we 
have been doing for the last millenium, for each space we fill in the gap 
between the human and the post-human state, it is a bigger probability of the 
third proposition of the simulation argument (that we live in a simulation) 
to be true, and therefore, a bigger chance that, achieving posthuman state, 
our simulation ends because of computational limits on the base level and we 
are simply plugged down, in other words, we die. If we achieve indeed this 
posthuman state, the probability of being turned off raises dramatically, and 
I have not seen anyone here very concerned about that. 

4 The problem of evil. 
 I have already shown here a while ago a text were I defended that if an 
altruist being creates a simulation, he would create a world with less 
suffering than ours. The text can be found at  www.dcaleironews.rg3.net  in 
the serious texts part, called ?Why I think we are not living in a computer 
simulation?. Until now, no one has given me any couter-arguments on it, maybe 
because it is so poorly written, anyway, as I had no one against it, I still 
think that it is improbable that we are indeed living in a simulation. 

Structural problem

5 There are too many brilliant minds here for the amount of money tranhumanist 
cause is managing to collect. People who can discuss, with the same 
eloquence, the amount of matter in the universe, quantum laws, gay rights, 
neuronal psicology, evolutionary psicology, bayesian probability and 
ocidental politics are very likely to be able to think of  ways of raising 
more money for a memeplex divulgation. How can we get more money for 
tranhumanist causes, like de 100 billion singularity prize once have been 
proposed? 

6 Last but not least, I have a question about a physical problem. Brains are 
constantly physically changing, neurons move, die, react etc. Silicon Brains 
would not have that biological ability, therefore, although they may be able 
to store information, they will not be able to interexchange this information 
with the same degree of randomness we have. So, they would not have an 
freudian inconsciouness, and probably would have some difficulties in making 
complex tought, which require many physical ?mistakes? in neuronal activity 
to happen. How to go round this problem?




In hope for answers (or undecidabilities...) 

Diego Caleiro (Log At)


From sjatkins at gmail.com  Mon May  2 07:10:15 2005
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 00:10:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] testing
Message-ID: <948b11e050502001066134201@mail.gmail.com>

Is the list down?  I've see almost no messages for two days.  This is
unusual for a weekend.  My first test message did not go through.

- samantha


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon May  2 17:12:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050502171220.29086.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/OPINION01/504260377/1035/OPINION

Deloss: Arctic drilling would yield big benefits, low costs

By GARRY DELOSS

April 26, 2005 
Recent votes in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives
indicate that oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) will likely get congressional approval this year. Does this mean
"a national treasure in jeopardy" as a Sierra Club essay in the
Register warned?

Not to worry. Back in the "energy crisis" years of the 1970s, I lobbied
Congress on energy-policy issues for consumer activist and
environmental groups. In retrospect, we were wrong to oppose Arctic oil
drilling then, and today's environmentalists are repeating that error.

I offer four undeniable truths about Arctic Refuge oil drilling:

1. The national economic benefits from producing ANWR oil will be
substantial. Environmentalists downplay the several billion barrels of
oil as equal to a year or less of U.S. oil consumption. But that's a
nonsensical calculation. In the real world, ANWR oil will be produced
gradually over decades. It might provide 5 percent (one million barrels
daily) of our oil needs for 20 to 30 years.

If a possible 10 billion barrels are produced over a 30-year period at
an average price of $50 in today's dollars, that means releasing a half
trillion dollars in presently idle underground wealth that will create
jobs, grow our economy, and spin off tax revenues to pay for government
programs. Plus, the Alaskan oil will help our balance of trade as it
displaces imported oil.

Of course, as the price of oil rises, all of these waiting-to-be-tapped
economic benefits get bigger.

2. In contrast, the prospective cost in environmental injuries from
ANWR oil production has been falling and will be slight. How can I be
certain? Because I rely on the two most relevant pieces of empirical
evidence.

First, even the outdated oil drilling technology and network of gravel
roads used 30 years ago to develop nearby Prudhoe Bay co-exist with
thriving wildlife.

Second, at ANWR, wildlife habitats will be further protected by two
innovations in Arctic oil drilling since Prudhoe Bay was drilled: the
use of modern "directional drilling" of multiple wells from a single
drilling platform and the use of temporary winter "ice roads" over the
tundra in place of permanent gravel roads.

The consequently minimal environmental "footprint" of modern Arctic oil
drilling is not theoretical; it is readily visible west of Prudhoe Bay
at the Alpine oil field (named for a company, not the topography). That
project drains oil from beneath 40,000 acres with dozens of wells from
only two drilling platforms on 93 acres of land. No gravel roads
connect Alpine to Prudhoe Bay, only winter ice roads and an underground
pipeline.

The low-impact Alpine oil field, conspicuously ignored by the Sierra
Club, proves that injuries from Arctic Refuge oil drilling will be
mostly metaphysical (pain to the psyches of people who demand
zero-impact purity), not physical (actual damage to wildlife habitats).

3. There is a highly successful precedent for congressional action to
facilitate arctic oil production despite environmentalist doom and
gloom.

In late 1973, environmental groups were litigating against a federal
pipeline construction permit for the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline to
bring Prudhoe Bay oil to market.

Then the Arab oil embargo hit, Congress passed a law ending the
litigation (Public Law 93-153), the pipeline was completed in mid-1977,
and enormous national benefits followed, along with tolerably low
environmental injuries.

4. Given the above-described rising economic benefits, falling
environmental costs, and successful congressional precedent, a vote to
drill in ANWR has always been a question of when, not whether. When oil
prices fluctuated at $25 to $30, ANWR oil production was a questionable
venture. But China and India have traded their economically depressing
socialism for the benefits of capitalism. As their economies grow
rapidly, their rising oil consumption is pushing the world price of oil
to $50 many years ahead of expectations. ANWR oil drilling is barely
economic at $30, attractive at $40, and irresistible at $50.



Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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  Mon May  2 18:14:18 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:14:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) some witch hunts are okay, I guess
Message-ID: <42766DFA.8070906@mindspring.com>

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/02/a_left_wing_witch_hunt_on_campus/

CATHY YOUNG
A left-wing witch-hunt on campus
By Cathy Young  |  May 2, 2005

THE NOTION of left-wing political bias in the universities is widely 
pooh-poohed on the left as so much right-wing propaganda -- a 
smokescreen for an attempt to push a conservative agenda on college 
campuses. Sure, conservative professors may be a rare breed; but 
that, we are told, is only because the academy is all about 
intellectual openness, tolerance of disagreement, robust and 
untrammeled debate, and all those other intrinsically liberal values 
that conservatives presumably just don't get.

For a rather dramatic test of this proposition, one need look no 
further than Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, which is 
currently in the grip of a witch-hunt that would do the late Joe 
McCarthy proud -- except that it's directed by a leftist mob.

The victim of this left-wing McCarthyism, history professor Jonathan 
Bean, identifies himself as a libertarian but is widely regarded as a 
conservative on the campus; he serves as an adviser to the Republican 
and Libertarian student groups at the university. (There are 
reportedly no Republicans among more than 30 faculty members in his 
department.) A prize-winning author, he was recently named the 
College of Liberal Arts Teacher of the Year.

On April 11, six of Bean's colleagues published a letter in the 
college paper, the Daily Egyptian, denouncing him for handing out 
''racist propaganda" in his American history course. The offending 
document, which Bean had distributed as optional reading for a class 
that dealt with the civil rights movement and racial tensions in that 
era, was an article from the conservative publication 
FrontPageMagazine.com about ''the Zebra Killings" -- a series of 
racially motivated murders of whites in the San Francisco Bay area in 
1972-74 by several black extremists linked to the Nation of Islam. 
The article, by one James Lubinskas, argued that black-on-white hate 
crimes deserve more recognition.

Bean's critics charged that the article contained ''falsehood and 
innuendo" and that, in printing it out for the handout, Bean 
deliberately abridged it in a way that disguised its racist context 
-- specifically, a link to a racist and anti-Semitic website.

In fact, Bean did omit a paragraph containing a link to the European 
American Issues Foundation, which has held vigils commemorating the 
Zebra victims and which is indeed racist and anti-Semitic (its 
website features a petition for congressional hearings on excessive 
Jewish influence in American public life). He has told the student 
newspaper that he was simply trying to fit the article on one 
two-sided page.

By the time the letter from the outraged professors appeared, Bean 
had already canceled the assignment in response to criticism and sent 
an apology to his colleagues and graduate students. His letter of 
apology ran in the Daily Egyptian on April 12. On the same day, 
College of Liberal Arts Dean Shirley Clay Scott canceled his 
discussion sections for the week and informed his teaching assistants 
that they did not have to continue with their duties. Two of the 
three teaching assistants resigned, leaving the course in a shambles.

One may argue that Bean showed poor judgment in selecting the article 
for a reading given the offensive link it contained. But imagine 
reversing the politics of this case. Suppose a left-wing professor 
had assigned a reading which turned out to contain a link to the 
website of the Communist Party USA, or to a group that supported 
Palestinian terrorism in Israel. Imagine the outcry if the 
administration penalized this professor for such guilt by association.

Anita Levy, associate secretary in the Department of Academic Freedom 
and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, says 
that making one's own decisions about the course curriculum as long 
as the material is relevant to the course is ''a part of academic 
freedom" and that it's clearly inappropriate to penalize a professor 
for such decisions -- especially without any due process. (While 
FrontPageMag.com has criticized the AAUP for remaining silent on the 
case, Levy says that the organization had not heard about it before 
and has not been contacted by Bean, whom I have been unable to reach 
for comment.)

A number of SIUC professors who do not share Bean's politics have 
rallied to his defense. Jane Adams, an anthropologist who was a civil 
rights activist in the 1960s, told the Daily Egyptian that the 
persecution of Bean ''puts an axe at the root of academic freedom and 
the freedom of inquiry." She added, ''For anybody who is a 
conservative, this has got to be a chilling case." Indeed, if this 
case is any indication, conservatives on many campuses are not just a 
rare breed but an endangered species.
_______________________
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column 
appears regularly in the Globe.



-- 
"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  Mon May  2 18:14:35 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:14:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Leading scientific journals 'are censoring
 debate on global warming'
Message-ID: <42766E0B.9010103@mindspring.com>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from 
researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable 
wisdom over global warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether 
climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of 
human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, 
Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by 
Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of 
global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own 
research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a 
paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among 
climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, 
but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of 
California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since 
the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either 
explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly 
dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on 
climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the 
Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among 
other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the 
pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty 
at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own 
analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only 
one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so 
explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to 
edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results 
have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been 
"widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. 
"It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for 
a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not 
perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the 
original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which 
criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the 
GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results 
from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate 
scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human 
activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof 
Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were 
intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on 
satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's 
pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in 
promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that 
is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on 
man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and 
Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the 
field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into 
the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. 
"Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals 
have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely 
cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United 
States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned 
from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" 
and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made 
global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range 
of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal 
was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as 
long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the 
idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive 
about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday 
scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear 
that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. 
"But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all 
over for science."


-- 
"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.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050502/83718faa/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon May  2 20:56:09 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:56:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerating Asias nuclear energy industry
Message-ID: <45400-2200551220569242@M2W071.mail2web.com>

Nuclear Power Asia Pacific 2005 is a truly global summit. It brings
together leaders of the nuclear energy industry to debate and discuss
strategies to grow the share of nuclear energy in the energy mix of Asian
nations. Nuclear Power Asia Pacific 2005 agenda delivers: 

- Exploration on the critical role of Asian nations in   transforming the
global energy landscape 
- Strategies to ensure adequate funding and investment 
- Driving innovations and strategic progress in technology 
- Increasing competitiveness of nuclear power plants 
- Issues and challenges ahead in driving technology transfer to aid
sustainable development 
- Nuclear safety and security issues 
- Global perspectives on nuclear waste management 

http://www.powergenerationworld.com/2005/nps_au/

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




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue May  3 00:14:30 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:14:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Test
References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com><007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano><63625807b969d801e10e86164cb8cc8a@bonfireproductions.com><003701c52fe4$ae4d5600$1db71218@Nano>
	<007201c5370f$1410f560$1db71218@Nano>
Message-ID: <003901c54f75$1cc94e90$0200a8c0@Nano>

Test
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050502/f45e5e0b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May  3 02:44:17 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:44:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] What the catholic bible says about
	immortalityresearch- was TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with
	New Pope'sCampaign
In-Reply-To: <20050428000854.63077.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505030244.j432iLR04356@tick.javien.com>

> ... Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign
> 
> My interpretation of these verses from the Catholic
> Vulgate is that God WANTS us to be immortal and those
> who are opposed to this are UNGODLY... The Avantguardian


Coincidence you should mention this.  I was with my
very devout Seventh Day Adventist in-laws this past
weekend when a comment very much like this one was
uttered.  The devil wants us to perish, but god loves
us and wants us to live forever.

The biggest delta between SDA and catholicism in this
regard is the SDA version of the afterlife occurs right
here on this physical planet, no harps on puffy white
clouds, no halos, no wings.  Their picture of heaven is 
immortal but very much flesh-bound humans, in our current 
form, in a 1-g field, farming the land.  (I'm not kidding 
about any of this, they really teach that.)  The farming
existence is far better than current farming, because there
are no noxious weeds or pests and the work is light, even
tho not mechanized at all.

Each person produces abundant quantities of crops
(for what purpose is a bit mysterious, since *everyone*
there is a farmer and everyone is apparently producing
far more than he or she can devour.)

In any case, this meme may contribute to the SDA's general 
openmindedness about radical life extension techniques.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May  3 02:52:55 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:52:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE
In-Reply-To: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505030252.j432qxR05353@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE
> 
> 
> > What has happened to the list?...
> 
> ...If AI spontaneously happened somewhere
> tomorrow, most of this list would be posting critical swipes... 
> Eli will have an explanation... 
> Samantha will call it a conspiracy... 
> Hal will insist that it is a put-on...
> Kevin will post links...


Spike will be making silly jokes about it...


> Just yesterday I was looking at a video of a palm-top stirling engine
> that produces respectable and acceptable RPMs (not 1 or 2 RPM)... 
> 
> Welcome to Sour-Puss-Central of the >H movement.
> 
> Mike Lorrey


Sterling engines are indeed cool.  There have been models
that can go up to 3000 RPM (how the hell they do that is
beyond my imagination).  The problem isn't necessarily
the speed, its the torque.  Sterling engines haven't been
able to move very much heat, consequently they haven't
been able to make much power.  The real brilliance of
a Sterling cycle is that it can run on anything that
burns.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May  3 03:12:39 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:12:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F3496088A0BAD25FBF3EEC5B4230@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200505030312.j433CcR07219@tick.javien.com>

> >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Matus wrote:
> >
> > > ... has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined in
> > > supply while demand continued?


Virginity?










From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May  3 04:03:57 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 23:03:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue419/books.html

is an interesting review of my new sf novel GODPLAYERS. The reviewer is 
especially exercised by the fact that my posthuman characters are not 
immediately understandable -- indeed, beyond empathy -- by human standards:

<the frustration level mounts as one waits in vain... for characters... to 
display any hint of a genuine inner life as they move randomly from scene 
to scene, world to world, reality to reality. Perhaps Vorpal homunculi do 
not possess inner lives, and Broderick's point is that these seeming 
superhumans, for all their power, are soulless automatons without a shred 
of humanity.... Surely there should be some character, somewhere in a 
novel, to which human readers can feel connected. ...As the sequence of 
events grows increasingly frenzied, with ever-greater reliance placed on 
what might be termed info-splatters, the lack of a deep humanistic 
substrate left this reader, at least, with no ground to stand on. >

I'm torn in my response to this. On the one hand, it wouldn't make much 
sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of the 
people down the road, or in the next room. On the other, I have tried to 
ground the fairly breakneck narrative within thematic structures and 
reverberations recognizable from myth, dream, and the traditions of 
science-fiction itself when it ventures upon the superhuman. Greg Egan met 
with this same objection, of course, and so, in various degrees, did John 
C. Wright and Charlie Stross. Maybe it's an artistic problem beyond 
solution -- for humans.

Damien Broderick





From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  3 10:03:53 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:03:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Orion now shipping desktop supercomputer
Message-ID: <ee50357e050503030365493aac@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3500861>

Called Orion DS-96 and touted as a personal supercomputer that fits
under a desk, the 96-node cluster workstation stands 27 inches high,
25 inches long and 17 inches wide and is stackable up to four systems.
There is no need for special cooling requirements. In fact, a computer
has a maximum power draw of just 1500 watts from a standard power
outlet.
The computer is designed to run Linux and includes a dual 10-GigE
fiber card and a 12-port GigE switch for ultra high bandwidth and
massive data needs.
Orion execs claim the DS-96 can achieve 300 gigaflops (Gflops) peak
performance (150 Gflops sustained) with up to 192 gigabytes of memory
and up to 9.6 terabytes of storage.

Orion's machines are pre-installed with standard parallel programming
libraries and iNquiry software, a suite of more than 200 applications
for life science researchers. The workstations also include other
clustering components, such as Message Passing Interface and Parallel
Virtual Machine.
Orders from U.S. institutions such as NASA, San Diego State
University, the Henry H. Wheeler, Jr. Brain Imaging Center at U.C.
Berkeley, and the University of Nebraska have already filled their
orders and tested their systems.

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

The price tag of >100,000 USD limits these machines to large
institutions at present, but the price will come down.  (Of course,
the collapsing dollar makes this price cheaper in Europe, where Orion
are currently planning a sales drive).


BillK


From john-c-wright at sff.net  Tue May  3 14:39:27 2005
From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 09:39:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
Message-ID: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>

Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is
that we should have no standards.  

He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary;
second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and
conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues
that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral
standards are bad. 

There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they refute
themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic here.
Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of evil. Third,
the argument is historically inaccurate.  

He says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't
think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality."

I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example: 
Axiom: Do as you would be done by. 
Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus.
Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than
push her under a bus. 

He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse
murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of
society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans
found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists,
but which Christendom rejects. 

These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of
utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they
can serve as means to our ends. Once again, the matter is open to proof:

Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means.
Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating
her as a means, not as an end.
Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. 

Please note that the axiom of the second argument is a lemma of the axiom of the
first. If you would do as you?d be done by, and if you would rather be treated
not merely as a means to the ends of another, you ought to treat others likewise. 

The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is
whether we accept or reject ?Do as you?d be done by? as an axiom. This is merely
one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the
principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed
standard, that is, the same for all men. A standard that admits of arbitrary
exceptions is not a standard. Once you accept the principle that there should be
moral standards, and if, no matter what the standard might happen to be, it
applies to all men equally, then the standard is one where you are asking others
to treat you as you would be treated. 

The only way to reject this axiom is to reject the process of moral reasoning
altogether. 

This is indeed what the moral relativists does: "I think this is bullshit. Can I
prove that it is bullshit in  terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever
morality? No. Do I lose any sleep on not being able to prove it? Definitely no.
I just don't care. I have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to
hold kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something that I
can (or want to) prove." 

He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely
because he wants to do it. 

In his case, his heart is in the right place. However, to someone whose heart is
in the wrong place, let us say, for example, infanticide-advocate Peter Singer,
who does not share this sentimental attachment to old ladies, the philosophy of
radical subjectivism would have nothing to say. 

This philosophy has nothing to say to refute the cruel practices of the Spartan,
the Roman, the Mongol, the Aztec, the Grand Inquisitor, the Nazi, the Communist,
or even the Eskimo. "Well, I chose to help old ladies, and you chose to leave
them out on the ice flow to starve. My choice is mine and yours is yours."  

This philosophy is absurdly mute and helpless in the face of real evil.

Either through indifference or ignorance, the moral relativist does not know
what moral reasoning is for. It is for two things: first, that a man in a novel
moral situation, such as where two moral principles are in conflict, can make a
 rational rather than merely arbitrary choice; second, that evil can be condemned.  

In this case, Mr. Prisco is merely sentimental about useless old ladies. He
prefers to help them rather than murder them on the same grounds that I prefer
pie to cake: it suits his taste. He has this taste because it is part of his
cultural background. Respect for human life was ?in the air? so to speak,
implied or embraced by the various thinkers whose works he read, the speeches he
heard, the acts and manners of the general society around him. 

But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent
in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? 

We can leave that question for another day. 

With no sense of his own irony, Mr. Prisco then says, "History shows that the
convinction of being the sole depository of the Truth *always* leads to mass
murder. For me, this is a good enough reason to keep as far from the Truth as I
can."

Assuming it is true that mass murder is bad, and assuming the statement true
that conviction leads to mass-murder, it would follow that we should avoid
conviction in order to avoid mass-murder. This can be the first and firmest
conviction of our moral system: to avoid all convictions. Let us rally around
the flag of flaglessness and defend our convictions that no convictions should
be defended to the death! 

I would say, in this case, that his wish has been granted: he is certainly far
away from uttering any true statement here. 

Leaving aside this silly paradox, let us merely correct the historical
inaccuracy in the statement:   

The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the
National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The
former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master
and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and
need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out.
The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic
classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit
of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out. 

To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral
relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the
Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust. The people who
"gassed people for thinking different" were the moral relativists, not those who
believe in an absolute truth knowable by the human mind. The genocides of the
modern age are products of followers of Marx, Neitzsche, Albert Camus, the minds
who thought that logic was either a by-product of material means of production,
a by-product of arbitrary self-will, or an absurdity. Moral relativists one and
all. 

The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide
abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the
case that God hated the institution of slavery. Likewise, the great blooming of
human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who
wrote a document that begins: ?We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident.? 

In other words, men of absolute moral conviction. 

The argument of the moral relativist runs as follows: He sees jihads and
inquisitions and so he concludes that it is the moral convictions of these
people that lead to atrocity. If everyone were merely uncertain about and
indifferent to questions of morality, he thinks, we would have no atrocities. 

This is merely sawing off the branch on which you sit. The problem with jihad
and inquisition is not that their partisans had convictions, but, rather, that
the convictions they had were wicked and illogical. It is the nature of the
conviction, not the fact that it is a conviction, which causes the evil. The
relativist has no argument to show the conviction right or wrong, and, hence, is
less able to oppose the evil than that rational and righteous person, who
adheres to a moral standard and knows why he adheres to it. 

By the reasoning of the moral relativist, it is worse to believe something
firmly than it is to half-believe something wicked. The nameless Spartan thug
who enslaved Helots or tossed unhealthy babies into the Apothetae, but who was
half-convinced that his practices were not universally acceptable, would win
more praise from the moral relativist than Socrates, who died rather than flee
an injustice, because he thought that this was what unalterable and universal
moral law required. 

The final outcome of this line of reasoning, is that Spartan thugs, the kind of
morally retarded half-convinced nobodies who will condone the most horrific
evils, provided only everyone around them is doing likewise, are lauded by the
moral relativist. The man who opposes the evil around him, the sage, the saint,
the hero, he is singled out for condemnation by the moral relativist, for
committing the sin of believing in sins, and believing he should not commit them.  

People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a
common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason
with each other or even with themselves. 

When a novel moral situation arises where the moral relativist has no habit of
sentiment on which to rely, logic will not come to his aid, because he has
denounced the roots of logic. 

The moral relativist will coast along following the general moral sentiment of
his culture's background and history: in this case, coast along following the
sentiments of Western Christian tradition, acting on the belief that human life
is sacred, while scorning the logic which gave rise to those sentiments, and
sneering at the idea that anything might be sacred. 

I apologize to have departed from my normal custom of being polite and humble,
and I know my words here are heated and scornful. I mean no disrespect to the
writer himself, whom I hold in high esteem, but his ideas are at once so absurd
and so ugly, so utterly thoughtless and barbaric, that they should not be
allowed to pass in a public forum without a rebuke. 

JCW




From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue May  3 16:41:03 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:41:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205050309413b238c4@mail.gmail.com>

I suppose the trick is finding a balance between making the characters
too human (it would not be believable) and too posthuman (no reader
would understand).
I think Egan does this well (Diaspora and Schild's Ladder), Wright
less (especially Phaeton is really a 19th century person).
I look forward to reading your book, is it available as ebook?
G.

On 5/3/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue419/books.html
> 
> is an interesting review of my new sf novel GODPLAYERS. The reviewer is
> especially exercised by the fact that my posthuman characters are not
> immediately understandable -- indeed, beyond empathy -- by human standards:
> 
> <the frustration level mounts as one waits in vain... for characters... to
> display any hint of a genuine inner life as they move randomly from scene
> to scene, world to world, reality to reality. Perhaps Vorpal homunculi do
> not possess inner lives, and Broderick's point is that these seeming
> superhumans, for all their power, are soulless automatons without a shred
> of humanity.... Surely there should be some character, somewhere in a
> novel, to which human readers can feel connected. ...As the sequence of
> events grows increasingly frenzied, with ever-greater reliance placed on
> what might be termed info-splatters, the lack of a deep humanistic
> substrate left this reader, at least, with no ground to stand on. >
> 
> I'm torn in my response to this. On the one hand, it wouldn't make much
> sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of the
> people down the road, or in the next room. On the other, I have tried to
> ground the fairly breakneck narrative within thematic structures and
> reverberations recognizable from myth, dream, and the traditions of
> science-fiction itself when it ventures upon the superhuman. Greg Egan met
> with this same objection, of course, and so, in various degrees, did John
> C. Wright and Charlie Stross. Maybe it's an artistic problem beyond
> solution -- for humans.
> 
> Damien Broderick


From hal at finney.org  Tue May  3 18:03:41 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue,  3 May 2005 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
Message-ID: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org>

Wired magazine's new issue has an article on the Flynn Effect, which we
have discussed here occasionally.  This is probably my favorite Effect,
so completely extropian and contradictory to the conventional wisdom.
Curmudgeons throughout the ages have complained about the decay of society
and how the younger generation is inferior in morals and intelligence
to their elders.  Likewise modern communications technology is derided:
TV is a vast wasteland, video games and movies promote sex and violence.

Yet Flynn discovered the astonishing and still little-known fact
that intelligence scores have steadily increased for at least the
past 100 years.  And it's a substantial gain; people who would have
been considered geniuses 100 years ago would be merely average today.
Perhaps even more surprisingly, the gains cannot be directly attributed to
improved education, as the greatest improvements are found in the parts
of the test that directly measure abstract reasoning via visual puzzles,
not concrete knowledge based on language or mathematical skills.

The Wired article (which should be online in a few days) does not have
much that is new, but one fact which popped out is that the Effect has
not only continued in the last couple of generations, but is increasing.
Average IQ gains were 0.31 per year in the 1950s and 60s, but by the
1990s had grown to 0.36 per year.

Explanations for the Effect seem to be as numerous as people who have
studied it.  Flynn himself does not seem to believe that it is real,
in the sense that it actually points to increased intelligence.  I was
amused by economist David Friedman's suggestion that it is due to the
increased use of Caesarian deliveries allowing for larger head sizes!
The Wired article focuses on increased visual stimulation as the catalyst,
which seems plausible as part of the story.  The article then predicts
that the next generation, exposed since babyhood to video games with
demanding puzzle solving, mapping and coordination skills, will see an
even greater improvement in IQ scores.

Sometimes I wonder if the social changes we saw during the 20th century
may have been caused or at least promoted by greater human intelligence.
It's a difficult thesis to make because you first have to overcome the
conventional wisdom that says that the 1900s were a century of human
depravity and violence.  But if you look deeper and recognize the
tremendous growth of morality and ethical sensitivity in this period
(which is what makes us judge ourselves so harshly), you have to ask,
maybe it is because people woke up, began to think for themselves, and
weren't willing to let themselves be manipulated and influenced as in
the past?  If so, then this bodes well for the future.

Hal


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue May  3 18:17:54 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:17:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
In-Reply-To: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org>
References: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <4277C052.4020200@jefallbright.net>

Hal Finney wrote:

>Sometimes I wonder if the social changes we saw during the 20th century
>may have been caused or at least promoted by greater human intelligence.
>It's a difficult thesis to make because you first have to overcome the
>conventional wisdom that says that the 1900s were a century of human
>depravity and violence.  But if you look deeper and recognize the
>tremendous growth of morality and ethical sensitivity in this period
>(which is what makes us judge ourselves so harshly), you have to ask,
>maybe it is because people woke up, began to think for themselves, and
>weren't willing to let themselves be manipulated and influenced as in
>the past?  If so, then this bodes well for the future.
>
>  
>
I agree that there has been tremendous growth in ethical sensitivity in 
the last century, and would say that it continues to accelerate.  
However, I don't think it has much to do with increased intelligence in 
the sense of raw thinking power, but much more to do with increased 
*awareness* of ourselves, others, and our inter-relationships.  I expect 
that with this expanding context of awareness we will tend to continue 
making increasingly better decisions that we will see as increasingly moral.

In this light, the opportunity we have before us is to develop more and 
better tools to spread this increasing awareness, especially to 
impoverished areas of the world which feel the pain and anger of lacking 
influence and participation in the general growth.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net






From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue May  3 18:38:15 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:38:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: <20050428213335.50EB657EE6@finney.org>
References: <20050428213335.50EB657EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5044d81b857a5d6e003c73b76bb21ec2@bonfireproductions.com>


On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote:

> Bret K. writes:
>> The question for me began when I was very young - and although this 
>> may
>> be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in and
>> died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the tar
>> pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg scenario.
>
> The La Brea tar pits don't actually contain dinosaurs.

Of course not. Don't let my third grade speculations convince you 
otherwise.

For the record, I stated that the thinking was flawed before your 
correction, but that it was simply a vehicle to prompt further 
investigation.


> As you probably know, that's not the conventional scientific 
> explanation.
> My advice is to give more credence to the belief which is widely held
> by experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the field.

Out of anywhere I would not expect to get "shut down" so smoothly on 
this list. I am surprised.


> Hal



From hal at finney.org  Tue May  3 18:51:02 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue,  3 May 2005 11:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
Message-ID: <20050503185102.1760457EE7@finney.org>

Mike Lorrey forwards:
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/OPINION01/504260377/1035/OPINION
> Deloss: Arctic drilling would yield big benefits, low costs
> By GARRY DELOSS
> April 26, 2005 
> ...
> 4. Given the above-described rising economic benefits, falling
> environmental costs, and successful congressional precedent, a vote to
> drill in ANWR has always been a question of when, not whether. When oil
> prices fluctuated at $25 to $30, ANWR oil production was a questionable
> venture. But China and India have traded their economically depressing
> socialism for the benefits of capitalism. As their economies grow
> rapidly, their rising oil consumption is pushing the world price of oil
> to $50 many years ahead of expectations. ANWR oil drilling is barely
> economic at $30, attractive at $40, and irresistible at $50.

I don't know much about the pros and cons of this drilling project,
but the bottom line seems to be that if oil prices stay high or go
even higher, the political pressure to allow development of ANWR will
be insurmountable.  And presumably we will also see increased desire
to develop other fossil fuel resources.  Once people feel the pain of
seemingly permanent rises in fuel prices, concern over the environment
is likely to become a secondary factor.

I live in Santa Barbara, which is an oil producing region.  We have
a number of offshore oil wells which are visible from our coastline.
And of course, this is also the site of the famous 1969 oil spill that
my father was involved in, as I wrote earlier.  There is strong local
opposition to further oil development.

There are also active proposals to install liquified natural gas (LNG)
reception terminals offshore in the local area.  The gas would be
offloaded from ships and then piped ashore.  The problem is that this
is said to have a high risk of dangerous accidents or even terrorism.
I remember reading an article years ago depicting a hypothetical LNG
accident, with a burning wavefront as the supercold vaporized gas mixed
with air, spreading and extending for miles inland, setting everything
in its path aflame.  I don't know how realistic that is but it was
pretty horrific.

The economic problem is one of externalities.  Developing oil resources
benefits the oil companies directly and everyone indirectly.  But we
in the local area pay costs which are not compensated, in the risk of
further environmental damage or even catastrophic destruction.  So it
ends up being a battle of local vs national governments.

The current energy bill is supposed to give the president more authority
to override local opposition in oil development and LNG sites.  I imagine
that this will be an increasing trend if oil prices go on the way they
have been.

Hal


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  3 19:17:51 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 20:17:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org>
References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05050312173b8504a4@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:> 
> Let's suppose that gas goes up to $5/gallon, and average distance
> travelled for personal vehicles drops from 20000 to 15000 miles per year.
> An SUV gets maybe 15 mpg, so that is 1000 gallons or $5000 per year.
> Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting
> 30 mpg and selling for $25000.  You'll save $2500/year in gas costs.
> But the SUV is practically worthless in this environment and has little
> resale value.  That means it's going to take ten years to pay off your
> investment in the new car, with your savings on gas.  That's not a very
> attractive proposition.
> 
> Of course, it's also possible that Peak Oilers are wrong, gas won't go
> up to $5/gallon and that all those people buying SUVs are not idiots.
> Ultimately, car purchasers are responding to the price signals they
> receive by looking at gas prices.  This gets back to the point I have
> made before, that if the smart money thought oil was going to go through
> the roof in a few years, it would already be bid up.  Oil would already be
> high in anticipation of future shortages; gas prices would already be high
> for the same reason; and people would already have stopped buying SUVs.
> 
> It's the invisible hand at work.  The fact that this is not happening,
> that people are still buying low mileage vehicles, is not evidence
> of irrationality. Rather it is direct, visible evidence that Peak Oil
> predictions of high oil prices are simply wrong.
> 

Hmmm. Well, here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.86 UKP per litre.
Now for the technical bit.
UKP = 1.89 USD,  1 US gallon = 3.785 litres 
So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD per gallon.

$5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here!

Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price
level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the
automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are
killed on the roads, we must have our cars.

The price will have to go a lot higher before it will have much
effect. We have toll charges in some city centres, some bridges, some
roads, extortionate parking charges, speeding camera fines, parking
fines, innumerable traffic law infringement fines, insurance charges,
servicing and repair charges, depreciation, and so on. People will
complain, but they still pay up and keep their car.

It will need a change of mindset (or a good alternative) before car use reduces.

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 19:18:29 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POST OF THE YEAR: In defense of moral objectivism
In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050503191829.73603.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is post of the year, objectively speaking, of course. It certainly
needs publishing somewhere.

--- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:

> Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His
> standard is
> that we should have no standards.  
> 
> He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is
> unnecessary;
> second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of
> character and
> conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words,
> argues
> that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that
> moral
> standards are bad. 
> 
> There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they
> refute
> themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic
> here.
> Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of
> evil. Third,
> the argument is historically inaccurate.  

snip.....

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  3 19:41:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503194104.4390.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a study
claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least temporarily,
through the day compared to non-emailers.

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Wired magazine's new issue has an article on the Flynn Effect, which
> we have discussed here occasionally.  > 
> The Wired article (which should be online in a few days) does not
> have much that is new, but one fact which popped out is that the
> Effect has not only continued in the last couple of generations,
> but is increasing.
> Average IQ gains were 0.31 per year in the 1950s and 60s, but by the
> 1990s had grown to 0.36 per year.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  3 19:47:29 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> > Bret K. writes:
> >> The question for me began when I was very young - and although
> this 
> >> may
> >> be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in
> and
> >> died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the
> tar
> >> pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg
> scenario.
> >
> > The La Brea tar pits don't actually contain dinosaurs.
> 
> Of course not. Don't let my third grade speculations convince you 
> otherwise.
> 
> For the record, I stated that the thinking was flawed before your 
> correction, but that it was simply a vehicle to prompt further 
> investigation.

The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T
abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep
sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old
plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust,
not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such
oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it
to have wound up there from biotic sources.



Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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  Tue May  3 19:56:31 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 14:56:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503130415.01d45280@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<4277A6F2.1000704@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050503130415.01d45280@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503144314.0458d750@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:24 PM 5/3/2005 -0500, I wrote:

>[Eliezer:]
>>Rationality is not about emotionlessness, and neither is intelligence
>
>Indeed; I've made the same point many times. I think the reviewers' 
>problem is not with a lack of portrayed emotion, because as far as I can 
>see the characters are frequently emotional.

I hope this is not too off topic. But I'll offer a couple of quotes from 
the novel that seemed to me to refute the SF Weekly reviewer's suggestion. 
Here's one:

==============

Two men in some sort of emergency garb seized an obese woman dressed like a 
gaudy bird, helped her to an ambulance. Lune ran to them.
           "Do you need help?"
           "You a trained nurse?" one of them shouted back. The uproar, she 
understood, was enormous, and against the racket of sirens and voices her 
own voice was nearly lost.
           "No, but--'
           "You need to get clear of the area if you're not medical or part 
of a firefighting crew." You don't have to yell at me, Lune found herself 
thinking, angry. A woman limped away from the buildings, in obvious pain.
           "Let me give you a hand." Lune offered her arm, and the woman 
leaned heavily against her shoulder. Her shoes were missing, her brown feet 
blackened, the geometric designs of her short sleeved huipil stained. A 
pretty receptionist, perhaps, made ugly by soot and the morning's mad cruelty.
           "I need to find a phone," the woman was saying. "I have to call 
and let my husband know I'm okay."
           "We'll find you a phone. That store up ahead, they'll let you 
use their phone." The manager, wringing his hands, stern face grey under 
its paint, let the woman sit down but said the phone service was knocked 
out. Lune went back outside, started again for the ziggurat. At the curb, 
about to cross, she heard a roaring overhead. A fourth ballistic? She 
readied herself to open a threshold, peering up at the sky. The hot sun was 
high overhead. No. One entire side of the structure closest to her was 
peeling inward; shattering like a dream. She turned and ran as fast as she 
could, for a block, stopped and looked back. A mound of rubble and foul 
dusty smoke. The great pyramid had simply--disappeared.
           Once, great woodlands filled with beasts and birds and a few 
humans covered this place, or places like it, she thought; in many worlds 
they still do so. Pristine creeks and sheltering forests. Cultures capable 
of living in unity with the natural order, whatever that was, whatever its 
source, however perverse its roots. White noise singing in her ears. 
Someone dragged her, with a jolt, under an awning. Dust and debris poured 
down. Coughing, she pulled her huipil blouse up over her mouth and nose to 
keep out the dust and smoke. This is what the deformist K-machines are 
doing, she told herself, crouched against the relative safety of the wall 
at her back. Someone or some thing deliberately flew semi-ballistics into 
that human-crowded building, struck them in just the right way to bring 
them down, and in the great cascade of shockwaves that would flow outward 
from this moment perhaps bring down the whole industrial civilization of a 
world, a sheaf of worlds. And they did it for the hot joy of the deed, the 
emotional excitement. It was a key part of the method of the Players and 
their adversaries, she knew that, and the knowledge was sourness in her 
mouth. Pick just the right fulcrum, the most vulnerable entry point for 
your chisel, and the damage you do will spread like fire. Growing, 
harvesting, building is hard work, sometimes bitterly effortful, but 
ruination is easy. You can make it all disappear. One person with the exact 
lever can destroy a reality.
           Stumbling, amid the sirens and the sobs, Lune returned to the 
cafe. Soiled plates and half-empty glasses remained on the tables. Her 
Ensemble had left. Drawing a wrenching breath, she opened a Schwelle and 
followed them.

================

Here's a quite different sort:

I stepped into a place of scintillating light. Two men stood loosely 
wrapped in bedsheets, gazing out with blinded rapture through an immense 
blister window at the grandeur of the new-born Angels at sport.
           "Decius," I called, voice breaking with emotion.
           One man turned his head slowly, like a man in a dream. My brother.
           "Aren't they lovely?" he said.
           We looked for a timeless time on the Omega godthings, shaken by 
their music and their dance. Somehow I held to some thread of my grief and 
purpose.
           "Decius, can you speak to them?"
           "May I, that's the question." His tone was low-pitched and slow, 
clotted with a kind of worshipful dread. "I can call spirits from the vasty 
deep, but will they come when I do call for them?"
           He was drunk, I saw. And from no grape.
           "Decius, take command of yourself, sir. Our parents are dead."
           "Ah, so you are the lost brother, eh? No matter. They died long 
ago, boy. Doomsday comes to us all, soon enough, consult with brother Jules 
if you doubt it. In this place, if the Angels wish it, they shall live again."
           I took him angrily by the arm. His companion turned his head, 
looked at my passionate face with mild rebuke, swung back again to 
contemplation of the light-shot plenum.
           "They were not dead. Dramen and Angelica withdrew into 
concealment. Now they are dead in truth, and our brothers Marchmain and 
Toby with them." My voice broke. "And one other."
           "Ah, these are so beautiful! I have no parents. Hush, now."
           "I am the child of their retreat. I love them, and I love Lune 
the more, you god-smitten imbecile," I raged, weeping, "and you will 
recover them for me!"
           I drew back my arm and slapped his face, hard. Beyond the 
blister, aeons were passing, worlds beyond worlds beyond worlds built in 
calculated simulation and recollection, histories re-run and devised from 
whole cloth. Somehow I knew all this, took instruction from the fringes of 
omniscient shadow that crossed Yggdrasil Station like currents in a great 
ocean tide at the shoreline of some insignificant atoll. Here, in this 
place, this closed space and time, the majesty and brutality of all the 
Tegmark levels was being rehearsed in infinite miniature, like half the sky 
captured perfectly in a single red droplet of wine at the bottom of a 
drained glass. I could have her here, in simulation, if I sought entry from 
the Angels. That was not what I desired. Let her live!
           "Get her back for me," I told Decius and his companion, 
compelling them with my ardor, my steel-edged insistence. The Vorpal force 
in me blazed even in this radiant, numinous place. "It is not too much to ask."
           "Very well," the man said, and closed his eyes.
           An Omega Angel entered the blister.

=======================

Of course this is not the emotionality of a Jane Austen or even a Don De 
Lillo novel, but I find it extraordinary to see such characters dismissed 
as "soulless automatons without a shred of humanity". But maybe that's 
exactly the hazard of such writing; that without the comforting orientation 
grid references to our daily lives (although dog knows the first extract is 
fairly blatant in providing one, by analogy), many readers are lost. Since 
I'm not especially eager to lose readers, I need to take all this under 
advisement.

Damien Broderick 




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May  3 20:17:52 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:17:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050429220626.84321.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050429220626.84321.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503151036.045380e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:06 PM 4/29/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote:

>even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated
>beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at
>times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by
>apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal
>infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and misjudgements
>to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person
>made them.

You've made this claim previously, Adrian, but without citing instances. 
Can you do so? You do realise, I suppose, that the doctrine of papal 
infallibility is extremely restricted, applying only when the man in the 
white silk beanie speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith/or morals. To 
the best of my knowledge, no Pope has ever ruled, nor could ever rule, on 
the speed of light, or the name Achilles used when he went among women, or 
the medical causes of leprosy, etc. By contrast, the infallible declaration 
that Mary was a virginal mother whose own immaculate conception freed her, 
in advance, of the stain of original sin, while extremely strange, is not 
likely to be overturned by science. If you know of exceptions, please 
provide them -- it would be fascinating.

Damien Broderick 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue May  3 20:21:59 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503202159.22832.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > It's not the first benchtop fusion device and is about 7 orders of
> > magnitude inferior to the best Farnsworth fusor.
> > http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm
> 
> For what it's worth, here's the last sentence of the Nature paper
> detailing the research:
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/nature03575.html

And from their editorial on it:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/edsumm/e050428-06.html

> Though not a viable power source, 'crystal fusion' may find
> application as a generator of neutrons for imaging technology.

...which is more or less what we were saying.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 20:24:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about
	post-humans
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503144314.0458d750@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050503202407.18493.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> =======================
> 
> Of course this is not the emotionality of a Jane Austen or even a Don
> De Lillo novel, but I find it extraordinary to see such characters
> dismissed as "soulless automatons without a shred of humanity".

Individuals who see personality as those characteristics which we find
unextropic (self pity, modesty, inner doubt, etc) due to a pessimistic
view of humanity are generally going to see your characters thus no
matter what you do, though the Marvin the Robot from Hitchhikers Guide
might be a good approach: a pessimistic, fallen god-like character
would likely find much sympathy from such reviewers if you slathered on
enough angst and turmoil and melodramatic queenishness.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  3 22:17:48 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 00:17:48 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F2659DB9FA837E222A4460FB4240@phx.gbl>
References: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY103-F2659DB9FA837E222A4460FB4240@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050503221748.GE6782@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0400, Brian Lee wrote:

> This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* lead 
> to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this 

The point is that many who claimed to be in possession of The One Truth
killed megapeople. So excuse me if I dismiss similiar claims, especially
without proof. 

> weakens the rest of your argument.

Not really.
 
> Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective Truth 
> exists.

Mathematics doesn't refer to reality. It's just a free floating production system.

Please show me the algorithm by which some (which?) sciences can be used as a
stringent source of behaviour constraints extracted from measurements. (Erroneous
measurements and faulty reality models included, of course).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050504/bd6e5ae0/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  3 22:23:31 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 00:23:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO]  Weighing the Universe
In-Reply-To: <20050429161223.8883757EE6@finney.org>
References: <20050429161223.8883757EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050503222331.GF6782@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:12:23AM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:

> It's hard to say what the "cost" of computation is in Life.  There may
> not be any such thing that we can perceive and understand.

In this universe, computing Life has very definite costs. Whether you build a
dedicated machine, representing state and state transformation in hardware,
or use a recursive lightcone hash lookup (as Life state distribution is very
different from random, and which has very real penalties of its own) you 
have to represent the state and compute changes on that state.

If our Planck scale looks roughly than Life the costs are stupendous indeed.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050504/c4bb06f2/attachment.bin>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May  3 20:43:19 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:43:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200505032043.j43KhGR21867@tick.javien.com>

On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism

I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy +
capitalism...
Natasha



Globalization, democracy and capitalism, ooooohhh
I looove that kind of talk.  I get so turned on.  {8-]  

Natasha I will be looking forward eagerly to reading
your article.

spike




From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue May  3 20:57:03 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:57:03 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05050312173b8504a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org>
	<ee50357e05050312173b8504a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032243330.4254@zeus>


On Tue, 3 May 2005, BillK wrote:

>On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:>
>>
>> Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting
>> 30 mpg and selling for $25000.  You'll save $2500/year in gas costs.
>
>So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD per gallon.
>
>$5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here!
>
>Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price
>level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the
>automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are
>killed on the roads, we must have our cars.

Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient
cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's
post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!)

Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European nation,
except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline cars are about 40
mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you don't run the proverbial
circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned for low consumption easily get
50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles) commute is seen as quite long.

I don't remember where, but I remember one study concluding that the
amount of money spent by USians and Europeans on gas wasn't that
different.

Alfio



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue May  3 21:10:33 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me
In-Reply-To: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
Message-ID: <20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Diego Caleiro <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br> wrote:
> 1 What is more important, making the transhumanist meme achieve as
> many minds 
> as possible, or be faithful to some pre-determined concept of
> tranhumanism? 

Would it more succinctly state your point of view to say this: "Many
people have difficulty imagining life after the Singularity.
Therefore, when discussing >Hism with the general public, stick to the
stuff they CAN imagine well, for instance near-term things like
longevity and prosthetics instead of long-term things like immortality
and uploading.  Their misunderstandings of our long-term plans cause
their opposition to our goals, so don't talk about them with them."

> 5 There are too many brilliant minds here for the amount of money
> tranhumanist 
> cause is managing to collect.

Define "brilliant".  Brilliant at imagining the future, perhaps.
Brilliant at actually building it?

I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project.  I
encourage everyone else to do likewise, or to do similar in politics
(like the Free State project - I suppose I'm not their biggest fan, but
someone's got to try what they're trying) or whatever their chosen
specialty is.  (See, e.g., Natasha's media efforts.)

> 6 Last but not least, I have a question about a physical problem.
> Brains are 
> constantly physically changing, neurons move, die, react etc. Silicon
> Brains 
> would not have that biological ability, therefore, although they may
> be able 
> to store information, they will not be able to interexchange this
> information 
> with the same degree of randomness we have. So, they would not have
> an 
> freudian inconsciouness, and probably would have some difficulties in
> making 
> complex tought, which require many physical ???mistakes??? in
> neuronal activity 
> to happen. How to go round this problem?

Simulate it in software.  Set an upper bound - comfortably above the
maximum that a super-genius brain could reach at peak (I have a
sneaking suspicion there won't turn out to be that much variance here
between the human max and the human norm) - which the hardware will
encode, then activate and interconnect only as many as needed at a
time.  This has its limits, but perhaps it would work for an early
generation device.

Alternately, once we have advanced nano, equip the neuron-equivalents
with limited manufacturing capability, and allow them to literally grow
new connections.  Design the basic neuron, design the rough
organization of the final product but let the product itself define the
details, and you wind up with a system rather like the biological one,
although potentially optimized (if only because there will have been
detailed studies, and probably notes kept, of the partially-complete
brain as it was developed; no such equivalent exists for biological
brains, and reverse engineering it is proving to be difficult -
especially because we can't let a human brain grow to completion
without giving it basic human rights).


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue May  3 21:21:57 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:21:57 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032243330.4254@zeus>
References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org>
	<ee50357e05050312173b8504a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032243330.4254@zeus>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032318590.4254@zeus>

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

>Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient
>cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's
>post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!)
>
>Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European nation,
>except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline cars are about 40
>mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you don't run the proverbial
>circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned for low consumption easily get
>50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles) commute is seen as quite long.

Now before too many people point that out, those numbers weren't quite
right. Checking with Google's calculator gives somewhat lower mpg numbers
:-)) sorry folks


Alfio


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Tue May  3 21:24:49 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:24:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f05050314245ebc009f@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net <john-c-wright at sff.net> wrote:
> He [Giulio] says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't
> think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality."
> 
> I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example:
> Axiom: Do as you would be done by.
> Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus.
> Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than
> push her under a bus.

Given that others consider your 'axiom' is not absolute or objective,
what then? Giulio was quite right, and your failure to provide a
justification in terms of -absolute or objective- morality is further
evidence of his point. Demanding that your personal moral beliefs be
acknowledged as absolute does not make them so, John.

> He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse
> murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of
> society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans
> found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists,

Thanks for letting us know you don't have a clue concerning the
reasoning of modern intellectuals and socialists. It helps to see the
context of your other statements.

> These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of
> utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they
> can serve as means to our ends.

Bentham, arguably the founder of utilitarianism, proposed his theory
out of consideration for the interests of all beings capable of
suffering. If you must choose between helping an old lady on her long
walk home and building sandbag reinforcements to protecting a homeless
shelter from being destroyed in a coming flood, which should you
choose? If you let the old lady go it alone so you might help the
shelter inhabitants, are you a heartless utilitarian, treating people
as means rather than ends? Her life is over, hit as she was by an
oncoming bus, because you realized you could save more people one way
than the other. This sort of consideration is the bedrock of
utilitarianism (and more broadly, of consequentialism, of which
utilitarian theories form but a subset), and it has not the cold
flavor you attribute it.

Another classic source on utilitarianism, if you care to understand
that which you denigrate at least at a basic level, is Singer's
Practical Ethics, which you comment on later in your message (calling
him an infanticide advocate, which he clearly isn't, if you read his
work rather than the nutjob religionists who've slandered him in the
press). You needn't go further than the first chapter to find Singer
declare that ethics demands equal consideration of the interests of
others -- they are explicitly not means to our own ends.
Another smidgen of information on Singer's heart being in the wrong
place; he donates a minimum of 20% of his earnings to charities each
year. How much do you help the less fortunate each year, John?

> Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means.
> Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating
> her as a means, not as an end.
> Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus.

We can keep your axiom and reverse the conclusion, exposing the axiom
for the confusion it is.

(Premise 1) Treat others as ends, never as means.
(Premise 2) Allowing various members of society to suffer and die [*]
to serve the good of the old lady is treating all of those members as
means to an end.
[* which I take to be a plausible result of not doing that which
serves the social good, but other examples of social harms would
suffice]
(Conclusion) I should not let those people suffer and die.

> The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is
> whether we accept or reject "Do as you'd be done by" as an axiom. This is merely
> one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the
> principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed
> standard, that is, the same for all men.

Just men, eh? What a fine moral outlook you have indeed. Please, speak
on, fellow manly man!

You're living in the wrong century for that sort of language, John.
"... a fixed standard,that is, the same for all people." would be
rather more appropriate. Or should we move in the other direction, and
specify not just men, but straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men?
;)

I'm quite glad that you recognize the argument fails on rejection of
the axiom. It's a pity you don't take the next step in recognizing
that you haven't provided any objective or absolute reasons for us to
agree with your version of axiomatic morality.

> He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely
> because he wants to do it.

You're oversimplifying unacceptably. Your statement implies Giulio
would call theft good if he wanted to do it, yet nothing Giulio said
requires this; it is completely consistent for Giulio to have
first-order desires ("I want to X"), second-order desires ("I don't
want to want X"), and higher-order desires. I imagine he is much like
you and I -- we can want something at a first-order level (a tempting
vice, say; whatever poison suits you), yet not want to want it,
feeling that - even though we want it - it is not a good thing to
want.

Giulio can correct me if I'm wrong and he actually does fit your
caricature. But it remains that none of what he said requires the
straw-man you've constructed to be accurate.

> But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent
> in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred?

So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant of
pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do
unto others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old
Testament Judaism and then spread out to other religious and secular
mindsets? Wrong, John.

The very first record appears to be in Ancient Egypt, somewhere
between 1970 and 1640 BCE:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."
The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant (pp. 109-110 in the R.B. Parkinson
translation)

We see this in numerous other societies prior to any introduction of
Judaism or Christianity. E.g., Confucius:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
and... "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a
principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word
'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not
desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
and... "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated
yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to
benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

And Hinduism:
"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you
pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517

And the Buddhists:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

And the Taoists:
"Regard your neighbors gain, as your own gain and your neighbor's loss
as your own loss." Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien

And in Native American religion, which they had prior to interacting
with our culture:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace

> The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the
> National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The
> former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master
> and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and
> need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out.
> The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic
> classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit
> of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out.

Neither of these two positions are examples of moral relativism.
Proponents in either case could consistently hold the views you
attribute to them *and* also that their moral views are absolutely and
objectively true.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism for definition and
history and http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/whats_wrong_wit.html
for some clarificational remarks made by someone trained in moral
philosophy at one of the best programs in the world.

> To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral
> relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the
> Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust.

Quite not. Continuing my comment just above, the Holocaust was the
result of belief of the sort of absolutism that Giulio was referring
to. The Nazis believed in their absolute superiority; they didn't
acknowledge or respect the distinct moral views of other cultures.
Considering Jews to be beneath moral consideration is not relativism
any more than your belief that the animals you eat are beneath your
consideration. Don't conflate colloquial usage of the term 'relative'
(e.g., "the moral status of Jews is negligible *relative* to the moral
status of Aryans") with the meaning of moral relativism. Again, see
the links I provided above to get a better idea of what moral
relativism is (or at least what other people mean by the term, if you
choose for some reason to be adamant about using it to mean something
different).

> The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide
> abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the
> case that God hated the institution of slavery.

Except for the Scripture that speaks in favor of slavery, eh?

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is
sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to
Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the
people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest
proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, page 286.
(biographer: Dunbar Rowland)

See religioustolerance.org for numerous quotes from the Old and New
Testament evidencing Biblical acceptance of slavery; here are some
examples:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded
him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and
payment to be made."

"One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St.
Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the
same way that they obey Christ:"
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your
heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the
servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good
will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that
whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the
Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things
unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in
heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

On a happier slavery-endorsing note, the Bible did say slave-owners
shouldn't beat their slaves:
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye
of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's
sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's
tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

> Likewise, the great blooming of
> human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who
> wrote a document that begins: "We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident."

Men like... the non-Christian Thomas Jefferson?

Or John Adams, who ratified (with all of Congress unanimously) the
Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "the government of
the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion."?

Or James Madison, called the father of the Constitution, who said
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise."?
and
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in
all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Keen. Yeah, they may have been moral objectivists. They needn't have
been, though. You can be a moral subjectivist and still assert what
you think should be the foundations of a good nation. You can agree
with your contemporaries on various moral matters without declaring
said morality a universal truth (this being similar to Giulio's
apparent stance -- it is not whim, but it isn't objective dictate
either).

> I apologize to have departed from my normal custom of being polite and humble,
> and I know my words here are heated and scornful. I mean no disrespect to the
> writer himself, whom I hold in high esteem, but his ideas are at once so absurd
> and so ugly, so utterly thoughtless and barbaric, that they should not be
> allowed to pass in a public forum without a rebuke.

Hey, that's all right. If any of what you said were true, I'd be just
as up-in-arms about it. But it isn't. So, just as you hope to be
pardoned for your tone, I hope you'll pardon me as well and engage the
ideas (however impolitely I've presented them) rather than dismiss
them because of my umbrage at what I see as misguided piety,
ignorance, and fundamentalist propaganda.

Cheers,
Jeff


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 21:33:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, BillK wrote:
> 
> >On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:>
> >>
> >> Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting
> >> 30 mpg and selling for $25000.  You'll save $2500/year in gas
> costs.
> >
> >So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD
> per gallon.
> >
> >$5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here!
> >
> >Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price
> >level has made little difference to the public's love affair with
> the
> >automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are
> >killed on the roads, we must have our cars.
> 
> Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more
> efficient cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately
> evident in Hal's post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient
> that it must be a hybrid (!)

We drive heavier vehicles to move our fatter butts and our fatter kids
with our fatter groceries further distances with more acceleration. We
drive more miles to from the burbs to the malls to work to school, etc.
Europeans are smarter in going for the 'urban village' concept more
widely. Our urban and suburban planning is atrociously focused on
creating artificial land scarcity through zoning, setbacks, minimum lot
sizes, etc. which claims to be good for environment and controlling
growth, but winds up accellerating sprawl and harming more environment.

> 
> Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European
> nation, except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline
> cars are about 40 mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you
> don't run the proverbial circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned
> for low consumption easily get 50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles)
> commute is seen as quite long.

It's all about power. The first Toyota Prius to come out got 66 mpg
easy but was judged by most Americans as sluggish, accelerating to 60
mph (~100 kph) in a measely 14 seconds. Current generation hybrids here
shoot for 35-45 mpg while delivering high horsepower, awesome
acceleration off the mark with that electric motor, the long range that
Americans need and want, while delivering ultra low emissions. There is
a triangle between low emissions, high power, and high milage. You can
have any two of the three.

On the good side, American hybrids are quite capable of having their
vehicle computers reprogrammed to emphasize efficiency and emissions
rather than power, if we ever need to do so in the event of a crisis.

> 
> I don't remember where, but I remember one study concluding that the
> amount of money spent by USians and Europeans on gas wasn't that
> different.

And where USians money goes into highway miles they actually drive for
their own productivity and recreation, where do the Eurodollars go? As
most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually go to
reducing alleged greenhouse gasses???

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  3 21:38:26 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:38:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F175623F20F464816960DBBB4180@phx.gbl>

I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral 
relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their own 
moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess their moral 
system, then act contrary to it.

BAL




From hal at finney.org  Tue May  3 21:41:01 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue,  3 May 2005 14:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
Message-ID: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org>

Mike Lorrey writes:
> The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T
> abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep
> sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old
> plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust,
> not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such
> oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it
> to have wound up there from biotic sources.

I don't know much about the formation of oil.  Are you claiming that
among geologists, there is widespread bafflement about how oil could
have ended up under the Gulf of Mexico?  That this is something of an
unsolved mystery in the field?  Do you want me to do research and become,
once again, an instant expert on the topic?  I don't want to do it unless
you are pretty sure that this is the state of things.

I googled a bit and found one site which claims to explain the origin
of Gulf oil, http://www.lsu.edu/lsutoday/980501/pageone.html :

: The events leading up to the 1980 disaster began about 150 million years
: ago, when the nearly landlocked sea that is now the Gulf of Mexico dried
: up over and over again, said Gary Byerly, chair of LSU's Department of
: Geology and Geophysics. The evaporation of the water left huge layers
: of salt, which were eventually covered by silt and clay. Pressure from
: overlying sediments deformed the flat layers of salt into dome shapes.
:
: At the same time, the algae that would eventually become the oil
: and gas the Texaco rig workers were looking for were living in the
: Gulf. The climate in that period fluctuated wildly, with years so dry
: the Mississippi River would become a mud flat, followed by years of
: flash flooding, said geologist Ezat Heydari of LSU's Basin Research
: Institute. These conditions also produced great algal blooms. As the
: organisms died and drifted to the bottom, they eventually covered the
: floor of the Gulf to a depth of 500 feet or more, Heydari said. Gradually
: they became covered with silt and sank deeper and deeper into the seabed
: until they began to cook under the pressure and temperature.
:
: "Oil and gas are formed by thermal processes," said LSU geology professor
: Jeffery Nunn. "Organic material has to be cooked at a temperature of
: 100 degrees Celsius before it will become transformed into oil, and it
: doesn't get that hot till you get to a depth of three kilometers (almost
: 10,000 feet). It takes a long time for something to be buried that deep.
:
: "The oil deposits we are tapping under the Gulf of Mexico were laid down
: about 60 million years ago," Nunn said, "but even today, organisms are
: dying and falling to the bottom, continuing the process of hydrocarbon
: formation."
:
: The salt domes and the oil deposits the rig was searching for are
: relatively recent geological phenomena. But even the earliest seas had
: a profound influence on the planet today, Byerly said.
:
: Byerly's field of expertise is the Archean Age, including oceans which
: formed at the dawn of time and gave rise to life on earth. "There is
: a lot of overlap between oceanography and geology. Understanding the
: ancient oceans is a major part of understanding geology," he said.
:
: Scientists now believe that the oceans formed shortly after the earth
: itself and have always been just about as deep and just about as salty
: as they are today. They have not become more salty over the eons, Byerly
: said, because they are constantly drying up and re-forming elsewhere,
: leaving behind great deposits of salt.
:
: "Scientists used to believe that the ocean basins were ancient and
: the continents were relatively young. Now we know just the opposite is
: true. Ocean basins are the most geologically active places on earth. The
: average age of the Atlantic, for instance, is between 75 and 150 million
: years. But you can find rocks 3.5 billion years old on the continents,"
: he said.

This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims.  The Gulf
floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than
many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently
during the time when the salt formations were created.  There are also
apparently many sedimentary layers present.  It's also worth noting that
oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not dinosaurs.

Hal


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue May  3 21:47:38 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:47:38 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032342410.4254@zeus>

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>As most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually go to
>reducing alleged greenhouse gasses???

Most of it just goes into the general state budget, so it's going into the
major spending items like health care, public pensions and so on. But
greenhouse gasses are reduced, because you burn less gas for each
dollar/euro spent. Not that most people like it, but they just don't know
about the US. When I mention $0.25/liter gas they are amazed.

Alfio



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue May  3 21:50:55 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:50:55 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505032348090.4254@zeus>


On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is:

The question to ask the proponents of abiotic oil is: how fast is the
replacement rate from below? If it takes 5 million years to refill today's
known reserves, it doesn't make a big difference on alleged peak oil
timelines.

Alfio


From hal at finney.org  Tue May  3 21:52:26 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue,  3 May 2005 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
Message-ID: <20050503215226.5DE5A57EE6@finney.org>

Alfio Puglisi writes:
> Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient
> cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's
> post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!)

About that 30 mpg, I was remembering articles like this one, about one
customer's disappointment with hybrid mileage,
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html?tw=wn_story_related :

: Honda's Civic Hybrid is rated by the EPA to get 47 miles per gallon in
: the city, and 48 mpg on the highway. After nearly 1,000 miles of mostly
: city driving, Blackshaw was getting 31.4 mpg.
:
: "I feel like a complete fraud driving around Cincinnati with a license
: plate that says MO MILES," says Blackshaw, who claims that after 4,000
: miles his car has never gotten more than 33 mpg on any trip. The tenor of
: Blackshaw's blog shifted from adulation to frustration after his Honda
: dealer confirmed that his car was functioning properly, and that there
: was nothing he could do.
:
: Blackshaw, who is chief customer satisfaction officer at Intelliseek.com,
: spoke to a Honda regional manager about his concerns, and wrote a letter
: to a Honda vice president on April 15 that was not answered. His story
: has been echoed dozens of times online by owners of the Honda Civic
: Hybrid and Toyota Prius.

But you're probably right, there may well be cars that can do better
than this without even using hybrid technology.  Perhaps going even
smaller than the Civic would allow for better mileage.

Hal

P.S. BTW it's my birthday tomorrow so I'm treating myself to a pair
of Powerisers, http://www.superdairyboy.com/poweriser.html.  Found 'em
on Ebay for a discount.  I'll supposedly be able to run 20 mph with 9
foot strides!  Bring on Peak Oil!


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 22:25:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is
hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code
against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth.
When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against humanity
is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can rationalize a
moral position for it.

To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide, or
Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral relativism,
it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively moral or
not.

--- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral 
> relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their
> own 
> moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess
> their moral 
> system, then act contrary to it.
> 
> BAL
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 22:38:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050503223801.83370.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected
> financial relations 
> between nations could be a driving force behind
> advancing worldwide human 
> rights?

      I think globalisation of western style
capitalist-democracy would advance some human rights
but not others. For example, it would further the
"right to life" since corpses make lousy consumers but
rights like "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are
not neccesarily advanced. Especially if there is a
danger that the democracy is "fabricated". I saw a
great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a
vote has little power, he who counts the votes has
great power". I am still very spooked and mistrustful
of this whole Diebold paperless voting machine thing.
It seems ridiculous to me that we have open-source
operating system soft-ware like unix but the machines
that count our votes run on proprietary software
written by ultra-partisans.  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 benboc at lineone.net  Tue May  3 23:12:40 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 00:12:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cyc
In-Reply-To: <200505031711.j43HBAR06861@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505031711.j43HBAR06861@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42780568.80506@lineone.net>

From: Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cyc

 > Any opinions on Cyc?


Nope.


ben


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May  3 23:56:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503235622.7999.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >As most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually
> go to
> >reducing alleged greenhouse gasses???
> 
> Most of it just goes into the general state budget, so it's going
> into the
> major spending items like health care, public pensions and so on. But
> greenhouse gasses are reduced, because you burn less gas for each
> dollar/euro spent. 

Pollution reduction through deterrence? This pretty much confirms what
I've repeatedly said here: the 'coincidence' of most supporters of
global warming (and peak oil) being from europe, and europes:
a) dismal economic competetiveness
b) incredibly high taxes on gasoline and other energy sources, which
are spent almost entirely on funding their economy-destroying welfare
state programs and not on actual pollution reduction,

Clearly leads anyone with rational faculties to the obvious conclusion
that both global warming and peak oil are political myths intended as
propaganda to convince the American people to castrate themselves
economically so that europe may compete without having to give up its
socialism.

> Not that most people like it, but they just don't know
> about the US. When I mention $0.25/liter gas they are amazed.

Funny, when people here gripe about high prices, all the Naderites
point to europes prices.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  3 23:59:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> : Blackshaw, who is chief customer satisfaction officer at
> Intelliseek.com,
> : spoke to a Honda regional manager about his concerns, and wrote a
> letter
> : to a Honda vice president on April 15 that was not answered. His
> story
> : has been echoed dozens of times online by owners of the Honda Civic
> : Hybrid and Toyota Prius.
> 
> But you're probably right, there may well be cars that can do better
> than this without even using hybrid technology.  Perhaps going even
> smaller than the Civic would allow for better mileage.

Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much
they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak
efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is
said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that
requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas
engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this
method to get peak efficiency.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Wed May  4 00:18:43 2005
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:18:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964C22@amazemail2.amazeent.com>



The Avantguardian wrote:
> ... I saw a
> great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a
> vote has little power, he who counts the votes has
> great power"...

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 00:35:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050504003508.81260.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
 
> This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims.  The
> Gulf
> floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than
> many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently
> during the time when the salt formations were created.  There are
> also
> apparently many sedimentary layers present. It's also worth noting
> that oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not
> dinosaurs.

I'll note that he states that the salt domes are 3 km under the floor
before pressure rises enough to produce oil. Yet the ocean floors are
only thought to be 5-10 km thick, which creates a paradox. If the upper
3 km that covers the salt domes was produced over 60 million years, and
the floor is 150 million years old, then the sedimentary layer of the
gulf should be about 7.5 km thick, thus the basalt at the spreading
zones can be at most 2.5 km or less thick, which we know isn't true
because of the amount of material put out by the spreading ridges. But
we'll let that aside for a bit.

Now, lets look at the amount of sediment: 7.5 km thick. How much is
biological material? Dunno, but it is all subducted under the
continents at some point, silt, methane hydrates, oil, salt domes,
rock, and all. Does all that oil and methane hydrates just disappear?
Obviously not. Is there air for the oil and methane to react with to
burn into carbon dioxide and water? No, there isn't.

How much subduction happens? How many tons of stuff gets subducted
every year? While some deep sediments in the ocean floor may be covered
deep enough to turn to oil in situ, it is clear that, given what we
know about methane hydrates, there is a LOT more of this stuff,
unconverted, waiting to be subducted, and being subducted, all the
time.

Lets make a pessimistic guesstimate that there is about 100,000 km of
subduction zone sucking oceanic sediment under. And lets say there is
an average of 7.5 km of sediment at any given point getting subducted.
Given an average subduction rate of 3 cm/year, that means 22.5 cubic km
of material being subducted worldwide every year. (suck, suck, suck)

If we were to assume, say, that a mere 1% of the material in subducted
ocean sediment is suitable for conversion into oil at appropriate
pressure and temperature, this means that the earth produces .225 cubic
km of oil every year, for every 1% of convertible subducted ocean
sediment. How that converts to barrels d'huile is an exercise left for
the reader.

Now, the only reason geologists have claimed that oil comes from
aquatic algae is because of fossilized cellular structures found in
oil, which has been assumed until recently to be the 'algae' that
'made' the oil. This was before the discovery of hyperthermophiles and
oil eating bacteria, both of which live deep underground and thrive off
of chemosythnesis rather than photosynthesis.

The excuse making I hear now is that a) the Gulf, which is up to 2000
fathoms deep in places, repeatedly dried up entirely when it was cut
off from the ocean at various points, and that b) while exhibiting such
immense saline concentrations, was home to an immense amount of algal
blooms, apparently c) the entire gulf being fed by an occasional flash
flood down the Mississippi.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  4 00:39:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504003918.51317.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected
> > financial relations 
> > between nations could be a driving force behind
> > advancing worldwide human 
> > rights?
> 
>       I think globalisation of western style
> capitalist-democracy would advance some human rights
> but not others. For example, it would further the
> "right to life" since corpses make lousy consumers but
> rights like "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are
> not neccesarily advanced. Especially if there is a
> danger that the democracy is "fabricated". I saw a
> great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a
> vote has little power, he who counts the votes has
> great power". I am still very spooked and mistrustful
> of this whole Diebold paperless voting machine thing.
> It seems ridiculous to me that we have open-source
> operating system soft-ware like unix but the machines
> that count our votes run on proprietary software
> written by ultra-partisans.  

I participated in recounts after this last election. Naders people were
convinced that the scanning machines we used would be bad. Turned out
to not be the case, few elections changed by more than a handful,
literally, of votes. What I did find in the post election investigation
is that the humans doing voter registration, especially election day
registration, were far more unreliable. We already have far more people
who are guilty of vote fraud (but who the state AAG in charge of
covering up election fraud refuses to prosecute) than there were votes
not counted by machines.
> 
> The Avantguardian 
> is 
> Stuart LaForge
> alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
> 
> "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 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dgc at cox.net  Wed May  4 01:33:56 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 21:33:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] What happened?
Message-ID: <42782684.2020407@cox.net>

We were off the air for four days. Why?



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 04:21:26 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504042126.88414.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On the one hand, it wouldn't make
> much 
> sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of
> the 
> people down the road, or in the next room.

Sure it would - just not from a point of view that tries to accurately
predict how things will be.  But is that the point of writing?  Or is
it to guide readers who currently really are just plain human, towards
thinking of where you see us going.

Problem is, some people are already opposed to any posthuman future -
often not aware of it enough to know the word "posthuman", but they
know what they fear and hate - and thus want to believe that all
posthumans are soulless automatons, or otherwise intrinsically suffer
for their removal from nature's original design.  Just like those who
claim that none of the Terminators (from the movie series) ever showed
a shred of humanity, despite several examples to the contrary being
easily findable.  So any realistic portrayal of anything even remotely
deserving the label "posthuman" is likely to get dismissed by certain
critics, deservedly or not.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 04:33:54 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964C22@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <20050504043355.41283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Acy James Stapp <astapp at fizzfactorgames.com>
wrote:


> 
> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who
> count the votes
> decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin
>

That is it exactly and my point about the Diebold
machines stand.


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 04:51:15 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504045115.95369.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a study
> claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least temporarily,
> through the day compared to non-emailers.

Actually, that isn't contrary.  Email and Web access can be distracting
at first, thus causing the same effect as a temporary IQ drop while one
learns the system.  The effect is perhaps comparable, in some ways, to
puberty.

I'm waiting for the study that compares experienced Web and email users
to those who have never used the Internet.


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed May  4 04:54:32 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 00:54:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050314245ebc009f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
	<200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050503234725.055acf10@unreasonable.com>

Jeff Medina wrote:

>So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant of
>pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do
>unto others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old
>Testament Judaism and then spread out to other religious and secular
>mindsets? Wrong, John.
>
>The very first record appears to be in Ancient Egypt, somewhere
>between 1970 and 1640 BCE:
         :
  [ Quotations from various religious sources omitted. ]

There are four similarly sounding principles, two of which you cite but 
fail to distinguish.

The Christian formulation (Do Unto Others) is a busybody license. It's the 
traditional liberal and conservative rationale for imposing your standards 
on everyone around you, with or without their consent.

Versus the more libertarian variant seen in your Buddhist and Hindi quotes, 
and famously in the story about Hillel, in which he summed up Judaism as 
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man: that is the whole Law; 
all the rest is interpretation."

The emphasis here is on *restraint from action*.

The major shortcoming of both of these, however, is that they are focused 
on what *you* would want or not want, instead of what the other being would 
want or not want. In other words,

(3) Do unto others that which they would want done.
(4) What is hateful to your fellow sentient, do not do to him.


-- David Lubkin.



From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed May  4 05:36:19 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:36:19 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205050322361386e3c5@mail.gmail.com>

In reply to the post of John C. Wright:

The National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of
Russia.were the opposite of moral relativists. This is demonstrated by
two facts: one, the volume of metaphisical crap they felt obliged to
write to justify their sociopathic behaviour. Two, the number of free
thinkers they murdered.

I really wonder how someone who has evidently read much history and
philosophy can make such a grossly incorrect statement.

See the Wikipedia definition of moral relativism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

"Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect
absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments
emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there
is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.
Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain
cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person's ethical
judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists
propound a more limited version of the theory."

I do not push morel relativism to the extreme position outlined in
this paragraph, and do formulate opinions and act on them. But I call
them with their proper name: opinions. Not God-given Truths.

Most of us do have opinions on things, at times very strong opinions,
and do formulate value judgments. This has, I think, an overall
positive effect. But we should always bear in mind that we formulate
our opinion and judgments based on specific life histories, incomplete
information and imperfect reasoning. So we should be open to the
possibility that we may have to modify our opinions and judgments as a
result of more/better information and/or more accurate reasoning. Or
different circumstances, or different brain chemistry.
Rejecting moral relativism and deluding oneself into thinking that one
is the sole depositary of The Truth has, on the contrary, an overall
negative effect. Indeed, history demonstrates that it inevitably leads
to atrocities and mass murder.

John, you develop morality from the --Axiom: Do as you would be done
by--. Which is one of the axioms I also hold true. But, you said it
yourself: it is an Axiom, for God's sake!!! Axiom means something that
you can only accept without proving it.


On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net <john-c-wright at sff.net> wrote:
> Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is
> that we should have no standards....
> The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the
> National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 05:38:35 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504053835.77820.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a
> study
> > claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least
> temporarily,
> > through the day compared to non-emailers.
> 
> Actually, that isn't contrary. Email and Web access can be
> distracting
> at first, thus causing the same effect as a temporary IQ drop while
> onelearns the system. The effect is perhaps comparable, in some ways,
> to puberty.
> 
> I'm waiting for the study that compares experienced Web and email
> users to those who have never used the Internet.

I was under the impression that this study applied to experienced email
users, not novices.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 05:44:51 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504054451.80753.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 03:06 PM 4/29/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote:
> >even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated
> >beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at
> >times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by
> >apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of
> papal
> >infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and
> misjudgements
> >to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person
> >made them.
> 
> You've made this claim previously, Adrian, but without citing
> instances. 
> Can you do so? You do realise, I suppose, that the doctrine of papal 
> infallibility is extremely restricted, applying only when the man in
> the 
> white silk beanie speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith/or morals.
> To 
> the best of my knowledge, no Pope has ever ruled, nor could ever
> rule, on 
> the speed of light, or the name Achilles used when he went among
> women, or 
> the medical causes of leprosy, etc.

On the contrary: Gallileo was deemed a heretic for his scientific
belief.  Pope Pius V ruled that the Sun orbited the Earth, not vice
versa, and that to believe otherwise was indeed a breach of faith
and/or morals.  This ruling was upheld by a subsequent Pope, Urban
VIII, who tried and convicted Gallileo for heresy.  That judgement was
later deemed in error by Pope John Paul II.  Ergo we have at least one
example of one Catholic Pope deeming a previous one to be incorrect,
ergo we can conclude that even the Catholic Church has precedent for
finding that Popes are not infallible, even in matters that (at the
time the later-fallible Pope rules) are considered to be within the
Pope's domain.

There are more examples, for instance Pope Urban II's selling of
priests' wives into slavery despite slavery being almost universally
decried as immoral by Popes before and after him; or Hadrian VI, who
declared many prior Popes to be heretics and in error on certain
spiritual matters.  Google around on the history of Popes; it makes for
interesting reading when you see how the Catholic Church has actually
taught and behaved over the years.

Which is not to say there haven't been good catholics, by any means.
Just that believing any one person to be infallibly wrong tends to lead
to more problems, on average, than weighing what people say against
their circumstances.  (For instance, experts tend to be correct about
their field of expertise, but even then they can make mistakes -
especially if they are given false information that they believe to be
correct.)  If you want proof of that, the best proof possible is
simply to observe this in action in the world around you: look for it,
over periods of at least a few months.  It should not be too hard to
find supporting evidence.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed May  4 05:53:42 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:53:42 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050503225357e41d0a@mail.gmail.com>

Another strong, and grossly inaccurate, statement of John:

On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net <john-c-wright at sff.net> wrote:
> People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a
> common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason
> with each other or even with themselves.

So, and please correct me if I am wrong:
According to wrong interpretations of Christianity and Islam, which
unfortunately have been held my many Christians and Muslims, killing
infidels is good and proper. So killing everyone in the other camp is
a common ground on which they can agree. Too bad the result is that
one third of humanity have to be killed as a result.

Moral subjectivists constantly reason with themselves, and with
others, to make some sense of nature and morality without hiding
behind presumed God-given truths.

But you are right in that people who believe in absolute truth do have
at least one common ground. Their common ground is thay they all
consider those free thinkers who want to thik with their own head as
their true enemies.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed May  4 05:59:33 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:59:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap
In-Reply-To: <4272F88F.4080309@humanenhancement.com>
References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com>
	<426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org>
	<12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com>
	<42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com>
	<4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com>
	<42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com>
	<bf35e624ea625a02dc5b2dfe3950421c@mac.com>
	<4272F88F.4080309@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <AB60FC0E-22EF-4DED-890E-38EAE20A3BAB@mac.com>


On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>> I only meant soon enough not to get totally creamed economically  
>> by the posthumans if we don't have so much abundance that everyone  
>> has what they need and more than a little of what they desire.    
>> Normal humans skill levels would not likely be very marketable.   
>> So what happens to those people who plain don't want to make he  
>> move even if it is free?
>>
>> If we have practical abundance I see no reason those choosing to  
>> remain human need be in any immediate danger except perhaps  
>> psychologically.
>>
>> I am currently more in favor of and into contributing toward IA  
>> and other aspects of creating posthumans form humans.  I believe  
>> that starting with that beginning is more likely to end up well  
>> than starting from scratch as in AI efforts.
>>
>
>
> I suppose it depends on the nature of the PostHuman condition. Will  
> it necessarily include "practical abundance"? I don't think that's  
> a requirement, myself, and thus it might well be the case that  
> contemporary economics still function (at least in the near-term  
> after the advent of PostHumanity; I think eventually the scales  
> will tip in favor of "practical abundance" eventually).
>

I think it is a requirement if the result is going to be livable or  
even achievable without massive suffering and death of our fellow  
human beings.   It was the real possibility of practical abundance  
for all that initially drew me to these things.

> But bear in mind, there are other forms of competition than  
> economics. In the social sphere, PostHumans will have as many if  
> not more advantages over normal humans than they do in the economic  
> sphere. To make a necessarily poor analogy, two PostHumans could  
> interact on a social level as we do today with email and full  
> access to the Internet. A normal human would be writing letters and  
> mailing them, trundling down to the library for any references that  
> might be needed. Imagine a normal human trying to have a  
> relationship with a PostHuman, who is used to being able to share  
> mental experiences as easily as we share files online. "Mere  
> humans" are going to be at a disadvantage in every sphere; not only  
> economic, but social, political, athletic, academic, etc.
>

Of course but that was not what we were addressing mostly.   Humans  
would not likely mix much with posthumans.

>
>
>>> The truth is, we have no way of knowing what our responses will  
>>> be when we have an IQ of 10,000, physical immortality, and the  
>>> resources of a small nation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then those that care about humanity have quite ample reason to do  
>> what they can to prevent posthumanity from coming into existence.   
>> I think we need a lot better answers and a real idea of and  
>> commitment to what the intent is.     I cannot say that becoming  
>> posthuman is worth it to me personally if it likely means the  
>> destruction of all but a posthuman handful of what was humanity.    
>> I am in this that everyone on earth may have undreamed of  
>> abundance and opportunity including the opportunity to become  
>> posthuman.   I am not interested in the advancment of a handful to  
>> super powered selfish ape status who then destroy everyone else.
>>
>
>
> The point is, you and I are literally incapable of imagining what  
> our PostHuman selves would think is appropriate.

Then we give humanity no guarantees or even stated intentions?  We  
tell them that just because we think it will be cool that we will  
make them obsolete and perhaps will do nothing at all toward their  
well-being and may actually - we can't know what we may decide later  
- destroy them all outright?   Please tell me exactly why humanity  
would want to tolerate this.  I am not getting it.  If I am not  
getting it then you can be darn sure that non-transhumanists aren't  
either.

> Speculation, in that case, is useless. We can gush all the  
> platitudes about the dignity of humanity, and respect for those who  
> choose the other path, but once we have transitioned ourselves, all  
> bets are off. Much as the promises you or I might make as a four- 
> year-old cannot seriously be counted on when we're forty.
>

I am not talking about speculation.  I am talking about commitment.   
There is a whole world of difference.   We talk about personal  
continuity a lot here.  That includes the ability to commit  
contractually.  Should we write into all contracts that the agreement  
is null and void if our intelligence increases more than a certain  
amount?

>
>
>> I would rather be exterminated than exterminate humanity.  It is a  
>> matter of choice.
>>
>
>
> Indeed. While I respect your choice to be exterminated in such a  
> situation, I trust you will respect my choice to resist such a fate.
>
> Hopefully, of course, it won't come down to such a decision. It  
> certainly doesn't _have_ to; there are many possible scenarios.
>
> But if does come down to a question of them or us, quite frankly, I  
> choose us.
>

With the power that posthumans would have there is no way it would be  
such a binary choice.  That is part of my point.

>
>
>> We should not try to excuse the ugly choice as what our mysterious  
>> someday super brain might decide. We can decide now what we are  
>> building and what type of being we wish to become.  That is the  
>> part that is known and in our control.  Every moment we can  
>> continue to decide.
>>
>
>
> But our future-selves are not bound by those decisions, any more  
> than we are bound by the choices we made in kindergarten.
>

We are bound if we commit to being so bound.  We are individually  
capable of deciding and living that decision.   A large part of  
becoming posthuman is developing the ability to decide over many more  
aspects of existence than was possible before.  Yes we may decide  
differently at some future time.  I am less concerned with that than  
with what we decide now and are willing to live to.  It is our  
decisions and professed goals now on which we will be judged and  
which will largely determine our near-term fate.

>
>
>>> Although I would say that waiting until everyone is guaranteed a  
>>> seat on the train is not an option, mostly because it will NEVER  
>>> happen. Someone will always choose-- through ignorance,  
>>> superstition (is there a difference?), or just plain cussedness--  
>>> to remain as they are. Those people must not be allowed to hold  
>>> up our own evolution:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds pretty arrogant.  You say you only want the freedom to  
>> decide for you.  then you want the freedom to decide for everyone  
>> or to condemn them to dead if they do not agree with you.
>>
>
>
> The freedom to improve onesself is the ultimate freedom. Is freedom  
> not worth fighting for? And please always bear in mind, this is an  
> outcome Ineither desire nor particularly expect. But to condemn you  
> and I to death, illness, and relative retardation when it is not  
> necessarily inevitable is something that deserves to be resisted.  
> Would you not agree that a group that wanted to kill everyone once  
> they reached the age of 15, and who actively prevented any sort of  
> education, and who held back any medicines, would be a group that  
> should be resisted, and violently if necessary? I see no practical  
> difference between my hypothetical example and those who want to  
> nip Transhumanism in the bud in the name of it's being "unnatural".

This freedom does not free us from making ethical decisions though.   
It actually requires more ethics to be trusted with superhuman  
powers.   I am attempting to point out this out.


> Now, I'm not calling for the Transhumanist Revolution...  
> fortunately it hasn't come to that, and in all likelihood won't. I  
> don't think it's ultimately possible to contain the social and  
> technological trends that are already extant.
>

Perhaps not "ultimately" but is quite possible to stop much of it for  
some time, possibly more time than most of us have.  The level of  
societal control, interference, surveillance and ability to impose  
against the choices of minorities is increasing.

>> "Your decision to remain the same does not compel me not to change."
>>
>> But as stated our decision to change may condemn all of humanity  
>> except those who chose as we do because we leave open the option  
>> of deciding to destroy them.   If we make no commitment to  
>> humanity then why should humanity aid or even tolerate our  
>> existence?   Who cares how fast and deeply we can think or how  
>> much raw power we wield if we remain a stunted disassociated  
>> chimps psychologically?  The power of gods should not be given to  
>> stunted chimps.
>
>
> Self-selected psychology is, of course, one of the elements that is  
> often bandied about as a PostHuman trait.
>
> But are you arguing for the inclusion of some sort of "we love  
> humanity" meme on the basis of its inherent value, or merely as  
> something that is necessary at the onset of PostHumanity, as a sort  
> of tactical maneuver?
>

I believe that it is a very basic ethical decision that is a litmus  
test as to whether we deserve to transcend normal human limits.   It  
is also a tactical matter but that is not the reason I suggest it.

>
>> We do not have to have an "evolutionary struggle" of the kind you  
>> may have in mind unless we decide to.  That is my point.  What are  
>> we willing to commit to?  How much are we willing to grow to be  
>> ready to command the powers of a god?  We must learn to go beyond  
>> models that no longer confine beings such as we are becoming.    
>> The non-posthumans can not even pose a threat a bit further down  
>> the road.  There is no real struggle for survival at that point.   
>> Until then the question is why humanity should give birth to us  
>> and allow us to grow beyond our vulnerable stage.    Clearly it  
>> should not do so without some assurances as to our subsequent  
>> treatment of humanity.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I was reluctant to indulge my flights of fancy, and this is exactly  
> why. I don't "have in mind" the sort of conflict I described. I was  
> merely putting it out as one of many possibilities.

It is a very real possibility if we refuse ethical commitment.

>
>> That is indeed possible but it is not the assurance that is needed  
>> for our own sanity.  To force transcension seems almost a  
>> contradiction in terms.   It is likely a matter of much more than  
>> merely upgrading the hardware.   Do you really want to bring to  
>> full posthuman capability someone violently opposed?  It is far  
>> better to offer gentle slopes and persuasion.  With medical  
>> nanotech around there is no great hurry for people to be ready and  
>> willing to become posthuman.  They can dawdle for centuries if  
>> they wish.  They can even die if they wish.
>>
>
> You and I might agree with that point of view today. But our  
> PostHuman selves might look back on this email and smile  
> condescendingly at our niavete. Remember, I'm just idly speculating  
> here; my point is we can't KNOW what we'll think, and anything we  
> say today could be completely reversed after we're Gods.
>
>

That really isn't the question today though.  We only have the power  
of choice Now.

>>
>>
>>> Now you're getting into the "what will the Singularity after the  
>>> Singularity be like?" Obviously, we can't know. But for now, we  
>>> can tentatively say we can apply the same principle, subject to  
>>> revision once our several-orders-of-magnitude-smarter intellects  
>>> deal with the question.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are many steps between here and there and many more I  
>> suspect thereafter.  That is part of a the difference between  
>> Singularity and Rapture.   Just because we can't see past the  
>> Singularity is no reason to suppose there is no further  
>> development on the other side.
>>
>
>
> Of course not! There will absolutely be development post- 
> Singularity (more than we can imagine, most likely). But we, by  
> definition have no idea what form it'll take. So unless you're  
> writing for Analog, such speculation is useless. :-)
>

It is also unnecessary for making an ethical choice today.

>
>> Everyone will not pay for their own if the un-upgraded are no  
>> longer employable.  I suggest that part of the price of the birth  
>> of posthumanity is a compact with humanity.  Part of the compact  
>> may be that in exchange for our birth we improve the processes and  
>> make uplift available to all who desire it and have prepared or  
>> are willing to be prepared for it.  It seem a reasonable thing to  
>> ask.   So I disagree with both of the answers above.
>>
>
>
> What if the "practical abundance" you mentioned above becomes a  
> reality? Then "employable" ceases to be a meaningful category.

Of course.  I suspect it becomes reality because again we decide to  
make it so.

>
> And I'm all in favor of allowing as many people to transition to  
> PostHumanity as want to. But you seem to be saying that nobody  
> should be able to until everyone is able to. I happen to think that  
> waiting until everyone can partake would be like waiting to build  
> the first car until everyone can have one, or the first PC until we  
> can give one to everyone on the planet. There are going to be  
> "first adopters" of any technology, and I am doing everything I can  
> to not only make sure those technologies become available, but that  
> I'm first in line.
>

I am not saying that at all.  There indeed are always forerunners and  
early adopters of any technology.   In this case the successful early  
adopters will be in a position to massively improve the technology  
and whatever else they set their minds to that it is possible to  
improve.

> I refuse to forego my own ascention on the merest _possibility_  
> that the distribution of such technology is inequitable, waiting  
> until I am assured that everyone gets their immortal intelligence- 
> enhanced body. Is it right that I am denied my PostHuman state  
> because _everyone_ can't do it too? I think not.
>

You are talking about a position that I am not remotely suggesting.

>
>
>>>
>>> I daresay if you asked that question of James Hughes and Max  
>>> More, you would get pretty much diametrically opposed answers.  
>>> Yet each is a Transhumanist in his own way, because that's a  
>>> question of methods, not goals. Personally, I don't think it's  
>>> practical to force equality of capability short of a social  
>>> system that would make Aldous Huxley blush. I favor personal  
>>> competition, tempered by the intervention of society as a whole  
>>> when such competition spills over into realms where it proves  
>>> detrimental to society as a whole (I am thinking of Icelandic  
>>> feud as an example of a social convention used to regulate  
>>> individual conflict, keeping it from degenerating into whole- 
>>> scale civil war; there are many others).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think this may be a modeling that we don't carry forward but I  
>> could be wrong.
>>
>>
>
> After the Singularity? All bets are off. But right now, we need to  
> figure out what sort of pre-Singularity socio-political structure  
> will allow the maximum number of people to ascend to PostHumanity  
> once the time comes. I happen to think a (small-r) republican- 
> capitalist system (as we have here in the US) is optimal, while  
> others think anarcho-capitalism or democratic socialism are the  
> answer. Well, such is the debate in the marketplace of ideas...
>

While I lean strongly in the staunch libertarian direction I think  
that some of the views of libertarians and all  of the political  
pigeon-holes we use today are hopelessly quaint and confining even on  
this side of Singularity.

>
>
>> It goes both ways.  There will be those sooner or later whose  
>> abilities extent beyond anything you wish to pursue.  The point of  
>> "enough" comes to even a posthuman.   Unless we set out to create  
>> a world where to rest is to be in mortal danger.  Again, it is our  
>> choice.  I will not chose an infinite hampster wheel of continuous  
>> upgrades or else as the goal of my becoming posthuman.   I would  
>> sooner run away to a nunnery.
>>
>
>
> Abilities I don't want to pursue? What are these words of which you  
> speak? They are foreign to me... ;-)
>
> As Benjamin Franklin said, "When you're finished changing, you're  
> finished."
>

Changing does not require an endless chase after ever more.   nor  
does growth.  Happiness especially doesn't require this.

- samantha


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed May  4 06:34:03 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:34:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520505032334267e9e40@mail.gmail.com>

Mike, I think you are so staunchly against moral relativism because
you perceive it as something lefty.
But note that historically the Left has been very much against moral
relativism: accept moral relativism, and you weaken the power of the
State as you can no longer believe its claim to be the Guardian of the
Truth. I suspect many historic Left thinkers would have been against,
say, gay marriage.
Moral relativism has been introduced in the Left by relatively modern
thinkers who also believed in individual liberty and civil rights,
which you as a Libertarian should support.
G.

On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is
> hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code
> against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth.
> When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against humanity
> is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can rationalize a
> moral position for it.
> 
> To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide, or
> Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral relativism,
> it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively moral or
> not.
> 
> --- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral
> > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their
> > own
> > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess
> > their moral
> > system, then act contrary to it.
> >
> > BAL
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May  4 11:23:27 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:23:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050504112327.GU6782@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:59:56PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much
> they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak
> efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is

Actually, because batteries can provide very high currents for a short time,
and regenerative braking recovers a large part of kinetic energy dimensioning
your engine just enough for the cruise is sufficient. You can't do any of
this with a plain ICE.

The interesting part however is scaling down the weight, by using new LiIon (with
many cycles/rapid recharge), in-hub rare earth motors, etc. This will also reduce the
load on power electronics, which will make it cheaper/less prone to blowing
up in smoke.

Scaling down the weight is the most important part. My current car burns 6.3
l/100 km to drive a ton of metal and plastic, just to move one monkey. Isn't
this ridiculous? An order of magnitude less should be more like it, without
compromising safety.    

> said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that
> requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas
> engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this
> method to get peak efficiency.

Even current lead-acid monsters will easily outaccelerate a Formula 1 (and by
having a low center of gravity you can really turn corners at demon speed) --
on short distances.

I looked into hybrids, but they're too expensive still (almost a factor of
two). The point of EVs is that you can reduce the costs by reducing the
number of moving parts and complexity in general. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050504/0eeb36a8/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May  4 12:25:57 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:25:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me
In-Reply-To: <20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
	<20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050504122557.GZ6782@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project.  I

Do you have a web page of your (nanotechnology, isn't it?) project, or can
you post a description, of what you're doing?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050504/a2d9492a/attachment.bin>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May  4 11:02:26 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:02:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050504040231924e40@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much
> they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak
> efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is
> said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that
> requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas
> engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this
> method to get peak efficiency.
> 

Agreed. Doing everything gradually can easily add 20% to your fuel
efficiency. The competitive 'economy-runs' achieve incredible economy
and still have high average journey speeds.

But my point was that the Euro price levels of >$6 per US gallon
(equiv) have had little effect on reducing car use.

Alfio said that Europeans tend to drive much more efficient cars and
drive less miles.
While this is true I doubt if the price of gas caused this. European
cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are permanent.
Europe has centuries old cities and towns with lots of narrow streets
and no parking space. People tend to live local, crowded together.
Smaller cars are one solution. But when families have two or three
smaller cars, overall the result is the same as one or two larger
cars.
Part of the reason is the slow pot-boiling effect. The price of gas
and other costs go up gradually every year and people pay a little
more every year without really noticing how high the price is getting.
I see little sign that gas prices are bothering people much.
They get a 3% rise every year and gas prices go up 3% - who cares really?


As a footnote we have to be clear whether we are talking mpUSg or
mpUKg (or even kilometres per litre if you want to make sure nobody
understands!)    :)

If you buy a UK car that is rated at 48 mpg, when it gets to the US,
because the US gallon is smaller, it will only give 40 mpg. Divide by
1.201.



BillK


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed May  4 11:30:56 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:30:56 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050504040231924e40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e050504040231924e40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505041328350.16772@hercules>

On Wed, 4 May 2005, BillK wrote:

>I see little sign that gas prices are bothering people much.
>They get a 3% rise every year and gas prices go up 3% - who cares really?

Given that every .01 euro increment or decrement makes national news
around here, and that gas+diesel consumption in the first part of 2005 is
down 6% with respect to 2004, I bet that someone is caring.

Alfio


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed May  4 13:20:34 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:20:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <773893ba10ea68f3cc43d6a8f574bcf4@bonfireproductions.com>


Exactly. And its not as if I hold this view in some sort of passion.

Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3 hours 
commuting everyday.

Sure plates tuck and over run, and have been doing it for some time - 
but the distance travelled to place those materials where they ended 
up, particularly in the case you cite, doesn't seem to add up.


Bret



On May 3, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T
> abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep
> sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old
> plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust,
> not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such
> oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it
> to have wound up there from biotic sources.
>
>
>
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed May  4 13:26:36 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:26:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org>
References: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org>
Message-ID: <63530c31768a608d09739239ca949444@bonfireproductions.com>



There is also the case that most of our current atmosphere was 
metabolized by cyano algae and bacteria, even earlier than the 
dinosaurs.

Could the volume of that early flora/fauna have been compressed/buried 
and represented today? Perhaps there is a rough number. My 
understanding is that it would be a large number at that.


]3


On May 3, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
> This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims.  The Gulf
> floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than
> many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently
> during the time when the salt formations were created.  There are also
> apparently many sedimentary layers present.  It's also worth noting 
> that
> oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not 
> dinosaurs.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From amara at amara.com  Wed May  4 13:36:26 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:36:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
Message-ID: <p06210205be9e7f7607d3@[150.146.134.133]>

Bret Kulakovich bret at bonfireproductions.com :
>Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3
>hours commuting everyday.


Thomas Gold generated controversy in almost everything he did, but
sometimes he was right because he was a very smart man.  I think
that his arguments and the arguments of his critics would illuminate
this discussion in an intelligent way:


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas+Gold+methane&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search


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/
********************************************************************
"Before I came here I was confused about this subject.  Having
listened to your lecture I am still confused.  But on a higher
level." -- Enrico Fermi


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 13:48:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 06:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504134817.61313.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I realize that there are moral objectivists on the left. Generally
those who advocate greater liberty one way or another do so for
principled reasons that they generally base on some objective truth
they hold dearly to, whether or not they recognise it as such. The real
bastions of moral relativism are the mushy middle and the totalitarian
corner of the Nolan Chart. The totalitarians recognise no valid
morality, they are all about power, being essentiall fascists, while
the mushy middle is so often their malleable clay to mold with fear
mongering propaganda or decadent blandishments.

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike, I think you are so staunchly against moral relativism because
> you perceive it as something lefty.
> But note that historically the Left has been very much against moral
> relativism: accept moral relativism, and you weaken the power of the
> State as you can no longer believe its claim to be the Guardian of
> the
> Truth. I suspect many historic Left thinkers would have been against,
> say, gay marriage.
> Moral relativism has been introduced in the Left by relatively modern
> thinkers who also believed in individual liberty and civil rights,
> which you as a Libertarian should support.
> G.
> 
> On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is
> > hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code
> > against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth.
> > When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against
> humanity
> > is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can
> rationalize a
> > moral position for it.
> > 
> > To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide,
> or
> > Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral
> relativism,
> > it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively
> moral or
> > not.
> > 
> > --- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a
> moral
> > > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has
> their
> > > own
> > > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess
> > > their moral
> > > system, then act contrary to it.
> > >
> > > BAL
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 14:01:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050504112327.GU6782@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050504140110.43501.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:59:56PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>  
> Scaling down the weight is the most important part. My current car
> burns 6.3 l/100 km to drive a ton of metal and plastic, just to move
> one monkey. Isn't this ridiculous? An order of magnitude less should
> be more like it, without compromising safety.    

Ever been in a highway accident? Lighter vehicles hydroplane easier,
just to start with, and trees just don't have the sort of crumple zones
that other cars do when you hit them.

> 
> > said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph
> that
> > requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the
> gas
> > engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this
> > method to get peak efficiency.
> 
> Even current lead-acid monsters will easily outaccelerate a Formula 1
> (and by having a low center of gravity you can really turn corners
> at demon speed) -- on short distances.

Sure, but burning the rubber ruins efficiency, and the electrics are
generally only great up to about 30 mph, thereafter you need the high
end torque of an ICE to accelerate well. 

One solution is the ultracapacitor, which offers very quick discharge
at high efficiency for short bursts (10-20 seconds). I'm also looking
at the 1-5kw hub motors that are available. Technically you should be
able to convert a regular vehicle into a hybrid by replacing the rear
brakes and hubs with hubmotors while installing a few more batteries
and a bank of ultracapacitors (plus, of course, some major rework of
the driver controls and engine computer). Given the energy investment
in building new vehicles, refitting perfectly good used ones might be
more fuel efficient.

> 
> I looked into hybrids, but they're too expensive still (almost a
> factor of two). The point of EVs is that you can reduce the costs
> by reducing the number of moving parts and complexity in general.

At the expense of high weight, short range, and in the end, lesser
effiency than a properly designed hybrid.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  4 14:39:42 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:39:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050504040231924e40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200505041439.j44EddR05394@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> ...European cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are
permanent... BillK



Oh man yes.  I was on a business trip in New York City last
week, needed to pull over to program my GPS to get to 
JFK airport on Long Island (No big green signs anywhere to direct
the clueless me.)
  
Looked for a parking lot, a Walmart or equivalent, something 
with a big lot so I could pull out of the way for a few minutes
with no one nearby.  There are no Walmarts.  There is
nothing analogous to the big empty parking lots where
many of us learned how to drive a car the first time.  There
was no place to go to get out of everyone's way.  Oy!

Looks to me like every city that was invented before
the auto has painted itself into a corner.

spike






From max at maxmore.com  Wed May  4 14:58:17 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 09:58:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Oil in troubled waters
The Economist, April 28, 2005
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623

This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue of peak 
oil. Worth reading:

The Bottomless Beer Mug
The Economist, April 28, 2005
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716

Why the world is not running out of oil

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 15:11:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504151147.12051.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> Bret Kulakovich bret at bonfireproductions.com :
> >Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3
> >hours commuting everyday.
> 
> 
> Thomas Gold generated controversy in almost everything he did, but
> sometimes he was right because he was a very smart man.  I think
> that his arguments and the arguments of his critics would illuminate
> this discussion in an intelligent way:
> 
> 
>
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas+Gold+methane&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Given that there is at least as much biomass below ground today as
above ground, and that this subterranean biomass has lived for hundreds
of millions of years there, while surface algal blooms of massive
quantities constitute significantly less biomass, for shorter periods
of time, the simple numbers suggest that the bulk majority of oil, if
it is biotic, is produced from subterranean biomass, not surface
biomass.

"The total pore-space available in the land areas of the Earth down to
5 kilometer depth can be estimated as 2 x 1022 cm3, (taking 3% porosity
as an average value). If material of the density of water fills these
pore spaces, then this would represent a mass of 2 x 10^16 tons. What
fraction of this might be bacterial mass? If it were 1% or 2 x10^14
tons, it would still be equivalent to a layer of the order of 1 1/2
meter thickness of living material if spread out over all of the land
surface. This would indeed be more than the existing surface flora and
fauna. We do not know at present how to make a realistic estimate of
the subterranean mass of material now living, but all that can be said
is that one must consider it possible that it is comparable to all the
living mass at the surface. "

If rock down to 5 km has an average porosity of 3%, and 1% of that pore
space is taken up by bacteria, this is an immense amount of biomass,
and the amount being converted to hydrates and oil should similarly be
a rather immense amount. 

I suggested yesterday that subducted hydrates should generate upwards
of about a quarter cubic km of oil per year, depending on the percent
of subducted sediment that is hydrates, assuming only 100,000 km of
subduction zone.

If instead the entire crust is producing oil in various amounts based
on thickness, porosity, etc it becomes clear that there is an immense
amount of oil being generated that slowly percolates upwards. If as was
claimed by Hal's cite yesterday, that biomass turns to oil below 3 km
depth, then this means potential global oil reserves of 600 x 10^13
tons, plus perhaps a thousandth or ten thousandth of that produced each
year as new oil reserves.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 jonkc at att.net  Wed May  4 15:14:22 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:14:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE
References: <200505030252.j432qxR05353@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <002001c550bb$ff612470$34ee4d0c@MyComputer>

"spike" <spike66 at comcast.net> Wrote:>

 > Sterling engines haven't been  able to move very much heat,
> consequently they haven't  been able to make much power.

The Swedish navy recently built 3 very quiet Sterling engine powered
submarines that rum on kerosene and liquid oxygen; many consider them to be
the most advanced non nuclear submarines in the world.


John K Clark




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 15:55:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504155545.50283.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> > ...European cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are
> permanent... BillK 
> 
> Oh man yes.  I was on a business trip in New York City last
> week, needed to pull over to program my GPS to get to 
> JFK airport on Long Island (No big green signs anywhere to direct
> the clueless me.)

What? You didn't know you need to go through Brooklyn to get to JFK?
New York is easy, a freeway on the east and west shores, bridges to
everywhere.

>   
> Looked for a parking lot, a Walmart or equivalent, something 
> with a big lot so I could pull out of the way for a few minutes
> with no one nearby.  There are no Walmarts.  There is
> nothing analogous to the big empty parking lots where
> many of us learned how to drive a car the first time.  There
> was no place to go to get out of everyone's way. 

Pahkin' garahges are where youse putch yer cahs.

> 
> Looks to me like every city that was invented before
> the auto has painted itself into a corner.

Quite true, but a city with subways everywhere has little need of lots
of lots. Real estate is more valuable than that.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  4 16:09:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> 
> Oil in troubled waters
> The Economist, April 28, 2005
> http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623
> 
> This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue
> of peak 
> oil. 

This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund
their own social welfare system.                         

Worth reading:
> 
> The Bottomless Beer Mug
> The Economist, April 28, 2005
> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716
> 
> Why the world is not running out of oil

Can't access this article.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com  Wed May  4 16:52:35 2005
From: p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com (Paul)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:52:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com>

> --- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oil in troubled waters
> > The Economist, April 28, 2005
> > http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623

On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund
> their own social welfare system.

Reminds me of the USSR, they relied heavily on oil prices to sustain
their command economy; didn't work out well for them in the 80s, of
course.
-- 
Paul C.
http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed May  4 17:10:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:10:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <19E29AF3-7DE2-4AF8-B539-781D5BE0AF7B@mac.com>

Since the second article requires subscription to read it has not  
added to my understanding.  Does the content exist elsewhere?

- s
On May 4, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Max More wrote:

>
> Oil in troubled waters
> The Economist, April 28, 2005
> http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623
>
> This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue  
> of peak oil. Worth reading:
>
> The Bottomless Beer Mug
> The Economist, April 28, 2005
> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716
>
> Why the world is not running out of oil
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed May  4 17:15:12 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:15:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39F0AC79-AE9F-4587-A2B1-E33A64BAFAF6@mac.com>

I find it fascinating how bright people will clutch at any straw to  
avoid coping with the unpleasant.   Fascinating in the same way that  
various disease processes are fascinating that is.    I wish I was  
able to convince more people to take this more seriously.  Alas my  
time, patience, and skills are limited.

- samantha

On May 4, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Paul wrote:

>> --- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oil in troubled waters
>>> The Economist, April 28, 2005
>>> http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623
>>>
>
> On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund
>> their own social welfare system.
>>
>
> Reminds me of the USSR, they relied heavily on oil prices to sustain
> their command economy; didn't work out well for them in the 80s, of
> course.
> -- 
> Paul C.
> http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed May  4 17:33:19 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:33:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation
References: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org>
	<63530c31768a608d09739239ca949444@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c550cf$5d9d4f10$0100a8c0@kevin>

Pardon me, but it was my impressiion that the majority of these deposits
came from the carboniferous period 299 to 350 mya.
That would give it ample time to make it's way under the sea beds.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bret Kulakovich" <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation


>
>
> There is also the case that most of our current atmosphere was
> metabolized by cyano algae and bacteria, even earlier than the
> dinosaurs.
>
> Could the volume of that early flora/fauna have been compressed/buried
> and represented today? Perhaps there is a rough number. My
> understanding is that it would be a large number at that.
>
>
> ]3
>
>
> On May 3, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
> > This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims.  The Gulf
> > floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than
> > many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently
> > during the time when the salt formations were created.  There are also
> > apparently many sedimentary layers present.  It's also worth noting
> > that
> > oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not
> > dinosaurs.
> >
> > Hal
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 amara at amara.com  Wed May  4 17:41:41 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:41:41 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
Message-ID: <p06210201be9eb86ba7ab@[150.146.134.133]>

>Can't access this article.

There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related
topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have
a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why
not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of
the topics to which we discuss at length here.

Amara

P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in
this issue too.

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work."  -Thomas Edison


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 17:46:57 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project. 
> I
> 
> Do you have a web page of your (nanotechnology, isn't it?) project,
> or can
> you post a description, of what you're doing?

http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt
http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif

The appropriate IP protections - registered copyright, (provisional)
patent, et al - are in place for the above, so I can publically
disclose them.

The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum
physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't want
to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype.  That's
fine: I'm of the same mind.  (Non-QM experts sometiems cite
thermodynamics, without quite knowing why it applies here.  I encourage
them to think of this as an open system: the energy flows in from the
quantum fluctuations that are all around us - which, in turn,
presumably get their energy from somewhere else, but they haven't been
explored thoroughly so we don't know what their energy source is.
Building this device may, in fact, be the only way we have to explore
that.  In any case, the device is actually a convertor, not a
generator, even if it acts like a generator for most purposes and
converts a form of energy not otherwise accessible to us.)

So, in order to actually build the above-described device, I've become
a labmember at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility.  The research is
slow - for a number of reasons, I can't work on it every day; about one
session a week is closer to the average - but we're making progress.
It took me a long time to cobble the theory together, but the practice
is proving tougher, for reasons having nothing to do with QM.  For
example, we're using e-beam lithography to write the patterns, but for
a while we couldn't get the machine to recognize previous layers - and
the recipe I've come up with calls for six layers, precisely aligned.
We solved that by adding a seventh, target layer, with a bunch of
tungsten targets for the litho machine to spot and align to when
writing.

At the moment, it's highly unlikely we'll have results before July,
and only somewhat unlikely we'll have results even that soon.  (The
"we" is myself, a friend with more lab experience than I who I talked
into helping, and our SNF contact who is an expert at e-beam litho.
Alternately, the "we" is Winged Cat Solutions, a DBA I registered
partly so that SNF could do business with a company rather than a
person: they don't have any processes for serving individuals who
aren't associated with a university, the government, or industry.  Of
course, that's not the only thing WCS does...but that's the extent of
its involvement with this topic.)

Even if the theory proves to be incorrect, and the device even if
perfectly constructed would not cause a net torque, SNF personnel have
remarked that the nanostructuring techniques I'm coming up with are
unique in the world (in the words of one who had recently returned from
helping with Europe's nanotech scene, so he probably knows what he's
talking about).  To me, they seem a bit common-sense - once given the
need for a highly structured device on the true nanoscale (not the
abused form of the word "nanotech", but stuff that truly is
sub-micron).  Regardless, it looks like it would make for a good
academic paper...and then there's the fact that, if it fails, current
knowledge of quantum mechanics would be shown to be possibly incorrect.
(Again, the academics said it agrees with current QM knowledge; if it
fails, there has to be a reason.  If it fails and manufacturing defects
can be ruled out - which would be tough to do, but if they can...)
So it's worth doing even if the theory is incorrect.

Yes, I know the ramifications if the theory is correct.  Believe me, I
know.  I struggle to *not* constantly think about them - they're
distracting, and if I actually want to see them come true, I have to
focus on how I get there instead of what things would be like
afterwards if I succeed.  And I have to remember that, until and unless
I prove it correct, there is a significant chance the theory is not
correct.

BTW - even aside from the IP protections, I don't mind discussing the
QM side of things in public.  Again, the real bear is the
nanofabrication aspect, and there are very few places in the world
that can even seriously attempt this project.  SNF is one of them.
Even if someone were to get a complete copy of my current formula for
the nanofab process, though, the formula's constantly changing as we
work out the kinks - it'd be useless to anyone not actively developing
it.  (And even if someone were to somehow steal it, whiz-develop it
overnight, get all the IP rights, find a way to cheaply build
convertors at the high end of what I'm thinking it might do, et
cetera...well, gee, I wouldn't get rich off of it, I'd just be in a
world where someone else's non-polluting energy source suddenly emerged
and made the oil industry nearly obsolete, et cetera.  Such a burden to
no longer have to buy gasoline, to be able to ride cheap Earth-to-orbit
transports made possible by this, and so forth.  Kind of like if
someone else develops a cure for cancer, so I merely don't have to
worry about cancer instead of that and getting rich off of it.  My
primary objective here is to improve our world...and the best way to
make sure something happens is to at least start doing it yourself.
This is the attitude I take towards most of my inventions.  Experience
has shown, though, that for truly cutting-edge stuff, the pool of
people actually able to rip me off even if I tell them everything is
quite small, and only a small portion of those have sufficiently low
honesty that they'd want to rip me off.  Most of those who'd want to,
lack the knowledge and/or facilities to do so.  There's a reason for
that.)


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed May  4 18:12:33 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:12:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NSTI Nanotechnology Conference - May 8-12
Message-ID: <48470-22005534181233268@M2W089.mail2web.com>

2005 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show
Nanotech 2005; May 8-12, 2005; Anaheim Marriott & Convention Center

http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2005/

Nanotech 2005 Conference Program ? May 8 - 12
 
? Physical Sciences, Electronics, Materials, Microsystems, Food, Energy
? Life Sciences, Medicine, Personal Care, Biotech, Health Care
? Business, Investment, Government Programs and Nanotech Ventures 

Nano Industrial Impact Workshop ? Sunday May 8
 
One-Day Intensive Program to educate participants in the current state of
the art in a range of nanotechnologies and impacted industries. All courses
are presented by leading experts in their respective fields. 

Nanotech and Bio Nano Expo ? May 9 - May 11
 
Full Nanotech Trade Show with over 150 exhibiting companies May 9-10!
One-Day BioNano/Nanotech exhibit and poster session on May 11th. View
participating companies and floor plans. 

Nanotech Ventures Emerging Company Review ? May 9 - 11
 
Join the Nanotech Ventures community in participating in the world's
largest nanotechnology venture forum. 50 Early Stage Companies Presenting
in most every high-tech industrial sector. 

National Cancer Institute Symposium ? Tuesday May 10
 
NSTI is proud to collaborate with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and
Northeastern University in presenting a Special Symposium on Nanotechnology
for Cancer Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment. 




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




From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May  4 19:09:59 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:09:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism) 
Message-ID: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>

Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that
we should have no standards.  

He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary;
second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and
conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues
that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral
standards are bad. 

There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they refute
themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic here.
Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of evil. Third,
the argument is historically inaccurate.  

He says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't
think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality."

I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example: 
Axiom: Do as you would be done by. 
Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus.
Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than
push her under a bus. 

He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse
murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of
society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans
found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists,
but which Christendom rejects. 

These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of
utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they
can serve as means to our ends. Once again, the matter is open to proof:

Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means.
Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating
her as a means, not as an end.
Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. 

Please note that the axiom of the second argument is a lemma of the axiom of the
first. If you would do as you?d be done by, and if you would rather be treated
not merely as a means to the ends of another, you ought to treat others likewise. 

The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is
whether we accept or reject ?Do as you?d be done by? as an axiom. This is merely
one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the
principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed
standard, that is, the same for all men. A standard that admits of arbitrary
exceptions is not a standard. Once you accept the principle that there should be
moral standards, and if, no matter what the standard might happen to be, it
applies to all men equally, then the standard is one where you are asking others
to treat you as you would be treated. 

The only way to reject this axiom is to reject the process of moral reasoning
altogether. 

This is indeed what the moral relativists does: "I think this is bullshit. Can I
prove that it is bullshit in  terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever
morality? No. Do I lose any sleep on not being able to prove it? Definitely no.
I just don't care. I have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to
hold kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something that I
can (or want to) prove." 

He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely
because he wants to do it. 

In his case, his heart is in the right place. However, to someone whose heart is
in the wrong place, let us say, for example, infanticide-advocate Peter Singer,
who does not share this sentimental attachment to old ladies, the philosophy of
radical subjectivism would have nothing to say. 

This philosophy has nothing to say to refute the cruel practices of the Spartan,
the Roman, the Mongol, the Aztec, the Grand Inquisitor, the Nazi, the Communist,
or even the Eskimo. "Well, I chose to help old ladies, and you chose to leave
them out on the ice flow to starve. My choice is mine and yours is yours."  

This philosophy is absurdly mute and helpless in the face of real evil.

Either through indifference or ignorance, the moral relativist does not know
what moral reasoning is for. It is for two things: first, that a man in a novel
moral situation, such as where two moral principles are in conflict, can make a
good and rational rather than merely sentimental or arbitrary choice; second,
that evil can be condemned.  

In this case, the moral relativist is merely sentimental about useless old
ladies. He prefers to help them rather than murder them on the same grounds that
I prefer pie to cake: it suits his taste. He has this taste because it is part
of his cultural background. Respect for human life was ?in the air? so to speak,
implied or embraced by the various thinkers whose works he read, the speeches he
heard, the acts and manners of the general society around him. 

But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent
in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? 

We can leave that question for another day. 

With no sense of his own paradox, he then says, "History shows that the
convinction of being the sole depository of the Truth *always* leads to mass
murder. For me, this is a good enough reason to keep as far from the Truth as I
can."

I would say, in this case, that his wish has been granted: he is certainly far
away from uttering any true statement here. 

Assuming it is true that mass murder is bad, and assuming the statement true
that conviction leads to mass-murder, it would follow that we should avoid
conviction in order to avoid mass-murder. This can be the first and firmest
conviction of our moral system: to avoid all convictions. Let us rally around
the flag of flaglessness and defend our convictions that no convictions should
be defended to the death! 

Leaving aside this silly paradox, let us merely correct the historical
inaccuracy in the statement:   

The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the
National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The
former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master
and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and
need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out.
The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic
classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit
of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out. 

To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral
relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the
Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust. The people who
"gassed people for thinking different" were the moral relativists, not those who
believe in an absolute truth knowable by the human mind. 

The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide
abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the
case that God hated the institution. Likewise, the great blooming of human
liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who wrote
a document that begins: ?We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident.? 

In other words, men of absolute moral conviction. 

The moral relativist reasons badly. He sees jihads and inquisitions and
concludes that it is the moral convictions of these people that lead to
atrocity. If everyone were merely uncertain about and indifferent to questions
of morality, he thinks, we would have no atrocities. 

This is merely sawing off the branch on which you sit. The problem with jihad
and inquisition is not that their partisans had convictions, but, rather, that
the convictions they had were wicked and illogical. It is the nature of the
conviction, not the fact that it is a conviction, which causes the evil. The
relativist has no argument to show the conviction right or wrong, and, hence, is
less able to oppose the evil than that rational and righteous person, who
adheres to a moral standard and knows why he adheres to it. 

By the reasoning of the moral relativist, it is worse to believe something
firmly than it is to half-believe something wicked. The nameless Spartan thug
who enslaved Helots or tossed unhealthy babies into the Apothetae, but who was
half-convinced that his practices were not universally acceptable, would win
more praise from the moral relativist than Socrates, who died rather than flee
an injustice, because he thought that this was what unalterable and universal
moral law required. 

The final outcome of this line of reasoning, is that Spartan thugs, the kind of
morally retarded half-convinced nobodies who will condone the most horrific
evils, provided only everyone around them is doing likewise, are lauded by the
moral relativist. The man who opposes the evil around him, the sage, the saint,
the hero, he is singled out for condemnation by the moral relativist, for
committing the sin of believing in sins, and believing he should not commit them.  

People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a
common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason
with each other or even with themselves. 

When a novel moral situation arises where the moral relativist has no habit of
sentiment on which to rely, logic will not come to his aid, because he has
denounced the roots of logic. 

The moral relativist will coast along following the general moral sentiment of
his culture's background and history: in this case, coast along following the
sentiments of Western Christian tradition, acting on the belief that human life
is sacred, while scorning the logic which gave rise to those sentiments, and
sneering at the idea that anything might be sacred. 

JCW




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 19:19:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> >Can't access this article.
> 
> There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related
> topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have
> a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why
> not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of
> the topics to which we discuss at length here.
> 
> Amara
> 
> P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in
> this issue too.

I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it
is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank
account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery
Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project
bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now.

That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com).
Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name 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


		
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From hal at finney.org  Wed May  4 19:41:42 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  4 May 2005 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050504194142.4E30657EE6@finney.org>

Adrian Tymes writes:
> http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt
> http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif
> ...
> The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum
> physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't want
> to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype.

I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of the
first kind - it violates conservation of energy.  It's no different in
principle from the overbalanced wheels of the medievals.  Just because it
relies on quantum effects, that doesn't free you from the need to conserve
energy.  I'm curious who these academics are who are so willing to imagine
that a machine can work which violates such a fundamental principle

Mike Lorrey will probably complain that I am being a naysayer.  I'm sorry,
but at this point in time I don't see how we can credibly propose to
violate the laws of physics.  I'm not saying that you can't spend your
time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this machine
to work.  You would do better to apply your budding micromachining skills
to a design that is consistent with the laws of nature.

Hal


From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May  4 19:41:57 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:41:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: In defense of moral relativism
Message-ID: <200505041942.j44Jg0R14254@tick.javien.com>

Adrian Tymes writes: "But even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at times, and
even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by apologizing for said errors -
therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is itself immoral: it
allows mistakes and misjudgements to be hardened into unyielding evils merely
because a certain person made them."

This statement is not quite accurate. 

The doctrine of Papal infallability is not that Popes do not err: the doctrine
says that in matters of faith and morals, the Pope has the last word in
resolving legitimate disputes within the Church. Those within the Church believe
that the Church, and the Pope when he acts on her behalf, are guided by the Holy
Spirit. 

So far, no Pope has apologized for any doctrine that falls within this scope.
Such doctrines are considered (by the faithful) to be part of the "deposit of
faith" of the apostolic revelation, or logical implications of that deposit. 

JCW





From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May  4 19:57:30 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:57:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest
Message-ID: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com>

Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are biased in certain
very  predictable ways.  "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion to how  
closely they are related."  "Don't fight with strangers unless they are
competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives."

I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking about the way men
act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their actions. The
moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson here is claiming
is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims. For example, the Buddhist is urged
by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely aggression against
neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's neighbors, are the
Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them reasonable creatures.
Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he did not say
turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and Sammaritans are
outsiders: them, you should strike back. 

In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause for morality,
one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages actually say. 

If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore the demands
of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their community,
before the common good they may have with others and outsiders, well, that is
surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self-interest in an
exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their tribe and
nation with eyes blinded by love. 

JCW




From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May  4 20:06:29 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:06:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Or, perhaps, dumb as a post of the year. 
Message-ID: <200505042006.j44K6eR17070@tick.javien.com>

Refering to something I wrote, Mike Lorrey says: "This is post of the year,
objectively speaking, of course. It certainly needs publishing somewhere."

Sir, I am glad you liked it. I hope you liked it so much that you can forgive me
for posting it twice, due to what is politely now called "user-error", but which
in days gone by were called "dumb mistakes."  

JCW



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 20:28:51 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: In defense of moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504202851.13919.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes: "But even the Pope is imperfect - it has been
> demonstrated
> beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at
> times, and
> even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by apologizing for
> said errors -
> therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is itself
> immoral: it
> allows mistakes and misjudgements to be hardened into unyielding
> evils merely
> because a certain person made them."
> 
> This statement is not quite accurate. 
> 
> The doctrine of Papal infallability is not that Popes do not err: the
> doctrine
> says that in matters of faith and morals, the Pope has the last word
> in
> resolving legitimate disputes within the Church. Those within the
> Church believe
> that the Church, and the Pope when he acts on her behalf, are guided
> by the Holy
> Spirit. 

That is correct, but it's close enough as makes no difference in
practice - or, at least, in my own experiences with members of the
Catholic Church, when the issue has mattered.  True, a Catholic who
wishes to act against papal doctrine is usually physically free to do
so - at the risk of expulsion from the church, and the social support
network it provides (which, while not tangible, is a real enough price
to by itself encourage many to stay with the church).

Pronouncements made by man can always be questioned - although in
certain cases it might be temporarily impractical to do so.
Pronouncements made by God?  That's why, for instance, dietary
restrictions that were appropriate for a certain environment about 2000
years ago are today religiously followed in environments where they
make no sense.  And then there's the little matter of dealing with
discoveries of better ways to be, ones that might seem scary - and
tempt some to say that God is against them - until people get used to
them...ways like, say, how to become a posthuman.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 20:50:38 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504205038.67390.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of
> the
> first kind - it violates conservation of energy.

You didn't read my full explanation.  ;)

As I said, it does not.  It's a convertor of energy.  Energy source
in: quantum fluctuations.  Energy source out: mechanical (which is then
converted to electrical).

Now, what happens when quantum fluctuations are drained of energy?
Nobody knows - but there were laboratory experiments in the 80s and 90s
showing that it is possible to at least take local QFs to a different
potential energy state.  (Google on "Casimir effect", or check
Wikipedia.)  There is a chance that there's only so much energy that
can be drained from that source, and that nothing will refill it; if
so, then this would not work.  But there have been theories that, were
QFs to be tapped like that, replacement energy would diffuse in from
outside.  (To a limit, of course: if you placed the entire system in a
QF-impermeable box, you'd eventually use up all of the energy.)

Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will
happen is to actually build it and observe.  I've lost track of how
much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the end,
science is about actual experiments.

> I'm not saying that you can't spend
> your
> time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this
> machine
> to work.

I'm not betting the farm that it will work, unless and until I can
produce a working prototype.  (One of the factors slowing progress is
that I'm doing this on the side, while a different job pays the bills.)
I definitely agree: no one should be betting anything on my success
until after the fact - *if* it happens.  At the moment, I haven't even
taken any funding - it's all out of my own pocket.  (There have been
discussions about getting some funding for the NEMS development alone,
the project itself aside.  It looks like I definitely will wind up with
a non-trivial nanostructure, in any event.)


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed May  4 21:03:00 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:03:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense
	of	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42793884.80209@pobox.com>

John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that
> we should have no standards.  
> 
> He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary;
> second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and
> conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues
> that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral
> standards are bad. 

It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that believing in an 
external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity.

But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no relation to 
(smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a concept is even coherent) 
we may safely ignore it.

(Though that refutation does not actually follow.  Giulio did not assert that 
reality was not objective; he merely said that entertaining the notion leads 
to homicide.  This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is 
objective.)

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


From scerir at libero.it  Wed May  4 21:08:33 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 23:08:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
References: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001101c550ed$6ec3e3d0$e6b51b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Adrian Tymes"
There is a chance that there's only so much energy that
can be drained from that source, and that nothing will 
refill it; if so, then this would not work.


It seems - is not it? - like a 'lateral' Casimir force, 
which originates from the modifications of zeropoint 
oscillations by boundaries. It acts tangential to 2 
surfaces with (nanoscale) periodic (ie sinusoidal) 
'corrugations'. 'Corrugated' plates align themselves 
such that peaks of one plate are directly over the peaks 
of the other plate. Then is over (unless ...?). 
This force to align the peaks is the 'lateral' 
Casimir force, acting in the horizontal direction, 
between the 2 plates.





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 21:08:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504210845.43004.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes:
> > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt
> > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif
> > ...
> > The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum
> > physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't
> want
> > to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype.
> 
> I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of
> the first kind - it violates conservation of energy. It's no
> different in principle from the overbalanced wheels of the
> medievals.  Just because it relies on quantum effects, that
> doesn't free you from the need to conserve energy. I'm curious who
> these academics are who are so willing to imagine
> that a machine can work which violates such a fundamental principle
> 
> Mike Lorrey will probably complain that I am being a naysayer.  

Yup. Adrian, welcome to the Perpetual Propellerhead Brotherhood.

As I'd once said, Prof. John Cramer once said my Lorrey drive would
work if the working mass operated in the relativistic range (as did
Sasha).

> I'm sorry,
> but at this point in time I don't see how we can credibly propose to
> violate the laws of physics.  I'm not saying that you can't spend
> your time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this
> machine to work.  You would do better to apply your budding
> micromachining skills to a design that is consistent with the laws
> of nature.

I'm gonna start working on my fricassied crow recipe. Either Hal is
wrong, or a whole lot of physicists are gonna have to give back their
Nobel prizes...

Hal, Hal, Hal......any idiot can figure out how to make nano-wing-nuts
once they master the common skills. Yes, you can probably make a mint
figuring out how to make nano-wing-nuts in mass quantities, but
wing-nuts don't win nobel prizes, nor do they save the 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


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May  4 21:13:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will
> happen is to actually build it and observe.  I've lost track of how
> much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the
> end, science is about actual experiments.

Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured excuses
for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something is wasting their
time and list bandwidth.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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  Wed May  4 21:29:29 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  4 May 2005 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
Message-ID: <20050504212929.C226557EE6@finney.org>

The Los Angeles Times has an article this morning claiming that increased
gasoline prices are reducing traffic on Southern California freeways:
<http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-wheels4may04,0,1146703.story?coll=la-home-highway1>.

Gas prices in California are $2.63/gallon, higher than the national
average of $2.24/gallon.  The reporter writes:

"Anecdotally, a lot of people I talk to say they are seeing the effect
every day, which has cut their commute times dramatically. Normally
jammed freeways are mysteriously wide open.

"If people are indeed cutting back on driving, avoiding discretionary
trips, car pooling and using public transportation, it should mean that
gasoline sales volumes are dropping.

"John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, the
Washington, D.C., trade group that represents the oil industry, says
that wholesale deliveries of gasoline across the nation are down slightly."

It would be interesting to see figures on gas consumption for California
alone, since it seems to be taking the brunt of the price increase.

The article also notes,

"Meanwhile, Southland public transportation agencies are reporting that
ridership has jumped in the first months of 2005 - up between 3% and 12%,
depending on the system."

All this points to a short-term response to the rapid increase in prices.
The article claims a 10% demand elasticity for gasoline, so that a 50%
increase in prices will produce a 5% drop in consumption.  Over the longer
run, people switch to higher efficiency vehicles and their consumption
levels stay flat.  This is related to "Jevon's paradox", which is
that increased efficiency can actually promote increased consumption,
because the greater efficiency lowers the relative cost of the resource
being consumed.  See
<http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-80.cfm?&CFID=11262148&CFTOKEN=7028302>.

Hal


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May  4 21:29:17 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> It seems - is not it? - like a 'lateral' Casimir force, 
> which originates from the modifications of zeropoint 
> oscillations by boundaries. It acts tangential to 2 
> surfaces with (nanoscale) periodic (ie sinusoidal) 
> 'corrugations'. 'Corrugated' plates align themselves 
> such that peaks of one plate are directly over the peaks 
> of the other plate. Then is over (unless ...?). 
> This force to align the peaks is the 'lateral' 
> Casimir force, acting in the horizontal direction, 
> between the 2 plates.

That's a distinct possibility, especially since the figure I linked to
is an idealized version if we could build things with angstrom
precision.  (The actual pattern I'm building is a blocky, pixellated
approximation: think of a 1000*1000 pixel image converted to 10*10.
The actual conversion factor I'm dealing with is even worse.)  However,
the "shields" in the figure appear to possibly introduce a
discontinuity into which the outer plate can "fall" without using any
energy.  (Were this a magnetic force, field lines would bend to snake
around the corners, and everything would balance out.  But the Casimir
effect appears to act more like optics than magnetics, and optics
allows for sharp discontinuities - think sharp-edged shadows.  This is
partly because optical "fields" are actually continual imports of
energy made up of discrete packets - photons - apparently much like the
virtual particles that cause the Casimir effect.)

This also touches on some pattern configuration issues I'm deliberately
holding back (which involves getting some positive use out of the
pixellation, if you can believe it), as they start deliving into the
mechanics of how one actually builds this.  ;)


From hal at finney.org  Wed May  4 21:32:37 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  4 May 2005 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again
Message-ID: <20050504213237.5D4AF57EE7@finney.org>

BTW the Flynn Effect article has now appeared at Wired online at
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html

Hal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed May  4 21:36:12 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:36:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050504163520.01df79b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15183112,00.html

by Simon Hayes
05may05

EMPLOYERS will face criminal charges if they illegally spy on workers' 
emails under legislation introduced in NSW parliament yesterday.

NSW is the first state to move on "tech snooping", with Victoria and South 
Australia understood to be considering similar legislation. [etc] 




From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Wed May  4 22:05:59 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:05:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <42793884.80209@pobox.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
	<42793884.80209@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that believing in an
> external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity.
> 
> But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no relation to
> (smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a concept is even coherent)
> we may safely ignore it.
> 
> (Though that refutation does not actually follow.  Giulio did not assert that
> reality was not objective; he merely said that entertaining the notion leads
> to homicide.  This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is
> objective.)

Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that
*morality* was not objective.

Aside: This does not imply that the moral beliefs of a particular
individual at a particular time could not be objectively determined;
quite the contrary, given the supervenience of mental states on
objective physical reality, including those mental states with moral
content.

He also didn't say that the notion of objective reality leads to
homicide. He said that the notion of objective, infallibilist moral
dogma leads to homicide, and he said this based on inductive inference
from the laundry list of horrible events in human history in which
groups convinced they had ascertained objective moral knowledge saw
fit to murder those who disagreed or were otherwise undesirable
according to the moral 'axioms' of each respective group.

Jeff


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed May  4 22:35:47 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:35:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense
	of	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>	<42793884.80209@pobox.com>
	<5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>

Jeff Medina wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that believing in an
>>external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity.
> 
> Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that
> *morality* was not objective.

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
 >
 > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that
 > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say
 > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth
 > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and
 > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas,
 > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The
 > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid
 > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas.
 >
 > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of
 > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different.

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


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Wed May  4 23:15:38 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:15:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
	<42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>
	<42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f0505041615450a32b2@mail.gmail.com>

1. The context of the quote you provided indicates he's talking about
morality. E.g., "moral relativism does not say [...]"; "It [moral
relativism] simply acknowledges [...]"; "I don't like the very
concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality" (contrast this last
snippet with the multiple references to "absolute or objective
morality" in earlier posts by various discussion participants... but
see 2 for an alternative if you don't feel like interpreting 'absolute
truth' as 'absolute moral truth' based on the context.)

2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one plausible reading
(epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is something you yourself
readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent of assigning a
probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and known variously by
such terms as "epistemological infallibilism," "faith," and "unbridled
stupidity."
While it's possible the alternative reading (that Giulio is opposing
the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute physical reality)
is what was meant, that seems such an obvious intellectual error to me
that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of other issues in the
past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to which interpretation
he intended.


-- 
Jeffrey A. Medina
Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies:
http://www.ieet.org/
Volunteer Coordinator, Singularity Institute for Artificial
Intelligence: http://www.singinst.org/
Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College, University of London:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed May  4 23:35:31 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:35:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense
	of	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>	<42793884.80209@pobox.com>	<5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>
	<42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <42795C43.5090205@humanenhancement.com>

Not going to get involved in this directly myself, but here's a terrific 
and timely article from the NY Observer on this very subject...

http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp

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/ (updated 4/27/05)



From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu May  5 00:37:01 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:37:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality
In-Reply-To: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com>
References: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <42796AAD.5080506@jefallbright.net>

john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:

>Now, to the matter:
>
>To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality
>has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere
>survival as the ground of morality
>

I've repeatedly said that growth (of Self), not mere survival, is 
inferred to be the fundamental moral good. That is why I referred to the 
Red Queen Principle in my last two posts to you on this point.

>; second, it is mute to determine what objects
>should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already
>universal in any case;
>
As I've said earlier, this metaethical theory is not prescriptive, but 
its value is (1) in assuring us that moral progress can be achieved in 
practical terms (thus contradicting any strong version of moral 
relativism) and (2) in providing a framework for discovering and 
developing principles of effective interaction that will lead to 
increasingly moral behavior.

> third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it
>were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral
>code. 
>  
>
I disagree with this assertion. In fact, belief in absolutes, without 
considering context, eventually leads to a dangerous blindness, or 
limited awareness of the full context of a situation and thus limited 
effectiveness of solutions. A person can make good moral choices based 
on increasingly sound and more generally applicable principles rather 
than depending on a set of static moral laws established during a 
simpler time.

>1. I asked for a description of what is meant by your idea that morality is
>?what works?, especially were a given system of moral rules or reciprocities
>works better for a larger group than for a smaller included group. Identifying
>?what works? in an empirical science is easy: when the results as witnessed by
>our eyes are as predicted, the theory giving rise to the prediction is said to
>have ?worked.? If the results are other than predicted, no matter what good the
>theory may be on other grounds, it does not work as an empirical predictive theory.
>  
>

Yes, I generally agree with this.

>I then asked how to apply this to a normative science, such as ethics, where we
>are not dealing with theories predicting what will happen, but, rather, with
>maxims of what men ought or ought not to do.
>

Maxims are becoming obsolete. They worked quite well for some time 
because they codified "what worked" generally for our ancestors in their 
qualitatively simpler environment of limited interactions between 
individuals and between tribes. Static laws that worked well then do not 
work as well in an increasingly complex world.

>  
>
>You say: "what works" means a structure that will tend to survive and grow,
>regardless of whether it is fully comprehended by any observer system.
>
>I submit, however, that there is no ground to say one thing ?works? and another
>?does not work?, without a normative axiom beforehand to define what works. 
>
>Mere survival is insufficient for this end: if the human race, for example, were
>promised mankind would enjoy a population level on average of two hundred
>millions, guaranteed to survive at least two hundred thousand years, if only we
>were absorbed into a Borg cube, and lost our souls; or if we were, given the
>alternative, offered a population only of one hundred millions and a span of one
>hundred thousand years if we are members of the United Federation of Planets, I
>would select the Federation over the Borg for myself and my children. 
>  
>
I don't know how to make it any clearer that I am not arguing that mere 
survival is a moral good. I have tried to say clearly that a moral agent 
must make choices that are in its own (extended) interests. I don't 
understand why you would erect such a straw man at this point in this 
reiterative discussion.

>My point is that only if I accepted the normative axiom that mere survival at
>any price were the supreme governing moral principle, am I would obligated to
>accept the offer of the Borg to be assimilated.  They offer twice as many
>survivors to last twice as long. But this is not a axiom I accept: there are
>times when it is better for the nation to perish than that one innocent man
>should die. Thank goodness, those times are rare, but the mere existence of
>normative values no lower than mere survival makes me chary of accepting your
>formulation without some additional argument to support it.
>  
>
I am afraid that I have failed repeatedly to make clear that I'm not 
talking about mere survival, but Growth of Self. Self must choose that 
which will further the growth of its interests, not mere survival. I 
can't see how being assimilated by the Borg would be in anyone's 
rational interests, and I'm surprised that this isn't clear from much of 
what I've said over the preceding weeks of this discussion.

>2. The second basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? formulation, is that it
>cannot be used to tell in what direction the arrow of morality should grow, and,
>hence, cannot tell a man how he should act. This is a specific application of a
>general philosophical error when dealing with evolving or changing standards: a
>standard, by definition, if it changes, cannot be used as a standard. 
>  
>
I use the "Arrow" analogy to convey that there is a universal "ratchet 
effect" that what works tends to survive and grow. In other words, that 
there is progress, rather than isotropic all-things-relative or static 
absolutes. The analogy is similar to the thermodynamic arrow of time, 
which means there are principles describing a process, but does not mean 
it will help you tell the time at any moment.

>A moral code is a specific formulation of the universal morality; the main point
>of difference from culture to culture or age to age is the scale of the moral
>code: whether the moral order protects and commands one?s neighbor?s only, one?s
>tribes or nation, or all mankind. This seems to be the arrow of morality of
>which you speak, the motion from a parochial to a cosmopolitan moral code. 
>  
>

No, I am not referring to increasing geopolitical scale, but I am 
talking about increasing context of awareness applied to moral 
reasoning. This increasing awareness is a result of increasing the 
number of agents that are interacting, increasing the types of 
interactions, and the number of interactions. All of these tend to 
increase with time, thus the analogy of an arrow.

>The Stoic, the Christian, the Buddhist and the Mohammedan each embrace a code,
>which is universal and cosmopolitan. Pagan codes of honor (with all due respect
>to my pagan ancestors) are parochial; pagan gods were meant to be the tribal
>gods of a given tribe, and their rules were never claimed to protect or to bind
>strangers from the antipodes. But the monotheistic religions made the assertion
>of universality. These systems claim to apply to every living soul. The
>parochialism of the previous tribal gods was rejected by the Roman and absorbed
>by the Hindu: antislavery societies, believe it or not, existed among the
>Imperial Romans and during the Christian Dark Ages. Likewise, the followers of
>the Prophet were forbidden to enslave any of their fellows who submitted to the
>Will of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful. The size of the group to be
>considered covered by the moral order increased from the local tribe to all
>mankind with these cosmopolitan religions.  
>  
>

Again, I am not talking about the increasing size of the geopolitical 
group, although there can be a rough indirect correspondence. The 
effective interaction of moral agents dominates physical size with 
regard to moral awareness and resulting behavior.

>Communism and Nazism, of course, reverse this. These aberrations spring from a
>higher culture and reject it, restricting the moral order no longer to mankind,
>or even to Christendom, but only to members of a favored race (in the case of
>the Nazi, the so-called Aryan)  or to members of a favored economic class (in
>the case of the Communist, the so-called Proletarian). Their savagery exceeded
>that of the ancient pagans, perhaps in part because the knowledge that they were
>betraying a conception something finer and higher than their own tormented them.
>
In both these cases, I think we can agree that significant power was 
concentrated among relatively few moral agents and thus the Self making 
these abhorrent moral choices was effectively collapsed, similar to poor 
Raskolnikov as we discussed earlier.

> 
>
>Oddly enough, in the modern era, two factions among us are attempting to
>increase the scope of morality in two opposite directions. Some would insist
>that the moral order protect animals; others would insist that the moral order
>protect unborn babies. The first would outlaw carnivores as cannibals, the
>second would outlaw abortionists as infanticides. 
>
>Now, is there any way to predict or prefer which way the arrow or morality will
>go in the future? If we grant human rights to beasts, they might increase in
>survival and growth (unless animal population numbers drop once they are no
>longer domesticated for food); if we grant human rights to fetuses, they
>personally will increase in survival, and families who otherwise would go
>childless will grow. So which way is the arrow of morality supposed to grow?
>Your formulation of ?what works? seems as ambiguous as a Delphic oracle. 
>  
>
Are you saying that you expect there to be simple answers to complex 
moral issues? The very fact that such questions are being asked these 
days is an indication that our moral and ethical sensitivity is increasing.

As moral issues become more complex, we will increasingly apply 
principles of effective interaction, rather than strict laws, to these 
issues, and increasingly effective solutions will tend to be worked out. 
I have ventured already to suggest some tentative principles that can be 
inferred from the fundamental theory, and more work is yet to be done. 
That is my purpose in promoting this thinking.

>3. No matter what the viewpoint from the objective observer as to the actuarial
>benefit of adopting or rejecting specific innovations to a given moral code,
>from the viewpoint within a moral code, the moral code itself will contain
>reasons to explain and support itself.
>
I haven't been able to make sense of the preceding paragraph.

> 
>
>The observer outside the moral code talking to the partisan within the moral
>code may say anything he likes about the ?growth and survival? benefits of a
>particular innovation; but, unless he speaks to the specific reasons why the
>partisan adheres to a particular moral code, the information is of no value to
>the partisan. 
>
>An example might make this clear. Suppose we have two men, both of whom agree on
>the basics of a moral system. Let us say one is a Franciscan Monk, the other is
>a member of the Military Order of the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem. Both
>are Christians, but one has taken a vow of pacifism, the other, a vow to recover
>Jerusalem from the Paynims by forces of arms. 
>
>An objective observer shows them Game Theory. He explains to our Monk and our
>Knight a simple game, called the Prisoner?s Dilemma, where if two players each
>cooperate with the other, they break even; if one cooperates and one betrays,
>the betrayer wins; if they both betray, both lose. Our objective observer
>convinces them that one and only one strategy is favorable over the long term:
>the strategy of simple reciprocity. Namely, a player who is willing to cooperate
>with other players until betrayed, to betray once each time he is betrayed, but
>to forgive and cooperate again next trial.  Our observer might urge, for
>example, that the pacifist retaliate upon certain occasions in order to deter
>further attacks; or he might urge the Crusader to fight only defensively, and to
>cooperate with the Turk whenever possible.  
>
>No matter what these calculations are, Christianity is fundamentally
>otherworldly, so that their survival rate on Earth could not have been the prime
>concern to our Monk and our Knight when they took their vows. 
>
>Even if the Monk and the Knight are carefully convinced by our observer, his
>arguments can have no effect on them, because they do not share the normative
>axiom that survival and growth are paramount concerns. 
>  
>

Neither could one hope to convince Raskolnikov, or other small Selves 
acting in relative isolation, but as the context of interactions 
expands, then actions that work will tend to supersede those with more 
limited effectiveness.

>In other words, a basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? approach is that it
>is in fact not objective, merely one philosophy like any other, apparently a
>form of utilitarianism. It will not convince anyone who does not already share
>the axioms of utilitarianism (albeit, it might be useful as a predictor of which
>philosophy will be the most popular or longest-lasting.) 
>  
>
If it is in fact a predictor of which moral philosophy will be most 
popular or longest-lasting, then as a metaethical theory it is successful.

>As a related thought, let me submit that humanity has no need of changing
>standards in morality, nor any ability to change those standards even if it
>wanted to. Morality, in human experience, is one unified structure, and always
>has been: a set of maxims or imperatives commanding human action. 
>  
>
And I maintain that as our world and its issues become more complex, we 
will find that effective interaction within the larger culture will 
become increasingly important to our individual interests, and that more 
complex issues will require more complex reasoning from principles 
rather than from any fixed set of laws established in a simpler time.

>I propose that the emphasis on certain maxims or imperatives, their rank or
>priority, might differ from one man to the next or from one school of thought to
>the name, but the general moral order of the universe known to all men through
>their natural reason. What is amazing about the various ages and races of man,
>is not that we see, here and there, customs of particular cruelty or degeneracy,
>such as temple prostitution or human sacrifice, but that we see nearly universal
>agreement on the basics: the Eightfold Path of the Buddha and the Ten
>Commandments of Moses cover the same points, as do the utterings of Lapland
>witches and the staves of Norse prophecy. Even vicious beasts like the
>Communists can only justify their shocking inhumanity, their brutal
>mass-murders, mass-lies, mass-robberies, and so on, by reference to a moral
>maxim (charity to the poor) which has at least the same pedigree as the moral
>maxims condemning murder, lying, and robbery. 
>  
>

Yes, because we share an extensive evolutionary heritage and a common 
environment to which we had [note past tense] adapted over thousands 
(culturally) and millions (biologically) of years. We have made it thus 
far because we have inherited what worked.

>Hence, the universality of moral maxims suggests that moral systems cannot
>differ in their fundamentals. They differ in the arguments used to support the
>maxims, and they differ in the different weight given the moral maxims compared
>one with another. (The Chinaman and the Jew, for example, will both acknowledge
>the moral maxim of respecting one?s parents: but Chinese tradition has a much
>more elaborate and demanding system of ranks within each family than the Jewish.) 
>
>We can look at morality only one of two ways: from the inside, or from the
>outside. From the inside, we, as moral beings, can weigh in our consciences the
>wisdom of changing the emphasis or scope of a moral rule to which we all defer
>as authoritative. The arrow of morality can grow only in the direction already
>implied, but not yet come to flower, in the maxims we already accept. From the
>outside, we, as purely rational beings, can look at some aspect of morality or a
>particular moral code in non-moralistic terms, such as, for example, looking at
>the incentives which cause certain formulations of local moral codes to flourish
>or gain partisans, while other diminish. The difficulty with the arrow of
>morality formulation (as I understand it) is that it cannot bridge this gap
>between inside and outside. 
>
>The man inside it does not need it: Christendom already preaches and practices
>toleration of dissent. The man outside cannot use it: knowing a certain code
>will reach more people or ?works better? than another code provides no
>particular motive to amend a moral code. It might or it might not, depending on
>what he thinks the moral stature of ?working better? is.  
>
>JCW
>
>  
>
Mr. Wright, it has been a pleasure carrying on this discussion with you, 
and if I did not already mention it, I enjoyed very much reading your 
three books of the Golden Age. I am afraid that much of this discussion 
has become repetition of our previous points, and I think that to some 
extent we are talking past one another. I would be pleased to continue a 
dialogue via personal email, but I hesitate to post another iteration to 
this public forum.

I do look forward to your further comments.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 00:42:44 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050505004244.9126.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Yes, I know the ramifications if the theory is
> correct.  Believe me, I
> know.  I struggle to *not* constantly think about
> them - they're
> distracting, and if I actually want to see them come
> true, I have to
> focus on how I get there instead of what things
> would be like
> afterwards if I succeed.  And I have to remember
> that, until and unless
> I prove it correct, there is a significant chance
> the theory is not
> correct.
> 

Adrian,
     I think you have the right attitude. I am a
professional in science and trust me, theory is
over-rated. In my time in this lab alone, I have seen
several fairly well-accepted theories in cellular
immune function and HIV pathogenesis bite the dust.
One of them was by my own hand. My experience
indicates that reality always supercedes theory. The
only real use of a theory is like a crude map of
reality. Once you are in the neighborhood, its time to
put away the map and pay attention to the reality.
Otherwise you stand the danger of running into the
tree that isn't on the map. Don't worry about trying
to prove your theory. I don't beieve one can really
prove a theory anyway, one can only fail to disprove
it and then usually only for so long. Don't let this
discourage you however because if you can "grope" the
reality that masquerades as the Cassimir force and
bend it to your will, then the theory is secondary. It
will formulate itself after the fact. You have
embarked on a worthy endeavor. Good luck.  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu May  5 00:45:29 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 20:45:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest
In-Reply-To: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050504202040.0351ed90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 02:57 PM 04/05/05 -0500, you wrote:
>Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are biased in 
>certain
>very  predictable ways.  "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion 
>to how
>closely they are related."  "Don't fight with strangers unless they are
>competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives."
>
>I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking about the 
>way men
>act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their actions.

Even worse.  I am saying that our very sense of what is moral is shaped by 
our genes along with the environment of the time.

>The
>moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson here is 
>claiming
>is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims. For example, the Buddhist is urged
>by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely aggression 
>against
>neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's neighbors, are the
>Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them reasonable 
>creatures.
>Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he did 
>not say
>turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and Sammaritans are
>outsiders: them, you should strike back.

>In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause for 
>morality,
>one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages 
>actually say.

There are a lot of common threads in morality.  Why?  Why is morality such 
a flexible concept?  What environmental/ecological condition cause what is 
considered moral to shift?  I think I can answer such questions from an 
evolutionary prospective.

>If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore the 
>demands
>of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their community,
>before the common good they may have with others and outsiders, well, that is
>surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self-interest in an
>exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their tribe and
>nation with eyes blinded by love.

Ah . . . right.  Of course we are descended from people who did look after 
the interest of their genes in the stone age.  Or maybe I should say the 
genes shaped people who did.

Could you give me your estimate of how long it would take from a breakdown 
in food shipments into the cities before there were riots?

The memes for what is considered moral behavior and the good teachings that 
have come down to us are memes that do well in good times, that is times of 
low stress on the population because technology has increased the economy 
faster than the population.

I might add that I have taken terrible risks for others, in fact I have 
been driven out of my former country for standing up against a death 
dealing cult and supporting free speech.

I could claim an excessive amount of moral superiority for doing so.  I 
won't though because I suspect the motivation for my "selfless" actions is 
not so pure, and in fact I think it has a genetic base.

Want to know why humans have wars?  Ask me and I will send you a 20 page 
unpublished paper.

Keith Henson




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 01:42:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505014242.47243.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The context of the quote you provided indicates he's talking about
> morality. E.g., "moral relativism does not say [...]"; "It [moral
> relativism] simply acknowledges [...]"; "I don't like the very
> concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality" (contrast this
> last snippet with the multiple references to "absolute or objective
> morality" in earlier posts by various discussion participants... but
> see 2 for an alternative if you don't feel like interpreting
> 'absolute truth' as 'absolute moral truth' based on the context.)
> 
> 2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one plausible reading
> (epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is something you
> yourself
> readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent of assigning a
> probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and known variously by
> such terms as "epistemological infallibilism," "faith," and
> "unbridled stupidity."

Absolute poppycock. Your ludicrous characterization implies that one
who is for objective truth is always sure which side of a coin flips
up, heads or tails, and is always right. This is completely,
absolutely, and objectively wrong. An objective thinker, moralist, or
physicist does not deny uncertainty. Instead, they recognise that the
amount of uncertainty of an event may be objectively determined. The
relativist sees all uncertainties as equally uncertain.

> While it's possible the alternative reading (that Giulio is opposing
> the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute physical
> reality) is what was meant, that seems such an obvious intellectual
> error to me that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of other
> issues in the past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to which
> interpretation he intended.

Only to one who cannot comprehend how one could abstract morality from
metaphysics, and abstract metaphysics from physics.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu May  5 01:52:41 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:52:41 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050504163520.01df79b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <025701c55115$1fca1e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Interesting.

I wonder if employers would simply alter the employment agreements such that 
accepting surveilance of email or the employers right to (contractually 
rather than legally) would become a condition of employment.

This is an interesting issue because I can see both sides and so what will 
ultimately decide what shakes out will be how people react politically. 
Employers could have legitimate grounds for wanting to have some surveilance 
capability in some circumstances.

The idea of providing with a job the necessary tools to do that job did not 
traditionally automatically include giving employees the right to use those 
same tools for their own purposes or convenience.  The employee/employer 
master/servant relationship seems to be shifting in this case in a direction 
towards employee/servant empowerment. It will be interesting to see if the 
trend can gather any political steam.

Personally I would have suspected that laws would have tended to develop to 
favour the employers rather than employees in this area because employees 
would not be politically well organised enough to oppose the shift towards 
greater surveilance of their activities. I'd have thought that most 
employees would not object to clauses being placed in employment contracts 
etc.. Perhaps they will. Perhaps I am wrong.

Brett Paatsch








From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May  5 03:37:42 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 20:37:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050504212929.C226557EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <200505050337.j453bpR03300@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney"
...
> 
> "Meanwhile, Southland public transportation agencies are reporting that
> ridership has jumped in the first months of 2005 - up between 3% and 12%,
> depending on the system."
...
> Hal

Ja, but I expect it won't go much higher.  The basic issue is
that having one's own car promotes one from a pawn to a knight.
The pawn and the pub-trans rider have little choice: go forward
or stay.  The driver and the knight can go anywhere they want.

The car is one's suit of armor, the wheels the swift hooves, a
sawed-off 12 gage under the seat is one's lance.  In one's own
car one has personal space.  People will continue to opt for
autos even in those places where they are already impractical,
such as certain areas in New York and many European cities.

If the subway engineers could work out a means whereby trains
had individual locking compartments, large enough for singles,
some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we
proles would really like them and use them.

spike






From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 05:55:19 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505055519.78820.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Ja, but I expect it won't go much higher.  The basic
> issue is
> that having one's own car promotes one from a pawn
> to a knight.

Nah. I would say a car makes one a rook. The knight is
a motorcycle. On a motorcycle one can move in the
lanes or between them. On a motorcycle one wears armor
if one wants to live. One can't go as far as a rook
can, but one can go almost anywhere. One can even jump
over other pieces if one is Evel Knieval. The only
piece that is better if one needs to get somewhere in
a hurry no matter what the traffic is like, is a
helicopter which I would equate to a queen.
> 
> If the subway engineers could work out a means
> whereby trains
> had individual locking compartments, large enough
> for singles,
> some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we
> proles would really like them and use them.

If these came to be, I might use them for the daily
commute, but I would not sell either my motorcycle or
my car for that matter. There are times when
established routes are counterproductive. And I don't
consider myself a prole but a modern day cavalier. I
may not be the king, but I got a horse. BTW... since
when did you become a prole? I would consider you
bourgeois at the least. ;)




The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu May  5 05:57:22 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:57:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
	<42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>
	<42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com>

Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging the
notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by
my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it
as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it
cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to
children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have
strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book
that you find).
As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I do
not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be
a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific
statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the
Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation
is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I
follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to
experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is
free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but
not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently.
G.

On 5/5/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Jeff Medina wrote:
> > On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that believing in an
> >>external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity.
> >
> > Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that
> > *morality* was not objective.
> 
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>  >
>  > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that
>  > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say
>  > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth
>  > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and
>  > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas,
>  > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The
>  > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid
>  > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas.
>  >
>  > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of
>  > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different.
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May  5 06:00:35 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:00:35 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
Message-ID: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one
>plausible reading
>(epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is
>something you yourself
>readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent
>of assigning a
>probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and
>known variously by
>such terms as "epistemological >infallibilism,"
"faith," and "unbridled
>stupidity."
>While it's possible the alternative reading (that
>Giulio is opposing
>the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute
>physical reality)
>is what was meant, that seems such an obvious
>intellectual error to me
>that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of
>other issues in the
>past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to
>which interpretation
>he intended.


But, dear fellow, the *metaphysical* status of
morality is exactly what the entire
objective/relativist debate is about!  I think you are
seriously confused.

The *epistemological* status of moral knowledge is a
seperate question from the *metaphysical* stauts of
moral knowledge.  It is quite likely that there is no
such thing as *certain* knowledge, in the sense of
propositions to which we can assign probabilities of
100% to.  But most sensible 'moral objectivists' never
claimed any such thing.  We only claimed that some
moral truths have an objective *metaphysical* status.

For instance we cannot be certain of how gravity
works, but that doesn't stop gravity from being
objective.  The mere fact we cannot be certain of how
gravity works does not mean that truths about gravity
are 'relative'.  The metaphysical *truth* about
gravity is objective, our epistemology *knowledge*
about gravity is not.  

I claim that objective moral truths exist.  I do not
claim that my knowledge of morality is certain.  What
then is the distinction between objective morality and
objective physics?  (In neither case is certain
knowledge claimed).  

But clearly 'moral relativists' *do* think that there
is a distinction between physics and ethics.  The
definition of moral relativism clearly goes further
than just denying certain *epistemological* knowldge. 
It also denies objective *metaphysical* truth about
morality.  



---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May  5 06:08:51 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:08:51 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
Message-ID: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm going to briefly summarize what seems like an
absolutely water-tight argument for objective ethics. 
I show how to derive 'ought' from 'is' and establish
the basis for a Universal Volition.

*The first assumption I make is that meaning and
purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds.  When no
sentient mind exists, there can be no meaning.  I
think most of you will be able to agree with me here. 

*The second assumption is this:  'The ultimate fate of
the universe is indeterminate'.  That is to say,
consider the possibility that whether the universe (a)
ends or (b) Lasts forever, has not actually been
physically determined yet.  In that case, actions
taken by sentients in the future could change the
probabilities of possible ultimate fates for the
universe.

Using these two assumptions, we can derive a
'Universal Volition' (objective morality).  Here's the
reasoning:

Asking 'why?' to any proposed course of action,
presupposes that meaning is important.  Therefore *any
consistent* proposed ethical system has *presupposed*
that meaning is important.  You can't even begin to
reason about ethics without implicitly presupposing
that meaning is important.  Therefore *all* ethical
systems presuppose the value of meaning.  The
important of meaning is a universal value, in so far
that any values are held at all.  

The above is a strange sounding paragraph.  It sounds
sort of circular, but it does actually make sense. 
It's kind of an anthropic (observer-selection)
argument.  I hope you can see the correctness of it
though.  To repeat: You can't even begin to ask 'why?'
without presupposing that meaning is important. 
Therefore *all* ethical systems in the universe
presuppose the importance of meaning even before any
other values.  The importance of meaning is a
universal.   

O.K.  Second step.  By the first assumption given
earlier, there can be no meaning without mind. 
Meaning comes from sentient minds.  But since it was
established that all ethical systems presuppose the
important of meaning, another universal automatically
follows when combined with the initial assumption: 
The preservation of the life of sentient beings
(plural) is a good.  Since a net loss of sentient
beings will result in a net delete of minds, and
meaning comes from minds and ethics requires meaning,
the continued life of sentient beings (in the
utilitarian sense) is a good.

Third step.  By the second assumption the ultimate
fate of the universe is indeterminate.  But if the
universe ever ends, all sentient minds within it will
die.  But by the previous two reasoning steps it was
established that the continued preservation of
sentient minds is a good.   Since the fate of the
universe is indeterminate, there is a possibility that
the actions of sentients can change the ultimate fate
of the universe (in a probabilistic sense).  Therefore
it is a universal good for sentients to take the
actions required to increase the probability of the
continued existence of the universe.  It would also be
a universal evil for sentients to take actions which
harm the chances of the continued existence of the
universe.

Let's briefly review the reasoning chain:

Axioms:
(1)  Meaning comes from minds
(2)  The ultimate fate of the universe is
indeterminate

Deductions:
(3)  You can't even begin to ask 'why?' without
presupposing that meaning is important.  Therefore all
ethical systems presuppose meaning as a value.

(4)  By (1) all meaning comes from minds and by (3)
all ethics presupposes meaning, it follows that the
net continued existence of sentient minds is a
universal good, since a net deduction of sentients
will result in a net delete of minds and therefore a
net deletion of meaning.

(5)  By (2) the ultimate fate of the universe is
indeterminate and could possibility be influenced by
sentient actions.  But if the universe ends, all
sentient life ends, which by (4) was established as an
evil.  Since sentient actions could possibility
influence the ultimate fate of the universe, it would
be a universal evil for sentients not to try to
influence the universe in order to increase the
probability of its continued existence. 

We have deduced a *universal* ethical principle for
all sentient minds.  A universal volition of you like.
 It is:

Universal Volition:

'Take the actions required to increase the probability
of the continued existence of the universe'


I don't know whether this equates to helping to move
the universe closer to  Frank Tipler's Omega Point
(the Omega Point itself is a mathematical limit that
is never reached), but it think it is a fair bet that
is does.  And with this principle in the bag, we can
move from 'is' to 'ought'.  The reasoning is simple:

*Taking the actions required to increase the
probability of the continued existence of the universe
was established as a universal good.  But what these
actions are is entirely an empirical matter.  By
understanding the workings of the universe, it is
entirely an empirical matter to determine which
actions will help to ensure the continued existence of
the universe.  Therefore 'is' (the current state of
the universe) implies 'ought' (the empirically
determined actions required to increase the
probability of the continued existence of the
universe).

And there you have it folks.  'Ought' from 'is' and
Universal Volition established beyond a shadow of a
doubt.


---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May  5 06:24:20 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:24:20 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
Message-ID: <20050505062420.36161.qmail@web31513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am
>only challenging the
>notion of external, objective *morality*. You may
>have been misled by
>my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted
>below. I am using it
>as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
>I challenge the notion of external, objective
>morality because 1) it
>cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I
>try to be kind to
>children anyway without basing it on metaphysics),
>and 2) it can have
>strong negative effects (demonstration: read the
>first history book
>that you find).


Here Guilio is clearly denying the reality of
objective *metaphysical* moral truths.  This is
clearly going further than just denying certain
*epistemological* moral knowledge.  Most moral
objectivists don't dispute that certain knowledge is
impossible.  However what they strongly disagree with
is the idea that there is no objective *metaphysical*
truth.

Of course belief in 'objective' ethics can also be
sub-devided into a weak form and a strong form.  In
the weak sense, it just means that you can reason
about ethics somehow (perhaps by reference to a
'Collective Volition' where ethics is defined by
somehow combining the beliefs and feelings of all
humans).  In the strong sense, you may also want to
say that you can reason about ethics without making
reference to people at all (a 'Universal Volition).

I *do* believe in the notion of external objective
ethics in both the weak and the strong sense, and I
think that Mr Wright is right ;)  It seems to me much
more likely that denial of objective moral truths is
what leads to atrocity ('Anything goes man!), rather
than belief in them.

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu May  5 08:14:35 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:14:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520505050114a68cc2a@mail.gmail.com>

I always enjoy a good verbal contest, but I have a feeling that we are
sort of wasting our time with this specific issue.
You can affirm the objective existence of absolute morality, and I can
deny it, and we can still come to the same moral conclusions on
specific practical issues, same as we could still come to completely
different conclusions if we shared the same opinion on absolute
morality. So, believing or not in absolute morality has just no effect
on specific moral judgements.
So it is like middle age scholars discussing the sex of the angels, or
how many angels can dance on a needle tip: completely void of
practical meaning and relevance.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 08:55:55 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 01:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
In-Reply-To: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050505085555.98774.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> Let's briefly review the reasoning chain:
> 
> Axioms:
> (1)  Meaning comes from minds
> (2)  The ultimate fate of the universe is
> indeterminate

> Deductions:
> (3)  You can't even begin to ask 'why?' without
> presupposing that meaning is important.  Therefore
> all
> ethical systems presuppose meaning as a value.
> 
> (4)  By (1) all meaning comes from minds and by (3)
> all ethics presupposes meaning, it follows that the
> net continued existence of sentient minds is a
> universal good, since a net deduction of sentients
> will result in a net delete of minds and therefore a
> net deletion of meaning.

Your argument is GREAT up to this point.

> (5)  By (2) the ultimate fate of the universe is
> indeterminate and could possibility be influenced by
> sentient actions.  But if the universe ends, all
> sentient life ends, which by (4) was established as
> an
> evil.  Since sentient actions could possibility
> influence the ultimate fate of the universe, it
> would
> be a universal evil for sentients not to try to
> influence the universe in order to increase the
> probability of its continued existence. 

There is a problem here. The indeterminate fate of the
universe cannot be simply analyzed. That is to say no
sentient mind below godlike intelligence could predict
what impact its actions would have on the survival
time of the universe as a whole even empirically. An
immortal AI could perform an action and wait around
until the universe ended to see if it was earlier or
later than theory would predict, but what use would
that be?  

> We have deduced a *universal* ethical principle for
> all sentient minds.  A universal volition of you
> like.
>  It is:
> 
> Universal Volition:
> 
> 'Take the actions required to increase the
> probability
> of the continued existence of the universe'

No. You could state it as "do not destroy the
universe" but stating it the way you do, leads to
conflicts with deduction (4). For example an AI might
decide that all those sentient minds running around
are dumping too much entropy into the universe and
hastening its demise. It may then take the following
course of action without violating your principles:

1. Download all meaning from all sentient minds.

2. Destroy all sentient minds except oneself.

3. Shut down all non-vital functions to minimize
entropy output.

Thus, the total net meaning of the universe is
conserved AND the universe lasts a lot longer.
     I think you should have kept your principles
centered on meaning. Starting from your axioms and
using your deductions, the "Universal Volition",
"Golden Rule", and "Laws of Robotics" should be:

1. Maximize total meaning.
2. Maximize duration of total meaning.

      By your own arguments above, actions that
promote the survival of the AI, its creators, and
essentially all sentient beings is implicit in these
statements as well as preservation of literature and
works of art. Moreover insofar as any sentient mind
can predict how its actions will influence the
survival of the universe as a whole, the probability
of the universe's continued existence is implicit as
well. This is regardless of whether the universe
itself is sentient or not. 
      Too bad there does not seem to be tenable way to
define a "meaning" function in computer code. Anyways,
good post. It made me think. :)

 



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu May  5 13:59:49 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:59:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bipartisan Breather 
Message-ID: <46440-22005545135949166@M2W032.mail2web.com>

This morning, as usual, I enjoyed listening to NPR's morning edition.  I
had a delightful laugh at the smart humor scripted around this bipartisan
gathering at an ice cream social.  For those of you who enjoy stock market
jargon and business vernacular, this is recording is a lot of fun.

"Morning Edition, May 5, 2005 ? Amid ethics concerns about Tom DeLay, and
bitterness over Social Security and other issues, members of Congress took
a much needed bipartisan breather Wednesday: an ice cream social."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4631485

Natasha



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




From riel at surriel.com  Thu May  5 14:00:48 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505050959090.18287@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Were this a magnetic force, field lines would bend to snake around the 
> corners, and everything would balance out.  But the Casimir effect 
> appears to act more like optics than magnetics, and optics allows for 
> sharp discontinuities - think sharp-edged shadows.

I guess if your experiment doesn't work, we might need to
reformulate how the Casimir effect works.  Sounds like an
experiment that's guaranteed to have something interesting
as its outcome ;)

-- 
"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 spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May  5 14:40:40 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:40:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050505055519.78820.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505051440.j45EejR08432@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...
> helicopter which I would equate to a queen...

I won't touch that one, I'm trying to serious up a bit.  {8^D


> >
> > If the subway engineers could work out a means
> > whereby trains
> > had individual locking compartments, large enough
> > for singles,
> > some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we
> > proles would really like them and use them.
> 
>... since
> when did you become a prole? I would consider you
> bourgeois at the least. ;) The Avantguardian

What?  Since always.  Bourgeois, noo waaaay.

Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's 
circumstances are kind to one, as they have been 
to me.  The family historians have discovered I
have a fairly recent ancestor who was born in
Pretoria South Africa, so I am also an African
American.  I am thereby immune to much of modern
PC self flagellation.

It doesn't seem so difficult: public restrooms
have always had individual stalls that have a
sort of a lock on the door.  There is plenty of
room aboard every train I ever see for individual
stalls.  

spike





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 15:07:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging
> the
> notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by
> my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it
> as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
> I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it
> cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to
> children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have
> strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book
> that you find).
> As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I
> do
> not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be
> a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific
> statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the
> Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation
> is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I
> follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to
> experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is
> free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but
> not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently.

The problem, Giulio, is that in stating that it is wrong to murder
fellow scientists who think differently, you are making an objective
moral judgement. You may claim you have no moral basis for doing so,
but that is merely a concious claim. The fact is that you have been
unconciously acculturated over your life in the western judeo-christian
post-enlightenment ethical outlook, tempered by a flavoring of other
philosophical systems, clearly belies the fact that you have been
programmed to feel the way you do. To paraphrase Ceasar describing
Brittannus, you take the prejudices of your tribe as universal truth,
despite denying such.

Making the leap from stating that other scientists are wrong to having
them executed for thinking 'improperly' requires acceptance of two
moral judgements as objective maxims which history clearly has shown
multiple times are most definitely NOT objective or even more objective
than others. Because history has shown this, it is therefore
objectively wrong to assert otherwise to rationalize unobjective acts
or policies.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 15:28:00 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> >... since
> > when did you become a prole? I would consider you
> > bourgeois at the least. ;) The Avantguardian
> 
> What?  Since always.  Bourgeois, noo waaaay.
> 
> Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's 
> circumstances are kind to one, as they have been 
> to me. 

I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus":
"Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian".  The major malfunction causing the
deterioration of the republic and individual liberties is the
pernicious prevalence of the idea that equality means dragging everyone
down to the lowest common denominator, that all are proles. For both
liberty and equality to exist, every person must be a king, not a
prole. Reclaim your individual sovereignty, hold it tightly, greedily.
Do not lightly lend it out to bureaucrat or contractor.

> The family historians have discovered I
> have a fairly recent ancestor who was born in
> Pretoria South Africa, so I am also an African
> American.  I am thereby immune to much of modern
> PC self flagellation.

At least one US census I stated I was a native American. Speaking of
which, I've been hearing more about this Pembina Band of N-A indians
that Prof. Ward Churchill was a 'member' of. A friend is also a member
of the band, and they seem to be pretty libertarian in orientation.
They are setting up their own currency and banking system.

> 
> It doesn't seem so difficult: public restrooms
> have always had individual stalls that have a
> sort of a lock on the door.  There is plenty of
> room aboard every train I ever see for individual
> stalls.  

But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other
passenger. Subways, however, tend to be far more packed during
rush-hour, at least in cities like NY and Boston.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu May  5 15:32:35 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> I guess if your experiment doesn't work, we might need to
> reformulate how the Casimir effect works.  Sounds like an
> experiment that's guaranteed to have something interesting
> as its outcome ;)

Exactly.  If it goes one way, we have something that's not quite a
perpetual motion machine but comes close.  If we don't get that, we've
shined a light on a significant misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
It's worth doing either way.

(And then there's the nanostructuring on top of that, which is
apparently more needed than I thought.  Maybe they're thinking there's
a good chance I'll take the skills I use on this project and develop
molecular manufacturing or something. *shrugs*)


From sentience at pobox.com  Thu May  5 16:05:47 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:05:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense
	of	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>	<42793884.80209@pobox.com>
	<5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com>	<42794E43.6020405@pobox.com>
	<470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <427A445B.1070603@pobox.com>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging the
> notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by
> my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it
> as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
> I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it
> cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to
> children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have
> strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book
> that you find).
> As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I do
> not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be
> a bit more complex than we currently appreciate).

Okay.  Sorry, then.

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 16:30:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505163056.94863.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> The idea of providing with a job the necessary tools to do that job
> did not traditionally automatically include giving employees the
> right to use those same tools for their own purposes or
> convenience.  The employee/employer master/servant relationship
> seems to be shifting in this case in a direction 
> towards employee/servant empowerment. It will be interesting to see
> if the trend can gather any political steam.

Having worked as a hourly mechanic required to own his own personal
tools while working in a company garage with company heavy equipment,
where I not only worked on my own vehicle, but worked on the vehicles
of company bus drivers, vehicles of family members, etc. it seems to me
that the company needs to or does accept the distinction between
'personal tools' and 'capital equipment'. A technology company doesn't
issue knowledge workers a company brain when they are employed, the
employee comes with their own highly valuable brain, i.e. a computer
which the employee employs in the service of the company. Thus the
employee is paid for labor of the persons personality (i.e. their
software) plus use of employee equipment (their brain, i.e. hardware).
Ergo, while being treated as employees, todays knowledge worker should
be treated as a contractor. In exchange for being an employee, the
employer offers additional benefits which may include use of company
equipment.

When uploaded personalities come to exist, will an employer be required
to hire that personality as a contractor rather than an employee if the
personality operates on their own personal hardware?

> 
> Personally I would have suspected that laws would have tended to
> develop to 
> favour the employers rather than employees in this area because
> employees 
> would not be politically well organised enough to oppose the shift
> towards 
> greater surveilance of their activities. I'd have thought that most 
> employees would not object to clauses being placed in employment
> contracts 
> etc.. Perhaps they will. Perhaps I am wrong.
> 
> Brett Paatsch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jonkc at att.net  Thu May  5 16:43:03 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:43:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.
	UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer>

"Marc Geddes" <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz>

> The first assumption I make is that meaning and
> purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds.

Yes I agree, absolutely no argument.

> The second assumption is this: 'The ultimate fate of
> the universe is indeterminate

Indeterminate eh, well..., maybe yes maybe no.

> any proposed course of action, presupposes that
> meaning is important.

Meaning is very important to me and to most sentient beings but to hydrogen
and helium gas that makes up the overwhelming bulk of the visible universe
meaning is not important at all; it's not unimportant either, it has no
opinion on the subject becauseit's just gas.

> Therefore *all* ethical systems presuppose the value of meaning.

Yes, but all ethical systems only deal with a very tiny subset of the
universe.

> The importance of meaning is a universal.

Absolutely untrue.

> there can be no meaning without mind.

Or to put it another way, there can be no meaning without subjectivity, but
your post claims to prove things about objectivity. I think your fundamental
error is in equating objectivity with importance and subjectivity with
triviality; I would think members of this list who talk so easily about
uploading and virtual reality and the universe as a computer program would
understand that the very opposite is true.

> Meaning comes from sentient minds.

Exactly, minds are in the meaning generating business, that's why I can give
meaning to a cloud of hydrogen gas but it can't give meaning to me.

> The preservation of the life of sentient beings
> (plural) is a good.

99.999999999999% of the universe doesn't give a damn one way or the
other but yes, life is good for those very subjective sentient beings.
Well usually anyway, a man who has just been disemboweled and was
begging for death might disagree.

> the continued life of sentient beings (in the
> utilitarian sense) is a good.

As I said, it's good for minds in those subjective beings, not good or bad
or important for a cloud of hydrogen gas that objectively exists 10,000
light years away.

Let's briefly review your reasoning chain:

Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from minds, "meaning" has a
meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance" has a meaning and it
comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes from minds, "evil" has a
meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you conclude ethics is objective.
Huh?

And I don't understand why you should even care, if that cloud of hydrogen
gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not very interested in what
it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very much because subjectivity
is far more important that objectivity.

  John K Clark








From hal at finney.org  Thu May  5 17:19:02 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu,  5 May 2005 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050505171902.DC46957EE6@finney.org>

Maybe I can convince you that this won't work by a more detailed analysis.

> http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt
> http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif

As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal
square in the center and a metal ring around the outside.  Between the
disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which block
the Casimir force.  The whole thing is one piece and rigid.  Your design
is intended to produce a net unbalanced torque force, such that if this
device were suspended in a vacuum in empty space, it would spontaneously
begin spinning, superficially at least violating conservation of angular
momentum and conservation of energy principles.  Is that right?

The problem that I see with your design is elementary.  You try to
arrange the black body shields so that the unblocked places on the rim
are attracted towards the center square with a net torque.  But you have
forgotten Newton's third law!  Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.  This means that if the rim is attracted to the center square,
then the center square is equally attracted back to the rim.  And the
torque due to the center square is exactly the opposite of the torque
due to the rim.  These will cancel each other out and it won't spin.

Consider a large model of your device, which instead of using the Casimir
force, uses rubber bands.  Stretch rubber bands between each unblocked
point on the rim and each unblocked point on the central square.
Your analysis still goes through!  Each point on the rim has more
clockwise torque than counterclockwise.  Yet this rubber-band device
will obviously not start spontaneously spinning, merrily generating
energy and angular momentum that we can run the world off of.  Again,
the reason is because the rubber bands pull as hard counterclockwise on
the central square as they pull clockwise on the outer rim.

Nothing in your design relies on any properties of the Casimir force
other than that it is attractive and can be blocked.  Clearly no such
device can violate the laws of physics.

Hal


From amara at amara.com  Thu May  5 16:58:08 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:58:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
Message-ID: <p06210201be9ffd4da316@[150.146.134.133]>


(Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist)
>I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it
>is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank
>account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery
>Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project
>bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now.

Probably Italy is following the US, in this respect, or else the US
is looking to Italy, but the codice fiscale, the Italian version of
the social security number, is all pervasive here, for a number of
reasons (tax being the obvious one, but other odd reasons include
the way that vendors, by state law, provide insurance for their
customers for their purchased electronics). The codice fiscale is
generated from one's  full name, their birthplace and then a letter
at the end that adds a "random" element.

The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to
know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did
you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your
passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much
stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their
money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that
their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then
calculate a tax for your room. I haven't started to be concerned
about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and
the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about
technology and computers.  Even though most of my transactions are
with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is
impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my
credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very
hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with
the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and
getting reimbursed).

>That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com).
>Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it.

Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met
someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all
of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't
know it still existed. This is interesting.

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/
********************************************************************
"Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the
future of the human race."   -- H. G. Wells


From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu May  5 17:42:21 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:42:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.
	UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050505104261ba45cd@mail.gmail.com>

Well said John!

On 5/5/05, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> And I don't understand why you should even care, if that cloud of hydrogen
> gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not very interested in what
> it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very much because subjectivity
> is far more important that objectivity.
> 
>   John K Clark


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu May  5 17:59:40 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:59:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians
In-Reply-To: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:28 AM 5/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:


>I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus":
>"Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian".

Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff who 
self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own nails. :)

Of course, in The White Abacus all "work" in that culture was make-work and 
play, or at worst a sort of therapeutic therapy.

Damien Broderick




From scerir at libero.it  Thu May  5 18:13:03 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:13:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
References: <20050505171902.DC46957EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c5519e$14848940$8ab41b97@administxl09yj>

Any work, against the (supposed conservative) 
Casimir force, when the plates are spinning?




From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May  5 18:10:46 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:10:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0505051110969b577@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/5/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff who
> self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own nails. :)
> 
> Of course, in The White Abacus all "work" in that culture was make-work and
> play, or at worst a sort of therapeutic therapy.
> 


Ask any contractor working in a Fortune 500 company. Most of them will
say they do all the work and report to about ten managers who liaise
with each other and send reports up the line to more senior managers.

'Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians'

Though people have stopped saying that nowadays when all their work is
being outsourced to India.  :(

BillK


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu May  5 18:15:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505181544.49407.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal
> square in the center and a metal ring around the outside.  Between
> the
> disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which
> block
> the Casimir force.  The whole thing is one piece and rigid.

Incorrect: the ring is mechanically separate from the rest of the
device.  The black body structures and the metal square in the center
are rigid with respect to each other, though.

> Your
> design
> is intended to produce a net unbalanced torque force, such that if
> this
> device were suspended in a vacuum in empty space, it would
> spontaneously
> begin spinning, superficially at least violating conservation of
> angular
> momentum and conservation of energy principles.  Is that right?

That is correct, if by "superficially" you mean "from a point of view
that fails to recognize the actual source of energy" - which is an easy
oversight to make if one is not familiar with quantum mechanics.

> The problem that I see with your design is elementary.  You try to
> arrange the black body shields so that the unblocked places on the
> rim
> are attracted towards the center square with a net torque.  But you
> have
> forgotten Newton's third law!  Every action has an equal and opposite
> reaction.  This means that if the rim is attracted to the center
> square,
> then the center square is equally attracted back to the rim.  And the
> torque due to the center square is exactly the opposite of the torque
> due to the rim.  These will cancel each other out and it won't spin.

Actually, by that analysis, the post would spin the opposite way from
the ring.  Total angular momentum of the entire system would continue
to be zero, even if the pieces themselves move with respect to one
another: plus and minus cancel out.  (Consider two interlocked gears,
flat on a table.  Turn one gear one way, and the other gear turns the
other way.  There's an issue with where you get the energy to spin the
gears in the first place, but the fact of counterbalancing torque to
conserve angular momentum does not itself freeze the system in place.)

The post and shields should indeed experience some torque.  While these
will be fixed to a large external mass in practice, it is possible that
a sufficiently large array of these would cause that large external
mass to rotate.  But since this would be in the opposite direction of
spin from the rings, the rings would still spin relative to the posts.
Any generator assembly would probably be fixed relative to a post, and
thus be able to extract energy from the ring's relative spin.

This does not appear to be the core issue of your objection, though.

> Consider a large model of your device, which instead of using the
> Casimir
> force, uses rubber bands.  Stretch rubber bands between each
> unblocked
> point on the rim and each unblocked point on the central square.
> Your analysis still goes through!

No it doesn't.  When the point of the band that's on the ring travels
beyond the blackbody shield, the band would wrap around the shield and
produce a counterbalancing force.  As I stated in another post, the
Casimir force doesn't act like that.  Magnetic force does, and that may
be what you're trying to draw an analogy to.  But this is closer to
optics, where the lines do not warp unless there is some medium change
making them warp - but the curved path the rubber band would occupy to
get around the shield, is occupied only by empty space.

To analogize to the rubber bands, imagine if they could stretch but not
bend - and vanished if they were forced to bend.  In fact, try to
imagine rubber bands made of photons bouncing back and forth:
obviously, such a band that is "cut" will disappear as all of its
photons are absorbed by the cutting material.  (In this case, the
blackbody shields intersect and thus "cut" the band.)  Now imagine that
new rubber bands appear, pre-stretched, between the ring and the post
as new sections of the ring are uncovered with respect to the post.

Actual rubber bands don't act like that, of course.  But the force I'm
tapping doesn't act like actual rubber bands.  (At least, by current
academic understanding it doesn't.  If my experiment proves that it
does act that way - which would indeed cause the device not to produce
energy - then that's a significnat revision to our understanding of
quantum mechanics.  Which isn't to say that it won't happen, just that
the experiment would be worth doing even in that case.  Finding a way
to make light bend in free space, without any refractive material at
the actual point of the bend, has its own applications.)


From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu May  5 18:36:44 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:36:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art forms
In-Reply-To: <000001c55173$c32ca8e0$5b867056@oemcomputer>
References: <000001c55173$c32ca8e0$5b867056@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <427A67BC.6000401@jefallbright.net>

primeradiant wrote:

> Dear Matt,
>  
>     By 'serial' I meant, of course, 12-tone music, hence Schoenberg, 
> Berg Webern, Stravinsky (middle period, e.g. /Abraham and Isaac/), the 
> post-war Europeans including Boulez, Berio, Dallapiccola, Lutoslawski, 
> Schaffer, Xenakis, earlier Stockhausen, the American School including 
> of course Milton Babbitt, Wuorinen, Lewin etc.
>  
> If I introduce people to 12-tone music I usually select Schoenberg's 
> /A Survivor from Warsaw/ -  a terrifying, gut-wrenching work! The 
> all-combinatorial sets that lie at the core of 12-tone composition are 
> related to Messiaen's /modes of limited transposition/ and the 
> symmetric modes employed by Bartok in his central string quartes (3-5).
>  
> 12-tone composition has expired as a creative force. This is tragic. 
> It demands a highly developed level of skill, and most of the 
> theoretical advances made before its final demise never became fully 
> incorporated into the serial 'canon'. Yet for me it always represented 
> the power of transcendence of the human condition. By its very nature, 
> 12-tone structures and processes are excellently adapted to 
> computer/AI encoding and expression (I did a lot of work on this at 
> the CSRG in Toronto during the 80's).
>  

Coincidentally, this week I read _October The First Is Too Late_ by Sir 
Fred Hoyle, 1966, because someone said it presented an interesting 
theory of time.  While I didn't find anything that struck me as 
interesting or informative about time, I did find this inspiring passage 
about a musical competition between an accomplished human composer and 
his opponent, posing as a god but actually a posthuman:

    It still baffled me as to exactly what restrictions were being
    placed on the choice of the notes themselves. This was not
    twelve-tone music, all the tones were not being used. Yet it wasn't
    tonal in the sense of our system of keys. The structure was more
    complicated than anything I had heard before. I had the strong
    impression of rules depending somehow on the form of the work
    itself. It was as if the rules, the restrictions, depended on the
    place in the piece. The rules at the beginning and those at the end
    seemed different, and different again from those in the middle. It
    was as if the large-scale development of the work influenced its
    manner of construction.

    I mention all this to show why it wasn't in any way easy even for a
    trained musician to grasp instantly what was going on. Plainly I had
    to deal with a subtle and complex form. My last thought of the
    people outside was that they could hardly find the music of the god
    easier to comprehend than my own. I think it was at this point, as
    the second of my opponent's sections came to an end, that the first
    chill of apprehension swept over me...

I find it interesting to consider the parallels between aesthetic 
appreciation and moral reasoning, each considered within a context of 
greater awareness.

- Jef





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu May  5 18:36:54 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505183654.1367.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> Any work, against the (supposed conservative) 
> Casimir force, when the plates are spinning?

Ah, but that's the key: *supposed* conservative.  It is in the parallel
plate model that was originally proposed, and part of my inspiration
for this was noting all the failed attempts to extract energy from this
that were running into the issue of conservation.  I was also slightly
inspired by the specific problems cold fusion had faced: measurement
errors in energy input potentially overwhelmed the energy output...but
what about a system that had no energy input (from us, anyway), so any
energy output would necessarily be net energy output?

Note that I'm not using parallel plates, nor am I letting the plates
actually approach one another.  Thus, I don't need to put energy back
into the system to pull them apart.  From that perspective, it is
conservative: zero minus zero equals zero.

(I suppose another analogy here might be a sailboat sailing at an angle
to the wind.  Set things up right, and wind impacts sail, sail pulls
against boat, boat steers against the water, and boat can travel almost
any direction along the water's surface - perhaps not directly into the
wind, but see "tacking".  Now, what happens to the sailboat if it sails
behind a cliff on one side of a small island that cuts off the
wind...and what happens if it's chained to a boat in front of it, going
in the same direction, that's just emerged from behind the cliff on
the other side of the island?)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 18:39:17 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.
	UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505183917.85872.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> "Marc Geddes" <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz>
> 
> > The first assumption I make is that meaning and
> > purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds.
> 
> Yes I agree, absolutely no argument.

While it requires intelligence to attach meaning to an end, the
universe does have end(s) and does achieve that or those ends by means
of physical processes. Attaching value of opinion about the goodness or
badness of the universes means and ends is merely a reflection on the
relative objectivity of the ethical/moral systems holding or arriving
at those opinions.

For example, gravity is a constant, an objective value that acts
equally upon all mass by the same rule. Whether falling is 'good' or
'bad', per se, is independent of the fact that things fall. The
Extropian Principles, for example, makes value judgements about falling
based on whether it contributes to intelligence, optimism, order, etc.

> 
> > The second assumption is this: 'The ultimate fate of
> > the universe is indeterminate
> 
> Indeterminate eh, well..., maybe yes maybe no.

Exactly.

> 
> > any proposed course of action, presupposes that
> > meaning is important.
> 
> Meaning is very important to me and to most sentient beings but to
> hydrogen and helium gas that makes up the overwhelming bulk of the
> visible universe meaning is not important at all; it's not
> unimportant either, it has no opinion on the subject because
> it's just gas.

Not necessarily. A hydrogen ion attaches absolute, objective importance
to whether another hydrogen ion has a certain amount of energy or not,
because that energy level is the threshold beyond which both will fuse
into a helium ion. Fusing or not fusing is definitly an objective,
binary question to every atom of interstellar and stellar gas. It may
not be a concious question, but it is still a decision made in the
quantum realm to collapse the uncertainty. Thus, gas gets meaning from
energy.

> 
> > Therefore *all* ethical systems presuppose the value of meaning.
> 
> Yes, but all ethical systems only deal with a very tiny subset of the
> universe.

Only because it is the subset that most matters to a very tiny subset
of the spontaneously organized matter and energy in that universe. That
subset has not to date thought that there needed to be a morality of
interstellar gas.

> 
> > The importance of meaning is a universal.
> 
> Absolutely untrue.

Tell me that after you've been around the universe.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu May  5 18:44:46 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:44:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>

I am making a moral judgement indeed, and one in which I believe quite
strongly, but I am not claiming any objective status for it.
Of course I appreciate that this moral judgement is a product of my
life-history including the culture I was raised in, but so what? - I
am still willing to defend it.
Now if by "objective morality" we mean a shorthand for something like
"the ensemble of moral statements on which the vast majority of sane
individuals raised in civilized societies would probably agree", I can
use the term without problems (even if we would have to define much
more precisely the terms "sane" and "civilized").
But please let's not mix morality with (meta)physics. Morality has
just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.
Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt
Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally
different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to
mix them.
G.

On 5/5/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So I think a scientist is
> > free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but
> > not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently.
> 
> The problem, Giulio, is that in stating that it is wrong to murder
> fellow scientists who think differently, you are making an objective
> moral judgement. You may claim you have no moral basis for doing so,
> but that is merely a concious claim. The fact is that you have been
> unconciously acculturated over your life in the western judeo-christian
> post-enlightenment ethical outlook, tempered by a flavoring of other
> philosophical systems, clearly belies the fact that you have been
> programmed to feel the way you do. To paraphrase Ceasar describing
> Brittannus, you take the prejudices of your tribe as universal truth,
> despite denying such.
> 
> Making the leap from stating that other scientists are wrong to having
> them executed for thinking 'improperly' requires acceptance of two
> moral judgements as objective maxims which history clearly has shown
> multiple times are most definitely NOT objective or even more objective
> than others. Because history has shown this, it is therefore
> objectively wrong to assert otherwise to rationalize unobjective acts
> or policies.
> 
> Mike Lorrey


From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu May  5 19:04:56 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:04:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
>logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
>fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.
>  
>
Giulio -

Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of 
the moral values you hold dear?

Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm?

I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the 
doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean 
what you seem to be saying.

- Jef




From hal at finney.org  Thu May  5 19:07:29 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu,  5 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050505190729.3C60457EE6@finney.org>

Adrian Tymes writes:
> --- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal
> > square in the center and a metal ring around the outside.  Between
> > the
> > disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which
> > block
> > the Casimir force.  The whole thing is one piece and rigid.
>
> Incorrect: the ring is mechanically separate from the rest of the
> device.  The black body structures and the metal square in the center
> are rigid with respect to each other, though.

Okay, I apologize for misunderstanding this part.  So we could imagine
instead fixing the central square, in which case the outer ring would
begin to rotate, right?

I still don't think it will work.  Here is an explanation of Casimir force,
from http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/casimir.htm

"The Casimir Force is an electric force, but its origin is different
from that of ordinary electric forces. It is a purely quantum-mechanical
effect arising from the zero-point energy of the harmonic oscillators that
are the normal modes of the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic
field must satisfy certain boundary conditions at the surfaces of our
conducting plates, and these boundary conditions rule out some of the
modes (oscillators) that would otherwise exist in unbounded space. Since
there are fewer oscillators between the plates, there is less zero-point
energy in this region. If the plates are brought closer together, this
volume of smaller energy density is decreased, while the volume of normal
zero-point energy density is increased.  Since this results in an overall
gain of energy to the universe, a force pressing the plates together is
the result."

This is consistent with the concept of a conservative force.  The force
results from a change in the potential energy of the system.  In a
conventional parallel-plates Casimir force test, the ZPE is lower in
the region between the plates, and so moving the plates together is
energetically favorable.  This is what produces the force.

If you apply this concept to your system, you see that your device does
not work.  There is no torque.  Rotating the outer ring does nothing
to change the volume or shape of the altered ZPE region.  The potential
energy will remain exactly the same as the ring rotates.  So there will
be no torque which acts to rotate the ring.

In fact, despite your attempt at geometric arrangement, the pressure
on the outer ring will be entirely central (directed towards the center
of the ring).  The same thing would happen if you considered the ZPE as
gas pressure.  Imagine having high pressure gas outside the system and
low pressure gas in the cavity (white region).  Despite the asymmetrical
shape of the cavity, the pressure on the ring will be perpendicular to it.
The gas pressure will not act to rotate the outer ring.

You keep saying, or implying, that some kind of detailed QM explanation
will justify your torque.  You say that if the device doesn't spin that
this will require re-thinking the theory of quantum mechanics!  It seems
to me that this is all wrong, based on the considerations I have offered
here.  If conventional QM predicted that rings would speed up arbitarily
in a vacuum, it would be a strong argument against the accuracy of QM.

Do you have a more detailed QM model for the Casimir force in your design
that you can offer?  While I am not a QM expert I did have two years of
physics at Caltech and have kept up a modest interest over the years.
I would not be afraid of some equations if you want to offer them.
I am also curious to know the qualifications of the academics who have
endorsed your design, in broad terms - you don't have to name any names
or embarrass anyone.

Hal


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Thu May  5 19:10:02 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:10:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
Message-ID: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>

I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as
a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but
fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy.

A review of a new book arguing against EP is here:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf

Anti-EPers are saying this is more solid evidence that EP is junk.

I've read the review, and all I can see it arguing against are
*specific* claims made in the context of EP and some data... based on
new data or a more sound approach to data gathering. Claims like an EP
explanation of stepfathers beating their stepchildren more frequently
than biological fathers beating their children.

If I do some crap data-gathering while trying to deduce physical laws,
that only allows a rebuttal of a particular data-based claim (say, if
I alleged c = 3.14m/s based on crappy data analysis); it doesn't
warrant calling Physics junk science.

Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
think EP is crap?

Thanks, folks!

-- 
Jeff Medina

Research Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

Volunteer Coordinator
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu May  5 19:12:25 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:12:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <p06210201be9ffd4da316@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210201be9ffd4da316@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <3b5644769d3aa271c168379ff317fe39@bonfireproductions.com>


That is very interesting -

Banks in the US are now are offering ATMs that don't require a deposit 
envelope.

Instead, you feed the bills into the ATM through a slot, they are 
scanned in, and each appear on the screen for you to verify.

What a great way to track currency - direct assignment of serial 
numbers.

Yikes!

]3


On May 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Amara Graps wrote:

>
> (Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist)
>> I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it
>> is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank
>> account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery
>> Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project
>> bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now.
>
> Probably Italy is following the US, in this respect, or else the US
> is looking to Italy, but the codice fiscale, the Italian version of
> the social security number, is all pervasive here, for a number of
> reasons (tax being the obvious one, but other odd reasons include
> the way that vendors, by state law, provide insurance for their
> customers for their purchased electronics). The codice fiscale is
> generated from one's  full name, their birthplace and then a letter
> at the end that adds a "random" element.
>
> The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to
> know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did
> you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your
> passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much
> stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their
> money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that
> their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then
> calculate a tax for your room. I haven't started to be concerned
> about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and
> the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about
> technology and computers.  Even though most of my transactions are
> with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is
> impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my
> credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very
> hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with
> the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and
> getting reimbursed).
>
>> That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com).
>> Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it.
>
> Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met
> someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all
> of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't
> know it still existed. This is interesting.
>
> 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/
> ********************************************************************
> "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the
> future of the human race."   -- H. G. Wells
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 19:17:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505191731.35581.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> (Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist)
> >I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act
> it
> >is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank
> >account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery
> >Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret
> project
> >bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now.
> The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to
> know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did
> you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your
> passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much
> stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their
> money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that
> their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then
> calculate a tax for your room. 

Ouch, they invent an SSN for non-resident aliens? That is even worse
than here... though somewhat like when getting a ticket in another
state, that state will invent a state drivers license number for you
(rather than using your DL# for your real license) without even asking
you to enter into that contract.

> I haven't started to be concerned
> about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and
> the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about
> technology and computers.  Even though most of my transactions are
> with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is
> impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my
> credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very
> hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with
> the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and
> getting reimbursed).

International data transfer is happening already through the tax
agencies. The intel agencies are piggybacking on these tax data
transfers.

> 
> >That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com).
> >Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it.
> 
> Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met
> someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all
> of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't
> know it still existed. This is interesting.

This is run by globally noted gold expert James Turk and his son Geoff
Turk. 

Anthony L Hargis & Company is something else which is under permanent
injunction against operating as a warehouse bank purporting to offer
its customers full protection against the IRS..

GoldMoney.com is based on the Isle of Jersey, and as part of the rump
Duchy of Normandy, Jersey is not subject to any MLATs with the US or
its allied banking countries. Jersey is independent from England,
depite its head of state being Queen Lizzie (who is only Duke of
Normandy when in Jersey). 

Hargis was based in the US in San Clemente, CA, US Federal Zone 92672
and was thus subject to seizure and thuggery without appeal to an
independent judiciary.

Hargis seems to have been more like NORFED, Bernard Von NotHaus'
"Liberty Dollar" silver warehouse, though NotHaus doesn't make any
attempts to avoid or pretend to avoid the IRS. If Hargis had based his
operation on, say, SeaLand, he might have gotten somewhere.

I cannot further discuss this issue publicly. Those who wish to learn
more about what I'm up to wrt this please email me privately. This has
nothing to do with legality, but with proprietary considerations. Those
interested in breaching the last barrier to entry for digital
metal-backed currency should email me.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May  5 19:26:20 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu,  5 May 2005 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art forms
Message-ID: <20050505192620.73C0657EE6@finney.org>

Jef Allbright forwards:
> primeradiant wrote:
> >     By 'serial' I meant, of course, 12-tone music, hence Schoenberg, 
> > Berg Webern, Stravinsky (middle period, e.g. /Abraham and Isaac/), the 
> > post-war Europeans including Boulez, Berio, Dallapiccola, Lutoslawski, 
> > Schaffer, Xenakis, earlier Stockhausen, the American School including 
> > of course Milton Babbitt, Wuorinen, Lewin etc.

I'm not familiar with this musical style.  From what I understand it
arranges the 12 musical notes in a particular order as the basis of the
musical composition.

But I will mention an interesting variant I ran into a few years ago on
a programming project.  It was for a computerized home exercise program;
we had an animated figure acting out the exercises and the voice of Jack
LaLanne shouting encouragement.  The musical composer was a creative guy
who loved to push the envelope on the music synthesis software we had
designed, and I interfaced with him to get his music into a form that
we could create using the primitive computer technology of the time
(early 1980s).

For one of the songs, he wanted to do something unusual with the
musical notes.  Instead of the conventional musical scale which has 12
notes, he wanted to use an 18 note scale.  This scale goes C, C sharp,
D flat, D, D sharp, E flat, E, E sharp/F flat, F, and so on.  Unlike in
the 12 note scale, C sharp and D flat are different; and there is an
extra note between E and F and between B and C.  This makes 18 equally
spaced notes.  Interestingly, this causes the frequencies of all of the
notes of the conventional scale (C, D, E...) to be about the same as in
the 12 note scale.

It was just as easy for us to synthesize these 18 notes as the regular
12 ones, so he wrote some music using the 18 note scale.  And it
sounded great!  Not quite like regular music, but not too far off either.
Just different enough that you could tell something unusual was going on,
but for an untrained musical ear it was hard to say what it was.

Hal


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu May  5 19:26:29 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505192629.89942.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> This is consistent with the concept of a conservative force.  The
> force
> results from a change in the potential energy of the system.  In a
> conventional parallel-plates Casimir force test, the ZPE is lower in
> the region between the plates, and so moving the plates together is
> energetically favorable.  This is what produces the force.

No it isn't.  Just because and end result is energetically favorable
does not automatically, in and of itself, cause it to happen.

Consider a boulder on top of a hill.  If its path is not blocked, it
will roll down the hill because that would be energetically favorable
to gravity.

Now consider a boulder a meter or so away from a cliff.  Its path is
otherwise not blocked, and it would be energetically favorable if the
boulder fell off the cliff.  And yet it refuses to jump sideways a
meter or so to allow that fall to happen.

Likewise here: to see what happens, you have to consider the vectors
of force, not merely the potentials.

> In fact, despite your attempt at geometric arrangement, the pressure
> on the outer ring will be entirely central (directed towards the
> center
> of the ring).  The same thing would happen if you considered the ZPE
> as
> gas pressure.  Imagine having high pressure gas outside the system
> and
> low pressure gas in the cavity (white region).  Despite the
> asymmetrical
> shape of the cavity, the pressure on the ring will be perpendicular
> to it.
> The gas pressure will not act to rotate the outer ring.

This analogy fails too.  Gas particles are more or less uniform in
size, and usually far smaller than any cavity or pressure vessel they
act upon.  However, the virtual particles that cause the Casimir effect
are of wavelengths that are significant fractions (or more) of the
width of the gap they act upon.  There are only so many ways the longer
wavelength ones can fit inside - and they all lean in the same
direction with respect to the perpendicular.

> I would not be afraid of some equations if you want to offer them.

That, I will admit, has been a problem.  Almost all of the analysis
I've seen of the Casimir effect has been on the parallel plate model;
there appears to be some disagreement on the magnitude of the effect in
different geometries (like the one I'm using).  So I'm not certain
that, even if it works, it would produce significant power.
(Microwatts per cubic centimeter, considering a vast array of these
devices, might be too low density to be of practical use.)  The proof
so far is just that there's torque at all in one direction, and not in
the other, ergo there's net torque in one direction.  (It's possible
that the torque would be less than what is needed to overcome friction,
which would also cause the device to not work.)

> I am also curious to know the qualifications of the academics who
> have
> endorsed your design, in broad terms - you don't have to name any
> names
> or embarrass anyone.

Ph.D.s in physics or quantum physics at various universities.  A few
who have studied the Casimir effect in particular (say, for using it to
store energy - a kind of nanoscale spring or capacitor).

As it happens, my next session in the lab to work on the device is
about to start, so I'll have to cut this email off here.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May  5 19:29:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050505192956.48247.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:28 AM 5/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> 
> >I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus":
> >"Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian".
> 
> Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff
> who self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own
> nails. :)

True, but the point still stands: individual liberty erodes because
serfs, once liberated, generally never learn to be sovereign, they
retain serf mindsets, pass that on to their kin, and generally are more
comfortable in the security that government provides than the liberty
that being a free sovereign demands.

Much like the lack of private charity that occurs in socialist
countries vs the vast amount in free countries, serfs automatically
assume that sovereigns are haughty and self-rigteous with each other
because serfs are treated thusly, but the reverse is true: a sovereign
knows that other sovereigns have ultima ratio regum, and thus
politeness, cordiality, and eagerness to do each other service is the
standard of behavior between sovereign equals.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May  5 21:50:03 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 23:50:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050505215003.GS14219@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:32:35AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> (And then there's the nanostructuring on top of that, which is
> apparently more needed than I thought.  Maybe they're thinking there's
> a good chance I'll take the skills I use on this project and develop
> molecular manufacturing or something. *shrugs*)

So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're done
with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done.

Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS? You'd have
to do wet chemistry for that, though, too.  

Right now I'm still betting on bucky, especially given indium electromigration
pump/oscillator and scaled down direct writing (monomer/organic electronics; via dip-pen
lithography).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050505/2b8e75c9/attachment.bin>

From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it  Thu May  5 19:57:04 2005
From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:57:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art 
Message-ID: <20050505195418.M77188@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>

Hal Finney:
>For one of the songs, he wanted to do something unusual
>with the musical notes.  Instead of the conventional
>musical scale which has 12 notes, he wanted to use an 18
>note scale.  This scale goes C, C sharp, D flat, D, D
>sharp, E flat, E, E sharp/F flat, F, and so on.  Unlike
>in the 12 note scale, C sharp and D flat are different;
>and there is an extra note between E and F and between B
>and C.  This makes 18 equally spaced notes. 
>Interestingly, this causes the frequencies of all of the
>notes of the conventional scale (C, D, E...) to be about
>the same as in the 12 note scale.

He might enjoy a tuning in one of the maqamat scales:

http://www.amara.com/thousand/Onethousandandone.html#maqam

There are dozens (suiting one's mood), and impossible to
memorize them all, and so the musicians usually play in 
a few of them.

Is anyone here familiar with Uzbek music? I met someone
in my travels two weeks ago who enjoys Middle Eastern
music as much as I do. He said that his favorite Middle
East music is Uzbek, so I'm trying to imagine what that
might sound like, nor do I know who are the best musicians.

so much music.. so little time.. :-)

Amara




From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu May  5 20:03:32 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:03:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <427A7C14.7030608@jefallbright.net>

Jeff Medina wrote:

>I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as
>a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but
>fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy.
>
>  
>
<snip>

>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
>think EP is crap?
>  
>
Jeff -

I think a large part of this results from a movement that gathered 
momentum in the humanities departments of many universities during the 
middle decades of the last century in large part as a reaction to acts 
committed in the early twentieth century and justified in the name of 
science, e.g. eugenics, the holocaust.  They strongly bought into the 
premise that the human mind is a "blank slate" and all significant 
behavioral characteristics are learned from the social environment.  
This is overly simplified, of course, but the timing and societal 
background were conducive to this kind of thinking with the rise of 
science and industry and the effects of two world wars quite fresh in 
the popular mind. Developments in anthropology such as Margaret Mead's 
_Coming of Age in Samoa_, although methodologically flawed, also played 
to the idea of a "noble savage" untainted by modern culture, and much 
later, the hippie movement and the Vietnam war deepened these roots 
within academia.

It has only been during the last 10 to 15 years, I estimate, that 
developments in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are now 
making an impact with their explanatory power, with the accompanying 
backlash from those who based their entire academic reputation on those 
strongly felt and righteous beliefs.

- Jef



From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Thu May  5 20:40:42 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:40:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral objectivism: answers to
	objections
Message-ID: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com>

Jeff Medina offers a counter to certain of my assertions, which, I think, in all
fairness, I should answer to the degree that my poor powers allow. 

Let me respond seriatim:

Q: Given that others consider your 'axiom' is not absolute or objective, what then? 

A: My question is whether or not these others have serious as opposed to
frivolous reasons for rejecting the axiom as objective. 

The axiom in question is that moral standards are uniform. There are several
ways of phrasing this axiom: ?Do As You Would Be Done By? is merely one way of
phrasing it. The several other ways of phrasing it you yourself list later in
your letter, quoting Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Vayasa, and so on. Even Peter
Singer (whom you mention later) adheres to axiom, for he reasons that pain is
evil, and that no one enjoys or should enjoy pain, therefore no one should
inflict pain.  

An axiom is the beginning point of deduction, not the conclusion. Those who do
not or will not make any statement of right or wrong, ought or ought not, need
not provide the axiomatic base for those statements; but, by that same logic,
they cannot make any normative statement. 

I submit that this axiom of uniformity is one which is (if only tacitly) is
accepted by all men. You can see it in their behavior even when you do not hear
it in their speech. 

Now, I do not claim that there are folk who can deny, with their lips, this
axiom or its equivalent. Men can deny anything they wish, whether they are
serious or not, merely by stringing meaningless words in a row. But such a row
of words cannot serve as a system of moral law. 

My point here is that one cannot erect a rational account of morality without
adopting such an axiom.  

Axioms are accepted or reject based on induction rather than deduction. In order
to convince you that this axiom is correct, my task is to point to a number of
cases which you accept, and to urge you to see the property they all have in
common: the general rule. There are two specific cases given by you in this
letter where you rely on this axiom without acknowledging it. 

The first case it this: in writing this letter, you seem to be assuming that I
ought to behave in a certain way in responding, that is to say, honestly and
honorably, treating your arguments with respect. 

Indeed, in your closing paragraph in the letter you ask just that of me. You
insult me and ask that I forgive your insult and instead address your questions
on their merits. 

Why should I honor your wishes? Is there a moral standard that should govern my
behavior, even in so simple a thing as writing a letter? If there is a moral
standard, are we both bound by it, you and I, or is it just me? 

If you say one moral standard embraces the both of us, you accept the axiom of
uniformity. 

Once Mr. Prisco has announced his disinterest in moral reasoning, he may retire
from the debate. But after that point, he cannot, without self-contradiction,
say that anyone else ?should? or ?ought? to do likewise; nor can he warn us of
the bad consequences should we not, because such statements would themselves be
species of moral reasoning, that is, normative statements rather than statements
of mere empirical fact. 

Q: Giulio was quite right, and your failure to provide a justification in terms
of -absolute or objective- morality is further evidence of his point. 

A: I notice that the justification I give in my first letter (explaining that
this axiom of uniformity is universal, in that moral reasoning is not possible
without it) is neither quoted nor addressed. 

Q: Demanding that your personal moral beliefs be acknowledged as absolute does
not make them so, John.

A: Beg pardon? Where have I made any such demand? My argument was that if you
accept the axiom ?do as you?d be done by? the conclusion ?don?t push grandma
under the bus? follows from the premise ?I?d rather not be pushed under a bus
when I get old.? The two possibilities here are: take the axiom or do not. 

Mr. Prisco does not. He stated that such moral reasoning was impossible (and
uninteresting). I suppose he is correct, sort of. If you reject the axiom of
moral reasoning, moral reasoning is in fact impossible. This is exactly what a
moral relativist does: he throws away the key and complains that the door is
locked.  

Had he said this and no more, I would not have controverted him. My objection to
him was that he embraced a contradiction, by saying we none of us ?ought to?
have moral convictions, because convictions lead to atrocity, and atrocity is
morally wrong. (His argument is overbroad: all need say is that, as a moral
principle, men should not resort to violence when reasonable arbitration on an
issue is possible.) 

Let me make this clear: your objection is that my argument rests on an axiom.
Any deductive proof rests on its axioms. No axiom justifies itself. Therefore my
argument, if the axiom be not granted, is not justified. 

Well, if your objection were valid, it would apply not merely to my specific
case of moral reason, but to all reasoning whatsoever, including, by the way,
the argument you use here in your rebuttal. 

I should also like you to lend some weight or present some evidence that ?Do As
You?d Be Done By? is merely a ?personal moral belief.? I also happen to believe
that the theory of relativity is a better description of the behavior of the
physical universe than the Newtonian: does this mean I have a ?Personal Physics
Belief??

Q: Thanks for letting us know you don't have a clue concerning the reasoning of
modern intellectuals and socialists. It helps to see the context of your other
statements.

A: Since about the 1830?s intellectuals, particularly in Germany and France,
have been enamored of notions of Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and other specific
cases of sacrificing individual rights and freedoms in return for a general
social good: one might call this the scientifically organized society.
?Scientific Socialism? was and is popular among intellectuals of the continent,
and it follows the same type of reasoning as the Spartan on matters of how to
organize society. 

Socialism is the correct term for any number of theories that would abrogate the
right to private property and turn the means of production over to the state. 

You may take that or leave this comment as you will: it is entirely possible
that you are familiar with the intellectual history of the West, and merely do
not see the connection I see between ancient Sparta and its modern epigones. The
point is hardly central to the discussion. 

An "intellectual" is generally the term I?d like to use for people who reason
from theory rather than practical experience. It simply happens to be the case
that impractical theories, but which have a specious self-consistency (such as
socialism) hold out particular temptations to men who reason from theory alone;
a temptation to which men of practical experience are less prone. 

Q: (quoting me) These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a
species of utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only
insofar as they can serve as means to our ends.  (responding) Bentham, arguably
the founder of utilitarianism, proposed his theory out of consideration for the
interests of all beings capable of suffering?. This sort of consideration is the
bedrock of utilitarianism (and more broadly, of consequentialism, of which
utilitarian theories form but a subset), and it has not the cold flavor you
attribute it.

A: This is tangential to our topic: I will answer nonetheless. 

My reading of John Stewart Mill left me with a different impression. I was
careful to say that the Spartan reasoning given above was a ?species? of
utilitarianism. I did not say, as you attribute to me, that Bentham would push
an old lady under a bus because she was past child-bearing years. However, the
sacrifice of the individual to service the good of the community is an
utilitarian idea. Mr. Prisco was giving an exaggerated or heartless example of
such reasoning. 

Mr. Prisco?s example simply was not a case of a man choosing to help a smaller
as opposed to a greater number of old ladies across the street. His example
(which he correctly rejected as ?bullshit?) was that the type of reasoning where
little old ladies are sacrificed to the greater good in the name of social or
evolutionary necessity. Whether you chose the term ?utilitarian? or
?consequentialist? to describe the heartless type of reasoning used where the
ends justify the means is of no matter to Mr. Prisco?s argument, nor mine. 

Q: Another classic source on utilitarianism, if you care to understand that
which you denigrate at least at a basic level, is Singer's Practical Ethics,
which you comment on later in your message (calling him an infanticide advocate,
which he clearly isn't, if you read his work rather than the nutjob religionists
who've slandered him in the press). You needn't go further than the first
chapter to find Singer declare that ethics demands equal consideration of the
interests of others -- they are explicitly not means to our own ends. 

A: This is irreverent to the topic. Also, I did not call Singer a Utilitarian,
you did. He is a Epicurian, for he holds pleasure to be the ground of ethics. He
is also (by the way) a moral objectivist: he believes that reason uncovers
truths, not opinions, about how men ought behave. 

Despite that this is a side-issue, let me pause to assure you that I have read
Singer?s Practical Ethics. He advocates that it is morally acceptable to kill a
child under the age of three or so if it would serve the greater happiness of
his parents, and if the killing is done swiftly and mercifully. I read it. I saw
the words with my eye. 

I would hesitate to call any book a ?classic? that has not stood the test of
time. Mr. Singer?s book is a little young and green for that, thank you. 

Q: Another smidgen of information on Singer's heart being in the wrong place; he
donates a minimum of 20% of his earnings to charities each year. How much do you
help the less fortunate each year, John?

A: This is irrelevant as well as being ad Hominem. 

However, I owe you an explanation. I am a Christian. My master has ordered me in
no uncertain terms not boast about my charitable giving. ?Do not let the right
hand know what the left is doing? and all that. So I am prohibited by my
personal moral beliefs from answering the question, lest I be numbered among the
Pharisees who pray and do good works in public. 

Rest assured, however, that I am sincerely delighted Mr. Singer gives away so
much to the poor. It is a good deed, whether or not he advocates cruel practices
in other areas. 

But I do not see how the one excuses the other. 

Despite his charity to the poor, Mr. Singer is still a perfect antitype to Mr.
Prisco. Mr. Singer certainly does not have a sentimental attachment to kindness
of the type Mr. Prisco describes. 

Notice, for example, that Mr. Singer proposes abolishing domestication of cows
on purely theoretical grounds, not because he has pets or feels sympathy for the
Little Fuzzy Critters. He boasts of this lack of sympathy in his book; and
specifically identifies his reasons as being theoretical. A typical
intellectual, he ignores the practical outcome: animal populations would fall,
not rise, were they not domesticated. Human populations in poor countries would
also fall due to starvation if farmers released all their livestock. 

( I must mention that Mr. Singer does not give away as much as he SAYS people
should give away. He says we should all give away so much that only our basic
means of subsistence is left.) 

Q: (Quoting) Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means. Term One: Pushing the
old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating her as a means, not as
an end. Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus.
(Responding): We can keep your axiom and reverse the conclusion, exposing the
axiom for the confusion it is.

(Premise 1) Treat others as ends, never as means. (Premise 2) Allowing various
members of society to suffer and die [ which I take to be a plausible result of
not doing that which serves the social good, but other examples of social harms
would suffice] to serve the good of the old lady is treating all of those
members as means to an end. (Conclusion) I should not let those people suffer
and die.

A: Sorry, but your second premise is simply false. No one who helps an old lady
across the street does so *for the purpose of* inflicting a harm on the social
fabric by encouraging overpopulation. 

While I do not agree with Kant on most things, I think he has correctly
identified a fundamental axiom of moral reasoning here, what he calls, in
technical terms, a category: do not use men as means to your ends. 

Q: (quoting) A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed standard,
that is, the same for all men. (Responding) Just men, eh? What a fine moral
outlook you have indeed. Please, speak on, fellow manly man! You're living in
the wrong century for that sort of language, John. 

A: Thank you, and you may call me Mr. Wright. The century you claim as your own
is a nice place to visit, but I would not care to stay. The native life is
quaint and colorful, but your speech taboos of your local tribal idols confound
me, and you are not as tolerant and civil as my century. 
 
The language of my century, the current century, is called English: a language
both courteous and bold, precise and flexible, fair to the ear and fit for the
tongue of free men. You cannot make a similar claim for the cant of political
correctness, which is famed only for being craven, weaselish, gaseous,
stereotyped, awkward, slavish. 

Your jargon is certainly not a hundred years old. 

Q: "... a fixed standard,that is, the same for all people." would be rather more
appropriate. Or should we move in the other direction, and specify not just men,
but straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men? 

A: I am the only one who finds this little diatribe slightly astonishing? 

I assume Mr. Medina cannot seriously be setting himself up to correct my
manners, or improve my English. The crow will teach the nightingale to sing? 

I think not. His purpose is condemnation. In the midst of an argument defending
moral nihilism, Mr. Medina interrupts to condemn a violation of the latest
fashion in speech-codes as an absolute moral prohibition, zealously upheld.

Mr. Medina, tell me, when you say something is ?appropriate? what exactly do you
mean? Do you mean that there is a standard to which I should adhere? Is it a
standard that is the same for you and me, or, in other words, a uniform
standard? If it binds me and not you, why should I be loyal to this standard? 

This is the second example in your letter of your loyalty to an axiom of
morality which you deny with your lips and show in your acts.  

Q: I'm quite glad that you recognize the argument fails on rejection of the axiom. 

A: This same holds true for all argumentation of the deductive type. 

Q: It's a pity you don't take the next step in recognizing that you haven't
provided any objective or absolute reasons for us to agree with your version of
axiomatic morality.

A: Except that they must be self-evident, otherwise you yourself would not be
calling upon such axioms in writing this letter to me, or when you ask me to
conform my speech to your speech-code. You are assuming that moral standards are
uniform between us: otherwise you would not bother writing as you have written. 

Q: (quoting) He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is
good merely because he wants to do it. (responding) You're oversimplifying
unacceptably. Your statement implies Giulio would call theft good if he wanted
to do it?.

A: No. I said that Mr. Prisco himself says his adoption of the value ?be kind?
is arbitrary. This is not a simplification, and the deduction that follows from
it is self-explanatory. 

Q: Giulio can correct me if I'm wrong and he actually does fit your caricature.
But it remains that none of what he said requires the straw-man you've
constructed to be accurate. 

A: You may re-read his letter to satisfy yourself as to what he said and what my
deduction about the comment was. His stance is that ?be kind? is a personal
preference which he has no interest in debating. If I have misunderstood Mr.
Prisco?s comment, I welcome correction. 

Q: (quoting) But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea
arise, absent in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred?
(responding) So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant
of pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do unto
others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old Testament Judaism and
then spread out to other religious and secular mindsets? Wrong, John. (quotes
several sources, etc.) 

A: The comment is irrelevant. I said that the value of holding individual human
life sacred was absent from ancient pagan cultures. You respond by saying that
the axiom of moral uniformity, ?Do Unto Others? is universal. This value is not
the same as this axiom. 

I will accept your testimony on this point that Confucius, Menciusm, Vyasa,
Tathagatha, and Lao Tsu all agree with me that the basic axiom of morality, the
Golden Rule, is self-evident.  

I am a little surprised, but very pleased, you call all these esteemed
authorities to the witness stand on my behalf. I would not normally propose an
argument from authority, but since you have proposed it, I cannot help but note
that all the authorities on this point agree overwhelmingly with me. Not one of
them proposes moral subjectivism. 

You are so eager to denigrate Christianity that you fail to note that this
passage in your letters supports and affirms my main point of our debate. Your
list will serve as evidence that the axiom is accepted by men of all eras and
all lands. 

Now, show me where these same authorities agree that individual human life is
sacred. Most of these great ancient thinkers, including others you have not
mentioned, agree with Ananias that it is batter that one man should die for his
people than that the whole nation should perish. As far as I know, the Christian
and Mohammedan uniquely disagree with this sentiment, and say that to murder an
innocent man is as grave a sin as to kill a world.  

Q: (given the example of German and Russian socialism) neither of these two
positions are examples of moral relativism. Proponents in either case could
consistently hold the views you attribute to them *and* also that their moral
views are absolutely and objectively true.

A: As far as I can tell, your statement is merely false to facts. Both the
German and Russian socialist writers were polylogists, and explicitly said so. I
cannot refute it any more than I can refute a man who says that noon is night.
Readers may read the original sources and come to their own conclusions. 

Q: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism for definition

A: Here is the quote to which this link leads: ?Moral relativism is the position
that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only
holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal
preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an
ethical proposition's truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable
only within certain cultural boundaries.? 

I don?t see what point you are making.   

1.	Mr. Priscio did not use this definition. He did not say he prefers to help
old ladies across the street because and only because his culture favored that
value. He said he did it because he chose to do it, and he said that there was
no point in discussing the whys and wherefores thereof. 

2.	Even granting this definition, my comment still stands: The National
Socialists said that their logic and their morals, as Aryans, differed from the
logic and morals of the Jews, a culture (folkway) alien to theirs. The Marxists
said that logic and morals (and economics) were an ideological superstructure
produced by the material effect of the means of production on the minds of the
various classes in the economy, so that, proletarian logic and morals differed
from the logic and morals of entrepreneurs and landowners. In both cases, the
existence of absolute or universal moral truths was denied. 

3.	This definition, if accepted, would allow persons within the same culture to
assess the morality of each other?s acts, and such assessment would be valid.
Mr. Prisco?s formulation (which I identified as more radical than mere cultural
relativism) is, however, individual. He said he does what he sees as right
because it suits his taste: he embraces the value called kindness because such
is his choice, and for no other reason. 

Q:  See  http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/whats_wrong_wit.html
for some clarificational remarks made by someone trained in moral philosophy at
one of the best programs in the world.

A: Sorry, as best I can tell from following this link, these comments were
written by a character in a Douglas Adam?s book. Only he is not as funny as Adams.

Mr. Medina, if you object to the use of the term ?Moral Relativism? to describe
Mr. Prisco?s position, you will have to take that up with him, not me. My
objections are the same no matter what label you affix to this philosophy. It is
the properties of the philosophy, not of the label, that concern me.  

Q: The Nazis believed in their absolute superiority; they didn't acknowledge or
respect the distinct moral views of other cultures.

A: Acknowledge, yes; respect, no. The Nazi belief was that a ?Will to Power?
formed the basis of morality, and that Christianity was weak and foolish. Their
basic argument was the same as Thrasymacus: that ?justice? was the will of the
weak overcoming by trick the will of the strong. Now then, anyone who says
morality is a matter of individual (or racial) will-power is not saying that the
moral rules are objective and standard for all men. 

You introduce a novel concept here into the discussion. Erenow, you and I were
using the phrase ?moral relativism? to refer to the doctrine that moral
standards were not objective. Now you add the concept that ?moral relativism?
refers to the doctrine that the moral standards of other cultures are worthy of
respect. This is not quite the same thing. 

A pagan of the Nordic humor might disagree with my Christian conceits on many
topics, and might want to burn my churches, but he hopes for Valhalla as I hope
for heaven. My respect for such a ferocious and hardy philosophy is great. He
and I both believe God hung on a tree, a sacrifice of himself to himself. I
would much rather have the stalwart Viking at my back in a foxhole than a modern
intellectual, who might run away if he decides that "courage" is not a value he
choses to accept that day or hour or minute. I know at least that the honest
Asatru will die with his weapon in his hand. So just take my word for it: I have
great respect for men of other cultures. But I am in no wise a moral relativist. 

This respect for alien cultures is also not conspicuously displayed in your
writing to me. I am from the culture of Christendom, English-speaking Western
European tradition. I do not know where you are from, but if you are not from
Christendom, your rules forbid you to condemn my speech or actions. 

Q: (quoting)  The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was
the world-wide abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it
absolutely the case that God hated the institution of slavery. (responding)
Except for the Scripture that speaks in favor of slavery, eh? (several quotes
follow from antiabolitionists who held that Slavery was an institution favored
by God). 

A: Irreverent. I did not write that the Anti-abolitionists were not Christians.
What I wrote was that the Abolitionists were moral absolutists. They believed
that they were the defenders of an absolute moral imperative, that it was wrong
for man to enslave man. 

This was in response to Mr. Priscio?s comment that people believing themselves
to be the defenders of an absolute truth *always *(emphasis his) leads to
mass-murder. I was giving an example of a group who, without question, were not
moral relativists, and who, without question, did a great moral good (perhaps
the greatest in history) rather than commit an atrocity. 

In your eagerness to mock Christianity, you missed the point of the comment. 

Q: (quoting) Likewise, the great blooming of human liberty across the globe, the
end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who wrote a document that begins: "We
Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident."  (responding) Men like... the
non-Christian Thomas Jefferson?

A: Same again. Jefferson was not a moral relativist. He was a man who swore on
the Altar of Almighty God eternal enmity to ever form of tyranny over the minds
of men: this is not the language of men who lack conviction. He defended what he
took to be an absolute truth. 

Refer to Tom Paine?s AGE OF REASON. The Deists were men of religion, but who
relied on an argument from design to worship only so much of God as could be
understood through natural reason, rejecting revelation and an instrument of
priest-craft. A Deist is not an agnostic nor an atheist (thought Paine was
falsely so called); and, more to the point, not a moral relativist. 

Q: Or John Adams.

A: Same again. Adams was not a moral relativist. 

Q: Or James Madison.

A: Same again. Madison was not a moral relativist. (And the context of this
statement sounds like a rejection of Roman Catholic Clergy: In other words, that
he was a Protestant, not an Agnostic.)

Q: Yeah, they may have been moral objectivists. They needn't have been, though. 

A: (spitting coffee down his shirt front) cough, cough. Gasp. Um. Well, I
suppose they could have been Eskimos too, if they had been living in the Arctic. 

Look, Mr. Medina, I don't mind you being rude to me, but I do mind you being
silly. The Founding Fathers signed a document saying that it was a SELF-EVIDENT
TRUTH that all men are created equal. They are exemplars of the Enlightenment,
men of Reason first and foremost. You seriously misjudge the tenor and mood of
their day and age if you can imagine that any of them would have heeded an
argument saying that human reason was insufficient to distinguish good from bad,
right from wrong, proper from improper. That was the whole point of the
Enlightenment. To argue that they, these arch-rationalists of the age of reason,
would accept this modern post-rational, post-moral, post-modern, post-Christian
nihilism and intellectual defeatism is preposterous. 

Q: You can be a moral subjectivist and still assert what you think should be the
foundations of a good nation. 

A: No. A moral relativist can only state that his personal tastes prefer one to
the other. He cannot have a notion of a ?good? (morally good) nation. He perhaps
can say that a certain law would be efficient for some certain purpose and not
for others; or he can say an institution conforms or does not conform to ancient
and established practices. He can report his own personal preferences in the
matter. But he cannot say that one institution is ?better? or ?worse? than
another, because such statements presuppose a normative standard against which
the judgment is made.

Men do not vow their lives, fortune and sacred honor on the position that ?you
have your opinion and I have mine.? Men only make such vows when (1) they
believe vows carry moral weight and (2) they believe they have honor and (3)
their honor is sacred.  These three propositions are logically incompatible with
moral relativism. 

Q: You can agree with your contemporaries on various moral matters without
declaring said morality a universal truth .

A: Agree with your contemporaries----on what grounds? 

Q: If any of what you said were true, I'd be just as up-in-arms about it. But it
isn't. So, just as you hope to be pardoned for your tone, I hope you'll pardon
me as well and engage the ideas (however impolitely I've presented them) rather
than dismiss them because of my umbrage at what I see as misguided piety,
ignorance, and fundamentalist propaganda.

A: I forgive you, Mr. Medina. 




From hal at finney.org  Thu May  5 22:29:13 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu,  5 May 2005 15:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050505222913.1500C57EE7@finney.org>

Adrian Tymes writes:
> Consider a boulder on top of a hill.  If its path is not blocked, it
> will roll down the hill because that would be energetically favorable
> to gravity.
>
> Now consider a boulder a meter or so away from a cliff.  Its path is
> otherwise not blocked, and it would be energetically favorable if the
> boulder fell off the cliff.  And yet it refuses to jump sideways a
> meter or so to allow that fall to happen.

The actual equation is force F is proportional to dE/dx, where E is
potential energy and x is a positional parameter.  In the case of the
boulder near the cliff, x could measure the distance along a path from
the boulder, to the cliff's edge, and then down to the ground.

Potential energy E is constant along that portion of the path where we
are approaching the cliff's edge.  Then as we turn and move down the path
to the ground, E decreases steadily.  This translates to dE/dx being
zero until we reach the edge of the cliff, then a constant downward.
That means there is no force along the portion of the path leading to
the cliff, and a net downwards force once we go over the edge, exactly
as observed.

In the case of your system, the positional parameter is the rotational
position of the outer ring.  But the ring is perfectly circularly
symmetric, so rotating the ring will not change the potential energy
E of the system.  That means that E is a constant, so dE/dx is zero,
so the force is zero.  Therefore there is no rotational force on the ring.

Hal


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri May  6 00:26:44 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 20:26:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.
	UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
In-Reply-To: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 12:43 PM 05/05/05 -0400,  John K Clark wrote:
>"Marc Geddes" <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz>

snip

>Let's briefly review your reasoning chain:
>
>Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from minds, "meaning" has a
>meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance" has a meaning and it
>comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes from minds, "evil" has a
>meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you conclude ethics is objective.
>Huh?

Let's consider this.  Mind is what brain's do.  Brains are the product of 
evolution.  Evolution is rooted in objective reality.  So eventually mind 
concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are dependent on objective 
reality.

There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes* as to what 
minds--running on brains constructed by evolution--think is good, evil, 
moral and ethical.

We tend to think and to do things that improve our inclusive fitness, or 
more correctly, we do thing in the modern world that had we done analogous 
things in the world in which we evolved would have increased our inclusive 
fitness.

This includes a lot of things that don't improve our inclusive fitness much 
if at all in the modern world.

Like posting on mailing lists.  :-)

Keith Henson



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri May  6 00:52:04 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 20:52:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In
	defense of moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505203105.0350d280@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 08:44 PM 05/05/05 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0  wrote:
>I am making a moral judgement indeed, and one in which I believe quite
>strongly, but I am not claiming any objective status for it.
>Of course I appreciate that this moral judgement is a product of my
>life-history including the culture I was raised in, but so what? - I
>am still willing to defend it.

It is even more a statement of the evolutionary history of your genes.

>Now if by "objective morality" we mean a shorthand for something like
>"the ensemble of moral statements on which the vast majority of sane
>individuals raised in civilized societies would probably agree", I can
>use the term without problems (even if we would have to define much
>more precisely the terms "sane" and "civilized").
>But please let's not mix morality with (meta)physics. Morality has
>just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
>logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
>fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.

If you think biology/evolution is part of the whole objective universe, 
then willy nilly so are the products of minds running on brains constructed 
by evolution.

>Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt
>Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally
>different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to
>mix them.
>G.

They are not as different as you might think.

For one thing, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was understood to mean don't kill the 
people in your village who you are either related to or engaging in 
reciprocal acts with.  The same bible describes in detail killing all of 
some other set of tribes including the children (except they virgin girls).

Book of Numbers, from The holy Bible, King James version Chapter 31
7: They warred against Mid'ian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every 
male.
8: They slew the kings of Mid'ian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, 
Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Mid'ian; and they also slew Balaam 
the son of Be'or with the sword.
9: And the people of Israel took captive the women of Mid'ian and their 
little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all 
their goods.
10: All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their 
encampments, they burned with fire,
11: and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast.
12: Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, 
and to Elea'zar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of 
Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
13: Moses, and Elea'zar the priest, and all the leaders of the 
congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp.
14: And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of 
thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
15: Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
16: Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to 
act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the 
plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
17: Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every 
woman who has known man by lying with him.
18: But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep 
alive for yourselves.

Both "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "kill every male among the little ones, and 
kill every woman who has known man by lying with him" are consistent with 
the interest of genes.

Our extending "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to those outside our little tribe is a 
side effect of a long time of plenty caused by technology advancing the 
economy, particularly the food supply, faster than population growth--or so 
I think.

If you find this analysis depressing, you are not alone.

Keith Henson




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 01:01:31 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're
> done
> with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done.

If only things were that easy.  ^_^;

> Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS?
> You'd have
> to do wet chemistry for that, though, too.  

Define "functionalizing".  I'm just aiming for a discrete unit,
interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near) constant
voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by
traditional top-down approaches.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 01:20:37 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506012037.15150.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> In the case of your system, the positional parameter is the
> rotational
> position of the outer ring.  But the ring is perfectly circularly
> symmetric, so rotating the ring will not change the potential energy
> E of the system.  That means that E is a constant, so dE/dx is zero,
> so the force is zero.  Therefore there is no rotational force on the
> ring.

Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and discontinuities
are impossible in most systems.  But they seem to exist here, and
that's the point of the system.

Break it down: over the parts of the system where the ring is exposed
to the post, E varies from one end of the part to the other (and in the
same direction with respect to rotation, i.e. always clockwise or
always counterclockwise depending on how you count it); over the parts
where the ring is not exposed, E is constant.  There are no other parts
of the system as far as the ring is concerned.  E jumps significantly
(the discontinuity) when transitioning from one part of the system to
another.

I'm aware that I may have overlooked some specific point on the system
which will provide negative torque to the ring.  Rejecting whole-system
analyses and focussing just on part of a system that produces energy is
a classic failure mode for other would-be perpetual motion arguments.
But I've checked for those, and I don't see any.

It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether the
Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is a
source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like radiation
from the Sun.  (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of
systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source but
can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at noon
since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.)  Previous
efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current
understanding of its nature indicates the latter.


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri May  6 01:19:49 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 21:19:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505205526.03515020@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 03:10 PM 05/05/05 -0400, you wrote:
>I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as
>a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but
>fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy.
>
>A review of a new book arguing against EP is here:
>http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf
>
>Anti-EPers are saying this is more solid evidence that EP is junk.
>
>I've read the review, and all I can see it arguing against are
>*specific* claims made in the context of EP and some data... based on
>new data or a more sound approach to data gathering. Claims like an EP
>explanation of stepfathers beating their stepchildren more frequently
>than biological fathers beating their children.
>
>If I do some crap data-gathering while trying to deduce physical laws,
>that only allows a rebuttal of a particular data-based claim (say, if
>I alleged c = 3.14m/s based on crappy data analysis); it doesn't
>warrant calling Physics junk science.
>
>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
>think EP is crap?

You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty 
much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the 
beginning of time for their fields.  EP does integrate psychology and 
related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where 
currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings.

The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between 
chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual 
discontinuity.  Tooby and Cosmides go into detail.  You can read it here:

http://www.tyronepow.com/misc/TheAdaptedMind.htm

I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced 
theories in geology.

But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors 
dying off to do it.

Keith Henson




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 04:08:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506040855.8393.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote: 
> Our extending "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to those outside our little tribe
> is a side effect of a long time of plenty caused by technology
> advancing the economy, particularly the food supply, faster than
> population growth--or so I think.

Except the original Hebrew said "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Hebrew law
recognised several classes of homocide, only one of which was
prohibited by the Commandment described above.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri May  6 04:15:03 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:15:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral objectivism: answers to
	objections
In-Reply-To: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0505052115748f47e2@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/5/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
(much eloquently phrased wisdom, of which I quote just one paragraph)

> A pagan of the Nordic humor might disagree with my Christian conceits on many
> topics, and might want to burn my churches, but he hopes for Valhalla as I hope
> for heaven. My respect for such a ferocious and hardy philosophy is great. He
> and I both believe God hung on a tree, a sacrifice of himself to himself. I
> would much rather have the stalwart Viking at my back in a foxhole than a modern
> intellectual, who might run away if he decides that "courage" is not a value he
> choses to accept that day or hour or minute. I know at least that the honest
> Asatru will die with his weapon in his hand. So just take my word for it: I have
> great respect for men of other cultures. But I am in no wise a moral relativist.

Well put, sir!

- Russell
(An agnostic but not a moral relativist.)


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri May  6 04:22:56 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:22:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
In-Reply-To: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505060422.j464MpR05180@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
> 
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >... since when did you become a prole? I would consider you
...
> >
> > Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's
> > circumstances are kind to one, as they have been
> > to me.
> 
> ... For both liberty and equality to exist, every person must be a king,
not a
> prole. Reclaim your individual sovereignty, hold it tightly, greedily.
> Do not lightly lend it out to bureaucrat or contractor.


I hear ya, but actually I am quite proud to be a 
prole.  Animals and proles are free, according to
one of my favorite authors.  I use the term loosely:
a prole is anyone who must work for a living.

Nowthen, Mike, you are one who surely has read
Orwell, so you know that proles are those who
are outside the government's inner and outer
circles.  So you and I fit that definition, as
well as probably everyone reading this.  A prole
is not a slave, but the non-proles were slaves
in a sense.

> At least one US census I stated I was a native American. Speaking of
> which, I've been hearing more about this Pembina Band of N-A indians
> that Prof. Ward Churchill was a 'member' of...

Ah yes, the infamous Ward Churchill.  He is so
outrageous he must be part of some vast right-wing
conspiracy, perhaps cooked up by Carl Rove.  Churchill
established himself as an extreme left wing
demigod, then became so obnoxious as to discredit
everything he espoused.  By equating the *victims*
of the 9-11 attacks with Nazis, he caused the left
wing to flee in all directions, in complete disarray
and panic.

Could the Rovester have invented a more perfect
trojan horse?

> > ... public restrooms
> > have always had individual stalls that have a
> > sort of a lock on the door.  There is plenty of
> > room aboard every train I ever see for individual
> > stalls.
> 
> But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other
> passenger...

The subway people *really* must deal with the thug
issue.  Especially as the world population ages
and grows ever less confident in its collective ability 
to effectively fight off attackers, those individual
lockable compartments on trains would sell like
hotcakes.  They could charge four times as much
per seat, and it would be a bargain.

Think of the appeal of having an hour's ride in
completely relaxed solitude.  A compartment could
have a reclining chair, a LazyBoy or equivalent,
so one could sleep, listen to tunes or read.  The 
trains could also offer several compartments big enough 
for two, so that young couples could have some privacy 
to get to know each other, perhaps some friendly 
copulation.  Twelve step programs or special
interest groups could form and meet in private
compartments made for such things.  Then they too
could copulate.  The Love Train!


> Subways, however, tend to be far more packed during
> rush-hour, at least in cities like NY and Boston.
> 
> Mike Lorrey


Well right, but that is because there aren't nearly
enough of them.  You have seen the way the rides go
at Disneyland.  My notion is that trains could be
arranged similarly, so that a train leaves for some
remote suburb every few minutes, constantly.  Market
forces could sustain all of this with no government
subsidies, if trains and subways were made to appeal
to the proletarian masses by providing security and 
privacy.

spike








From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Fri May  6 05:37:30 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:37:30 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
Message-ID: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>There is a problem here. The indeterminate fate of
>the universe cannot be simply analyzed. That is to
>say no sentient mind below godlike intelligence
>could predict what impact its actions would have on
>the survival time of the universe as a whole even
>empirically.

Not true!  For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point
theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being
physically indeterminate, but it was still the case
that sentients could predict the effects of their
actions on the universe.  Tipler showed how sentients
could co-ordinate their actions to increase the
probability of the continued existence of the universe
(in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an
infinite number of computations prior to the end of
'real time').


>No. You could state it as "do not destroy the
>universe" but stating it the way you do, leads to
>conflicts with deduction (4). For example an AI might
>decide that all those sentient minds running around
>are dumping too much entropy into the universe and
>hastening its demise.

There is something problematic about the argument here
yes.  





---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Fri May  6 05:48:24 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:48:24 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.
	UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
Message-ID: <20050506054824.13679.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>Let's briefly review your reasoning chain:
>
>Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from
>minds, "meaning" has a
>meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance"
>has a meaning and it
>comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes
>from minds, "evil" has a
>meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you
>conclude ethics is objective.
>Huh?
>
>And I don't understand why you should even care, if
>that cloud of hydrogen
>gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not
>very interested in what
>it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very
>much because subjectivity
>is far more important that objectivity.
>
>  John K Clark


I think you're not using the terms 'objectivity' and
'subjectivity' in the sense which I meant them.

Of course *subjective experience* is of great
importance.  I said that.  I said meaning comes from
minds, which you agreed with.

But by 'objective' I simply meant 'objective facts'
ie. 'Conclusions derieved through the use of reason
which all rational sentient observers could in
principle agree with'.  

Re-read my argument.  You should certainly care about
what that hydrogen gas cloud is doing if the gas cloud
is in a physical state which is reducing the
probability of the continued existence of the
universe.  Remember... if the universe ends... all
sentient life ends as well, including you.

 


---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From benboc at lineone.net  Fri May  6 06:48:35 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 07:48:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <200505051800.j45I0CR30337@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505051800.j45I0CR30337@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <427B1343.9010100@lineone.net>

The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this may 
be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour 
walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the water.

If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's 
device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly 
smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the 
concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful 
'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point energy 
device can't work.

(Maybe this could put to rest any doubts about it being a perpetual 
motion machine, too)

ben


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri May  6 09:07:44 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:07:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050506090744.GP14219@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:01:31PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're
> > done
> > with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done.
> 
> If only things were that easy.  ^_^;
> 
> > Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS?
> > You'd have
> > to do wet chemistry for that, though, too.  
> 
> Define "functionalizing".  I'm just aiming for a discrete unit,

Chemical functionalising, attaching functional groups to the surface of your
discrete MEMS/NEMS part. By bringing such differently functionalized parts into
proximity of your reaction site (e.g. by shuttling them on a plane surface) 
you'd do chemistry by numeric control (mechanosynthesis).

Both silicon and CNTs are easy to functionalize. 

> interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near) constant
> voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by
> traditional top-down approaches.

While direct writing as a pure top-down technique scales from macro to nano,
you can also combine top-down and bottom-up (such as functionalizing ~nm parts).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050506/6785e5f4/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri May  6 11:19:46 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:19:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050506111946.GG1433@leitl.org>

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:37:30PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:

> Not true!  For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point
> theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being
> physically indeterminate, but it was still the case
> that sentients could predict the effects of their
> actions on the universe.  Tipler showed how sentients

Unfortunately, the Omega Point theory is wrong. So all his points are moot.

We're all stuck with measurement, measurement error, model building,
co-evolutionary Red Queen runaway, and undecidability (basically, 
straight Goedel), computation limited by energy and realtime requirements.

Provability, formal reasoning; all this is a good recipe for the trash can of
the history as far as behaviour algorithms are concerned.

> could co-ordinate their actions to increase the
> probability of the continued existence of the universe
> (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an
> infinite number of computations prior to the end of
> 'real time').

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050506/148da12b/attachment.bin>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri May  6 09:44:22 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:44:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards
In-Reply-To: <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I can evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral
values I hold dear by trying to relate them to, and possibly derive
them from, basic values that I choose to hold as fundamental. In my
case, and I believe also for many others on this list, fundamental
values are related to those of classical humanism, e.g. that actual
human beings are more important than abstract ideas, and to those
which we are slowly and painfully trying to develop in transhumanist
communities, e.g. I try to define "human" in terms of thoughts and
feelings rather than genome.
As you see, not only I am not against morality, but also my moral
values are probably quite similar to yours.
I only object to trying to mix morality with unproven and maybe
unprovable metaphisical concepts.
Examples: most religions try to derive morality from the teachings of
one or another god. But what happens then to morality when sciences
forces us to conclude that there are no real basis for believing in
that god? Do we stop following morality? I hope not, and therefore
think that morality should be based on something more solid than
metaphysics.
Deriving morality from fundamental science and logic? Sorry Marc I can
see that you are trying hard, but to me the idea itself is pure
nonsense in logic and scientific terms. Of course I may be wrong and
you are always welcome to try persuading me, but you have not
persuaded me so far. I still think "ought" and "is" belong to
different realms that do not overlap.
So, I join moral relativists in trying to base morality on social
consensus achieved through a painful and erratic trial and error
process.
G.

On 5/5/05, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> 
> >Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
> >logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
> >fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.
> >
> >
> Giulio -
> 
> Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of
> the moral values you hold dear?
> 
> Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm?
> 
> I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the
> doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean
> what you seem to be saying.
> 
> - Jef
> 
>


From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri May  6 10:00:09 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:00:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205050603003011f6d9@mail.gmail.com>

I would wish to live in a universe which terminates in an omega point,
and can see how you could perhaps derive correct moral behaviours
assuming an omega point scenario.
But unfortunately wishing something does not make it actual, and as
Eugen says available scientific evidence points against Tipler.
Of course this may change with new experiments and observations.
But this is precisely one of the points that I am trying to make.
Morality is *IMPORTANT* to us human beings, so we should really base
it on something solid that is not invalidated when experiment shows
that the mass of the hchsgahcgion is 5% higher that previous
estimates.
So, I join moral relativists in trying to base morality on social
consensus achieved through a painful and erratic trial and error
process. This does not have the pristine simplicity and beauty of
2=2=4, but is the best we can do.


On 5/6/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Not true!  For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point
> theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being
> physically indeterminate, but it was still the case
> that sentients could predict the effects of their
> actions on the universe.  Tipler showed how sentients
> could co-ordinate their actions to increase the
> probability of the continued existence of the universe
> (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an
> infinite number of computations prior to the end of
> 'real time').


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 14:10:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506141049.93517.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this
> may 
> be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour
> walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the
> water.
> 
> If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's 
> device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly 
> smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the 
> concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful 
> 'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point
> energy device can't work.

Wave energy extraction devices have been shown to work in many
different ways. The Casimir Force, while being analogous to ocean waves
pushing vessels together, is not ocean waves, ergo making a machine
work with ocean waves does not necessarily make a machine that works
with the real Casimir Force.

The essential key with this device is that the vanes act like turbine
blades, or perhaps more accurately, like a quantum Pelton Wheel, being
canted as they are to the axis. We know that Pelton Wheels work just
dandy in hydropower apps.
> 
> (Maybe this could put to rest any doubts about it being a perpetual 
> motion machine, too)
> 
> ben
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jef at jefallbright.net  Fri May  6 14:45:00 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 07:45:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	
	<470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com>	
	<427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net>
	<470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <427B82EC.9080400@jefallbright.net>

Giulio:
Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and
logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really
fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science.

Jef:
Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of
the moral values you hold dear? Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm?

I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the
doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean
what you seem to be saying.

Giulio:
Well, I can evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral
values I hold dear by trying to relate them to, and possibly derive
them from, basic values that I choose to hold as fundamental.

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

Giulio -

Your responses indicate that you do, in fact consider logic and 
mathematics to have something to do with morality and although you 
didn't respond directly, I think it's safe to assume you do see yourself 
as being in a world described by physics.

I see from your posts to this group and others that you seem to be a 
kind and sensitive person, most interested in "human values" rather than 
"cold and hard", scientific facts and theories.

I don't think it would be effective to debate this further, but I would 
suggest that with time you may find ways to integrate what you seem to 
see as two completely separate realms of thought.

- Jef



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 14:54:32 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506145432.94897.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this
> may 
> be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour
> walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the
> water.
> 
> If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's 
> device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly 
> smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the 
> concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful 
> 'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point
> energy 
> device can't work.

Unfortunately, whether or not it worked, people could then argue about
whether the analogy was sufficiently good that its working or not
working would be a proof or disproof.  So it wouldn't suffice to prove
or disprove the nanoscale device, at least nearly as well as the
nanoscale device itself.

That said, there definitely have been devices that tap waves for
energy, albeit in different configurations.  Such devices provide a
(small) portion of the world's electricity today, so they definitely
are useful "alternative energy" devices.  But if you want to look up
ocean power systems, try looking up OTEC
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTEC ) - which relies on nothing more
than natural convection currents, and can in theory last as long as the
Earth and the Sun do in their current states.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 15:15:11 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050506090744.GP14219@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050506151511.83254.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:01:31PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > > Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your
> MEMS/NEMS?
> > > You'd have
> > > to do wet chemistry for that, though, too.  
> > 
> > Define "functionalizing".  I'm just aiming for a discrete unit,
> 
> Chemical functionalising, attaching functional groups to the surface
> of your
> discrete MEMS/NEMS part. By bringing such differently functionalized
> parts into
> proximity of your reaction site (e.g. by shuttling them on a plane
> surface) 
> you'd do chemistry by numeric control (mechanosynthesis).

No, I hadn't considered that.  While this particular unit would be no
good for that (if it works, it will just spin without manual control;
if it doesn't work, it will just sit there), I can see how the
techniques I'm doing would be applicable...although, at the scales I'm
building at, I'd wind up with chemistry in batches of hundreds of atoms
(and possibly not complete mixing, either) instead of doing things one
atom at a time.

Although...as part of the support for this experiment, to help make it
observable (actually seeing things, like whether a ring rotates, at
that scale is difficult to say the least - SEMs are not as easy to use
as optical microscopes), I came up with a system of gears that would in
turn rotate a part large enough to be seen optically (at 1000x or so,
near the limits of optical microscopy).  I think I see how I could use
said gears, if actively and selectively driven, to shuttle around pegs
on a board, where each peg would have a functionalized surface.  (At
one edge of the board would be mechanisms for scraping off the surface
of the pegs and re-functionalizing them.)  If you had two of these
boards, face to face, at controllable separations, you could possibly
do something like mechanosynthesis.  (You'd need the control the board
separation in all three dimensions, so that you could have a peg on one
board tap a peg on another board on top or on the sides.)

Hmm...sorry if that doesn't make much sense.  And I can see a few
problems with it already (like, depositing new chemicals that you want
to interact on only the desired regions of a peg, once you start
seriously building up...although if you could remove unreacted material
but not reacted material after the reaction, that wouldn't be as much
of a problem).

> > interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near)
> constant
> > voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by
> > traditional top-down approaches.
> 
> While direct writing as a pure top-down technique scales from macro
> to nano,
> you can also combine top-down and bottom-up (such as functionalizing
> ~nm parts).

This is true.  Arguably, I am using at least one bottom-up step, to
deposit metal into holes that have previously been formed.  However,
the steps that control the actual shape of the device are all top-down.


From jonkc at att.net  Fri May  6 17:02:29 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:02:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective
	ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <02da01c5525d$6d663c60$39ee4d0c@MyComputer>

"Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com> Wrote:

> mind concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are
> dependent on objective reality.

If that were true you would expect a general consensus on what is good and
evil, but any two minds seem to have three opinions on morality. And if that
were true you would expect there would be consequences for being wrong, that
is, for being evil; however monsters who torture people every day have lived
long happy lives and died in their bed.

> There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes*

Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the most evil
thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree.

  John K Clark







From hal at finney.org  Fri May  6 17:39:01 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri,  6 May 2005 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050506173901.4095157EE6@finney.org>

Adrian Tymes writes:
> Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and discontinuities
> are impossible in most systems.  But they seem to exist here, and
> that's the point of the system.

There are no discontinuities in nature. All of your materials are made
of atoms which have a finite size. There are no infinitely sharp points
where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0.  (Note that I disagree
that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am trying
to point out some flaws in your own model.)

> It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether the
> Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is a
> source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like radiation
> from the Sun.  (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of
> systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source but
> can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at noon
> since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.)  Previous
> efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current
> understanding of its nature indicates the latter.

I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non-
conservative force.  My understanding is exactly the opposite.  Can you
provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force
is non-conservative?

Hal


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri May  6 18:23:38 2005
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:23:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964D8B@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

spike (and others) wrote:
>>> ... public restrooms
>>> have always had individual stalls that have a
>>> sort of a lock on the door.  There is plenty of
>>> room aboard every train I ever see for individual
>>> stalls.
>> 
>> But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other
>> passenger...
> 
> The subway people *really* must deal with the thug
> issue.  Especially as the world population ages
> and grows ever less confident in its collective ability
> to effectively fight off attackers, those individual
> lockable compartments on trains would sell like
> hotcakes.  They could charge four times as much
> per seat, and it would be a bargain.
> 
> Think of the appeal of having an hour's ride in
> completely relaxed solitude.  A compartment could
> have a reclining chair, a LazyBoy or equivalent,
> so one could sleep, listen to tunes or read.  The
> trains could also offer several compartments big enough
> for two, so that young couples could have some privacy
> to get to know each other, perhaps some friendly
> copulation.  Twelve step programs or special
> interest groups could form and meet in private
> compartments made for such things.  Then they too
> could copulate.  The Love Train!

The problem I see with this is lack of accountability.
On regular public transportation there is continous
monitoring from all of the other passengers and we still
have massive problems with crime and vandalism. Private
compartments could conceivably reduce crime by isolating
victims from criminals, but there would be even more
vandals because there would be even less monitoring.
The common resource (compartments) would be insufficiently 
protected and would degenerate to a point where it was
less useful than the existing trains. 

One solution might be to rent individual compartments 
on a per-run basis (for example, I might rent compartment 
48C for the 8:45AM green train into town). This would add 
some accountability but reduces the flexibility immensely, 
as you would most likely have to ride in general admission 
if you missed your scheduled ride or if you needed to make
an unscheduled trip. In addition, you would face similar
problems to landlords, where those most likely to cause
damage to their units are the least able to pay. You'd
also have a problem similar to the public school system
if this were a government program, where you wouldn't be
able to deny access to anyone even if they had proven
themselves to be undesirable riders.

Another solution, but the one that would require big 
infrastructure changes, is to allow folks to drive their
cars to and from the train station/garage and essentially
use the subway as an underground ferry. The infrastructure
would be hard to damage, people could still show off their
ostentatious car purchases, and there would be a sense of 
ownership that keeps people from damaging their own
property (and if they do, who cares?). One big disadvantage
of this is you'll still be carting around three or four
tons of steel per primate. One could charge by mass but
then you'd be nearing the cost point where driving was 
preferable again. You'd also need lifts to move cars into
and out of the subway.

An intermediate solution would be privately owned capsules
which are standardized sizes, lightweight (fiberglass or 
carbon fiber), and easy to mechanically shuttle around.

Acy


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 18:44:59 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506184459.30610.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> There are no discontinuities in nature. All of your materials are
> made
> of atoms which have a finite size. There are no infinitely sharp
> points
> where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0.  (Note that I disagree
> that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am
> trying
> to point out some flaws in your own model.)

I didn't mean to suggest infinitely sharp points.  But if there is
counter torque concentrated in a space about the thickness of an atom
or so, then I should probably find consistent fractures or bends in the
material along that thickness where the counter torque tried to oppose
the forward torque, right?  Proving a new way to generate such
concentrations of force might also be useful.

> I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non-
> conservative force.  My understanding is exactly the opposite.  Can
> you
> provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force
> is non-conservative?

The Casimir effect *between parallel metal plates, as almost everyone
has investigated it* is conservative.  (Most people assume that the
Casimir force must always be conservative, because the one particular
formulation everyone's heard of is conservative.  That's analogous to
living on a plain and assuming plants can never be as tall as adult
human beings due to the physics of how a grass stalk supports itself,
without ever knowing about trees and wood.  By that analogy, I'd be
going around trying to find a tree, or to find proof that no such thing
existed.  The mere fact that no one had ever seen one before would not,
in itself, constitute proof, even if I would admit up front that there
was a good chance I might not find one either - but that alone wouldn't
be reason not to look.)

As I have already shown, it is possible that the Casimir effect may
become nonconservative in the particular geometry that I am
investigating - and of course there are no references on that.  If
someone else had already investigated it, I could just read that
research.  Like I said, analysis of this will make for a good academic
paper even if the theory does prove incorrect.  (Investigating the
Casimir effect on a particular geometry may seem a bit specific to be
of interest to most, but most academic papers are about that specific
if not moreso.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 18:52:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506185204.14394.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes:
> > Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and
> discontinuities
> > are impossible in most systems.  But they seem to exist here, and
> > that's the point of the system.
> 
> There are no discontinuities in nature.

Other than black hole event horizons, strings, entangled particles, and
of course, death.

> All of your materials are made of atoms which have a finite size.

a finite probable size, no less, but also a possible infinite size.

> There are no infinitely sharp points
> where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0. 

On the contrary, when you are dealing with fractions of wavelengths,
force does drop of from 1 to 0. That is the point of quantum mechanics:
reality is digital. If it doesn't drop off that way, then reality can't
be digital, at least with respect to forces involved in this effect.

> (Note that I disagree
> that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am
> trying to point out some flaws in your own model.)
> 
> > It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether
> the
> > Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is
> a
> > source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like
> radiation
> > from the Sun.  (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of
> > systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source
> but
> > can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at
> noon
> > since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.) 
> Previous
> > efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current
> > understanding of its nature indicates the latter.
> 
> I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non-
> conservative force. My understanding is exactly the opposite. Can
> you
> provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force
> is non-conservative?

Take two plates gapped by a very small amount and spaced that amount by
struts. There is constant pressure being applied to both sides. Where
is the energy needed to apply this constant force coming from? The
pressure apparently exists against all matter, not just two plates with
space between them, it is just that the space causes a sort of vacuum
that allows a differential with the outside pressure.

If it is somehow possible to bias this force to create asymmetric
forces on either side, then you have a propulsion system. If you can
make a device that uses such forces to spin, you have a motor.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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  Fri May  6 19:24:34 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:24:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: Debate on Peak Oil]
Message-ID: <427BC472.6060609@mindspring.com>

I used the same logic when I took a trip to Texas to see my son and his 
family. It was 2000 miles round trip, say my car averaged 25 miles to 
the gallon, so it took 80 gallons. If gas was 2.20 average, instead of 
1.50, I have .70 cents a gallon times 80 gallons = $56.00. I don't like 
it, but I am not changing my plans for $56.00.
Jay Cole

John Ellis <> wrote:

    I've thought about this myself.   I drive my 10 mpg pickup about
    10,000 miles per year, which at 2.29 p/gal costs me 190.00 per month
    average.  At 1.75 p/gal I was paying an average of 119.00 p/mo.  This
    equates to gas costing me an average of 71.00 more dollars per/mo now
    than a year ago.  Is that worth trading vehicles?  I think not.  Using
    the same math, I drive my 8 mpg motor home about 3000 miles each
    summer.  I will pay about 200.00 more dollars this summer than I did
    last summer for gas.  Is it worth getting rid of the motor home?  I
    think not.

    John Ellis

    On 5/4/05, Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
     > [Forwarding from the Extropians list, a British reply to rising gas
     > prices... -Terry]
     >
     > On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" wrote:>
     > > Let's suppose that gas goes up to $5/gallon, and average distance
     > > travelled for personal vehicles drops from 20000 to 15000 miles
    per year.
     > > An SUV gets maybe 15 mpg, so that is 1000 gallons or $5000 per
    year.
     > > Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting
     > > 30 mpg and selling for $25000.  You'll save $2500/year in gas
    costs.
     > > But the SUV is practically worthless in this environment and
    has little
     > > resale value.  That means it's going to take ten years to pay
    off your
     > > investment in the new car, with your savings on gas.  That's
    not a very
     > > attractive proposition.
     > >
     > > Of course, it's also possible that Peak Oilers are wrong, gas
    won't go
     > > up to $5/gallon and that all those people buying SUVs are not
    idiots.
     > > Ultimately, car purchasers are responding to the price signals they
     > > receive by looking at gas prices.  This gets back to the point
    I have
     > > made before, that if the smart money thought oil was going to
    go through
     > > the roof in a few years, it would already be bid up.  Oil would
    already be
     > > high in anticipation of future shortages; gas prices would
    already be high
     > > for the same reason; and people would already have stopped
    buying SUVs.
     > >
     > > It's the invisible hand at work.  The fact that this is not
    happening,
     > > that people are still buying low mileage vehicles, is not evidence
     > > of irrationality. Rather it is direct, visible evidence that
    Peak Oil
     > > predictions of high oil prices are simply wrong.
     > >
     >
     > Hmmm. Well, here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.86
    UKP per litre.
     > Now for the technical bit.
     > UKP = 1.89 USD,  1 US gallon = 3.785 litres
     > So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152
    USD per gallon.
     >
     > $5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here!
     >
     > Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price
     > level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the
     > automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are
     > killed on the roads, we must have our cars.
     >
     > The price will have to go a lot higher before it will have much
     > effect. We have toll charges in some city centres, some bridges, some
     > roads, extortionate parking charges, speeding camera fines, parking
     > fines, innumerable traffic law infringement fines, insurance charges,
     > servicing and repair charges, depreciation, and so on. People will
     > complain, but they still pay up and keep their car.
     >
     > It will need a change of mindset (or a good alternative) before
    car use reduces.
     >
     > BillK



-- 
"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.]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050506/7dbaf2a9/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 19:42:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective
	ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506194233.36607.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> "Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com> Wrote:

> > There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes*
> 
> Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the
> most evil
> thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree.
> 

John, you can't have your cake and eat it. Just a bit ago you were
arguing that interstellar gas can't think, now you are telling us that
genes do think.

The fact is that ANY amount of processing of information, whether it is
a single quantum event or an AI, is to be classified, for purposes of
this exercise, as 'thought'. I think that it is a fair maxim of
universal, objective, morality, that if you count each flop as a vote
in priority or preference, entities which think the most have greater
priority for survival, self-preservation, and self-posession.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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  Fri May  6 19:48:08 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:48:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <p06210201be9eb86ba7ab@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210201be9eb86ba7ab@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <427BC9F8.4010109@mindspring.com>

Amara Graps wrote:

>> Can't access this article.
>
>
> There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related
> topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have
> a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why
> not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of
> the topics to which we discuss at length here.
>
> Amara
>
> P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in
> this issue too.


I second Amara's recommendation.  I too subscribe although the cost is 
somewhat steep.
Perhaps I'll read these articles over the weekend.  We completed 
electronics testing of
the Stryker commander's vehicle yesterday.

Terry


-- 
"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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 20:46:57 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506204657.49645.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote: 
> Unfortunately, whether or not it worked, people
> could then argue about
> whether the analogy was sufficiently good that its
> working or not
> working would be a proof or disproof.  So it
> wouldn't suffice to prove
> or disprove the nanoscale device, at least nearly as
> well as the
> nanoscale device itself.

True enough but at least the analogy clearly
demonstrates that your device need not be a perpetual
motion machine.


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri May  6 20:53:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506205344.53345.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

Hal: I think I've come up with a better way of phrasing the point.  It
was actually kind of in my original post...

At any one moment, yes, there may be a finite amount of energy in the
system.  Some of the energy flows from the quantum fluctuations into
mechanical energy of the ring.  But the system is not in isolation: it
is surrounded by empty space where the QFs have not been tapped...and
it seems logical to suppose that their energy would diffuse into the
QFs that have been tapped.

Basically, this creates a well into which energy can flow - kind of
like, in a gas pressure vessel, poking a hole and tapping the escaping
gas.  Except that the "vessel" is the entire universe.  The universe
may have a finite amount of energy; that would be the limit of how much
this can tap, so it's not actually "perpetual" motion.  Just very long
lived.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May  6 21:12:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506211221.44486.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> Hal: I think I've come up with a better way of phrasing the point. 
> It was actually kind of in my original post...
> 
> At any one moment, yes, there may be a finite amount of energy in the
> system.  Some of the energy flows from the quantum fluctuations into
> mechanical energy of the ring. But the system is not in isolation:it
> is surrounded by empty space where the QFs have not been tapped...and
> it seems logical to suppose that their energy would diffuse into the
> QFs that have been tapped.

The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane needs to generate
more Casimir pressure in one direction while not in the other. 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From megao at sasktel.net  Fri May  6 21:25:34 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:25:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] State of the Total Information Awareness project
Message-ID: <427BE0CE.3090907@sasktel.net>

Just how close is the TIA project to being able to track all 360 million 
or so North Americans 24/7/364?

If money is scannable at ATMs  , then next might be scanning mechanisms 
integrated  into cash registers.
If Banks implement total tracking of transactions all that might slip by 
would be coins.

If all card-related transaction data is TIA accessible then it is 
possible to track individuals  quite well.
Biometric ID would complete the picture and co-relate  the individual to 
the deemed transaction owner.

GPS linkage to POS and POTransactions and location of physical 
conveyances would then allow
analysis of patterns of movement and make patterns more and more 
predictable.

Things like individual home power consumption signatures could indicate 
volumes and strengths and pitches
of device in and outputs.

All that would then be missing would be an AI scaled to handle TIA data 
flow in real time.

Crime as we know it would become predictable as TIA became more and more 
sophisticated
and robust enough to hold 360,000,000 dynamic patterns in active memory 
24/7/365.

Is the cost of this worth the benefits.
Compared to policing, enforcement and punishment costs society bears it 
might be economical.
Compare the cost of preventing a murder with the costs of 40 years of 
confinement by a judicial system.
The other cost would be social.
If the system has firm protocals and individuals are prevented from any 
form of civil disobedience
which might be required to implement a process of change how would this 
be built into
an otherwise totally managed system?







From riel at surriel.com  Fri May  6 22:39:51 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505061838460.22533@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com).

Yet another precious-metal-backed currency. What I don't
understand is where the people behind these currencies
make their money - and that directly impacts my impression
of the long term viability of the currency ;)

-- 
"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 rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri May  6 23:51:33 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 19:51:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506194652.0318a238@mail.gmu.edu>

At 09:19 PM 5/5/2005, Keith Henson wrote:
>>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
>>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
>>think EP is crap?
>
>You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty 
>much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the 
>beginning of time for their fields.  EP does integrate psychology and 
>related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where 
>currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings.
>The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between 
>chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual discontinuity. ...
>I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
>virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced 
>theories in geology.
>But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors 
>dying off to do it.

I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social 
science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about.  I'm a 
big fan of evol pysch, and its expectation of functionality behind most 
behavior is close to a similar expectation of economists.  Economics is 
already quickly moving to integrate EP insights as they come along.  I see 
little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it.



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  Fri May  6 23:54:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050506235416.31761.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > That being said, I do work for GoldGrams
> (http://www.goldmoney.com).
> 
> Yet another precious-metal-backed currency. What I don't
> understand is where the people behind these currencies
> make their money - and that directly impacts my impression
> of the long term viability of the currency ;)

It's pretty easy to figure out: Aggregate warehouse gold currency
issuer purchases $1 million in gold at spot price plus, maybe 0.5%, in
expectation of $1 million in total buys by individuals holding accounts
at their warehouse. The smaller buyers, being smaller buyers, pay a
premium of 1-3% above spot to purchase holdings in the warehouse.
Holders are able to spend their gold for free, and the value of their
holding floats with the spot price, so when they buy 3 oz. at
$420/oz+3% on Friday, but spend 1 oz on Monday when spot prices have
risen to $437, they find they earned their premium back already.

Meanwhile the warehouse gives $437 on Monday for the redeemed ounce,
but sells that ounce to another customer who is buying on Monday for
spot plus 3%.

GoldMoney.com has something like $50-80 million in holdings after only
a few years of operation, and operating on the deposit side very slowly
for those who want to remain unbanked and don't work with people who
can do ACH transfers. Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in
the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending metal
holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a mint..... ;)

Metal money folks have done fine over the last several years. Bernard
von Nothaus told me the other day that his days are generally between
$20,000-80,000 in sales of coin and receipts at NORFED, with a total
circulation of about $15 million. He has much larger margins, which is
to be expected given he is actually coining lawful money, but there is
a barrier to entry for people who think they ought to be able to buy
coin at mass quantity boullion spot prices.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat May  7 01:10:06 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:10:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506194652.0318a238@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050506203905.0352c820@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:51 PM 06/05/05 -0400, you wrote:
>At 09:19 PM 5/5/2005, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
>>>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
>>>think EP is crap?
>>
>>You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty 
>>much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the 
>>beginning of time for their fields.  EP does integrate psychology and 
>>related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where 
>>currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings.
>>The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between 
>>chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual discontinuity. ...
>>I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
>>virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced 
>>theories in geology.
>>But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors 
>>dying off to do it.
>
>I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social 
>science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about.  I'm a 
>big fan of evol pysch, and its expectation of functionality behind most 
>behavior is close to a similar expectation of economists.  Economics is 
>already quickly moving to integrate EP insights as they come along.  I see 
>little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it.

Sorry, I didn't state that clearly.

"I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
[the underpinnings of] virtually all of social science, kind of like plate 
tectonics displaced [foundation] theories in geology."  It is not like 
sediment geology was dumped, but what drove places to sink and accumulate 
sediment is now understood in terms of plate tectonics.

Biology can't really be understood without evolution.  Social sciences make 
no sense without the lower level underpinnings of biology, including 
evolutionary psychology.

Economics is based off biology.  Economics is a factor for all life, even 
the most primitive, since they have to allocate resources to growth, 
reproduction, etc.

Humans behave as if to maximize reward and minimize effort, but what is the 
agent benefiting and over what time frame?  There are things human are 
*known* to do, for example punishing cheaters at considerable cost to 
themselves that don't make much sense until you understand that such 
psychological traits have been shaped by evolution.  The reward for 
punishing cheaters, for example, was spread over your relatives who had 
copies of your genes, so even if punishing a cheater cost you dearly, the 
cost was made up by the benefits to copies of your genes in other band members.

Another example why do humans exchange huge amounts of resources for 
addictive drugs?  What is the mechanism?  They also work very hard for 
status, one classic example is judges who give up large amounts of income 
for the higher status of a judge.  Why is this?  The answers are obvious if 
not downright trivial given EP.

EP puts the half of the foundation under economics that plain biology does not.

Keith Henson

PS,  I bet you can think of a dozen professors who will never buy into the 
world view of EP.  :-)



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat May  7 01:14:53 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:14:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest
In-Reply-To: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4DFA7B84-6DFF-43EA-A5CE-41BD61F17CD9@mac.com>


On May 4, 2005, at 12:57 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

> Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are  
> biased in certain
> very  predictable ways.  "Be nice to relatives more or less in  
> proportion to how
> closely they are related."  "Don't fight with strangers unless they  
> are
> competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed  
> relatives."
>
> I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking  
> about the way men
> act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their  
> actions. The
> moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson  
> here is claiming
> is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims.

Really?  I don't see much of an effective denunciation of any such  
thing.  Most seem to build on the natural conditioning by extending  
the set of others we consider ourselves related to. "All men are  
brothers" and such.  This is by no means counter to evolved  
conditioning.  You seem to want to disown evolution or denigrate its  
effects.  I don't see why you might believe this is necessary.

> For example, the Buddhist is urged
> by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely  
> aggression against
> neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's  
> neighbors, are the
> Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them  
> reasonable creatures.
> Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he  
> did not say
> turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and  
> Sammaritans are
> outsiders: them, you should strike back.
>

Actually he said his message was only for the Jews in one part of  
scripture.  I always found that disconcerting.

> In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause  
> for morality,
> one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages  
> actually say.

What various religions say and what people actually live by and can  
live by when it comes to ethics are quite different things.  I don't  
agree that such pious idealisms are definitive of morality.

>
> If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore  
> the demands
> of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their  
> community,
> before the common good they may have with others and outsiders,  
> well, that is
> surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self- 
> interest in an
> exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their  
> tribe and
> nation with eyes blinded by love.
>

Surely you see this isn't exactly fair to what was said.

- s
>


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat May  7 01:52:38 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:52:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506214810.036c59b8@mail.gmu.edu>

At 09:10 PM 5/6/2005, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
>>>virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced 
>>>theories in geology.
>>>But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors 
>>>dying off to do it.
>>
>>I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social 
>>science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about.  ...  I 
>>see little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it.
>
>Sorry, I didn't state that clearly.
>
>"I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace 
>[the underpinnings of] virtually all of social science, kind of like plate 
>tectonics displaced [foundation] theories in geology."  It is not like 
>sediment geology was dumped, but what drove places to sink and accumulate 
>sediment is now understood in terms of plate tectonics.

If EP takes over psychology, then it will displace other psychology 
foundations of economics.  But economics has many other foundations besides 
psychology.

>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges who 
>give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a judge.  Why is 
>this?  The answers are obvious if not downright trivial given EP.

What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it 
remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP 
was popular.  They remain so even within EP.  These questions are far from 
trivial.



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 bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Sat May  7 03:18:38 2005
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 04:18:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <427C338E.6010203@dsl.pipex.com>

Jeff Medina wrote:

>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge
>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to
>think EP is crap?
>  
>

I think EP looks like cognitive psychology with an evolutionary story 
tacked on to most people.  That, plus the general lack of convincing 
results, abundance of over the top pronouncements, perceived political 
bias, and EPs enthusiasm for their own victim status seems to be a turn off.

BM


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat May  7 05:23:40 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 22:23:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense	of
	moral relativism)
In-Reply-To: <42793884.80209@pobox.com>
References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com>
	<42793884.80209@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6C6B87D5-CF9A-449F-B4B4-17E41F05221B@mac.com>

Hmm.  My impression was that he said something somewhat similar about  
"objective morality" not " objective reality".   The question seems  
to me about whether "is" implies "ought", whether objective reality  
gives rise to or supports objective morality.   I don't think you  
were simply being terse in only referring to it as "objective reality".

-s


On May 4, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
>
>> Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His  
>> standard is that
>> we should have no standards.  He makes two arguments: first, he  
>> reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary;
>> second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of  
>> character and
>> conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other  
>> words, argues
>> that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that  
>> moral
>> standards are bad.
>>
>
> It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that  
> believing in an external, objective reality leads to mass-murder  
> and atrocity.
>
> But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no  
> relation to (smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a  
> concept is even coherent) we may safely ignore it.
>
> (Though that refutation does not actually follow.  Giulio did not  
> assert that reality was not objective; he merely said that  
> entertaining the notion leads to homicide.  This assertion has no  
> evidential bearing on whether reality is objective.)
>
> -- 
> 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 fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat May  7 05:56:58 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 22:56:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Skeptic) Re: Flynn Effect
Message-ID: <427C58AA.7020204@mindspring.com>

Whatta load of bollocks.

>Yet Flynn discovered the astonishing and still little-known fact
>that intelligence scores have steadily increased for at least the
>past 100 years.  And it's a substantial gain; people who would have
>been considered geniuses 100 years ago would be merely average today.

Which explains the preponderance of da Vincis and Newtons clogging every 
street corner.

This is particularly stunning work since the notion of IQ wasn't even 
established until the early 20th century, so any "data" about the 
intelligence of people before that is just a wild-ass guess. Not to mention 
that the whole notion of IQ is shaky at best.

And you can't even legitimately compare the IQ scores of people from 
decades ago to today's scores, since they keep changing the tests. The 
famous battery of IQ tests administered to inductees in the Army at the 
start of WWI was ludicrously flawed, they required people to have knowledge 
of baseball, or asked the subject to draw something, but neglected to 
consider that some of the people taking the test had never even held a pencil.

Dave Palmer

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

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:19:29AM -0400, Greg Singer wrote:

>> On 5/5/05, Dave Palmer <dwpalmer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>> > And you can't even legitimately compare the IQ scores of people from
>>> > decades ago to today's scores, since they keep changing the tests.
>>    
>>
>> 
>> I seem to recall that the scores on IQ tests are scaled so that if the
>> test were administered to the entire population, the median score
>> should be 100. Therefore, I don't even see how it's possible for
>> average IQs to increase over time, since the IQ score is supposed to
>> measure your intelligence relative to other people at this moment in
>> time.
>> 
>>  - Greg
>  
>
See http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml, "Why must IQ tests 
be routinely restandardized?" Or http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html 
Flynn started his research because he noticed that the tests kept having 
to be restandardized to prevent scores from continually climbing upward.
-- Jim Lippard


-- 
"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.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050506/fa57047c/attachment.html>

From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Sat May  7 06:39:02 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 18:39:02 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
Message-ID: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>I would wish to live in a universe which terminates
>in an omega point,
>and can see how you could perhaps derive correct
>moral behaviours
>assuming an omega point scenario.
>But unfortunately wishing something does not make it
>actual, and as
>Eugen says available scientific evidence points
>against Tipler.

Well, my argument does not require the Omega Point
scenario as such (although the Omega Point scenario is
currently my best guess).

My argument only requires that the ultimate fate of
the universe be indeterminate and could be changed
though the actions we take.

You agree that people (subjective experience) is of
supreme important right?  Well, if the universe ever
ends, then all people in it will die and all
subjective experience will end as well.

Therefore it follows that we *ought* to take the
actions required to keep the universe existing in the
long run.  And which actions these are is entirely a
matter which could be determined through an empirical
investigation of the state in which the universe
currently *is*

>Of course this may change with new experiments and
>observations.
>But this is precisely one of the points that I am
>trying to make.
>Morality is *IMPORTANT* to us human beings, so we
>should really base
>it on something solid that is not invalidated when
>experiment shows
>that the mass of the hchsgahcgion is 5% higher that
>previous
>estimates.

I entirely agree that morality is important to us
human beings, and should be based on something solid. 
But the alternative to basing morality on empirical
data is to base it on 'social consensus', as you admit
below.  Do you really call social consensus 'solid'? 
I'd say its far more unreliable and changeable than
empirical data!  


>So, I join moral relativists in trying to base
>morality on social
>consensus achieved through a painful and erratic
>trial and error
>process. This does not have the pristine simplicity
>and beauty of
>2=2=4, but is the best we can do.

The trouble with basing morality on 'social consensus'
is that this reduces morality to simple 'might makes
right'.  If there is no other standard of judgement
outside 'social consensus' then obviously what the
majority say must be taken as right.  A very dubious
position indeed...

Still, there the debate must rest for now.  As I said
on wta-talk, the debate could rage on forever.



---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From scerir at libero.it  Sat May  7 07:30:30 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
References: <20050506211221.44486.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001801c552d6$a6447370$c3c51b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Mike Lorrey" 
> The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane 
> needs to generate more Casimir pressure in one direction 
> while not in the other. 

But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - 
easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry.

----    ----    ----    ----          fixed multi-plate
  < ----    ----    ----    ----      sliding multi-plate

(You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and
the other spinning).

Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate
moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate 
and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the
process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is
(supposed to be) constant. 

----    ----    ----    ----    fixed multi-plate
----    ----    ----    ----    sliding multi-plate

But when you get the configuration here above, how
to create a new asymmetry? 





From benboc at lineone.net  Sat May  7 09:36:17 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:36:17 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>

These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, too 
silly, too confused.

I'd like to ask the moral philosophers on this list some questions, and 
hopefully clear up just what is meant by 'moral relativism'.

Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made, that 
will be guided by moral considerations:


Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners.

Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she is 
pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college and 
have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that 
impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby.

What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise her 
(assume that they have a good relationship, and she would listen to his 
advice)?


My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say 
"abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances 
are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i believe it, and it 
applies to everybody under all circumstances. Sue should have the baby, 
Frank should advise her to have it, regardless of what this leads to."

A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort 
the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but are not 
limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future prospects with or 
without a baby at her age, her social and financial circumstances, etc. 
Frank should weigh factors such as the importance to him of the 
happiness of his stepdaughter, the fact that the baby is not genetically 
related to him, the impact of a baby on his family, his estimation of 
her ability to make a responsible decision in the matter, etc. These 
things cannot be decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because 
different things are more important to different people, and 
circumstances change."


That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to me. 
Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just about what 
rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under different 
circumstances.

So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and 
moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?

(Note: I am equating 'objectivism' with 'absolutism' here. My impression 
is that the new pope's issue is with relative moral rules as against 
absolute ones, and i think that using the word 'objective' just confuses 
the matter.)

ben


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat May  7 11:43:23 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 13:43:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050507114323.GO1433@leitl.org>

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 06:39:02PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:

> My argument only requires that the ultimate fate of
> the universe be indeterminate and could be changed
> though the actions we take.

According to our current knowledge, there's nothing indeterminate in the fate
of the universe http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html
and, also according to our current knowledge, there's nothing we can do about
it -- on global scale, that is. 
 
> You agree that people (subjective experience) is of
> supreme important right?  Well, if the universe ever
> ends, then all people in it will die and all
> subjective experience will end as well.

Which would kinda suck.
 
> Therefore it follows that we *ought* to take the
> actions required to keep the universe existing in the
> long run.  And which actions these are is entirely a

For the sake of the argument, what if there's something I can do in the local
neighbourhood which will greatly prolong the local life but will screw the
rest of them cosmic commons (by, say, increasing the dark energy pressure
elsewhere)?

Generally, what if your ethics interferes with your economic interests?
(Nothing new in that, obviously: we're all soaking in it).

> matter which could be determined through an empirical
> investigation of the state in which the universe
> currently *is*

Very easy cause of action: immediately start populating our own lightcone,
restructuring matter in the wake to maximize the amount of computation
extractable until global inflation rate will make communication impossible
even on very small assemblies. 

All very ethical; unfortunately this will prevent emergence of new life and
will require translating existing life (if we're going to bother, they're all
so dumb) into an emulation system indistinguishable from how universe
otherwise would have evolved. (Notice that this would run contrary to
evolutionary behaviour, which would completely populate the substrate, and
crank at maximum rate possible).

I'm not even being advocatus diaboli in this one, you know. 

> I entirely agree that morality is important to us
> human beings, and should be based on something solid. 
> But the alternative to basing morality on empirical
> data is to base it on 'social consensus', as you admit
> below.  Do you really call social consensus 'solid'? 
> I'd say its far more unreliable and changeable than
> empirical data!  

The social consensus are evolutionary algorithms, modulated with chance and
faulty models (based on empirical data). This is as empirical as it gets;
what you do with it will depend on the amount of crunch you can spend on your
data.
 
> The trouble with basing morality on 'social consensus'
> is that this reduces morality to simple 'might makes
> right'.  If there is no other standard of judgement

This isn't true even for most primitive organisms (where cooperation is very
widespread) -- and entirely untrue for social organisms, especially the human
primate. 

> outside 'social consensus' then obviously what the
> majority say must be taken as right.  A very dubious
> position indeed...
> 
> Still, there the debate must rest for now.  As I said
> on wta-talk, the debate could rage on forever.

So you're effectively agreeing you can't extract global-scale (spatially and 
temporally) behaviour algorithms valid for all and sundry critters from
measurements (empirical data) on reality.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/e0c70fe6/attachment.bin>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat May  7 14:21:19 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:21:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective
	ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
In-Reply-To: <02da01c5525d$6d663c60$39ee4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507082304.03526440@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:02 PM 06/05/05 -0400, you wrote:
>"Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com> Wrote:
>
>>mind concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are
>>dependent on objective reality.
>
>If that were true you would expect a general consensus on what is good and
>evil, but any two minds seem to have three opinions on morality.

And those opinions are subject to wild swings depending on 
environmental/ecological/memetic circumstances.  Exactly what you would 
expect from gene based theory.

>And if that
>were true you would expect there would be consequences for being wrong, that
>is, for being evil; however monsters who torture people every day have lived
>long happy lives and died in their bed.

True of course.  But evolution makes the claim that every physical and 
psychological trait all living things have is either a direct or indirect 
result of evolution.  Since torturing monsters not only exist but are 
relatively common, you need to ask what is the evolutionary basis for this 
behavior?  (I would call it vile behavior, but that characterization might 
get in the way of understanding the basis for it.)

We do understand how rape probably has a genetic basis *and* why it is 
rare.  Rape is a high risk/high reward optional reproductive mode from the 
gene's viewpoint.  It occurs at low frequency presumably because the 
reproductive advantage of this mode falls rapidly as it becomes more 
common.  I.e., the ESS, evolutionary stable strategy, for rape as a 
reproductive mode in a population stabilizes at a low percentage of the 
population.  Any higher and this parasitic reproductive mode would not pay 
off.  (The provisioning pair bonded males of the rape victims were the 
genetic victims if they supported children resulting from rape.)

Incidentally before anyone jumps down my throat over such statements, to 
the extent rape behavior has a basis in genes I would favor editing them 
out.  Of course with abortion for rape pregnancies (a good idea!) this will 
happen eventually anyway.

>>There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes*
>
>Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the most evil
>thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree.

If you think about it, that's not entirely true.  Genes *invented* 
contraception.  Ovulation is suppressed in humans and our closest relatives 
by lactation, same as ovulation is suppressed by birth control 
pills.  Ovulation suppression is certainly an evolved feature.

Genes are "concerned" about getting into later generations.*  For very high 
K factor animals who have to split their energy between bearing and caring, 
the optimal number of babies is not the highest number possible.  Too many 
kids and *none* of them are likely to survive.

The number of kids that make sense to genes is variable as well.  Good 
times where you can move into new territory and have plenty to eat should 
set the number higher.  Bad times, a couple might be lucky to raise one.

Of course most of this evolution occurred in hunter gatherer bands and 
tribes, an environment that for better or worse most of our ancestors left 
behind a long time ago.

We are so far out of the envelope of our hunter gatherer ancestors that 
prediction based on them is not always accurate.  For example, the well 
known trait of women above a certain economic level to strongly curtail 
births (if they are not prevented from doing so) is not something you would 
expect from our evolutionary background.  As EO Wilson says we are just 
incredibly lucky.

Keith Henson

* Of course genes are not "concerned" at all.  But the effect of 
evolution--genes that are good a getting into the next generation become 
more common over time--has the same end result as if genes were agents with 
purpose.




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat May  7 14:56:00 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 07:56:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net>

ben wrote:

> These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, 
> too silly, too confused.
>
Yes, but we hope they lead to greater understanding.  Thank you for 
posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a simple 
question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular discourse 
it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can possibly 
decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen 
that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of 
these issues.

> So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and 
> moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?
>
Since I am neither a moral relativist nor absolutist, I'll withhold 
further comment for now.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net


From jonkc at att.net  Sat May  7 15:55:45 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 11:55:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of
	objectiveethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. 
References: <20050506194233.36607.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c5531d$6b2a79f0$25f04d0c@MyComputer>

"Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

> John, you can't have your cake and eat it. Just a bit ago you were
> arguing that interstellar gas can't think, now you are telling us that
> genes do think.

Don't be silly Mike. Do you honestly think I believe genes can think? Do you 
honestly believe when Einstein said God does not play dice he wanted to 
inform people that God did not like the game played with cubes of ivory with 
black dots on their sides? Granted the Extropian list may not be the best 
place to look for poetic license but holy cow people!

John K Clark





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat May  7 16:13:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050507161319.69833.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> From: "Mike Lorrey" 
> > The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane 
> > needs to generate more Casimir pressure in one direction 
> > while not in the other. 
> 
> But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - 
> easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry.
> 
> ----    ----    ----    ----          fixed multi-plate
>   < ----    ----    ----    ----      sliding multi-plate
> 
> (You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and
> the other spinning).
> 
> Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate
> moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate 
> and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the
> process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is
> (supposed to be) constant. 
> 
> ----    ----    ----    ----    fixed multi-plate
> ----    ----    ----    ----    sliding multi-plate
> 
> But when you get the configuration here above, how
> to create a new asymmetry? 

Try using a field effect. As Casimir Force is an electric force, some
sort of asymmetric electric field should do the trick.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat May  7 16:23:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> ben wrote:
> 
> > These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract,
> 
> > too silly, too confused.
> >
> Yes, but we hope they lead to greater understanding.  Thank you for 
> posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a
> simple 
> question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular
> discourse 
> it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can
> possibly 
> decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen
> 
> that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of 
> these issues.
> 
> > So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists
> and 
> > moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?
> >
> Since I am neither a moral relativist nor absolutist, I'll withhold 
> further comment for now.

As a moral objectivist, I say the solution is clearly that Sue should
have the kid, and that Uncle Frank should adopt it and raise it while
Sue goes off to college. If Frank thinks life is so important, then he
needs to put his money where his mouth is. Choice "C" always works.
> 
> - Jef
> http://www.jefallbright.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat May  7 16:33:52 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:33:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506214810.036c59b8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507102732.02fe9a00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:52 PM 06/05/05 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
>At 09:10 PM 5/6/2005, Keith Henson wrote:

snip

>>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges 
>>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a 
>>judge.  Why is this?  The answers are obvious if not downright trivial 
>>given EP.
>
>What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it 
>remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP 
>was popular.  They remain so even within EP.  These questions are far from 
>trivial.

Hmm.

As you know, I came very late to the party and by an exceedingly strange 
non-academic route.  It never occurred to me that there would be 
controversy about what status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and 
chimpanzee groups) or why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it.

My inspiration happened at Howard Davidson's Pensfa party in the spring of 
1996 when a woman told me her time in the scientology cult was "the peak 
experience of her life." (The tone and body language reminded me of a drug 
addict I had known two decades previous.)  My eureka moment was late that 
fall at Romano Machado's Extropian party while talking to Kennita Watson 
about this incomprehensible experience at the Pensfa party.  It eventually 
dawned on us that EP could account for cult behavior.  I posted shortly 
after that connecting drugs, cults, and evolved brain reward 
circuits.  (And crediting our mutual friend Kennita.)

"Of all the things which have been measured in such representative
ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the
most predictive of reproductive success.  This is true for both
sexes, though the potential rewards for high status were--and still
are--higher for males.  High status males had multiple wives or
additional mating opportunities in the ancestral environment (and
for that matter, still do).  High status females, from what we can
see in chimpanzees and humans, have no more offspring than low
status ones, but their children are more likely to survive.  (In
bad times, much more likely to survive.)

"It follows that humans would have evolved to be exquisitely
sensitive to changes in status, which (no surprise) is the observed
situation.  Activities which lead to feelings of increasing status
are highly rewarding: that is, they cause the release of chemicals
which induce highly pleasurable states in the brain.  This reward
system is fundamental to human motivation, and in the ancestral
environment it worked to enhance reproductive success most of the
time.  It makes sense for hunters who brought in the first meat the
tribe has seen in six weeks to get a lot of attention (a mark of
status) from the other tribe members and to experience rewarding
feelings about what they had done as a (real) increase in social
status.  Of course, people tend to repeat behavior which led to
flooding their brains with pleasurable chemicals.  In our hunter
example, more hunting leads to more protein for the hunter's
mate(s) and children which in turn leads to improved reproductive
success--and thus to another generation of status-seeking hunters
who are rewarded individually with brain chemicals and in the
evolutionary sense by more children.  There are two causal loops
involved here.  The short term one acts over hours to years, and
the long term one over generations.  The long term loop sets up
susceptibility to the short term loop.

"In short, an action (such as hunting) leads to attention (an
indicator of status) which in the short term releases rewarding
brain chemicals and in the long term improves reproductive success. "

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.memetics/msg/a29591fc23120afd?dmode=source&hl=en

Years later this was expanded into the Human Nature Review article here:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html

which has hundreds of links to it and has been downloaded upwards of 200k 
times.  (Not an indicator of how many time it was *read* of course.  :-)  )

I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article.  But 
perhaps there are.  The net is a big place not to mention academia.

Once expressed in EP terms status sure seemed obvious to me.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson













From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat May  7 16:47:15 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:47:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] holy cow people, batman!
In-Reply-To: <000c01c5531d$6b2a79f0$25f04d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200505071649.j47GnWR18786@tick.javien.com>



> ... Granted the Extropian list may not be the best
> place to look for poetic license but holy cow people!
> 
> John K Clark


Thanks, John, my thoughts exactly.

Do you know any holy cow people?  I need to
consult with them if so, and they really don't
even need to be holy, just so long as they are
cow people.  My parents recently purchased a
cattle ranch.  I have learned some new
terminology which must be mastered, for I elicited 
gales of derisive laughter by commenting on 
70 heads of cattle.  I was told that the plural 
of head is head.  So I countered that I really 
meant that this ranch supports 280 hoof of cattle, 
or if they prefer, 140 kidney of cattle.  These 
explanations failed to make clear my intention.  Perhaps 
holy cow people are not good with mental arithmetic.

Another such puzzler is the term "cow puncher".  Would 
not the SPCA object to punching the cattle?  I know 
the definition of "cowboy", having seen them strumming 
guitars and singing on TV, but it is not clear why the 
gender of the cow-human must be specified in this 
context, holy or otherwise.  And what if this cow-human 
received a tech upgrade of his or her mind or body?  Would 
he or she be a cow-transhuman?  Or a trans-cowhuman?  

I know from viewing Bonanza there is such a thing 
as a cow poke, altho I am reluctant to inquire 
regarding the actual job description of such a 
profession.  Hoss Cartwright was a cow poke, but
the producers of the show drew the curtain of
mercy upon further elaboration.  

In any case, I have concluded that cattle are 
painfully boring lifeforms.  Having learned from which 
end the moo emerges, I soon began to suspect that 
this moo is apparently the only verbiage of which 
these beasts are capable.  Horses appear to utter 
at least three comments: "nay", "whinny" and that 
b-b-b-b-b flappy lips thing that horses do.  

It seems cows could work out a more effective
system of communications, such as long 
and short moos.  If, for instance, a cow 
were in distress, she could comment: 
moo moo moo MOOO MOOO MOOO moo moo moo.

Perhaps we could call it moorse code or something.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat May  7 16:55:50 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:55:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507102732.02fe9a00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200505071657.j47GvtR20893@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson

> ...  I posted shortly
> after that connecting drugs, cults, and evolved brain reward
> circuits.  (And crediting our mutual friend Kennita.)...

For those who are acquainted with Kennita Watson, I am happy to
report that she is doing well.  She was at a party at my house
a few weeks ago, walking unassisted.  Other than minor balance 
issues, she appears to be winning the battle against MS.  {8-]

spike







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat May  7 17:13:07 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050507161319.69833.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050507171307.11280.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> > But when you get the configuration here above, how
> > to create a new asymmetry? 

You don't.  Part of the point of this system is to create a system
where, even when the parts move, the asymmetry remains.

> Try using a field effect. As Casimir Force is an electric force, some
> sort of asymmetric electric field should do the trick.

My impression is that the CF is not fundamentally electric.  And
"asymmetric field", while perhaps technically true in this case, is
woefully misleading: it suggests the far more commonly thought of type
of asymmetric field that doesn't and can't exist in nature.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat May  7 17:25:38 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:25:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520505071025726d5720@mail.gmail.com>

Very simple answer:
Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not
have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby.
And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should
also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view
of his greater experience of things.
Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral
relativist or objectivist stance.


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat May  7 17:40:29 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:40:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project 
In-Reply-To: <20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will
> > happen is to actually build it and observe.  I've lost track of how
> > much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the
> > end, science is about actual experiments.
>
>Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured excuses
>for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something is wasting their
>time and list bandwidth.

Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant?  Are 
you claiming that people on this list do nothing?

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/f19bf26b/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat May  7 17:53:53 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 13:53:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507134717.02e3a1c8@mail.gmu.edu>

At 12:33 PM 5/7/2005, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges 
>>>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a 
>>>judge.  Why is this?  The answers are obvious if not downright trivial 
>>>given EP.
>>
>>What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it 
>>remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP 
>>was popular.  They remain so even within EP.  These questions are far 
>>from trivial.
>
>... It never occurred to me that there would be controversy about what 
>status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and chimpanzee groups) or 
>why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it.
>
>"Of all the things which have been measured in such representative
>ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the
>most predictive of reproductive success. ... It makes sense for
>hunters who brought in the first meat the tribe has seen in six weeks
>to get a lot of attention (a mark of status) ...
>http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html ...
>I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article. ...

Yes, status can be measured just by asking people "who has high status?"
But measured with substantial error - people often answer this quite
differently.  In any case that is very different from understanding
exactly what contributes how much to status.  Sure bringing in the first
meet in six weeks helps, but how much compared to other things?  I don't
say your article is wrong, I say it doesn't answer the question.


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat May  7 18:20:59 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project 
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant? 
> Are 
> you claiming that people on this list do nothing?

Part of my reason for posting this was to disprove that *all* people
on this list do nothing - and to encourage those that don't, to step
up to the plate too.  Doesn't have to be in science/tech (although
that's certainly one possibility); other aspects, like politics and
education, will need to be tended to as well.  Posthumanism isn't going
to just happen; whether or not it seems inevitable, it will require
people to actually make it come about.  The more of us that help, the
sooner it will happen, and the better for all of us it will likely be.


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat May  7 19:22:38 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:22:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net>

ben:
These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, too 
silly, too confused.

<presents hypothetical test case involving question of abortion>

My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say 
"abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances 
are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i believe it, and it 
applies to everybody under all circumstances. Sue should have the baby, 
Frank should advise her to have it, regardless of what this leads to."

A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort 
the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but are not 
limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future prospects with or 
without a baby at her age, her social and financial circumstances, etc. 
Frank should weigh factors such as the importance to him of the 
happiness of his stepdaughter, the fact that the baby is not genetically 
related to him, the impact of a baby on his family, his estimation of 
her ability to make a responsible decision in the matter, etc. These 
things cannot be decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because 
different things are more important to different people, and 
circumstances change."

That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to me. 
Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just about what 
rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under different 
circumstances.

So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and 
moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?

Jef:
Thank you for posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear 
to be a simple question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of 
popular discourse it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how 
they can possibly decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level 
it may be seen that the framing of the question is what limits our 
comprehension of these issues.

Mike:
As a moral objectivist, I say the solution is clearly that Sue should
have the kid, and that Uncle Frank should adopt it and raise it while
Sue goes off to college. If Frank thinks life is so important, then he
needs to put his money where his mouth is. Choice "C" always works.

Giulio:
Very simple answer:
Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not
have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby.
And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should
also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view
of his greater experience of things.
Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral
relativist or objectivist stance.

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

Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was 
this an exceptionally easy case?

What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on 
simple jealousy.  Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue 
should do as she wants?  If not, then can you help us understand what 
basis of reasoning applies?

- Jef








From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Sat May  7 20:03:50 2005
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 21:03:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>

ben wrote:

> Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made, 
> that will be guided by moral considerations:
>
>
> Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners.
>
> Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she is 
> pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college and 
> have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that 
> impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby.
>
> What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise her 
> (assume that they have a good relationship, and she would listen to 
> his advice)?


Under normal usage, the moral objectivist would claim that there is a 
fact of the matter independent of social norms, whereas the moral 
relativist would deny this.  The two example responses you give are 
neither objective nor relativistic, they could in fact be either.  A 
moral relativist would hold that "abortion is wrong, period" is correct 
where that was the prevailing norm and "abortion is okay given x, y, z" 
is correct where that was the prevailing norm; they would claim that 
there's no method for deciding between these social norms but that they 
hold within their respective communities.  A moral objectivist would 
claim that there is an absolute truth to the matter, that either 
"abortion is wrong, period" or "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is 
correct, regardless of the fact that there are communities that believe 
one, communities that believe the other.

Some people confuse moral scepticism or moral expressivism, the 
doctrines that there are no moral truths or that moral statements are 
merely emotive or prescriptive, respectively, with moral relativism.  
Your question is normative and doesn't have a great deal to do with such 
metaethical quibbles as relativism, objectivism, scepticism, 
expressivism, etc.  If, however, Frank believed "abortion is wrong, 
period" and Sue believed "abortion is okay given x, y, z" the moral 
relativist might claim that Frank should be tolerant of Sue's belief (or 
vice versa), whereas the moral objectivist might claim that one or the 
other or neither is correct.  Meanwhile the sceptic would shrug his 
shoulders and the expressivist would claim that what Frank meant to say 
was that he wants her to keep the baby and what Sue meant to say is that 
she doesn't want the baby.

BM


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat May  7 20:54:55 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 15:54:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Jef wrote:

>A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort the 
>baby depends upon the circumstances.

BM wrote:

>Meanwhile the sceptic would shrug his shoulders and the expressivist would 
>claim that what Frank meant to say was that he wants her to keep the baby 
>and what Sue meant to say is that she doesn't want the baby.

I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to "keeping 
the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I find this 
extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought experiment. There 
was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. The question of abortion in 
this instance has to do with whether or not to retain a small embryo with 
the potential to become a baby, and then a child, and then an adult, and 
then an old person. We might as well talk about the girl's quandary being 
whether or not to kill a wise old grandparent, because if she remains 
pregnant that's probably what the clump of cells in her uterus will 
eventually turn out to be. But it's not yet. And it's not a baby yet. 
Certain moralists will claim that it is because it has human DNA; or more 
probably, because it has a complete and fully developed nonmaterial soul 
embedded in it or associated with it or something. The first claim seems to 
me a grotesquely reductive misunderstanding of what it is to be a human 
person. The second might seem to deal with objective reality, but I know of 
no empirical yardstick for testing it.

Meanwhile, then, it seems to me saner to speak (as medical people do) of 
"the conceptus", or "the embryo", or "the foetus". The one thing we can be 
sure of is that Sue is not faced with the option of murdering a baby, or a 
bank teller with three children to support, even though both potentials 
might lie in the future light cone of the very unfinished organism growing 
inside her.

Damien Broderick





From hal at finney.org  Sat May  7 21:03:08 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat,  7 May 2005 14:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050507210308.9988357EE6@finney.org>

Scerir writes:
> But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - 
> easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry.
>
> ----    ----    ----    ----          fixed multi-plate
>   < ----    ----    ----    ----      sliding multi-plate
>
> (You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and
> the other spinning).
>
> Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate
> moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate 
> and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the
> process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is
> (supposed to be) constant. 
>
> ----    ----    ----    ----    fixed multi-plate
> ----    ----    ----    ----    sliding multi-plate

I thought of something similar earlier.  You could unroll Adrian's design
and get a linear accelerator.  What you do is put parallelogram shaped
"blockers" between the two rows in the first diagram, so that the bottom
moving plates only "see" the plates above them to the left.  This is
supposed to pull them in that direction.  Then when they get to the
position in the second diagram, the bottom plates are completely covered
by the blockers and so they don't see the forces that would normally
pin them there.  Then when they move a little farther (by momentum,
or by careful arrangement of the blockers) they will again only "see"
a force pulling them to the left.  Presto, perpetual motion again, only
this time we create a linear rather than rotary accelerator with no input.

I am confident that this won't work either, because with the blockers
in place the plates can no longer move in such a way as to minimize
potential energy, hence there will be no force.  Or else, there will be
a minimum in the PE, as in Scerir's second diagram (with no blockers),
and then the plates will just go to that position and stay there.

Hal


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat May  7 22:10:52 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 17:10:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 01:20 PM 5/7/2005, Adrian wrote:

>Part of my reason for posting this was to disprove that *all* people
>on this list do nothing - and to encourage those that don't, to step
>up to the plate too.  Doesn't have to be in science/tech (although
>that's certainly one possibility); other aspects, like politics and
>education, will need to be tended to as well.  Posthumanism isn't going
>to just happen; whether or not it seems inevitable, it will require
>people to actually make it come about.  The more of us that help, the
>sooner it will happen, and the better for all of us it will likely be.

Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and does 
not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and to 
record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any poster 
on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing.

This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to 
discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/fa70b7d5/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat May  7 22:15:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project 
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050507221522.713.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what
> will
> > > happen is to actually build it and observe.  I've lost track of
> how
> > > much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the
> > > end, science is about actual experiments.
> >
> >Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured
> >excuses for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something
> > is wasting their time and list bandwidth.
> 
> Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant? 
> Are you claiming that people on this list do nothing?

Those on this list with the most self assured excuses for why what
others are doing is impossible, improbable, stupid, sure to fail,
contrary to physics, etc. generally are the do-nothing types who do not
take personal responsibility for making the future happen. There are
people on this list who do not fit the above description, but IMHO
there are far too many who do for a supposedly 'extropic' group.

This list was once about challenging the limits on what it means to be
human in this universe. Adrian's work is the first truly original work
I've seen a list member do in several years, yet there are those here
who see fit to dismiss it based on one sketch and a few paragraphs of
text. This is far too cynical a view for a list that once believed in
dynamic optimism.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat May  7 22:35:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for speaking up Adrian.

Adrian is clearly one of the exceptions.

> Since this list is text driven and does 
> not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and
> to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that
> any poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are
> actually doing.
> 
> This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to
> discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list.

No insinuations need to be made, I can merely ask for quantitative
proof by asking people to answer the following questions:

a) how many patents have list members applied for and/or received in
the last decade?
b) how many published papers/books?
b1) nobel or other academic prizes?
c) how many members have grown their personal net worth from their own
entrepreneurship by more than a million dollars?
d) how many political offices have they run or campaigned for, or
managed campaigns for?
e) how many non-profits started by list members have raised over
$100,000 in one year?
f) how many bills have been passed or prevented by the actions of list
members?
g) how many demonstrations have list members conceived, organized, and
brought to fruition?

I will wager that of list members that post to this list, less than
fifteen have done one of the above, less than seven have done more than
one, in the last ten years, not including myself (count me for six at a
minimum).

If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last
decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are
'doing anything'.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat May  7 22:45:23 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 18:45:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0505071843300.-125149@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>




On Sat, 7 May 2005, Damien Broderick wrote:

> I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to "keeping
> the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I find this
> extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought experiment. There
> was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. [...]

Thank you very much for this. I was trying to figure out how to write
what you have now written. :)

Regards,
MB


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat May  7 22:56:09 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> > I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to
> "keeping
> > the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I
> find this
> > extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought
> experiment. There
> > was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. [...]
> 
> Thank you very much for this. I was trying to figure out how to write
> what you have now written. :)

The freedom to choose means the freedom to be responsible for your
actions. When you ask most people who are pro-choice, they generally
believe that other people have abortions. Few women proudly admit to
having aborted a fetus. Wonder why?

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat May  7 23:25:32 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 18:25:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion
In-Reply-To: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507181606.01deb4e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:56 PM 5/7/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:

>When you ask most people [you happen to know] who are pro-choice, they 
>generally
>believe that other people have abortions.

I find this a very strange claim. Certainly it goes against my own 
experience. On the other hand, many if not most younger people who are not 
in favour of banning abortion use fairly reliable contraception routinely, 
and so the occasion might not arise very often. Exceptions do occur. When I 
was younger, before I had a vasectomy, two of my girlfriends became 
pregnant despite one of them having a loop and the other being on the pill. 
We chose to abort the foetuses, because none of us were in a position to 
become parents responsibly at that stage. As a childless old fart, I 
sometimes wonder wistfully what those lumps of cells might have grown into. 
But this is sentimentality. I could wonder the same thing about every ovum 
shed unfertilized by every woman I ever had sex with.

>Few women proudly admit to
>having aborted a fetus. Wonder why?

Because we live in a culture debauched by superstition.

Damien Broderick 




From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat May  7 23:34:29 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 18:34:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507182928.04d492c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Mike wrote:

>If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last
>decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are
>'doing anything'.

You list is fine, but a narrowly focused. There are other numerous ways for 
determining and rating success, both personal success and professional 
success.

Natasha Vita-More

http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/c26f85ae/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat May  7 23:39:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 16:39:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <4EA67F65-D71C-4FAB-A705-45B62A2AA80F@mac.com>


On May 7, 2005, at 2:36 AM, ben wrote:

> These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract,  
> too silly, too confused.

I don't think you have helped this much with the following.

>
> I'd like to ask the moral philosophers on this list some questions,  
> and hopefully clear up just what is meant by 'moral relativism'.
>
> Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made,  
> that will be guided by moral considerations:
>
>
> Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners.
>
> Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she  
> is pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college  
> and have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that  
> impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby.
>
> What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise  
> her (assume that they have a good relationship, and she would  
> listen to his advice)?
>

Even objective morality does not dictate particular decisions.   
Objective moral guidelines and principles would be applied to the  
particulars as part of the decision process.   It isn't a bunch of  
rules from some high autocrat.

>
> My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say  
> "abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the  
> circumstances are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i  
> believe it, and it applies to everybody under all circumstances.  
> Sue should have the baby, Frank should advise her to have it,  
> regardless of what this leads to."

You are confusing absolutism with objectivity.

>
> A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or  
> abort the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but  
> are not limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future  
> prospects with or without a baby at her age, her social and  
> financial circumstances, etc. Frank should weigh factors such as  
> the importance to him of the happiness of his stepdaughter, the  
> fact that the baby is not genetically related to him, the impact of  
> a baby on his family, his estimation of her ability to make a  
> responsible decision in the matter, etc. These things cannot be  
> decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because different things  
> are more important to different people, and circumstances change."
>

A moral objectivist would also consider all the circumstances.   
Objective morality has nothing to do with rigidity.  It has to do  
with being objective and honestly applying all one knows about ethics  
and other relevant aspects of reality to the situation.   That one's  
ethics is based in objective reality does not mean that the facts of  
reality in the case at hand are ignored.  That would hardly be  
objective now would it?

>
> That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to  
> me. Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just  
> about what rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under  
> different circumstances.
>

The discussion was not about absolutism or at least I hope it has not  
gone that far astray from anything worth talking about.

> So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists  
> and moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?
>
> (Note: I am equating 'objectivism' with 'absolutism' here. My  
> impression is that the new pope's issue is with relative moral  
> rules as against absolute ones, and i think that using the word  
> 'objective' just confuses the matter.)
>

In this you have made the entire discussion more of a fruitless  
muddle than it was.  Congratulations.

- samantha
>


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat May  7 23:45:03 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 16:45:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <DCD96431-F764-4471-B61C-73A6E1ECE574@mac.com>


On May 7, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Bryan Moss wrote:
>
> Under normal usage, the moral objectivist would claim that there is  
> a fact of the matter independent of social norms, whereas the moral  
> relativist would deny this.  The two example responses you give are  
> neither objective nor relativistic, they could in fact be either.   
> A moral relativist would hold that "abortion is wrong, period" is  
> correct where that was the prevailing norm and "abortion is okay  
> given x, y, z" is correct where that was the prevailing norm; they  
> would claim that there's no method for deciding between these  
> social norms but that they hold within their respective  
> communities.  A moral objectivist would claim that there is an  
> absolute truth to the matter, that either "abortion is wrong,  
> period" or "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is correct, regardless  
> of the fact that there are communities that believe one,  
> communities that believe the other.
>

Oh my.  The conversation really has got that silly.  Can we stop  
now?  Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are talking  
about.

- samantha


From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Sun May  8 00:17:44 2005
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 01:17:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
	<427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <427D5AA8.8060003@dsl.pipex.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to 
> "keeping the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it 
> out. I find this extraordinary. There was no baby in the original 
> thought experiment. There was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. 
> The question of abortion in this instance has to do with whether or 
> not to retain a small embryo with the potential to become a baby, and 
> then a child, and then an adult, and then an old person. We might as 
> well talk about the girl's quandary being whether or not to kill a 
> wise old grandparent, because if she remains pregnant that's probably 
> what the clump of cells in her uterus will eventually turn out to be. 
> But it's not yet. And it's not a baby yet.


The quandary concerns whether she wants a baby, does it not?  If she has 
an abortion, it will be because she doesn't want a baby, not because she 
doesn't want an embryo.

I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it - a lot of 
anti-abortion rhetoric tries to blur the distinction between foetus and 
child - but I'm not sure "keep the baby" is wrong in this context.

> Certain moralists will claim that it is because it has human DNA; or 
> more probably, because it has a complete and fully developed 
> nonmaterial soul embedded in it or associated with it or something. 
> The first claim seems to me a grotesquely reductive misunderstanding 
> of what it is to be a human person. The second might seem to deal with 
> objective reality, but I know of no empirical yardstick for testing it.


I don't think it's quite that simple.  Morality is concerned primarily 
with counterfactuals.  The girl, for example, on considering an 
abortion, will probably be considering things like the first few years 
of the potential child's life, perhaps even the 18 years of 
responsibility, and, at a stretch, the potential adult.  She's thinking 
about more than the foetus.  None of this seems unusual to me.

Here's a thought experiment (and I apologise for the subject matter, I'm 
not trying to suggest any equivalence between murder and abortion):  We 
say that it's unethical to kill a man.  We believe that this is true 
even when he's sleeping, even though he won't be enjoying life or 
contributing to society until the morning.  Are we concerned here with 
the man's potential?  I'd say no.  That seems too metaphysical to me.  
Is it something *actual* about him?  We can simply say he's a man, but 
that doesn't seem specific enough.  He has hopes, dreams, and a sense of 
dignity, perhaps, but does that mean we can catch him on a off day?  
Perhaps we can say, "if he was awake now he would object."  But that 
just seems like more of the same thing.  As does, say, considering the 
situation in functionalist terms: he has moral agency, a diginity 
module, whatever.

Anyway, to get back to reality, I'm not sure saying "that's potential" 
and "that's actual" is really a good way to reject or accept moral 
claims.  I tend to naturalism in matters of philosophy.  I feel like I 
can reject the anti-abortionist who talks of a soul because I can reject 
the soul just fine.  And I'll hypothesise that those who speak of 
"potential" would disappear with that controversy.  But if they didn't, 
I'm not sure how to respond.  All of our moral intuitions seem shot 
through with possibility, consequence, counterfactuals; how do we 
distinguish the good from the bad?

BM


From gregburch at gregburch.net  Sun May  8 00:20:49 2005
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:20:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDMEINDBAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club.  There are lots of people who read the list off and on who've accomplished many things on the scale you've pointed to, me among them.  While I've been a list member, I've built a successful law practice (or two or three), designed and built my dream house with my wife, learned to live with a lemur, helped the Smithsonian raise money to restore a Saturn V, taught myself 3d computer modelling, started a blog that gets quite a few hits, revived my Chinese language skills ... and that's just what comes to me off the top of my head.  There are plenty of others here who've done just as much or more.  It's true there's often an inverse proportion between activity in the "real world" and posting on the list here.  But that doesn't mean folks aren't still thinking about the issues we consider vital and, when the opportunity presents itself, moving things along a little bit at a time ...

GB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 5:36 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
> 
> 
> 
> --- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > 
> > Thank you for speaking up Adrian.
> 
> Adrian is clearly one of the exceptions.
> 
> > Since this list is text driven and does 
> > not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and
> > to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that
> > any poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are
> > actually doing.
> > 
> > This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to
> > discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list.
> 
> No insinuations need to be made, I can merely ask for quantitative
> proof by asking people to answer the following questions:
> 
> a) how many patents have list members applied for and/or received in
> the last decade?
> b) how many published papers/books?
> b1) nobel or other academic prizes?
> c) how many members have grown their personal net worth from their own
> entrepreneurship by more than a million dollars?
> d) how many political offices have they run or campaigned for, or
> managed campaigns for?
> e) how many non-profits started by list members have raised over
> $100,000 in one year?
> f) how many bills have been passed or prevented by the actions of list
> members?
> g) how many demonstrations have list members conceived, organized, and
> brought to fruition?
> 
> I will wager that of list members that post to this list, less than
> fifteen have done one of the above, less than seven have done more than
> one, in the last ten years, not including myself (count me for six at a
> minimum).
> 
> If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last
> decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are
> 'doing anything'.
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun May  8 00:19:10 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 20:19:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507134717.02e3a1c8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507155009.02f97380@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:53 PM 07/05/05 -0400, you wrote:
>At 12:33 PM 5/7/2005, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges 
>>>>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a 
>>>>judge.  Why is this?  The answers are obvious if not downright trivial 
>>>>given EP.
>>>
>>>What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it 
>>>remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP 
>>>was popular.  They remain so even within EP.  These questions are far 
>>>from trivial.
>>
>>... It never occurred to me that there would be controversy about what 
>>status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and chimpanzee groups) or 
>>why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it.
>>
>>"Of all the things which have been measured in such representative
>>ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the
>>most predictive of reproductive success. ... It makes sense for
>>hunters who brought in the first meat the tribe has seen in six weeks
>>to get a lot of attention (a mark of status) ...
>>http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html ...
>>I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article. ...
>
>Yes, status can be measured just by asking people "who has high status?"
>But measured with substantial error - people often answer this quite
>differently.  In any case that is very different from understanding
>exactly what contributes how much to status.  Sure bringing in the first
>meat in six weeks helps, but how much compared to other things?  I don't
>say your article is wrong, I say it doesn't answer the question.

Well, "what is status" wasn't the question the article was intended to 
answer.  The article was trying to account for why people do really hard to 
understand  things like join a cult and cut their balls off.  Or of equal 
effect in genetic terms, why become a celibate priest in a long established 
religion?

But I venture to say that the different ways people answer "who has high 
status" would be predictable using EP.  A person moving up in status and 
his supporters would probably have a higher opinion of his status than the 
people supporting the "old guard."  And it would not surprise me to find 
that women in a group might have a different average status estimate than 
the men do.

I think we can go further and propose that status is the integral of 
attention, and that attention itself produces an immediate chemical 
reward.  Those of us who have done public speaking are usually aware of the 
buzz we get from attention.  The concept of chemically activated reward 
circuits is well supported by fMRI studies of recent years.

There are pointers to researchers here:

"Hijacking the Brain Circuits With a Nickel Slot Machine" By SANDRA 
BLAKESLEE,  New York Times, February 19, 2002

http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html

EP can deal with high measurement error for concepts like status in 
answering the question of why people work so hard for status.  The answer, 
in common with a lot of other answers from EP, is that ancestors who did so 
left more descendents than those who did not.

Unlike dragging meat back to a hunter gatherer camp, most things we do for 
status today (such as posting on mailing lists) don't seem to have much 
effect on how many descendents we have.

:-)

Keith Henson










From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Sun May  8 00:30:35 2005
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 01:30:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <DCD96431-F764-4471-B61C-73A6E1ECE574@mac.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
	<427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
	<DCD96431-F764-4471-B61C-73A6E1ECE574@mac.com>
Message-ID: <427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Oh my.  The conversation really has got that silly.  Can we stop  
> now?  Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are talking  
> about.


That was a rather straightforward definition.  What, exactly, are you 
objecting to?

BM


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun May  8 00:41:45 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 20:41:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0505072011170.-73509@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>




On Sat, 7 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> The freedom to choose means the freedom to be responsible for your
> actions. When you ask most people who are pro-choice, they generally
> believe that other people have abortions. Few women proudly admit to
> having aborted a fetus. Wonder why?

Wonder why?  Not particularly. What kind of question is that, anyway?

And on the flip side, how many men proudly admit to "fathering" such
fetuses?

Earlier in my life two relationships resulted in abortions. This
solution was the best under the circumstances.

We did not broadcast these events knowing we'd be condemned roundly by
some whose beliefs were different - and likely never hear the end of
it. However, neither have they been kept secret.

Regards,
MB


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun May  8 00:56:51 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and
> does 
> not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and
> to 
> record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any
> poster 
> on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing.

So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
happen?


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun May  8 01:37:56 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 20:37:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507201243.02c49228@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 07:56 PM 5/7/2005, Adrian wrote:

>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and
> > does not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and
> > to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any
> > poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing.
>
>So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
>how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
>happen?

Currently I am completing a masters of science degree focusing on cultural 
strategy and will use this for developing plans for marketing 
transhumanism, as well as teaching courses relating to transhumanism.

I'm writing 2 books:  "The Transhumanists" about the culture of 
transhumanism, is past, present and  future forecast; and "The World's Most 
Dangerous Idea" which you know about.

By the way, a new book on the future is coming out in Europe this month and 
I am featured in it.  I have attached some information if anyone is 
interested.  Also, I was featured in L'Optimum high gloss French magazine 
last month.

And, lastly, and most importantly, developing a new website for ExI which 
will feature "transhumanism".   Should be released within two weeks.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/eb3e0f61/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun May  8 02:22:05 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:22:05 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
References: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDMEINDBAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <00b001c55374$ba804f50$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Greg Burch wrote:

 > Mike ...There are lots of people who read the list off and on 
> who've accomplished many things on the scale you've pointed 
> to, me among them.  While I've been a list member, I've built a 
> successful law practice (or two or three), designed and built
> my dream house with my wife, learned to live with a lemur,
> helped the Smithsonian raise money to restore a Saturn V,
> taught myself 3d computer modelling, started a blog that gets
> quite a few hits, revived my Chinese language skills ... and 
>that's just what comes to me off the top of my head.  There
> are plenty of others here who've done just as much or more.
>  It's true there's often an inverse proportion between activity
> in the "real world" and posting on the list here.  But that 
> doesn't mean folks aren't still thinking about the issues we
> consider vital and, when the opportunity presents itself,
> moving things along a little bit at a time ...

What has any of that got to do with transhumanism or extropy?

Is merely trying (and perhaps succeeding) in having a good,
enjoyable, rewarding life enough?  This reminds me of a sort of
protestantism that equates christianity with going to church on
sunday. 

You are a Director of ExI Greg, and yet you hardly ever post to
this list. The same could be said of Max More. 

Imo the list is the poorer and the less interesting for the absence
of your voices. And the list to me IS the public face of extropy.

Brett Paatsch



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sun May  8 02:30:36 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:30:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <427D79CC.4050906@humanenhancement.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050507/d61938f2/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun May  8 02:56:42 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 19:56:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net>
	<427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <427D7FEA.4050902@jefallbright.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> Jef wrote:
>
>> A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort 
>> the baby depends upon the circumstances.
>

Actually, ben made that statement.

My desire with regard to this discussion is to eventually get beyond 
specific actions which may be considered moral or immoral, get beyond 
the various stands people take on moral issues based on evolved biases 
and cultural and personal beliefs, and then show that between the 
absolutist position and the relativist position there may be a very 
practical way of looking at these kinds of issues that is not 
free-floating or fixed, but grows with the complexity of the issues.

- Jef




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun May  8 04:24:32 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 21:24:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
... 
> So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
> how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
> happen?
...


Money is what makes things happen, the only force that
we can always rely upon to make things happen.  Transhumanism
will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing 
volunteers, individual courage, any of that.  Transhumanism 
will be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of
the journey profitable.  Market forces will make it
happen.  

Consider the small steps we have already made in the
transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, 
the internet, stem cell research, all that.  It only goes
forth when market forces push it forward.

Show them the money, they will come.  

spike 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun May  8 05:50:43 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 15:50:43 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
References: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> ... 
>> So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
>> how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
>> happen?
> ...
> 
> 
> Money is what makes things happen, the only force that
> we can always rely upon to make things happen. 

That cannot be the whole truth. Not if you accept that there has
been people for longer than there has been money. 

Most of us would accept that at some point(s) in history people
invented 'money' as a means of exchange. Before there was 
money to "make things happen" there had to be other things,
other 'drivers', to "make things happen".  Perhaps those 'drivers'
were genes, (sex), perhaps they were memes, perhaps they were
something else, but they definately were not money, not originally. 

> Transhumanism will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing 
> volunteers, individual courage, any of that.  Transhumanism will
> be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of the journey
> profitable.  Market forces will make it happen.  

This form of transhumanism looks just like another sort of elitism, or
apoligia for the status quo by those that are benefitting from it, it has
no deep roots in science or in an understanding of the natural world
of which humans and all human constructions and institutions are a
part.  

What parent is driven to have children for financial reasons? Money
is an enabler (at best) it is not a driver. 
 
> Consider the small steps we have already made in the
> transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, 
> the internet, stem cell research, all that.  It only goes forth when
> market forces push it forward.

Those things go forward because human agents take them forward,
human agents constitute both the supply and the demand for those
things, but they don't get to go forward when those human agents 
are distracted by the necessity to chase away thieves and marauders. 

I am unaware of any advances in medical technology, computing,
the internet or stem cell research that happened under a transhuman
flag or under a company or individual who said that they were doing
the work that they were doing because of transhumanism.

If transhumanism is going to be significant in world historical terms
it will only be because human agents make it mean something. 

In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of the biggest 
political/social/ethical challenges is getting people to recognize that 
there is a difference between a *potential* human being (an embryo)
and an *actual* one.  Transhumanism isn't helping with this 
discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist talk as though what
could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian nanotech, will happen 
given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant for mortals).  By 
living so far in a hypothetical potential future many transhumanists
seem to be losing or failing to engage in the issues of the present. 

With the possible exception of Natasha and a handful of others those
that are engaging with the real issues of the day are doing so under
their own names, and their own brands, not under a banner of
transhumanism. 

Brett Paatsch



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun May  8 07:09:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
> Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club. 

Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user
by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree
with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise.

You can count one point: the one I'm trying to make that some are
virulently attempting to avoid or deny.

> There
> are lots of people who read the list off and on who've accomplished
> many things on the scale you've pointed to, me among them. 

You I would count in the handful of doers, and you know I always have.

> There are
> plenty of others here who've done just as much or more. 

There are some who've done as much.

> It's true
> there's often an inverse proportion between activity in the "real
> world" and posting on the list here.  But that doesn't mean folks
> aren't still thinking about the issues we consider vital and, when
> the opportunity presents itself, moving things along a little bit at
> a time ...

There is a distinct difference between moving things along and holding
things back, downplaying things, cynically denigrating things. There is
a pernicious virus of cynicism, negativity, and armchair quarterbacking
going on on this list which is highly unextropic.

Adrian got started on his project partly to prove me wrong, to prove
that this list isn't full of do nothings by being one person who is
doing something. Unfortunately, he has proven me right at least as much
given the number of people who immediately came out with posts denying,
contesting, challenging, or denouncing Adrian and his project. His
project is separating the wheat from the chaff on this list.

What he is showing is that there is a distinct difference between the
statements "this list is full of do nothings" and "this list is 100% do
nothings". The second he has proven false. The first remains to be
seen. I for one remain dynamically optimistic, despite evidence to the
contrary. Call it an unfounded faith in humanity.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun May  8 07:29:17 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:29:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com>
	<DCD96431-F764-4471-B61C-73A6E1ECE574@mac.com>
	<427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <ADDD2FFA-EB80-4A26-A126-C1870B9635DE@mac.com>

The notion that objective morality leads to an either-or about such a  
situation between a dogmatic answer and a limited justification of  
choice.  Morality hangs out a level deeper than that.  But I  
apologize for calling it silly.  It wasn't and was better than a lot  
that has been posted on this topic.  I seem to be battling a late flu  
bug today so I may not post more for a day or two,

- s
On May 7, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Bryan Moss wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>> Oh my.  The conversation really has got that silly.  Can we stop   
>> now?  Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are  
>> talking  about.
>>
>
>
> That was a rather straightforward definition.  What, exactly, are  
> you objecting to?
>
> BM
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun May  8 07:44:44 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:44:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net>
References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com>
	<427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net>
	<427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c520505080044132a63bd@mail.gmail.com>

If Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, the situation changes
completely because now there is another person whose interest must be
taken into account. So barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. the
adult is pointing a gun at Sue and threatening to shoot), I would say
Sue should not do as she wants in this specific case. If she does it
anyway, well this is what we have police and laws for.
The difference is that the unborn baby is not a person, and the adult
is. In the first case, no harm is done to a person, and in the second
it is.
G.


On 5/7/05, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> Giulio:
> Very simple answer:
> Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not
> have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby.
> And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should
> also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view
> of his greater experience of things.
> Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral
> relativist or objectivist stance.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was
> this an exceptionally easy case?
> 
> What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on
> simple jealousy.  Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue
> should do as she wants?  If not, then can you help us understand what
> basis of reasoning applies?
> 
> - Jef


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun May  8 07:56:21 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:56:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com>


On May 8, 2005, at 12:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club.
>>
>
> Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user
> by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree
> with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise.
>

That's quite a statement form the biggest bully on the list. About  
browbeating and denigrating those who disagree with you I acknowledge  
your mastery.  Who do you think you are that we would care who is and  
is not on your positive list? I am sorry if you chafe at the  
reputation you have built for yourself.   Karma trues us up.

>
> There is a distinct difference between moving things along and holding
> things back, downplaying things, cynically denigrating things.  
> There is
> a pernicious virus of cynicism, negativity, and armchair  
> quarterbacking
> going on on this list which is highly unextropic.
>

You believe you are the solution somehow?  Newton help us.   But I do  
agree that there is indeed a lot of all of those things.  Along with  
a grandstanding, chest thumping, ducking hard issues, denial, self  
congratulation, culture blindness and many other less than helpful  
traits.   Welcome to the human condition.  The day you learn to lift  
the spirits, enhance the contribution, actually fully listen to and  
appreciate each person on this list is the day I will believe you  
have positive useful guidance to give.   In the meantime it is hard  
to see.

- samantha

>


From benboc at lineone.net  Sun May  8 11:04:33 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 12:04:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net>

samantha said:

"The discussion was not about absolutism or at least I hope it has not
gone that far astray from anything worth talking about."

"In this you have made the entire discussion more of a fruitless
muddle than it was.  Congratulations."

Well, i'm sorry if i'm contributing to the muddle, that's obviously not 
my intention.

I can see what you're saying about absolutism vs objectivism, but as i 
said, i think that the pope's original announcement was not about 
relative morality as opposed to objective morality - i.e., moral 
arguments based on objective reality - but about relative moral 
viewpoints as opposed to absolute ones (he's a PRIEST. What does he care 
about objective reality? He cares about what god tells him is the 
absolute truth). This discussion has drifted away from that, and i was 
trying to point this out.
You might think that absolutism isn't worth talking about, and 
personally, i would tend to agree - in an ideal world. But there are 
many people who have absolutist viewpoints, and some of them are very 
influential. This makes it worth talking about. here's an example of why 
(taken from a recent letter in the New Scientist): The catholic church 
knows perfectly well that their policies on AIDS prevention are killing 
people. They know this and approve of it, because they know that "The 
wages of sin are death". This is hardly a moral stance derived from 
objective reality.

I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else. Sometimes 
this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become clearer. Being a 
bear of little brain, i was a bit confused about the use of the term 
'objective', now i think i understand better.



Jef said:

"Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was
this an exceptionally easy case?

What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on
simple jealousy.  Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue
should do as she wants?"


I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say that 
people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral relativism 
is, although many people try to portray it as such.

I get the impression that the phrase 'moral relativism' is being taken 
to mean different things to different people.

Just what do the people here understand it to mean? Ditto with moral 
objectivism.

ben


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun May  8 14:54:31 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 07:54:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net>
References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com>
	<427DF241.8090709@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net>

ben wrote:

>
> I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else. 
> Sometimes this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become 
> clearer. 

Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way 
these terms are applied.  It appears muddled because these concepts of 
absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve 
subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context.  Seeing 
the muddle is a step along the way to asking questions about what really 
underlies our evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of 
situations and a range of moral agents from the simple to the more complex.

> I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say 
> that people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral 
> relativism is, although many people try to portray it as such.

Of course we would all agree that people can not always do whatever they 
want.  My question to Giulio was to try to clarify what he thinks is the 
underlying principle.  So far now, I think he has said that if a moral 
decision does not involve another person, then one can do what one 
wants, and if it does involve another person then ... what?  He then 
refers to depending on laws, which is another clue to the bigger 
picture.  Laws are part of a larger process involving multiple agents.  
But do they represent a higher level of morality, since they encompass 
more than the individual?  Or might laws become dangerously out of touch 
with the subjective issues of the individual?

By the way, I agree with Giulio that if there is no other moral agent 
involved, one should do as one wants.  I question however, whether there 
is any clear dividing line between actions that do, and actions that do 
not, affect others.  Just about everything we do has indirect effects on 
others, and I think it's most practical to look at these issues in terms 
of expanding circles of context of awareness.  Simply put: actions are 
considered increasingly moral as they are seen to be effective over 
increasing context of agents and their interactions. 

 From this basis we can then proceed to discover and develop principles 
of effective interaction, essentially principles that tend to promote 
cooperative growth.

This thinking has an inherent subjective component, but it is not relative.
This thinking is based on what (increasingly) objectively works, but it 
is not absolute.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun May  8 15:16:17 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050508151617.79221.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Adrian got started on his project partly to prove me wrong, to prove
> that this list isn't full of do nothings by being one person who is
> doing something. Unfortunately, he has proven me right at least as
> much
> given the number of people who immediately came out with posts
> denying,
> contesting, challenging, or denouncing Adrian and his project.

I haven't seen any posts that I would consider to be "denying,
contesting, challenging, or denouncing" myself specifically, as opposed
to my project.  As to those posts challenging the project - welcome to
normal scientific debate.  This has been nothing compared to what I'll
eventually face in the scientific community - and there will be those
who, even if I have overwhelming evidence (not just theoretical proof,
not just video clips of the device in action, but even if and after I
advance all the way to cheap commercialization where I can build and
sell these things at prices almost anyone can afford), will continue to
reject it.

Hal's arguments, granted, have largely been straw men - but that's not
his fault.  Given as this is a new and strange idea by the standards of
what has come before, the onus is on me to find a way to explain the
idea clearly enough that people don't make the false associations that
lead them to believe that the straw men are real.  (Most of my
audience, I *won't* get to respond directly to.  They won't even state
their questions, just harbor and nurture them where no one else may
perceive them.  So I need to make sure their first impression - which
may be their only impression - is a correct and good one.  This takes
some doing, and refining it by open questioning to highlight potential
misunderstandings appears to be one of the best processes for doing so.
It's actually rather similar to the reason why open source software
works so well, once a project attracts a sizable audience of
developers.)


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:04:56 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:04:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net>
References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com>
	<427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050508090415536e1f@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, you are right that almost whatever we do affects someone else in
some way. Let's see some extremes:
A) Killing someone has a very strong negative impact on the target, so
it is not a moral thing to do (barring exceptional circumstances of
course).
Z) Choosing to wear grey instead of brown may be unpleasant to those
who do not like brown, but I think everyone will agree that wearing
grey instead of brown is not morally wrong.
An interesting middle ground is personal choices that, even if they do
not damage anyone, can offend those with specific worldview strongly
against that particular choice. Gay marriage is an example. No harm is
done to anyone is two adults of the same sex want to marry, yet the
very idea outrage some people.
But I think we fall in Z also in this case. As long as nobody forces
you to adopt a specific lifestyle, you should be tolerant because it
is not your business.
G.


On 5/8/05, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> ben wrote:
> 
> >
> > I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else.
> > Sometimes this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become
> > clearer.
> 
> Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way
> these terms are applied.  It appears muddled because these concepts of
> absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve
> subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context.  Seeing
> the muddle is a step along the way to asking questions about what really
> underlies our evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of
> situations and a range of moral agents from the simple to the more complex.
> 
> > I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say
> > that people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral
> > relativism is, although many people try to portray it as such.
> 
> Of course we would all agree that people can not always do whatever they
> want.  My question to Giulio was to try to clarify what he thinks is the
> underlying principle.  So far now, I think he has said that if a moral
> decision does not involve another person, then one can do what one
> wants, and if it does involve another person then ... what?  He then
> refers to depending on laws, which is another clue to the bigger
> picture.  Laws are part of a larger process involving multiple agents.
> But do they represent a higher level of morality, since they encompass
> more than the individual?  Or might laws become dangerously out of touch
> with the subjective issues of the individual?
> 
> By the way, I agree with Giulio that if there is no other moral agent
> involved, one should do as one wants.  I question however, whether there
> is any clear dividing line between actions that do, and actions that do
> not, affect others.  Just about everything we do has indirect effects on
> others, and I think it's most practical to look at these issues in terms
> of expanding circles of context of awareness.  Simply put: actions are
> considered increasingly moral as they are seen to be effective over
> increasing context of agents and their interactions.
> 
>  From this basis we can then proceed to discover and develop principles
> of effective interaction, essentially principles that tend to promote
> cooperative growth.
> 
> This thinking has an inherent subjective component, but it is not relative.
> This thinking is based on what (increasingly) objectively works, but it
> is not absolute.
> 
> - Jef
> http://www.jefallbright.net


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun May  8 16:35:19 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:35:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity)
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Okay, taking the bull by the horns, this is for all you proactive 
transhumanists for a more extropic future.  Here are some of my 
suggestions.  Because I have more than 5, this will be 2 weeks worth, 
starting last week.  This will give me an opportunity to post again next week.

1.  Write to me and ask how you can help with my research as a volunteer.
2.  Write to me and ask how you can help with my research as my assistant.
3.  Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this summer).
4.  Work with Extropy Institute's marketing department.
5.  Start an extropic and future-oriented group in your area to discuss 
transhumanism.
6.  Write articles for some of the transhumanist ideas that are timely.
7.  Post 3-5 things a week that we could be doing on a weekly basis to get 
ideas out in to the public.
8.  Work with Immortality Institute on its upcoming conference and film and 
book.
9.  As your schools if you can get credit by working with Extropy Institute.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050508/8ce1572e/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Sun May  8 16:58:29 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun,  8 May 2005 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
Message-ID: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org>

I have found a good site with articles and references on Casimir
forces for different shaped cavities and arrangements.  It is
www.quantumfields.com, particularly
http://www.quantumfields.com/articles.htm .  I wasn't sure about this site
at first, it looked a little "iffy" because there are so many quack sites
selling junk perpetual motion machines based on ZPE and Casimir force,
but this one looks legit from what I can tell.  At least the articles
mostly appear to be from refereed journals.

Adrian might be especially interested in "A design manual for
micromachines using Casimir forces: preliminary considerations",
http://www.quantumfields.com/staif-2000paper.PDF , by Jordan Maclay.
This is not a journal article but it looks legit to me.  It discusses a
number of possible MEMS devices that would use or interact with Casimir
force:

> Casimir forces have been computed for only a few common geometries
> (See Table 1).  The most common one is the infinite, parallel plate
> geometry that produces an attractive force between the plates. If we
> examine the infinite parallel plate geometry more fully, and imagine
> placing perfectly conductive, metal surfaces normal to the parallel
> plates in order to enclose the volume between the plates, then there
> would be outward forces on these additional four infinitely long, narrow,
> surfaces (Brown, 1969).   For a conducting spherical shell (Milton, 1978)
> and (Boyer, 1968) have predicted outward or repulsive Casimir force.
> (Lukosz, 1971) has predicted repulsive forces for a conducting hollow
> cube. The vacuum stress on two intersecting planes is attractive. For
> conductive rectangular cavities with square cross section (1 x 1 x
> c) the Casimir energy and the forces on the cavity walls have been
> computed by (Ambjorn, 1983), (Haycan, 1993), and (Mostepanenko, 1997)
> with the result that the forces can be inward or outward depending on
> the specific dimensions. (Ambjorn , 1983) has computed the constant
> energy contours for a1 x a2 x a3 geometry for the region a2, a3 > 1.
> (Maclay, 1999) has computed the energy and force for rectangular cavities
> of arbitrary dimension.
>
> For the parallel plate, sphere, cube, and rectangular cavity expressions
> for the stress-energy tensor Tuv have been derived, giving separate
> expression for the stresses Tij and energy density T00. It is very
> important to note that for all geometries for which energy densities
> and forces have been computed, the expression for the force can also
> be obtained from the expression for the energy density by the principal
> of virtual work, which is based on the conservation of energy.  By this
> principal, the force Fx in the x-direction equals dE/dx, where E is the
> total energy in the volume.  Thus in microdevices utilizing Casimir
> forces, we expect to conserve the total energy, which includes the
> mechanical energy and the field energy.

Two key points here: first, for other geometries than infinite, parallel
plates, the Casimir force seems to be as often repulsive as attractive.
The effect is apparently quite complex and has only been computed from
first principles for a few geometries.  And second, most importantly,
it conserves energy, exactly as I have been saying.  Casimir is a
conservative force and can be calculated as the partial derivative of
the potential energy E with respect to the position coordinate x.  As I
showed, this proves that Adrian's device cannot work since the position
coordinate corresponds to the rotational position of the circular shell,
which is perfectly symmetric, hence E cannot change with that position,
hence F is zero.

Nevertheless this article, and others on the site, point to some
interesting experimental tests of Casimir forces.  From what I have
read elsewhere, current results do not match up that well with theory.
They only agree to within about 10-20%, which is not that good.  Better
experimental technique could help to show whether more theory is needed.
I would encourage Adrian to continue his experiments but base them on
realistic expectations.

BTW another paper on this site, the last one by the late Robert
Forward, may interest Mike Lorrey: "A Gedanken spacecraft that
operates using the quantum vacuum (Dynamic Casimir effect)",
http://www.quantumfields.com/gedanken%20spacecraft.pdf .  The abstract
says, "In this paper we consider another suggestion from science fiction
and explore how the quantum vacuum might be utilized in the creation
of a novel spacecraft. The spacecraft is based on the dynamic Casimir
effect, in which electromagnetic radiation is emitted when an uncharged
mirror is properly accelerated in the vacuum. The radiative reaction
produces a dissipative force on the mirror that tends to resist the
acceleration of the mirror. This force can be used to accelerate a
spacecraft attached to the mirror. We also show that, in principle,
one could obtain the power to operate the accelerated mirror in such
a spacecraft using energy extracted from the quantum vacuum using the
standard Casimir effect with a parallel plate geometry."

Sounds promising, but when you read it you find that it still obeys
the boring old laws of physics: conservation of energy, conservation
of momentum.  It uses a vibrating mirror to radiate photons, a side
effect of Casimir force.  These radiating photons propel the craft using
conservation of momentum.  And that idea of powering the ship with energy
from the vacuum?  It's a simple Casimir battery, parallel plates allowed
to fall together so that you can extract energy from them.  It's a one
shot operation that does not generate infinite power.  Too bad.

As for the larger question of whether it makes more sense for Extropians
to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent with the laws of physics
vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still think it is obvious
that the first path is more likely to succeed and advance one's goals.

Hal


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun May  8 18:03:02 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 13:03:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Friends,

We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in 
getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about 
transhumanism. This is a good thing.

We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list 
members.  This is not a good thing.

This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not allow 
posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an underhanded 
approach.  If it continues, you will be asked to leave the list or removed 
today.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050508/920b1d36/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sun May  8 17:34:13 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 12:34:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <427E4D95.2050204@sasktel.net>

What I have done is trademarked LIFESPAN in Canada and likely later in 
the USA.
I have found investors to co-fund  LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
I add transhuman memes to the business such as:
Mission Statment: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance the Human Lifespan.

Not rocket science to the leading edge stuff we discuss but down in the 
trenches grunt stuff to "Make it so" and "engage"
as "Captain Picard" would put it.

Transhumanism  does involve real work 24/7/365 and must be profitable.
So like-em or hate-em we have got to do the Bill Gates or Ray Kurzweil 
thing, commercialize transhumanism.

Groups like Futuretagltd are great semi-commercial mentoring enterprises 
and we should all participate
to the best of our time and ability available.

Time spent in our numerous favorite  think tanks is time well spent.... 
at least to we , "the converted".

Win, loose or draw there are no real loosers in our movement... just  
differing shades of success.

Morris Johnson


From scerir at libero.it  Sun May  8 18:51:07 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:51:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
References: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c553fe$e5c811e0$1ec01b97@administxl09yj>

Forward wrote another paper, about his "Casimir battery":
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v30/i4/p1700_1

Federico Capasso (a friend of mine, but 35 years ago!) 
is also working in the field (at Bell labs now?). 
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109046
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410136
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312043





From eugen at leitl.org  Sun May  8 22:45:39 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 00:45:39 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com>
	<013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050508224539.GE1433@leitl.org>

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:50:43PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> That cannot be the whole truth. Not if you accept that there has
> been people for longer than there has been money. 

Universally scarce goods were the precursor of money. Precious metals used to
be a just another bartering item (e.g. rubles originated as pieces hacked off 
a silver bar).
 
> Most of us would accept that at some point(s) in history people
> invented 'money' as a means of exchange. Before there was 
> money to "make things happen" there had to be other things,
> other 'drivers', to "make things happen".  Perhaps those 'drivers'
> were genes, (sex), perhaps they were memes, perhaps they were
> something else, but they definately were not money, not originally. 

I might be remembering this wrong, but Etruscans (the @ symbol used to refer
to a unit of trade, amphora) used wine to motivate people. Holding feasts in
general was a motivational system of high-status people -- you had to be
wealthy in order to be able afford that.
 
> This form of transhumanism looks just like another sort of elitism, or
> apoligia for the status quo by those that are benefitting from it, it has
> no deep roots in science or in an understanding of the natural world
> of which humans and all human constructions and institutions are a
> part.  

Research and development are expensive. Nanotechnology, artificial
intelligence and space are extremely expensive, risky technologies with a
long-term ROI. 
 
> What parent is driven to have children for financial reasons? Money

Until very recently, having many children was a source of cheap labour.

Not having many children despite heavy infant mortality was a recipe for
gene self-termination.

> is an enabler (at best) it is not a driver. 
> 
> >Consider the small steps we have already made in the
> >transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, 
> >the internet, stem cell research, all that.  It only goes forth when
> >market forces push it forward.
> 
> Those things go forward because human agents take them forward,
> human agents constitute both the supply and the demand for those
> things, but they don't get to go forward when those human agents 
> are distracted by the necessity to chase away thieves and marauders. 
>
> I am unaware of any advances in medical technology, computing,
> the internet or stem cell research that happened under a transhuman
> flag or under a company or individual who said that they were doing
> the work that they were doing because of transhumanism.

I suspect many such advances have been made, despite of lack of explicit 
alligation.

Actually, I suspect many consider transhumanism as an albatross around one's
neck, and would tend to shun association, even if they're aware that such a
label exists. 
 
> If transhumanism is going to be significant in world historical terms
> it will only be because human agents make it mean something. 
> 
> In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of the biggest 
> political/social/ethical challenges is getting people to recognize that 
> there is a difference between a *potential* human being (an embryo)
> and an *actual* one.  Transhumanism isn't helping with this 
> discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist talk as though what
> could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian nanotech, will happen 
> given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant for mortals).  By 
> living so far in a hypothetical potential future many transhumanists
> seem to be losing or failing to engage in the issues of the present. 
> 
> With the possible exception of Natasha and a handful of others those
> that are engaging with the real issues of the day are doing so under
> their own names, and their own brands, not under a banner of
> transhumanism. 

Transhumanism is just a label for a common value cluster. It's perfectly
feasible to pursue that cluster of values in full ignorance of such a 
label. This is, in fact, what most people do.

However, in order to lobby effectively, and to establish agent cooperation
based on mutual recognition it is necessary to agree on a common label. 
</tired cliches>


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/3e49aefd/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May  9 00:22:11 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating
	Transhumanity)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> 3.  Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this
> summer).

Programming for a summit?  Out of curiosity, what does that entail?


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon May  9 00:23:01 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:23:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>  
>
>>Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and
>>does 
>>not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and
>>to 
>>record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any
>>poster 
>>on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing.
>>    
>>
>
>So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
>how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
>happen?
>  
>
See the sigline for my first effort.
For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter will 
be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' of alchemy.
I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication...

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon May  9 00:26:11 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:26:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com>
References: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com>
Message-ID: <427EAE23.4080302@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On May 8, 2005, at 12:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>
>> --- Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club.
>>>
>>
>> Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user
>> by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree
>> with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise.
>>
>
> That's quite a statement form the biggest bully on the list. About  
> browbeating and denigrating those who disagree with you I acknowledge  
> your mastery.  Who do you think you are that we would care who is and  
> is not on your positive list? I am sorry if you chafe at the  
> reputation you have built for yourself.   Karma trues us up.
>
Hey, lighten up!
You're all wussies here when it comes to bullying, compared with people 
I have regularly mixed with on and off line.
At least nobody is issuing death threats...

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon May  9 00:28:52 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:28:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> Friends,
>
> We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in 
> getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about 
> transhumanism. This is a good thing.
>
> We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list 
> members.  This is not a good thing.
>
> This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not 
> allow posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an 
> underhanded approach.  If it continues, you will be asked to leave the 
> list or removed today.
>
Sorry to be a pain over this, but I don't understand what precisely you 
are trying to say.
What, for example, are "accusations using a broad stroke with an 
underhanded approach"?
I'm not asking for quotes from posts you have seen here, but a 
fictitious example might be helpful.

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 00:51:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508224539.GE1433@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050509005145.58220.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> 
> Actually, I suspect many consider transhumanism as
> an albatross around one's
> neck, and would tend to shun association, even if
> they're aware that such a
> label exists. 
>  
> > If transhumanism is going to be significant in
> world historical terms
> > it will only be because human agents make it mean
> something. 
> > 
> > In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of
> the biggest 
> > political/social/ethical challenges is getting
> people to recognize that 
> > there is a difference between a *potential* human
> being (an embryo)
> > and an *actual* one.  Transhumanism isn't helping
> with this 
> > discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist
> talk as though what
> > could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian
> nanotech, will happen 
> > given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant
> for mortals).  By 
> > living so far in a hypothetical potential future
> many transhumanists
> > seem to be losing or failing to engage in the
> issues of the present. 
> > 
> > With the possible exception of Natasha and a
> handful of others those
> > that are engaging with the real issues of the day
> are doing so under
> > their own names, and their own brands, not under a
> banner of
> > transhumanism. 

     Yup. This describes my situation exactly. I was
interested in and made career choices regarding
life-extension through stem cells and genetic and
physiological augmentation long before I was aware of
the existence of ExI or transhumanism in general. It
just seemed to be a logical and lucrative course of
action. Then in the midst of graduate school (PhD in
microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics) I
discovered you guys and thought, "wow, I am not such a
crazy apostate weirdo... there are other people out
there that want to live a thousand years too and they
realize that it is scientifically feasable and morally
justifiable to do so." That essentially was the whole
reason I signed onto this list. I would rather be part
of a movement than a lone crack-pot. 
     But to be totally honest I am somewhat in love
with my own humanity and so there are aspects of
transhumanism I am not terribly comfortable with. I
for one would not go out of my way to rush the
singularity to our doorsteps. I love life as I know
it. I don't think I would love life with my psyche
trapped in some unix box, or with me at the beck and
call of some all-powerful AI. 
 
> Transhumanism is just a label for a common value
> cluster. It's perfectly
> feasible to pursue that cluster of values in full
> ignorance of such a 
> label. This is, in fact, what most people do.      
> However, in order to lobby effectively, and to
> establish agent cooperation
> based on mutual recognition it is necessary to agree
> on a common label. 

 Yes it is a label and that can be good or bad,
depending entirely on how it is perceived. On one hand
one would like to think that our cluster of values
would sell itself on its own merits. Unfortunately
however experience has taught me that this is not how
the world works. The difference between brand name
peanut butter and generic peanut butter is not the
ingredients or the processing. It is entirely the
label and the spin. I for one think that our label
would sell better if it was seen by the mainstream as
being sexy, chic, and powerful. I don't think that
transhumanists have done a good enough job on this
front. Instead I think we give the world the
impression that we are a bunch of irreverant amoral
geeks that sit at our computers and argue about how
what the world will be like 10,000 years from now.
     I know most of people on this list detest
Scientology and Dianetics but that should not mean
that we can't learn anything from them. They didn't
reach critical mass until they recruited hollywood
celebraties like Tom Cruise and John Travolta into
their midst.
      So taking this into account, I don't think that
it is nessesary that every extrope on this list need
write a book, invent the elixir of eternal life, or
make a billion dollars in order to proactively create
transhumanity. I believe that it is sufficient that
every list member find what they are best at doing. It
doesn't really matter what this is even if it is just
underwater-basket-weaving, golf, or reciting poetry
and strive to do as well as humanly possible. Then
once they are at that level, they need to do it just a
little bit better so that the world will take notice.
Then when the world is paying attention to them, they
need to proudly own up to being a transhumanist or
Extrope or whatever you decide THE LABEL ought to be.
Once any movement or product becomes associated with
famous powerful beautiful people, you will have to
beat the wannabes off with a stick.  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:55:35 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:25:35 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating
	Transhumanity)
In-Reply-To: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0505081755175574f9@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, do tell.

Emlyn

On 09/05/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > 3.  Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this
> > summer).
> 
> Programming for a summit?  Out of curiosity, what does that entail?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 *
(my real website is back, music, software, everything!)


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 00:58:47 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050509005847.56231.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> See the sigline for my first effort.
> For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the
> last chapter will 
> be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day
> 'Great Work' of alchemy.
> I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon
> publication...

 I won't call for your excommunication because I know
better. Biochemistry can trace its roots back in an
unbroken chain all the way to the alchemists of
ancient Egypt. Hermes Trismejestus may have very well
been the world's first transhumanist. He did after all
publish some dozen books or so over a period of
several hundred years. Philosopher's stone, Elixir of
Life, Embryonic Stem Cells... all different facets of
the same jewel.
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 natasha at natasha.cc  Mon May  9 01:03:58 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 20:03:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts
In-Reply-To: <427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508195712.02cebda8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 07:28 PM 5/8/2005, you wrote:
>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
>>Friends,
>>
>>We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in 
>>getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about 
>>transhumanism. This is a good thing.
>>
>>We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list 
>>members.  This is not a good thing.
>>
>>This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not allow 
>>posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an underhanded 
>>approach.  If it continues, you will be asked to leave the list or 
>>removed today.
>Sorry to be a pain over this, but I don't understand what precisely you 
>are trying to say.
>What, for example, are "accusations using a broad stroke with an 
>underhanded approach"?
>I'm not asking for quotes from posts you have seen here, but a fictitious 
>example might be helpful.

Underhanded and overboard claims that are intended to insult list members.

Natasha




Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050508/1bb567e4/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon May  9 01:06:42 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 20:06:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating
	Transhumanity)
In-Reply-To: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508200427.02d14ea0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 07:22 PM 5/8/2005, Adrianwrote:

>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > 3.  Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this
> > summer).
>
>Programming for a summit?  Out of curiosity, what does that entail?


Fabulous!  It entails basic compiling data and preparing web pages for 
summit.  I will get you in touch with the tech team and you can speak with 
them.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050508/9022149f/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May  9 01:11:04 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating
	Transhumanity)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508200427.02d14ea0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050509011104.30780.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> At 07:22 PM 5/8/2005, Adrianwrote:
> >--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > > 3.  Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this
> > > summer).
> >
> >Programming for a summit?  Out of curiosity, what does that entail?
> 
> Fabulous!  It entails basic compiling data and preparing web pages
> for 
> summit.  I will get you in touch with the tech team and you can speak
> with 
> them.

Just curious for the details.  Not saying I will...though not saying I
won't either.  ;)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May  9 01:32:48 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Adrian might be especially interested in "A design manual for
> micromachines using Casimir forces: preliminary considerations",
> http://www.quantumfields.com/staif-2000paper.PDF , by Jordan Maclay.
> This is not a journal article but it looks legit to me.

I note that all of the structures it proposes keep all the faces
parallel, and do not attempt to bias the Casimir effect one way or
another.  So of course those systems remain conservative.

> Two key points here: first, for other geometries than infinite,
> parallel
> plates, the Casimir force seems to be as often repulsive as
> attractive.
> The effect is apparently quite complex and has only been computed
> from
> first principles for a few geometries.

As noted in my project description, it's quite possible the geometry
I'm using would indeed result in repulsive forces instead of
attractive.  However, in most cases, I've found that the absolute
magnitude of the force (for a certain separation, et al) does not vary
that much, even if the direction inverts.

> And second, most importantly,
> it conserves energy, exactly as I have been saying.

For the specific geometries the paper considers.  Just because parallel
plates are conservative does not mean that all systems that can tap the
Casimir effect must be conservative.

> Better
> experimental technique could help to show whether more theory is
> needed.
> I would encourage Adrian to continue his experiments but base them on
> realistic expectations.

*nods*  It may well be, given the amount of not-solidly-knowns here,
that the system neither converts energy in the expected manner nor just
sits in place (either doing nothing, or reaching some equilibrium from
which it does not budge).  Other results are extremely unlikely, but
not totally impossible given current experimental evidence.

I expect to discover something.  I do not know exactly what I will
discover (if I did, it wouldn't be a discovery), nor do I know
approximately how immediately useful it will be ("new energy source"
and "minor academic curiosity" being almost at opposite ends of the
immediate utility spectrum, yet both results are quite possible).  And
I am already getting hints that the most useful thing to come out of
it may have nothing to do with the initial objective at all...

> As for the larger question of whether it makes more sense for
> Extropians
> to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent with the laws of
> physics
> vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still think it is
> obvious
> that the first path is more likely to succeed and advance one's
> goals.

Actually, the question was more "whether it makes more sense for
Extropians to actually do something that can improve the world, or to
endlessly debate philosophy and not actually put it into practice in
the real world".  Valid scientific criticism (trying to clarify what
the laws of physics actually are and how they apply) was mistaken for
the latter, though.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 01:33:26 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050509013326.14628.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> 
> As for the larger question of whether it makes more
> sense for Extropians
> to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent
> with the laws of physics
> vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still
> think it is obvious
> that the first path is more likely to succeed and
> advance one's goals.

With all due respect Hal, if Einstein had followed
your advice, we'd still be wondering why our GPS
satellites were going out of alignment all the time.



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May  9 01:44:48 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050509014448.89087.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Money is what makes things happen, the only force that
> we can always rely upon to make things happen.  Transhumanism
> will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing 
> volunteers, individual courage, any of that.  Transhumanism 
> will be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of
> the journey profitable.  Market forces will make it
> happen.  

Oh, but the irony is: often times, altering these same market forces -
developing tech to make things cheaper and better, altering society so
that a desired end becomes the most economically beneficial end, and so
forth - is often accomplished by collective will, self-sacrificing
volunteers, individual courage, and so forth.  Not always, of course,
but in the absence of those things, market forces will push development
towards that which is currently profitable.

Take, for example, the civil rights movement.  Even after the end of
slavery, it was perceived as profitable to treat people of color as
second-class citizens, so that relatively more affluent white people
would be more likely to purchase one's goods or services.  When this
fact changed - and, in fact, a significant number of said white people
started to not patronize merchants who discriminated against non-whites
- then the market followed.  But consider what it took to change that
fact itself.

We are simultaneously slaves to and masters of the market.  It is
definitely true that making certain lines of development obviously
profitable will accomplish our goals.  But how do we make them that
way?  (Either "proftiable" if they aren't already, or "obviously" if
they are but those with the power to do it don't see things that way.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May  9 02:56:43 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 19:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050509025643.48296.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in
> the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending metal
> holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a mint.....
> ;)

Sounds like a possibly simple problem to tackle, if you've got a
reputable metal holding organization.  Pitch it as a new type of
debit-account-only bank, and strike a deal with Visa or MasterCard to
be able to start issuing cards.  Downplay the fact that you're
investing in metal instead of in cash, but generally hide customers'
accounts behind the account number.  Probably limit non-sale
authorizations to 95% or so of balance, to protect against fluctuations
in price making a previously granted auth no longer good a few days
later (on top of the usual protections against auth then withdraw then
process auth).  Gives a new meaning to the term "gold card"...

E-commerce.  It's everywhere you want to be.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 04:41:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 21:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050509044116.4760.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in
> > the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending
> metal
> > holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a
> mint.....
> > ;)
> 
> Sounds like a possibly simple problem to tackle, if you've got a
> reputable metal holding organization.  Pitch it as a new type of
> debit-account-only bank, and strike a deal with Visa or MasterCard to
> be able to start issuing cards.  Downplay the fact that you're
> investing in metal instead of in cash, but generally hide customers'
> accounts behind the account number.  Probably limit non-sale
> authorizations to 95% or so of balance, to protect against
> fluctuations
> in price making a previously granted auth no longer good a few days
> later (on top of the usual protections against auth then withdraw
> then process auth).  Gives a new meaning to the term "gold card"...
> 
> E-commerce.  It's everywhere you want to be.

Which brings me to a project I've been working on with a group of
folks, mostly Florida libertarians. It is now named Aurum Debit Union,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized as a cooperative of
cardmembers. Members will have a subholding under the ADU main holding,
linked to an ADU Gold Debit Card, usable at ATMs, merchants, etc.

Spends are cleared same day (as required by banking laws) at the daily
spot price.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon May  9 06:20:05 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 07:20:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0505082320cb3c05b@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/8/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
> how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
> happen?

For the second, I'm trying to figure out how to create Friendly AI.
(Whether I have a significant chance of success is of course a
different question :))

For the first, I've just written this:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~russell12/dp.html

- Russell


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon May  9 06:44:28 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 23:44:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com>


> Adrian wrote:
> So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us
> how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it
> happen?

Transhumanism to me is an extension and continuation of the upward  
movement in humanity toward fulfillment, in the direction of  
increasing perfection, abilities and choices and overcome various  
types of limitation and suffering.   What attracted me originally and  
still most lights me up is the real possibility of Abundance, on all  
levels and for everyone.   But it goes deepen than that.   It  
connects up to all those personal and global circuits that usually  
get channeled into spirituality and religion.  Except that I see that  
most of the things most religions promise in heaven or in another  
life can be ours here, on this world, and in whatever other types of  
habitats that may someday be ours.

So what am I doing.  I have been kicking something around for a long  
time.   I am done kicking it around. I will found a strongly  
transhumanist religion.   Ah. I can hear the groaning already.

I think that there is room and good reason to take the best of human  
spirituality and its tools and deep yearnings and wed that with  
science and especially with transhumanism/futurism/extropian memes.    
A Vision that knits hearts and minds together toward its  
manifestation could be planted all across many spiritual communities,  
in transhumanist circles and pull in many others from their cynicism  
or experience of lack of meaning.  When such a Vision takes hold the  
chances of arriving at a future that sings the best in us into  
manifestation will be greatly increased.

It is a religion because it will teach that we need much more than  
technology to truly create a relative paradise on this earth.  It  
will take a lot of in depth psychological and spiritual work to  
become our best selves and free our energies for the Work.    It is  
quite a shift of consciousness to really get Abundance.  This  
religion is not exclusive and certainly doesn't have a corner on  
Truth.  It is simply the best and widest net for moving forward that  
I can presently conceive of weaving and casting.  You don't have to  
believe everything I believe.  Take what works for where you are. It  
will work for some and not for others.   It is not my job to figure  
it all out.  I hope enough others  are drawn to the basic idea that  
we together can flesh out the organization and create, ever sharpen  
and spread the Vision.   I hope it infects a lot of people in various  
other religions.  I hope it infects and inflames a lot of people who  
think that to create, claim and be claimed by a Vision is somehow  
intellectually uncool.

It is very early in the formation phase of this new religion.    The  
name I am considering is "Church of the Fulfillment".   The idea  
being that we, all of humanity, can now get on with fulfilling all  
those age-old dreams of humanity and more for real, here and now, in  
this world.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050508/617ff3aa/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 07:36:38 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 00:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Breaking the laws of physics. 
Message-ID: <20050509073638.22662.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>

     It is perfectly rational and extropic to attempt
to break the laws of physics from time to time. First
of all it is because the laws of physics are not the
Laws of Nature. The laws of physics are meme-sets that
arose by the natural selection of empiricism. The Laws
of Nature simply are. They are the way that true
objective nature existed long before sentient minds
evolved to walk this planet. While it is much harder
to argue for an objective morality, I would hope not
to have to argue for the existence of an objective and
very real nature. This existence of nature is argued
for by a fossil record way too expansive to be a
simulation of any type. If you firmly believe you live
in the Matrix then just humor me and let me make my
case. 

     Now if you accept that nature simply is then one
comes to understand that our brains built by genes and
our minds built by memes evolved to maximize their
fitness relative to a many dimensional fitness
landscape. In essense both genes and memes seek
maximums on the fitness landscape relative to an
environment that can be "sensed" but not absolutely
known for certain.
 
     Now it is commonly thought that evolution happens
by mutation, one base pair of DNA at a time. True
enough, for fine tuning of fitness these small steady
changes of genes and memes is beneficial. But the
problem with this is two-fold. First of all, this slow
gradual change does not fit with all the existing
data. In a laboratory one does see small changes in
phenotype, like fruit flies changing the their eye
color and such. 

     But in the fossil record one sees a totally
different story. One sees that a particular phenotype
is stable for extended periods of time, then suddenly
in a very short span of time new phenotypes will
diverge from it and change rapidly. These phenomenon
are called adaptive radiation and punctuated
equilibrium respectively. While the exact mechanisms
of these phenomena are not exactly known, they are
thought to involve such traits as runaway sexual
selection, genetic hypermutation, recombination, and
lateral gene transfer.

     What is important to understand however is, that
regardless of the mechanism involved, these changes
serve the purpose of moving one very far from ones
current location on the fitness landscape. This allows
for one to escape what mathematicians and computer
scientists refer to a local maximum. Now this is a
very risky venture, because one is leaving the safe
realm of ones little ecological niche so it is not
something one should do lightly. But from the point of
a search algorithm trying to find the global maximum
of the fitness lanscape, reality function, or whatever
you want to call it, it has to be done.

     An example of this is the lowly cockroach. Yeah,
cockroaches are enourmously successful life-forms but
I would not want to be one. The cockroach has remained
virtually unchanged for hundreds of million years. It
had found a pretty high point on the fitness landscape
and stayed there. A very long long time ago, our genes
and the cockroaches genes were very much alike. But
the genes that became our ancestors moved out of that
local maximum and found a higher point on the fitness
landscape. So because of those brave genes so willing
to face change and the unknown, there you now sit
reading this and hopefully thinking about it. What
does this have to do with the laws of physics?

     Physics is an abstract model of Nature. It is
built of memes, in the form of equations. Functions
that attempt to capture the multidimensional shape of
reality. They are in the end mere abstract models of
Nature and not Nature itself. The ultimate reality of
Nature is probably not knownable. But thats not
important. What is important is that the laws of
physics should be as close to that reality as they can
be, like a function approaching an asymptote.

      I would say that the laws of physics as they
are, are trapped in a local maximum. That general
relativity and quantum mechanics conflict with one
another in their regions of overlap indicate that
physics is not at a global maximum. Sure we can putter
around and try to figure out the next few decimal
places of plank's constant but that is not going get
us out of this rut.

     Not only is this a problem in a philosophical
sense in that physics should be as close to the truth
as possible, but the laws of physics as they are seem
to doom us to be trapped here on this third rock of
Sol. And the universe is so big and beautiful and
hanging out there just waiting for us. So to all the
crack-pots and lunatics on this list in search of cold
fusion, Casimir turbines, and what not, I say this: Go
forth and be fruitful.

                  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon May  9 08:11:07 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 18:11:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <04e001c5546e$a7247fd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Samantha wrote:

> So what am I doing.  I have been kicking something around
> for a long time.   I am done kicking it around. I will found a
> strongly transhumanist religion.   Ah. I can hear the groaning
> already. 

I'm not groaning, I'm smiling. I think the idea is just about crazy
enough to be worth trying. A transhumanist religion is likely to
fare better than a transhumanist political party for instance. 

I think that you will find that there is a lot of work involved, but
it could be interesting to work out how to legally establish a 
religion in the USA.  There are probably tax concessions etc. 

> I think that there is room and good reason to take the best of
> human spirituality and its tools and deep yearnings and wed 
> that with science and especially with transhumanism/futurism/
> extropian memes.   A Vision that knits hearts and minds
> together toward its manifestation could be planted all across
> many spiritual communities, in transhumanist circles and pull
> in many others from their cynicism or experience of lack of
> meaning.  When such a Vision takes hold the chances of 
> arriving at a future that sings the best in us into manifestation
> will be greatly increased.  

> It is a religion because it will teach that we need much more
> than technology to truly create a relative paradise on this earth.

I'm not certain but I think there are some tests that have to be
passed to be classified as a 'religion', you can't just proclaim 
yourself to be the religion of freedom-from-other's-foolish-
religiousness for instance.  I'm not sure but perhaps you have
to believe in some sort of supreme being. 

>  It will take a lot of in depth psychological and spiritual work
> to become our best selves and free our energies for the Work.
> It is quite a shift of consciousness to really get Abundance. 
> This religion is not exclusive and certainly doesn't have a 
> corner on Truth.  It is simply the best and widest net for
> moving forward that I can presently conceive of weaving 
> and casting.  You don't have to believe everything I believe.
>  Take what works for where you are. It will work for some 
> and not for others.   It is not my job to figure it all out.  I hope
> enough others  are drawn to the basic idea that we together 
> can flesh out the organization and create, ever sharpen and 
> spread the Vision.   I hope it infects a lot of people in various
> other religions.  

How ecumenical :-)

> I hope it infects and inflames a lot of people who think that to
> create, claim and be claimed by a Vision is somehow 
> intellectually uncool.

Intellectual coolness is overrated. 

> It is very early in the formation phase of this new religion.  
>  The name I am considering is "Church of the Fulfillment". 
>  The idea being that we, all of humanity, can now get on with 
> fulfilling all those age-old dreams of humanity and more for
> real, here and now, in this world.  

I like the idea Samantha.  Its not for me. But its at least
*interesting* and you would learn something by trying to do
it in a sensible way. 

Brett Paatsch



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon May  9 09:27:02 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:27:02 +1000
Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Another thought Samantha,

If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics
then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations
would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in 
the event that local or state laws turned against you because
cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason. 

They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for
cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to 
make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on
religious grounds. 

With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your
religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional
insurance. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/0c0a99eb/attachment.html>

From claribel at intermessage.com  Mon May  9 09:57:11 2005
From: claribel at intermessage.com (Claribel)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 05:57:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com><427DF241.8090709@lineone.net>
	<427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES>



.
>
> Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way these 
> terms are applied.  It appears muddled because these concepts of absolute 
> and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve subjective 
> viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context.  Seeing the muddle is 
> a step along the way to asking questions about what really underlies our 
> evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of situations and a range 
> of moral agents from the simple to the more complex.


I am also in favor of an 'in-between' view of relativism & absolutism. Both 
of them, taken in literal form, contain inherent paradoxes.

With absolutism, the paradox is this: Not all absolutists agree on /what/ 
values should be regarded as absolute. Therefore, to profess an absolute 
system of values, you must choose between different possible absolute value 
systems. But, on what criteria do you base this choice? They cannot be 
absolute criteria, for, until you have made the choice, you do not have 
absolute criteria yet. You cannot have absolute criteria before you have 
them (well, not without a time travel paradox.) Therefore, the principles 
upon which you base your selection of absolute principles must themselves be 
either relative, arbitrary or nonrational  (based on faith, intuition, 
feeling, etc. As a matter of fact, it is quite common to use faith as a 
basis for absolute values.)

The paradox of relativism, on the other hand, is that each choice made must 
be relative /to/ something (otherwise it is purely arbitrary, which means 
that no choice is better than any other; therefore one has no basis for 
choosing at all.) But if a relative choice is relative /to/ something, that 
something must be either absolute or relative. If it is absolute, then what 
you have is an absolute value system buried under one or more levels of 
if-then clauses; the absolutes are simply at a more abstract level than that 
of immediate judgements. If it is relative, then /those/ criteria must be 
relative to still others, and so on, and so on, so you end up with an 
infinite regress.

Thus, both absolutism and relativism ultimately deconstruct themselves.

I think that in actual practice, people often make difficult moral decisions 
not through a clear-cut, linear list of ordered criteria, but through a 
complex calculus of multiple, interconnected values -- not maximizing any 
one of them, but optimizing a complex combination of them. And nonrational 
factors often play a role, precisely because the complexity is greater than 
can be easily reduced to a discrete set of rules.

I am reminded of a scene in the movie /The Golden Child/, in which a young 
Asian boy is given a test to determine his worthiness to be the next 
spiritual leader. He is given a bunch of objects that represent the 
different virtues, and told to place them on a balance in the correct order. 
He thinks about it for a while, then, finally, he claps his hands and asks 
for a plate. Then he puts all of the weights on the plate at the same time, 
and it balances correctly.  Of course, in the real world, it's not always 
that easy.




From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon May  9 10:28:25 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 03:28:25 -0700
Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com>
	<050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <70A14C63-2E20-48CD-94BA-3897AA98D69D@mac.com>

I believe the Universal Immortalism (http:// 
www.universalimmortalism.org) folks and at least one other group that  
slips my mind are exploring this angle.

- samantha

On May 9, 2005, at 2:27 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Another thought Samantha,
>
> If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics
> then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations
> would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in
> the event that local or state laws turned against you because
> cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason.
>
> They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for
> cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to
> make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on
> religious grounds.
>
> With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your
> religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional
> insurance.
>
> Brett Paatsch
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/fcdabafe/attachment.html>

From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Mon May  9 11:41:00 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:41:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?
In-Reply-To: <31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com>
	<31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com>

Monday, 09 May 2005

Much after the thread has died down, I've found my copy of the report
in question: "Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Volume I:
Executive Report, 2004." The PDF runs about 600kb, and my copy has the
file name "EMPthreat.pdf"

I'll gladly give a copy to whoever asks. Please try googling for it
first, though.

On 4/19/05, Bret <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
[snip]


-- 
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 dirk at neopax.com  Mon May  9 11:55:53 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 12:55:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
In-Reply-To: <018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES>
References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com><427DF241.8090709@lineone.net>	<427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net>
	<018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES>
Message-ID: <427F4FC9.8060108@neopax.com>

Claribel wrote:

>
>
> .
>
>>
>> Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way 
>> these terms are applied.  It appears muddled because these concepts 
>> of absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which 
>> involve subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the 
>> context.  Seeing the muddle is a step along the way to asking 
>> questions about what really underlies our evaluation of "right" and 
>> "wrong" across a range of situations and a range of moral agents from 
>> the simple to the more complex.
>
>
>
> I am also in favor of an 'in-between' view of relativism & absolutism. 
> Both of them, taken in literal form, contain inherent paradoxes.
>
Make it simpler still.
A few axioms plus 'might makes right'.
No need to 'prove' anything. No paradoxes

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon May  9 13:12:02 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:12:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com>
	<31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com>
	<5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14008f6b2828d171cf2f0de193224b6e@bonfireproductions.com>


Greetings,

One location is:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/ 
108thcongress/04-07-22emp.pdf#search='EMP%20threat.pdf'

with a document name of 04-07-22emp.pdf

Cheers,

]3


On May 9, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Jay Dugger wrote:

> EMPthreat.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 374 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/8a051a8c/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 13:38:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050509133804.33444.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Another thought Samantha,
> 
> If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics
> then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations
> would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in 
> the event that local or state laws turned against you because
> cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason. 
> 
> They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for
> cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to 
> make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on
> religious grounds. 
> 
> With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your
> religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional
> insurance. 

I for one encourage Samantha. It is something that needs doing.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon May  9 13:52:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050509135254.78292.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:
> 
> With absolutism, the paradox is this: Not all absolutists agree on
> what values should be regarded as absolute. Therefore, to profess an
> absolute system of values, you must choose between different
> possible absolute value systems. But, on what criteria do you base
> this choice? They cannot be absolute criteria, for, until you have
> made the choice, you do not have absolute criteria yet. You cannot
> have absolute criteria before you have them (well, not without a
> time travel paradox.) Therefore, the principles upon which you base
> your selection of absolute principles must themselves be either
> relative, arbitrary or nonrational  (based on faith, intuition, 
> feeling, etc. As a matter of fact, it is quite common to use faith as
> a basis for absolute values.)

The invalid assumption being made here is that all absolutes are
subjective to the people choosing them, rather than that there are
inherently objective facts embedded in the universe (pi, c, G, e, i,
etc are good candidates) which are neither open to debate, nor open to
selective cherry picking by any given sentients personal philosophy.

Therefore, there is neither relativeness, arbitrariness, nor
nonrationality to do with root objectively true facts. I understand how
a post-modernist would overlook the idea that facts could exist outside
of human conception, because such facts are outside the possibility of deconstruction.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 John-C-Wright at sff.net  Mon May  9 21:13:10 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:13:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of a good verbal contest
Message-ID: <200505092113.j49LDGR26313@tick.javien.com>

Giulio Prisco writes:

"I always enjoy a good verbal contest, but I have a feeling that we are
sort of wasting our time with this specific issue. You can affirm the objective
existence of absolute morality, and I can deny it, and we can still come to the
same moral conclusions on specific practical issues, same as we could still come
to completely different conclusions if we shared the same opinion on absolute
morality. So, believing or not in absolute morality has just no effect on
specific moral judgements. So it is like middle age scholars discussing the sex
of the angels, or how many angels can dance on a needle tip: completely void of
practical meaning and relevance."

My dear sir, I know not if this comment is meant for me, but permit me to answer
as if it were: I compliment you on your good natured dis-interest in this topic.
You believe moral reasoning is pointless and sometimes (if one reasons to an
absolute dogma) dangerous; you also believe men will come to the same general
conclusions about morality whether moral reasoning is present or absent. 

How wonderful a world it would be if we could all agree on the correct measured
justice for which humans long, and fight, and die, merely without a word uttered! 

My understanding of history, limited as it is, does not permit me to agree with
this happy vision. 

Someone, uttering arguments no different in scope or approach from the ones
uttered on this list, convinced the pagans to adopt Christianity during the
Imperial period of Rome. Someone convinced the Christians in the Dark Ages to
Crusade against the Paynims. Someone convinced the Protestants to Reform the
Church; someone convinced the Catholics to counter-reform. Someone convinced the
Abolitionists to organize a world-wide century-long opposition to the slave
trade. Someone convinced the Suffragettes that the fairer sex should vote.
Someone convinced the American to prohibit the sale of alcohol; someone
convinced them a few years later that this was unwise. Someone convinced the
Europeans of the unchallenged wisdom of socialist ideals. Someone convinced the
Free World to oppose those ideals, a death-stuggle that continues to this day.
Someone convinced the Academy to promote speech-codes to prevent any free speech
that might offend race-minorities, women, homosexuals. 

Surely not all those words were wasted. Surely they had some influence for good
or ill on human destiny. 

Sir, I mean not to offend, but if you and I just so happen to agree on whether
it is right or wrong to help an old lady across the street, it is because we
share a common humanity, and to protect the elderly is a sentiment often found
in the breast of civilized men. 

But if you and I happen to agree on the need for pre-emptive war in the Middle
East, or the justice of the death penalty for rapists, or the morality of
child-abortion, or any other issue where there is no common consensus, there is
nothing you can say to me, because you have denounced the use of reasoning on
moral topics. 




From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Mon May  9 21:27:53 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:27:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest
Message-ID: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com>

Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4"
and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so
fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying
to mix them." 

Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of
mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same
metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than empircal, looking
to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation. 

He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one to the
mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience. 




From dgc at cox.net  Mon May  9 23:39:19 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:39:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest
In-Reply-To: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net>

John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

>Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4"
>and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so
>fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying
>to mix them." 
>
>Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of
>mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same
>metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than empircal, looking
>to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation. 
>
>He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one to the
>mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience. 
>
>  
>
That's elegant and concise enough for me to understand. In mathematics, 
I must accept
formal logic and the Peano Postulates "on faith."

What are the "moral Peano Postulates?"


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 01:02:47 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:02:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest
In-Reply-To: <427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net>
References: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com>
	<427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42800837.4010508@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
>
>> Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, 
>> but "2+2=4"
>> and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so
>> fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any 
>> point in trying
>> to mix them."
>> Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of
>> mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same
>> metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than 
>> empircal, looking
>> to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation.
>> He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one 
>> to the
>> mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience.
>>  
>>
> That's elegant and concise enough for me to understand. In 
> mathematics, I must accept
> formal logic and the Peano Postulates "on faith."
>
Not really, since they are *axioms*.
If they could be derived they would not be axioms.
IMO they are mathematical 'facts', or the equivalent of non-reducible 
physical data in the sciences.
While morality may not be mathematics I suggest that it does require 
logical consistency, and I have no objection to morality that is axiom 
based ie cannot be derived as long as those axioms are self consistent.

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From max at maxmore.com  Mon May  9 22:34:22 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:34:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote:

>For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter will be 
>an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' of alchemy.
>I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication...

That's an odd think to expect (unless there's something you're not telling us).

I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of 
transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to say: 
two down, one to go.

The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in the 
right place.

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 dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 01:22:14 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:22:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42800CC6.4050500@neopax.com>

Max More wrote:

> At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote:
>
>> For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter 
>> will be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' 
>> of alchemy.
>> I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication...
>
>
> That's an odd think to expect (unless there's something you're not 
> telling us).
>
> I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of 
> transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to 
> say: two down, one to go.
>
> The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in 
> the right place.
>
Only (half) joking.
My political efforts and opinions were enough to get me forced off the 
WTA list.
I also plan to precis that rather cutting article that compared 
Transhumanism to the Gnostic tradition.
I note that when that one did the rounds on the list it was most 
unpopular, but I still think it holds more than a grain of truth.
Anyway, I'll recommend the Extropy Inst as the preferred org if any 
reader is keen on lending a hand. Maybe ExI will become a branch of the 
OTO :-)

-- 
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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue May 10 02:07:11 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:07:11 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Natasha wrote:

> I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization,
> democracy + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and
> capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful
> advocates of human rights.
>
> Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial
> relations between nations could be a driving force behind 
> advancing worldwide human rights?


I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I think
the area you are choosing to explore has merit. 

If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some feedback
on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that feedback or leave
it as you prefer. 

When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical
spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are
not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on an
even footing. 

But democracy, capitalism and human rights are all pretty substantial
terms and probably need to be defined pretty carefully to ensure that
anything sensible is said about them at all.

I see some sort of international law as essential to human rights if 
capitalism is going to apply internationally or capitalism will work 
against human rights by seeking our the cheapest labour wherever it
can get it on any terms that it can get it.  

Capitalism is as happy to supply weapons as medicines, happier
if the margins are bigger. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050510/e47f30de/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue May 10 03:37:27 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 22:37:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509223238.026d98a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

I do think that democracy and capitalism do hit many of the same 
spaces.  Or perhaps I reading too many business journals and marketing plans.

For example, a 401(k) plan is in the shared domain of democracy and 
capitalism.

capitalism is profit making.  Our retirement plans are privately owned 
(IRA, Roth IRA, etc.).  That is our money for our retirement.  We select 
what we want to invest in --  stock, index funds, mutual funds, etc., thus 
it is a democratic process.

Needless to say that if I invest in my own business it would be a D+C 
interface.

Natasha



At 09:07 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
>Natasha wrote:
>
> > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization,
> > democracy + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and
> > capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful
> > advocates of human rights.
> >
> > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial
> > relations between nations could be a driving force behind
> > advancing worldwide human rights?
>
>I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I think
>the area you are choosing to explore has merit.
>
>If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some feedback
>on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that feedback or leave
>it as you prefer.
>
>When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical
>spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are
>not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on an
>even footing.
>
>But democracy, capitalism and human rights are all pretty substantial
>terms and probably need to be defined pretty carefully to ensure that
>anything sensible is said about them at all.
>
>I see some sort of international law as essential to human rights if
>capitalism is going to apply internationally or capitalism will work
>against human rights by seeking our the cheapest labour wherever it
>can get it on any terms that it can get it.
>
>Capitalism is as happy to supply weapons as medicines, happier
>if the margins are bigger.
>
>Brett Paatsch
>_______________________________________________
>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

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/b4972d53/attachment.html>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue May 10 06:38:19 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:38:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion: Honest!
Message-ID: <428056DB.3030305@mindspring.com>

  Cold fusion

Honest!
Apr 28th 2005
 >From The Economist print edition






A report of a desktop experiment that produces nuclear fusion is bound 
to raise eyebrows. But this time, the results look convincing

PHYSICISTS who meddle with cold fusion, like psychologists who dabble in 
the paranormal, are likely to be labelled quacks by their peers. This is 
due to an infamous incident in 1989 when Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann held a press conference to announce their discovery of 
nuclear fusion in what amounted to a test-tube full of water connected 
to a battery. In particular, they said that they were getting more 
energy out of the process than they put into it. Their result was 
instantly dubbed "cold fusion", to contrast it with giant fusion-reactor 
experiments that attempt to reproduce the ultra-high temperatures found 
inside the sun. But when it failed to stand up to scrutiny, 
confusion--and eventually outrage--ensued.

In 2002, history repeated itself as farce with the announcement by a 
group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee of fusion inside the 
bubbles that are produced by ultrasonic waves travelling through a 
liquid. This result passed the peer-review process, but was immediately 
attacked by another group--from the same laboratory--which claimed to 
find no such effect. There was a counterclaim by yet a third team last 
year, and a final verdict on "bubble fusion" is still not in. But most 
people have lost interest in the debate, assuming that anyone claiming 
to have observed fusion in a desktop experiment is a crank or a fraud. 
This attitude, however, may yet turn out to be mistaken. Desk-top fusion 
may be possible after all, according to an article published in this 
week's Nature by three researchers at the University of California, Los 
Angeles (UCLA).


Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski and Seth Putterman have been meticulous in 
their experiment, and in particular in their measurement of one of the 
tell-tales of nuclear fusion, the production of neutrons. Their results 
have been peer-reviewed, and they make no wild claims of surplus energy 
being produced. Given past excesses, such caution is understandable. And 
it may indeed be the case that their technique, which involves banging 
together the nuclei of deuterium atoms (a heavy form of hydrogen) using 
a tiny crystal in a palm-sized vacuum chamber, will never provide a 
source of power. It could have some interesting applications, nonetheless.


Energy from crystals

In principle, nuclear fusion is a simple process. All you have to do is 
push two suitable atomic nuclei close enough together for them to 
overcome their mutual electrical repulsion (since both are positively 
charged) and they will merge. This merger releases oodles of energy. The 
usual way to push nuclei together is to smash them into one another at 
high speed. In thermonuclear fusion (the sort that happens in the sun, 
in hydrogen bombs, and in traditional fusion experiments) that speed is 
achieved by heating the atoms up. But this, as Dr Naranjo and his 
colleagues realised, is not the only way to do things. You can, as they 
have done, simply accelerate a stream of nuclei to high velocity, and 
fire them into a stationary target.

Traditional accelerators, such as those used in particle-physics 
experiments, use high-voltage electricity to achieve this acceleration. 
However, they are cumbersome and they consume a lot of power while doing 
so. Dr Naranjo, by contrast, has devised a compact way of generating 
high voltages at much lower power using a so-called pyroelectric crystal.

Heating such a crystal (or, rather, warming it from -30?C to just above 
freezing point) deforms its structure in a way that concentrates 
positive charge in one place and negative charge in another. That 
results in a big voltage between the two. The researchers then amplified 
the effect of the positive charge by attaching a metal tip to the place 
where it was accumulating. This concentrated the electrical field in the 
same way that the point of a lightning conductor concentrates the stroke.

Dr Naranjo used this effect two ways: first to strip deuterium atoms of 
their electrons and second to repel the resulting stream of deuterium 
nuclei at high speed towards a target containing more deuterium. When 
two deuterium nuclei (each composed of a proton and a neutron) fuse, the 
result is a type of helium composed of two protons and a neutron, a free 
neutron, and a lot of energy. The bombardment also produces a lot of 
X-rays. By counting the neutrons and measuring the X-rays the 
researchers estimate that about 1,000 pairs of deuterium nuclei were 
fusing every second.

This is, as they are the first to admit, a long way from producing a 
significant amount of energy. And although they reckon they could boost 
the fusion rate 1,000-fold with better apparatus, that still might not 
reach the magic threshold of producing more energy than it takes to run 
the experiment. Beyond that, they are understandably unwilling to speculate.

This does not, however, mean that their device will have no 
applications. With only a little tweaking it could be turned into a 
handheld X-ray scanner, which would be a significant medical advance. 
Not yet a precursor to a starship engine, perhaps, but maybe an ancestor 
of Dr McCoy's portable diagnosis machine.

< http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3909490 >



-- 
"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.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/c87bbba5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 49 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050509/c87bbba5/attachment.gif>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Tue May 10 08:13:21 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:13:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0505100113a17cfa4@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>  I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy
> + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward
> compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights.
> 
>  Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations
> between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
> rights?

I'm reminded a little of the "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention":

http://everything2.com/?node=The+Golden+Arches+theory+of+conflict+prevention
http://slate.msn.com/id/25365/


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue May 10 11:55:32 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 06:55:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0505100113a17cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<e88b73ce0505100113a17cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050510064933.02c8dc30@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 03:13 AM 5/10/2005, you wrote:
>On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> >  I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy
> > + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward
> > compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights.
> >
> >  Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations
> > between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
> > rights?
>
>I'm reminded a little of the "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention":
>
>http://everything2.com/?node=The+Golden+Arches+theory+of+conflict+prevention
>http://slate.msn.com/id/25365/

Yes, very true - good catch.  His is one node on the spectrum.  Although 
globalists do not have to build arches and coffee houses to develop that 
interconnection.  Even developed systems that provide joint economics - 
benefit and contribution to international nation advantage.  Nations that 
give monetary aid to Africa share a connection.   (French friends of mine 
love Starbucks.  One Italian journalist I talking to shuttered when I 
mentioned meeting at one in Italy).

  Natasha Vita-More

http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050510/d96fdc8e/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Tue May 10 12:31:43 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:31:43 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity
Message-ID: <p06210201bea65911a914@[150.146.134.133]>



Max More:
>At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote:
>
>I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of
>transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to say:
>two down, one to go.
>
>The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in the
>right place.
>
>Max


On this topic, in case anyone missed it (I don't think there were comments
on my essay at the time)

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html


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/
********************************************************************
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.  I want to
achieve it through not dying."  -- Woody Allen


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 12:42:42 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:42:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bea65911a914@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210201bea65911a914@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <4280AC42.5080405@neopax.com>

Amara Graps wrote:

>
>
> Max More:
>
>> At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote:
>>
>> I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of
>> transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like 
>> to say:
>> two down, one to go.
>>
>> The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in 
>> the
>> right place.
>>
>> Max
>
>
>
> On this topic, in case anyone missed it (I don't think there were 
> comments
> on my essay at the time)
>
> http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html

Thanks for pointing this out, its a useful resource since I have not 
started on that chapter yet (being the last in the book).
When I do have a draft available I'll post a link here so that anyone 
who is interested may offer a critique.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue May 10 12:59:55 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:59:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity
Message-ID: <226620-2200552101259550@M2W078.mail2web.com>

Amara,

Sorry I didn't see your post. Great idea and one that that would be a
substantial reference.


http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



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




From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Tue May 10 13:36:45 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:36:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in
this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should
prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the
answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. 

If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her desire for
the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a subjective one. For
example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she wanted, and
slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit of the
girl's fourteen-year-old emotion. 

If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing duties imposed
upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a
relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the
population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the
population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the
situation; in this case, on population numbers. 

Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should
obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they
are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to slay
the child can she slay it." This would also be a relativistic answer; because
this answer would say right or wrong depends on the values and norms of society.

A moral objectivist would weigh, not the desires, but the unchanging duties of
the various parties against each other. 

For example, the Stoic objectivist might say: "Do the duties of a stepfather in
this situation differ from the duties of a father? Does the father have a duty
to protect the life of his unborn grandson? Does the father have the duty to
govern, and the child a duty to obey, when the child is fourteen years of age?
Does a mother have a duty to protect and raise her child? Does this duty apply
to children once born, to children quickened in the womb, or does it apply from
the moment of conception? Does the unborn child have a duty to die so that his
mother may have a career, money or other pleasures?" And so on and so forth.  

But for another example, the Spartan objectivist might say: "Do the duties of
the father include that healthy Spartan children must be born to service the
state? In the case where the daughter is morally corrupt, does this corruption
bring such shame upon her family and tribe that the child cannot be allowed to
live?" And so on and so forth. 

The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing
duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather
ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is
his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of
the equation. 

JCW  




From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 13:42:20 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:42:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4280BA3C.4040401@neopax.com>

John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

>Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in
>this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should
>prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the
>answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. 
>
>If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her desire for
>the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a subjective one. For
>example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she wanted, and
>slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit of the
>girl's fourteen-year-old emotion. 
>
>If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing duties imposed
>upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a
>relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the
>population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the
>population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the
>situation; in this case, on population numbers. 
>
>Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should
>obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they
>are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to slay
>the child can she slay it." This would also be a relativistic answer; because
>this answer would say right or wrong depends on the values and norms of society.
>
>A moral objectivist would weigh, not the desires, but the unchanging duties of
>the various parties against each other. 
>
>For example, the Stoic objectivist might say: "Do the duties of a stepfather in
>this situation differ from the duties of a father? Does the father have a duty
>to protect the life of his unborn grandson? Does the father have the duty to
>govern, and the child a duty to obey, when the child is fourteen years of age?
>Does a mother have a duty to protect and raise her child? Does this duty apply
>to children once born, to children quickened in the womb, or does it apply from
>the moment of conception? Does the unborn child have a duty to die so that his
>mother may have a career, money or other pleasures?" And so on and so forth.  
>
>But for another example, the Spartan objectivist might say: "Do the duties of
>the father include that healthy Spartan children must be born to service the
>state? In the case where the daughter is morally corrupt, does this corruption
>bring such shame upon her family and tribe that the child cannot be allowed to
>live?" And so on and so forth. 
>
>The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing
>duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
>(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather
>ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is
>his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of
>the equation. 
>
>  
>
Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 10 14:13:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050510141319.43152.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Natasha wrote:
> 
> > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization,
> > democracy + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and
> > capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful
> > advocates of human rights.
> >
> > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial
> > relations between nations could be a driving force behind 
> > advancing worldwide human rights?
> 
> 
> I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I
> think the area you are choosing to explore has merit. 
> 
> If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some
> feedback on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that
> feedback or leave it as you prefer. 
> 
> When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical
> spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are
> not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on
> an even footing. 

I generally agree with you, though I think insisting on human rights
before capital is cart before horse. Societies practice the rights and
morality they can afford. A homeless and penniless man has no means of
exercising a full right to property. Democracy has historically
depended upon an educated and skilled middle class of substantial
proportion to the greater society in order to function stably. This can
only occur through free markets and capitalism. You cannot legislate
wealth.

The nations which currently are enjoying the industrialization brought
by globalisation will find their children rewriting their constitutions
in the near future. When arrested individuals around the world insist
on being read their rights because they saw it on re-runs of Starsky
and Hutch, you know something interesting is starting.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May 10 14:18:43 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:18:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] laugh for the day
In-Reply-To: <226620-2200552101259550@M2W078.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <200505101420.j4AEKmR26088@tick.javien.com>




http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/jesus.lawsuit.ap/index.html






From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May 10 14:22:40 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:22:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] coool!  we finally caught one
In-Reply-To: <200505101420.j4AEKmR26088@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200505101424.j4AEOcR26608@tick.javien.com>



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156045,00.html

{8-]

spike



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 10 14:31:32 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> > Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
> >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the
> >stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty,
> > regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective
> > component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. 
> >
> Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'.

Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that there is no
difference between one persons desire to live morally and another
persons desire to live licentiously, that both lifestyles are
desire-based?

The problem is that one involves the application of reason to structure
ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction to ones
instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, introspection.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 14:36:21 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:36:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4280C6E5.8010005@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
>>>(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the
>>>stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty,
>>>regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective
>>>component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'.
>>    
>>
>
>Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that there is no
>difference between one persons desire to live morally and another
>persons desire to live licentiously, that both lifestyles are
>desire-based?
>
>  
>
Not really. I was just pointing out that 'duty' was not defined, nor was 
there any analysis of why people accept some duties and not others.
However, saying that everything is desire based at some level is a 
truism and rather unhelpful.

>The problem is that one involves the application of reason to structure
>ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction to ones
>instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, introspection.
>
>  
>
And why would one *desire* to apply reason? The only reasons I can see 
are mindless conditioning or success of outcome.
And what is the *desired* outcome?

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue May 10 14:49:33 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:49:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4280C9FD.1030807@jefallbright.net>

John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

>Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in
>this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should
>prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the
>answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. 
>
>  
>
<snip>

>The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing
>duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation
>(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather
>ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is
>his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of
>the equation. 
>  
>
Very interesting.  Until the very last sentence, I thought this was an 
argument for subjectivity at nested scales of context.

It seems that the difference between the two categories here is that 
those in the first category based their moral decision-making on 
subjective evaluation within their individual context, while those in 
the second category based their decision-making on subjective evaluation 
with the group context.  To put it another way, in the first case, they 
identified only with their own individual desires and intentions, while 
in the second case they identified with the group desires and 
intentions.  We could take this further and have them identify with all 
of humanity, and I suspect most of us would find that an even more moral 
position.  We could take it further...but I think my point is made.

In either case, the evaluation was subjective; as you pointed out, the 
Stoics and the Spartans each had their own codes of moral duty, and 
neither fit the definition of "objective" as meaning "apparent to all", 
or "based on factual measurement rather than interpretation."

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net







From giogavir at yahoo.it  Tue May 10 14:49:57 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:49:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510144957.3919.qmail@web26206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

somebody before compared this debate to the sex of
angels one.
this seems to be going further to include the sexual
orientation of the angels.
I just would like that you consider the following:
according to Kardashev civilization level
classification, based mostly on energy compsumtion, we
are not yet at stage 1, a planetary level society, 
actually we are approaching 0.8 level.
After that there are two more to go
level 2 an interplanetry society, level 3 an
interstellar society. for fans we can have four more
levels but that goes beyond the point.
But that's mostly a territorial classification.
If we could follow a similar scheme for human life I
would, by logic, deduct the following:
Phase 1, technological singularity and theoretical
human immortality (all diseases and aging alterations
eliminated)we are not there yet but we are close say
0.8 too
Phase 2-enhanced humans, intellianimals and AI plus
life forms, including universal brain accessibility
Phase 3- mind \body separation, mind travel and mind
occupation of bodiesand\or entities natural or
artificial
Phase 4- mind as energy ....
going further we reach God, meaning we are
God.(theoretically speaking)
considering all the above, debatable and subject to
hundred of different opinions and the absolute
underpositioning of current humans in the universe,
how can we define morality? or even try to do it with
current standards?

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto:
> 
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> > > Once they reach an answer in their moral
> calculation
> > >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists
> will hold that the
> > >stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it
> is his duty,
> > > regardless of whether it is his desire or not.
> The subjective
> > > component of decision, desire, falls out of the
> equation. 
> > >
> > Not really, because you have not examined why one
> feels 'duty bound'.
> 
> Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that
> there is no
> difference between one persons desire to live
> morally and another
> persons desire to live licentiously, that both
> lifestyles are
> desire-based?
> 
> The problem is that one involves the application of
> reason to structure
> ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction
> to ones
> instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection,
> introspection.
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


		
___________________________________ 
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.it


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May 10 14:52:48 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:52:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <9BB150CD-D773-4A84-8D3E-B779BCCCFA87@mac.com>


On May 10, 2005, at 6:36 AM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

> Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a  
> peculiarity in
> this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a  
> stepfather should
> prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not  
> what the
> answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used.

That wasn't  the question was it?  I believe it was phrased more in  
terms of what you would advise such a newly pregnant youngster to do.
>
>
> If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her  
> desire for
> the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a  
> subjective one. For
> example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she  
> wanted, and
> slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit  
> of the
> girl's fourteen-year-old emotion.

tsk, tsk.  There is no child.    There is little more than an embryo  
and a grl whose chances to grow up and prepare for life are  
foreshortened by this unfortunate event.

>
> If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing  
> duties imposed
> upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or  
> nay) is a
> relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone  
> said, "If the
> population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but  
> if the
> population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer  
> depends on the
> situation; in this case, on population numbers.

I am amazed that supposedly intelligent people would speak in such  
terms of "slaying a child" or forcing women and even girls to give  
birth regardless of their own needs which should count at least as  
much as those of a fetus.

Discussions like this make me very doubtful that humanity is bright  
enough to survive.   We seem to suffer recurring breakdowns in our  
thinking.

- samantha


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 14:54:27 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:54:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality
Message-ID: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com>

Three axiom possible bases:
(a) Propagation of self into the future
(b) Propagation of genes
(c) Propagation of memes

Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from either 
of the other two
Transhumanists clearly favour (a)
Religious people (c)
Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From amara at amara.com  Tue May 10 15:35:06 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:35:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
Message-ID: <p06210203bea682e3765a@[150.146.134.133]>



One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy
before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical
sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology.
Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has
shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more
technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive
assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe.

Next month is a referendum, to allow Italians (the Italian taxes I
pay mean nothing for my helping to contribute to this society, and
I'm prohibited from voting on anything) for some of the most
controversial parts of the assisted reproductive technology laws
to be removed. The timing of the law coincides nicely with the
start of the summer holiday :-\   My Italian friends (not enough)
are voting in this referendum to try to change the laws; the
details of the law is here:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=27656&dr_cat=2

but I'm not very hopeful for a change in the laws. I spent the
weekend (I spoke on another topic about volcanoes) at the Italian
National Book Fair in Torino, and saw the many carefully packaged
religious books and pamphlets portraying  ART as terribly dangerous
for the existence of mankind. (Another note: out of the 1500 book
publishers there, only _one_ was a publisher that published solely
technical topics.)

Last week, the every-evening discussion program titled "8:30", on
the only independent (Berlusconi controls the rest) television
station featured Severino Antinori, a very well-respected doctor
(gynocology), where he presented his opinion about assisted
reproductive technology. He was clear and focused and sharp
however, on the program, he drowned in a sea of phobic people, who
would not consider his arguments in a rational way. Even the
moderator, a relatively freethinking smart guy, showed his fear and
ignorance about technology and assisted reproductive methods, and
argued, along with the rest of the people on the show, from an
emotional base. How disappointing.

This article sums up the current state of assisted reproductive
technology laws in Italy and Antinori's views.

Amara


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

http://www.theamericanmag.com/article.php?show_issue_id=3&show_article_id=14

The Right To Bear Opinions
By Paul Virgo

May 2004

The Right To Bear Opinions
By Paul Virgo

May 2004

Italian embryologist and gynecologist Severino Antinori is among
medicine's most controversial figures. The Rome-based fertility
expert made headlines in 2001 when he proposed human cloning as a
way around male infertility. Antonori's claim that he could clone
humans was met with skepticism and hostility (many in the medical
community labeled it unethical) and helped usher in legislation
banning reproductive cloning in Italy. Antinori has countered that
resistance is based wholly on prejudice. He has also received
support from unlikely sources, including Noble laureate and DNA
pioneer James Watson and in vitro fertilization (IVF) pioneer
Robert Edwards. In 1986, Antinori infuriated the Roman Catholic
Church by developing a microinjection fertility technique for men,
earning the nickname "father of the impossible children." In 1994,
he helped 62-year-old Rosanna Della Corte become the oldest known
woman to give birth. Antinori chatted with The American's Paul
Virgo in Rome. These are excerpts from their conversation.

Q. How do you respond to those who claim Italy is the Wild West of
fertility treatment?

A. The Vatican invented the name Wild West. It can no longer do as it
once did and bully people like Galileo, whose ideas they
disapproved of. They use another strategy to fight science and
people that think differently. They use this name to defame this
field. I reject the Wild West accusation. There are good people.
The Swiss international body ISO, which rates the quality of care
at IVF clinics, found that half were of high quality. In Italy's
general hospitals, only 20 percent fell into this category. Wild
West ... is a name invented in an attempt to destroy people's right
to fertility treatment, which in my opinion is a basic human right.
Don't forget that Italy is the country of Machiavelli. What does
this mean? If you want to destroy someone, you don't do it
directly, but you use other ways, damaging their reputation.

Q. But Italy's new law on assisted fertility was meant to rein in such
a Wild West. How do you see its effect?

A. Paradoxically now we have the most restrictive law in the world in
terms of assisted fertility: It [restricts] human rights, freedom
of research, freedom to have therapy, freedom to reproduce.

Q. How so?

A. It limits the use of much technology and brings down by 50 percent
the childbearing chances of people with fertility problems. The law
limits the number of eggs that can be used to three; it limits the
number of embryos; it bans the freezing of embryos, and so on. If
you can only use three eggs, the chances of success with IVF drops
from 30 percent to about five percent. This is bad for women,
because they are forced to repeat the treatment, with the risks
that involves. It's a return to the dark ages. The spirit of this
law, inspired by the Vatican, is, "Don't touch the embryo." For
them the embryo is human two days after fertilization. But 90
percent of scientists consider life to begin two or three weeks
after fertilization, not simply when the spermatozoid enters the
egg. Another important restriction is the forbidding of gametes
outside the couple. It's unbelievable. And the best bit is that you
can do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, but if you find a
problem in the embryo you must transfer it to the woman's uterus
anyway. Even if you know it's unhealthy and will abort. Dangerous
stuff.

Q. To what extent do you think Vatican views influence national
policy?

A. Too much. The Vatican established this law. It's incredible that
this can happen in a secular state. And it's incredible that a
government that calls itself "House of Freedom" (Casa Della
Liberta), with [Silvio] Berlusconi as prime minister, becomes the
"House of Restrictions." Berlusconi wanted to give the Vatican a
present with the law, but he didn't consider the three million
couples in this situation [of wanting a child]. I think it's
unconstitutional. Fortunately, there are lots of legal checks and
balances that stop this sort of tyranny. I'm hopeful the
constitutional court will overturn the law.

Q. Why is infertility such a widespread and growing problem?

A. There are a number of factors, related to lifestyle - smoking,
drugs, diet, smog and pollution - which in particular reduce sperm
counts. And in women, a higher number of sexual partners increases
the number of infections, which in turn affects fertility. Don't
get me wrong, though. I'm totally in favor of sexual freedom.
Contraception obviously affects the number of children being born.
Again, I wholly favor birth control and the right to plan when to
have children. But fertility declines with age. In fact, in Italy
the situation is that more people are dying than being born. For
this reason people don't want too many restrictions on fertility
treatment. We should be trying to promote life not prevent it.

Q. How have people's attitudes to the problem of infertility changed?

A. It's now easier to diagnose infertility and its causes in men. In
the past, men always wanted to blame their wives if they could not
have children, because being potent was a question of pride. You
couldn't find out before; men became offended. But in half the
cases the problem is the man.

Q. You've been criticized for helping post-menopausal women conceive?
Isn't it irresponsible to help women in the later stages of their
lives bear children they might not be able to care for?

A. My work is not aimed at helping all older women. We only use it in
cases where a woman's biological age is not her chronological age.
Let me explain. Some women in their 50s are still in good enough
shape to give birth and care for their children for at least 20
years. By contrast there are other younger women, 31, 35, 40, say,
who are in no condition to have babies. We judge whether to help a
woman on the basis of her biological age. I'm happy that in Britain
the Human Biology Authority has accepted these criteria. Now it's
possible in Britain for a woman in her 50s to have children if
she's in shape to bear them.

Q. Under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to let parents
decide the sex of their unborn children?

A. This takes us back to the new law again. Now it's illegal to
determine a child's sex, even when there are genetic diseases that
only arise in one sex. There are diseases of this kind that are so
grave they are incompatible with life. In such a case, it's right
to determine the sex of the unborn child.

Q. Does the vertiginous rise of Caesarean sections in Italy trouble
you?

A. No, I'm not worried. Caesarean sections enable us to avoid
dangerous births, malformations and handicaps. It's an advance. I
also approve of epidurals to have birth without pain. I don't agree
with the Bible, which says women should go through pain when they
give birth.

Q. Medical research is often criticized in Italy. Is it justified?

A. In the field of fertility it's a disaster. In the past, Italy ...
along with Britain was a leader. But the new law has ended all that
for now.


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



-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Man creates God in his own image."  -- Ernst Heinrich Haeckel


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 10 15:41:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510154133.21143.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Three axiom possible bases:
> (a) Propagation of self into the future
> (b) Propagation of genes
> (c) Propagation of memes

You are forgetting the tree huggers axiom: 

d) propagation of nature/the universe into the future. 

Survival of individuals, humanity, or human ideas is not necessary and
to many thought to be inimical to (d) by such persons.

> 
> Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from
> either of the other two
> Transhumanists clearly favour (a)
> Religious people (c)
> Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May 10 15:59:04 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:59:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510104817.01df14d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:36 AM 5/10/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright wrote:


>No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the
>population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the
>population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the
>situation; in this case, on population numbers.
>
>Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should
>obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they
>are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to 
>slay
>the child can she slay it."

And so on, with this tendentious, emotive, old Testament verb "slay", here 
applied as usual to a small clump of fetal cells. It seems to me more 
appropriately employed when Christians of certain denominations withhold 
permission for life-saving treatment offered to their sick children, such 
as blood transfusions, and thus unequivocally *slay* their flesh and blood 
in the name of eccentric interpretations of ancient superstition. See, for 
example, the disturbing cases of Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science 
families happier to slay their children than to let them have medical 
treatment:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw11.html

Damien Broderick






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 10 17:18:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:36 AM 5/10/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright wrote:
> 
> 
> >No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the
> >population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but
> >if the population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer
> >depends on the situation; in this case, on population numbers.
> >
> >Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said,
> >"She should obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her
> > elders, whatever they are. Only if the general society has reach a
> > consensus that it is right to slay the child can she slay it."
> 
> And so on, with this tendentious, emotive, old Testament verb "slay",
> here applied as usual to a small clump of fetal cells. 

Calling a fetus more than two or three weeks old a 'clump of cells' is
as hyperbolic a turn of phrase as calling a morning after pill
'murder'. Why not just call partial birth abortion 'downsizing'? You
can call it 'repurposing your personal human resources' and
'rightsizing' your 'family tiger team' to enhance taxpayer value.

> It seems to me more appropriately employed when Christians of certain
> denominations withhold permission for life-saving treatment offered
> to their sick children, such as blood transfusions, and thus
> unequivocally *slay* their flesh and blood in the name of eccentric
> interpretations of ancient superstition.

For example, the witholding of feeding tubes from the severely handicapped.....

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May 10 17:55:27 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:55:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510125120.01dcc820@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:18 AM 5/10/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Why not just call partial birth abortion 'downsizing'?

You can call it whatever you like, it has nothing to do with the situation 
that was proposed in this discussion, which was the early discovery (or so 
I assume) of pregnancy in a 14-year-old. There is indeed a vulnerable child 
in this story; the child is the unfortunate girl who was raped.

Damien Broderick




From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 18:08:25 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 19:08:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality
In-Reply-To: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com>
References: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <4280F899.7010804@neopax.com>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Three axiom possible bases:
> (a) Propagation of self into the future
> (b) Propagation of genes
> (c) Propagation of memes
>
> Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from 
> either of the other two
> Transhumanists clearly favour (a)
> Religious people (c)
> Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences
>
Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller 
killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server.
He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation of 
Nature. IMO that is actually (c)

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it  Tue May 10 20:09:36 2005
From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:09:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Science of Gender and Science 
Message-ID: <20050510200650.M69898@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>

Found on Boing-Boing. (here is only an intro, the rest  is at the web site)

The Science of Gender and Science 
Pinker vs. Spelke

A Debate

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge160.html

Introduction

On April 22, 2005, Harvard University's
Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) held a defining
debate on the public discussion that began on January
16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers,
president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and
women and how they may relate to the careers of women in
science. The debate at MBB, "The Gender of Gender and
Science" was "on the research on mind, brain, and
behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in
the sciences, including the studies of bias,
discrimination and innate and acquired difference between
the sexes".

It's interesting to note that since the controversy
surrounding Summers' remarks began, there has been an
astonishing absence of discussion of the relevant
science...you won't find it in the hundreds and hundreds
of articles in major newspapers; nor will find it in the
Harvard faculty meetings where the president of the
leading University in America was indicted for presenting
controversial ideas.

Scientists debate continually, and reality is the check.
They may have egos as large as those possessed by the
iconic figures of the academic humanities, but they
handle their hubris in a very different way. They can be
moved by arguments, because they work in an empirical
world of facts, a world based on reality. There are no
fixed, unalterable positions. They are both the creators
and the critics of their shared enterprise. Ideas come
from them and they also criticize one another's ideas.

Through the process of creativity and criticism and
debates, they decide which ideas get weeded out and which
become part of the consensus that leads to the next level
of discovery.

But unlike just about anything else said about Summers'
remarks, the debate, "The Science of Gender and Science",
between Harvard psychology professors Steven Pinker and
Elizabeth Spelke, focused on the relevant scientific
literature. It was both interesting on facts but
differing in interpretation.

Both presented scientific evidence with the realization
and understanding that there was nothing obvious about
how the data was to be interpreted. Their sharp
scientific debate informed rather than detracted. And it
showed how a leading University can still fulfill its
role of providing a forum for free and open discussion on
controversial subjects in a fair-minded way. It also had
the added benefit that the participants knew what they
were talking about.

Who won the debate? Make up your own mind. Watch the
video, listen to the audio, read the text and check out
the slide presentations.

There's a lesson here: let's get it right and when we do
we will adjust our attitudes. That's what science can do,
and that's what Edge offers by presenting Pinker vs.
Spelke to a wide public audience.

Amara





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 10 20:49:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> > Three axiom possible bases:
> > (a) Propagation of self into the future
> > (b) Propagation of genes
> > (c) Propagation of memes
> >
> > Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from 
> > either of the other two
> > Transhumanists clearly favour (a)
> > Religious people (c)
> > Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences
> >
> Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller
> 
> killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server.
> He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation
> of Nature. IMO that is actually (c)

Sorry to be pedantic, but actually, no. Memes require meaning making
machines to exist, yet natures existence is a tautology independent of
the existence of any meaning making machines, ergo natures continued
existence is (d) because it does not require man or other sentient life
to make it so. Relgious people can also buy into (d) as well as (c),
but the fact that tree huggers are religious nuts is idependent of the
fact that what they believe in exists independently of their beliefs.

For this reason, (d) natures existence, being true independent of the
solipsistic axiom bases posited by Dirk, is an objectively true axiom
base. Sorry, Dirk, but the rest of us will go on after you are gone.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 May 10 21:20:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Enemy action
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> > Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new
> spamkiller killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server.

Several other list members have recently informed me that my email
address has been added to spam killers by unknown persons, singling out
just my own list traffic as well as private emails, without the
permission of those who received my mail. I regard this as an
initiation of force. If you find you are also seeing my mail being
filtered out, please let me know (assuming you check your bulk mailbox)
and what software or ISP is responsible for the filtering. Thank you.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 21:58:31 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:58:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Enemy action
In-Reply-To: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42812E87.6050701@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>  
>
>>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new
>>>      
>>>
>>spamkiller killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server.
>>    
>>
>
>Several other list members have recently informed me that my email
>address has been added to spam killers by unknown persons, singling out
>just my own list traffic as well as private emails, without the
>permission of those who received my mail. I regard this as an
>initiation of force. If you find you are also seeing my mail being
>filtered out, please let me know (assuming you check your bulk mailbox)
>and what software or ISP is responsible for the filtering. Thank you.
>
>  
>
Hold the paranoia!
It was a mistake on my part using an updated version of mailwasher with 
a heuristic add-on.
For some reason it does that to other ExI list members for no 
discernable reason despite my filter that marks anything with 
[extropy-chat] in the subject line as OK. Sometimes maybe a space is 
missing in the subject line or something.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 22:02:10 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:02:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality
In-Reply-To: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42812F62.2010801@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Three axiom possible bases:
>>>(a) Propagation of self into the future
>>>(b) Propagation of genes
>>>(c) Propagation of memes
>>>
>>>Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from 
>>>either of the other two
>>>Transhumanists clearly favour (a)
>>>Religious people (c)
>>>Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller
>>
>>killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server.
>>He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation
>>of Nature. IMO that is actually (c)
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry to be pedantic, but actually, no. Memes require meaning making
>machines to exist, yet natures existence is a tautology independent of
>the existence of any meaning making machines, ergo natures continued
>existence is (d) because it does not require man or other sentient life
>to make it so. Relgious people can also buy into (d) as well as (c),
>but the fact that tree huggers are religious nuts is idependent of the
>fact that what they believe in exists independently of their beliefs.
>
>  
>
Such people carry that meme.
And we are talking about foundations for morality, which requires (at 
present) people.
No people, no morality.

>For this reason, (d) natures existence, being true independent of the
>solipsistic axiom bases posited by Dirk, is an objectively true axiom
>base. Sorry, Dirk, but the rest of us will go on after you are gone.
>
>  
>
Not a true axiom for morality because it requires a memetic belief 
system (aren't all belief systems memetic?)
In fact, I could simply deny Nature (and everyone else) exists at all - 
solipsism.
Pure (a).

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May 10 22:16:40 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:16:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
In-Reply-To: <p06210203bea682e3765a@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210203bea682e3765a@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <CCA314EB-3D67-48FD-8AAB-42E7619B567E@mac.com>

I would say "That's terrible! What is a wonderful person like you  
doing in such a backward place?".  But then I look at some of the US  
policies and what passes for "debate" here.

-s

On May 10, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Amara Graps wrote:

>
>
> One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy
> before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical
> sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology.
> Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has
> shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more
> technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive
> assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe.
>
<snip>


From benboc at lineone.net  Tue May 10 22:16:05 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:16:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <428132A5.60908@lineone.net>

It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being pulled 
in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various 
interpretations.

I simply meant it to be background to my questions about what relative 
and objective morality mean, or what they are taken to mean by different 
people (Which nobody actually answered directly, but i think i've got a 
handle on the ideas now).

Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a very 
early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say she 
wasn't, either), and I didn't hypothesise on the kind of people they are 
- religious, rational, conventional, unconventional, etc.


Samantha said:

"tsk, tsk.  There is no child. ....  I am amazed that supposedly 
intelligent people would speak in such terms of "slaying a child" ... 
Discussions like this make me very doubtful that humanity is bright 
enough to survive.   We seem to suffer recurring breakdowns in our 
thinking."


Thank you for saying that, Samantha, you beat me to it.
This kind of language is designed to stir up emotional reactions, not 
have an intelligent debate.
It doesn't matter what you personally think about abortion, there's no 
need to use an alternative, emotionally-charged term that attempts to 
manipulate people's emotions. I would hope that that sort of tactic has 
no place on this list. I would hope that that sort of tactic *doesn't 
work* on the people reading this list.
Well, i can hope...

I'm pretty certain that humanity isn't bright enough to survive. That's 
why i'm a transhumanist. Those recurring breakdowns in our thinking are 
the pessimists half-empty glass. I prefer the 'half-full glass' 
viewpoint that we occasionally show bursts of joined-up thinking, and 
there's scope for them to grow longer and more frequent.
Of course, if i was an engineer, i would say the glass is too big. :-)

ben


From scerir at libero.it  Tue May 10 22:27:15 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:27:15 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
References: <20050510144957.3919.qmail@web26206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c555af$6bb7e9e0$9bc11b97@administxl09yj>

giorgio chiede:
> how can we define morality? 

If "morality is simply the attitude 
we adopt toward people we personally 
dislike" (O. Wilde) and if we are
propagating ourselves, our memes,
our genes, and our universes into 
the far future, well I see problems 
here.  




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May 10 22:58:14 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:58:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <428132A5.60908@lineone.net>
References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com>
	<428132A5.60908@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:16 PM 5/10/2005 +0100, ben wrote:

>It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being pulled 
>in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various interpretations.
>...
>Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a very 
>early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say she 
>wasn't, either)

A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual intercourse, 
even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is pregnant, she's 
been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by evil IVF scientists 
or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants.

Damien Broderick




From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 10 23:03:55 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:03:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com>	<428132A5.60908@lineone.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42813DDB.4040206@neopax.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 11:16 PM 5/10/2005 +0100, ben wrote:
>
>> It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being 
>> pulled in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various 
>> interpretations.
>> ...
>> Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a 
>> very early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say 
>> she wasn't, either)
>
>
> A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual 
> intercourse, even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is 
> pregnant, she's been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by 
> evil IVF scientists or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants.
>
>
Depends which nation all this happens in.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Wed May 11 06:15:51 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:51 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
Message-ID: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Eugen* Leitl:

>According to our current knowledge, there's nothing
>indeterminate in the fate
>of the universe
>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html
>and, also according to our current knowledge,
>there's nothing we can do about
>it -- on global scale, that is. 


According to current knowledge, we know next to
nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. 
Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the
dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of
the universe are seriously premature at this time. 
Exactly what is 'dark energy'?  Exactly how does it
work?  Can you be sure that its effects will remain
constant?  Why?  Can you be sure that the sign of the
dark energy pressure won't suddenly flip at some point
in the future- so expansion becomes contraction?   
All we know is that the universe is *currently*
accelerating.  No more can be said until there is a
causal understanding of the dark energy. 



---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Wed May 11 06:29:55 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:29:55 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

giorgio chiede:
> how can we define morality? 

---------------------------------
Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition

Eudaimonia = Health  x Happiness
Volition   = Harmony x Growth
---------------------------------

Substituting for full utility function yields:

Morality = (Health x Happiness) x (Harmony x Growth)

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 11 09:17:24 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:17:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:

> According to current knowledge, we know next to
> nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. 

We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified.
Also, we have empirical data on the past, current, and can extrapolate --
though not into far future.

I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be well before Edwin Hubble.

> Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the
> dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of
> the universe are seriously premature at this time. 

You're making a prediction. You have to make a prediction using the current
state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so.

Current state is that dark energy is accelerating the expansion, limiting
where you could go/signal, and even what you could see, and ultimatively put
an end to computation altogether (things pick up seriously at +100 GYr).

> Exactly what is 'dark energy'?  Exactly how does it

Nobody knows!

> work?  Can you be sure that its effects will remain

Nobody knows!

> constant?  Why?  Can you be sure that the sign of the
> dark energy pressure won't suddenly flip at some point
> in the future- so expansion becomes contraction?   

You seem to maximize the amount of surprise in your predictions.

> All we know is that the universe is *currently*
> accelerating.  No more can be said until there is a
> causal understanding of the dark energy. 

Excellent. This means you'll stop making predictions about the future fate of
the universe, and how can/cannot shape its future.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/445c5c81/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 11 10:01:33 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:01:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050511100133.GY21730@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:29:55PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:
> giorgio chiede:
> > how can we define morality? 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition
> 
> Eudaimonia = Health  x Happiness
> Volition   = Harmony x Growth
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Substituting for full utility function yields:
> 
> Morality = (Health x Happiness) x (Harmony x Growth)

What is the SI unit for harmony?

Which measurement process do you use?

Does melanoma count for growth? Why not?

Which operation is 'x', and why isn't it commutative?




To everybody: please stop posting about morality until you've worked out a
morality calculus worth peer review. Thanks.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/8b6214d6/attachment.bin>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed May 11 09:13:38 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 02:13:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>
References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <D9A6AA75-01D7-48FB-A5B8-A9DDB31036A8@mac.com>


On May 11, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:
>
>
>> According to current knowledge, we know next to
>> nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe.
>>
>
> We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified.

Please explain.  If we really don't understand all that much about  
some crucial cosmological questions can't we only say (at most) that  
it is false in the context of current theories?  With things like  
dark energy thrown in as some mysterious something that makes our  
models sort of work for now, I hardly have a lot of confidence to say  
our theries are strong enough to make good predicitons about far  
future.  As Omega point theory is far future I thus think I need more  
than current cosmological theories to say it has been falsified.

> Also, we have empirical data on the past, current, and can  
> extrapolate --
> though not into far future.
>
> I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be well before Edwin  
> Hubble.
>
>
>> Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the
>> dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of
>> the universe are seriously premature at this time.
>>
>
> You're making a prediction. You have to make a prediction using the  
> current
> state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so.

What prediction?
>

- s


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Wed May 11 10:18:45 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:18:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of
civilization level while the Omega point is located at
an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any
rational nor scientific possibility to make any
prediction, due to lack of basic information .
Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale
only predictions can be based on faith, that's what
religions are made of.
Giorgio
--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> ha scritto:
> 
> On May 11, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc
> Geddes wrote:
> >
> >
> >> According to current knowledge, we know next to
> >> nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe.
> >>
> >
> > We do know that the Omega point theory has been
> falsified.
> 
> Please explain.  If we really don't understand all
> that much about  
> some crucial cosmological questions can't we only
> say (at most) that  
> it is false in the context of current theories? 
> With things like  
> dark energy thrown in as some mysterious something
> that makes our  
> models sort of work for now, I hardly have a lot of
> confidence to say  
> our theries are strong enough to make good
> predicitons about far  
> future.  As Omega point theory is far future I thus
> think I need more  
> than current cosmological theories to say it has
> been falsified.
> 
> > Also, we have empirical data on the past, current,
> and can  
> > extrapolate --
> > though not into far future.
> >
> > I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be
> well before Edwin  
> > Hubble.
> >
> >
> >> Since next to nothing is known about the nature
> of the
> >> dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate
> of
> >> the universe are seriously premature at this
> time.
> >>
> >
> > You're making a prediction. You have to make a
> prediction using the  
> > current
> > state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so.
> 
> What prediction?
> >
> 
> - s
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


		
___________________________________ 
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.it


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 11 13:19:20 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:19:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050511131919.GF21730@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +0200, giorgio gaviraghi wrote:
> since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of
> civilization level while the Omega point is located at
> an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any

The Kardashev scale is not a meaningful way to deal with Tipler.

> rational nor scientific possibility to make any
> prediction, due to lack of basic information .

We're talking about Tipler's Omega Point theory
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html

While not being a scientific theory, it contains a 
few specific falsifyable, and since falsified predictions. 

In that sense, it's wrong.

> Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale
> only predictions can be based on faith, that's what
> religions are made of.

Absolutely. The Omega point theory is a religion.

However, according to current cosmology the Kardashev phase 5 is unachievable due to
signalling constraints due to dark energy-driven runaway expansion, and the total 
number of operations is similiarly limited.

I also agree with you that at this time there is no point to discuss yet 
unknown cosmology, or, rather, the very large number of possible yet 
unknown cosmologies (including these, in which the Moon is made from
uncollapsed green cheese wavefunction).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/7c448509/attachment.bin>

From giogavir at yahoo.it  Wed May 11 12:52:33 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050511131919.GF21730@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050511125234.69161.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

i fully agree with you(except for the green cheese.
regards
Giorgio
)--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> ha scritto: 

> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +0200, giorgio
> gaviraghi wrote:
> > since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of
> > civilization level while the Omega point is
> located at
> > an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any
> 
> The Kardashev scale is not a meaningful way to deal
> with Tipler.
> 
> > rational nor scientific possibility to make any
> > prediction, due to lack of basic information .
> 
> We're talking about Tipler's Omega Point theory
> http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html
> 
> While not being a scientific theory, it contains a 
> few specific falsifyable, and since falsified
> predictions. 
> 
> In that sense, it's wrong.
> 
> > Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale
> > only predictions can be based on faith, that's
> what
> > religions are made of.
> 
> Absolutely. The Omega point theory is a religion.
> 
> However, according to current cosmology the
> Kardashev phase 5 is unachievable due to
> signalling constraints due to dark energy-driven
> runaway expansion, and the total 
> number of operations is similiarly limited.
> 
> I also agree with you that at this time there is no
> point to discuss yet 
> unknown cosmology, or, rather, the very large number
> of possible yet 
> unknown cosmologies (including these, in which the
> Moon is made from
> uncollapsed green cheese wavefunction).
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>
______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 



		
___________________________________ 
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.it


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May 11 15:17:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> I would say "That's terrible! What is a wonderful person like you  
> doing in such a backward place?".  But then I look at some of the US 
> 
> policies and what passes for "debate" here.
> 
> -s
> 
> On May 10, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Amara Graps wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy
> > before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical
> > sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology.
> > Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has
> > shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more
> > technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive
> > assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe.
> >

I'd like some clarification from Amara. Do Italian ART laws ban
government subsidy of ART, or ban ART altogether? These are two
entirely different things.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed May 11 15:42:08 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:42:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
In-Reply-To: <20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6667@texas.rr.com>
	<20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511103918.02c9c8f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

What a strange acronym, especially coming out of Italy - the world's 
historical center for "art".

Natasha




From amara at amara.com  Wed May 11 15:48:12 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:48:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
Message-ID: <p06210200bea7d5afbc4c@[150.146.134.133]>


Mike Lorrey:
>I'd like some clarification from Amara. Do Italian ART laws ban
>government subsidy of ART, or ban ART altogether? These are two
>entirely different things.


Italian laws ban ART. Doctors like Antinori are forbidden to
perform these assisted reproductive technology practices no matter
where the money comes from.

It's an extremely nasty set of laws. (I would say call them
"Regressive" in most of the world.)

See here about what the Referendum is seeking to change:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=27656&dr_cat=2

I wish I could optimistic for the changes, but I am not. (*)

Amara


(*) Another visit (my ~50th in the last two years) yesterday to the polizia
for my expired permit-of-stay. Now the daily queue (thousands of people, all
professions, ages, every day) in Rome begins at 2am. The polizia want 
me to resubmit my 2003 application renewal because... it too has 
'expired'. I am
presently at square zero again to have the document to live in a normal
way (housing, bank account, driver's license, medical service..)
in this country.  It makes me very discouraged about anything positive
coming from the Italian political process.

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Once in a great while the temptation to be REALLY DIRTY is just
irresistible." -- W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling
& B. P. Flannery


From amara at amara.com  Wed May 11 15:56:52 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:56:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
Message-ID: <p06210201bea7dac9ee4c@[150.146.134.133]>

assisted (or assistive) reproductive technology - ART

I thought this was the standard *English* acronym in the
medical field.


Amara


From jonkc at att.net  Wed May 11 16:18:31 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:18:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card (was: A crushing defense of
	objective ethics) 
References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>
	<D9A6AA75-01D7-48FB-A5B8-A9DDB31036A8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer>

In his 1992 book Tipler made a number of predictions and I think it's time
to look back at some of them because Tipler himself said that every one of
his predictions must turn out to be correct or the entire  theory is dead.

Tipler predicted that the universe is closed, but we now know it is almost
certainly open.

Tipler predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV. The particle
has still not been found so it's still possible he's right but most think
that value is too heavy and even a few are starting to wonder if the Higgs
even exists. In looking around CERN's web page I found this educated guess:
"The Higgs boson should be lighter than about 220 GeV, with a best fit at
around 90 GeV."

Tipler predicted that the temperature fluctuations of the
cosmic  background  black body radiation must be less than
6*10^-5:  This prediction was good, the observed value is
about  6*10^-6.

Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or
equal to 45 km/sec/Mpc, but today the best accepted value is 72.

   John K Clark








From dirk at neopax.com  Wed May 11 16:41:54 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:41:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card
In-Reply-To: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>	<D9A6AA75-01D7-48FB-A5B8-A9DDB31036A8@mac.com>
	<004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com>

John K Clark wrote:

> In his 1992 book Tipler made a number of predictions and I think it's 
> time
> to look back at some of them because Tipler himself said that every 
> one of
> his predictions must turn out to be correct or the entire  theory is 
> dead.
>
> Tipler predicted that the universe is closed, but we now know it is 
> almost
> certainly open.
>
> Tipler predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV. The 
> particle
> has still not been found so it's still possible he's right but most think
> that value is too heavy and even a few are starting to wonder if the 
> Higgs
> even exists. In looking around CERN's web page I found this educated 
> guess:
> "The Higgs boson should be lighter than about 220 GeV, with a best fit at
> around 90 GeV."
>
> Tipler predicted that the temperature fluctuations of the
> cosmic  background  black body radiation must be less than
> 6*10^-5:  This prediction was good, the observed value is
> about  6*10^-6.
>
> Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or
> equal to 45 km/sec/Mpc, but today the best accepted value is 72.
>
All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the 
hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, 
and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did 
not take his logic far enough.

If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent.
The hypothesis renders itself untestable.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 11 18:53:18 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:53:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card
In-Reply-To: <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com>
References: <D9A6AA75-01D7-48FB-A5B8-A9DDB31036A8@mac.com>
	<004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer>
	<428235D2.3010803@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:41:54PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the 

You cannot attach any probability to either branch. Occam's razor is against
the simulation branch.

> hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, 
> and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did 
> not take his logic far enough.

Tipler is a deeply religious person, and that part of his theory isn't. It's
a religion. Even if his physics was correct (which it isn't), the properties 
he ascribes to the Omega point are arbitrary (or, rather, the opposite).

http://www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html is a pretty flawed critique, but it
has some valid points.

> If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent.
> The hypothesis renders itself untestable.

Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a yet
another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work we claim 
we're trying to do.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/aa9900d4/attachment.bin>

From dirk at neopax.com  Wed May 11 17:13:41 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:13:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card
In-Reply-To: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org>
References: <D9A6AA75-01D7-48FB-A5B8-A9DDB31036A8@mac.com>
	<004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer>
	<428235D2.3010803@neopax.com> <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <42823D45.8000909@neopax.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:41:54PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>  
>
>>All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the 
>>    
>>
>
>You cannot attach any probability to either branch. Occam's razor is against
>the simulation branch.
>
>  
>
Not if infinite computing power is available, as Tipler claims.

>>hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, 
>>and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did 
>>not take his logic far enough.
>>    
>>
>
>Tipler is a deeply religious person, and that part of his theory isn't. It's
>a religion. Even if his physics was correct (which it isn't), the properties 
>he ascribes to the Omega point are arbitrary (or, rather, the opposite).
>
>http://www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html is a pretty flawed critique, but it
>has some valid points.
>
>  
>
>>If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent.
>>The hypothesis renders itself untestable.
>>    
>>
>
>Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a yet
>another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work we claim 
>we're trying to do.
>
>  
>
Tipler's argument leads inevitably to the Simulation Argument.
In fact, it is the strongest form of the Simulation Argument.

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May 11 17:45:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card
In-Reply-To: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a
> yet another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work
> we claim we're trying to do.

Who we? How? Why?

If you mean the orthodox atheists and scientific fundamentalists, such
have never had success effing the ineffable with their brown-paper-bag
effology, or even effing the effing-edge-of-effness.

A failure in ability to eff the ineffible is a sign that ones effology
is effing insefficient for the projeff and needs an effing efferhaul,
tune eff, and effl change.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed May 11 18:04:49 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:04:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card
In-Reply-To: <20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org>
	<20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050511130358.01d23498@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:45 AM 5/11/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:

>A failure in ability to eff the ineffible is a sign that ones effology
>is effing insefficient for the projeff and needs an effing efferhaul,
>tune eff, and effl change.

Those puns are effl!  :)

Damien Broderick 




From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed May 11 18:21:14 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:21:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bea7dac9ee4c@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210201bea7dac9ee4c@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511131625.027844a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Yes, but there are more links to "ART" as a discipline.  (I think the 
scientist who coined this was a follower of Snow.)


"Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is the term coined to describe the 
techniques used to assist conception. These methods have been developed in 
recent decades and offer a treatment alternative for couples unable to 
conceive through natural means. The science has progressed rapidly in ways 
that humankind recently could only imagine. Assisted Reproductive 
Technologies which fall under the category of ART include In-Vitro 
Fertilization (IVF), Embryo Transfer (ET), Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer 
(GIFT), Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT), Intracytoplasmic Sperm 
Injection (ICSI), and Selective Assisted Hatching (SAH). Nearly half a 
century ago it was said that the fertilization of an egg by a sperm cell is 
one of the greatest wonders of nature. . . as a spectacle, it can be 
compared only with the eclipse of the sun or an eruption of a 
volcano.'  http://www.ifwh.org/htm2/fertility.asp




At 10:56 AM 5/11/2005, you wrote:
>assisted (or assistive) reproductive technology - ART
>
>I thought this was the standard *English* acronym in the
>medical field.
>
>
>Amara
>_______________________________________________
>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

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/1dd17184/attachment.html>

From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May 11 19:49:32 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:49:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice
Message-ID: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com>

Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral
Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on this list, has
been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and freedoms. As
if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the days to
return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again. 

I do not mind swallowing insults. God knows, back when I was an atheist, I
insulted my fair share of Christians, and so I have no grounds to complain. But
 I cannot tell when an intellectual (by which I mean someone more concerned with
theory than with practice) knows he is uttering slander, and when he does not
know, but is sincerely worried that I and mine are conspiring to enslave and
kill the innocent.  

This is a Margaret Atwood style fantasy. Here is an example of the reality:

http://ga0.org/freedom_action/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=3565057

Over 300 Sudanese Slaves Liberated

Christian Solidarity International has reported the release of 336 black
Sudanese slaves from the Dinka tribe in southern Sudan. Upon being freed from
their Arab masters, the former slaves were registered and given grain rations
and survival kits including a cooking pot, mosquito net, plastic sheet, water
container, sickle, and fishing hooks. Many of the newly freed female slaves
reported incidents of rape, genital mutilation, forcible conversion to Islam,
and physical abuse.

JCW



From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Wed May 11 21:20:37 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:20:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Duty, Fashion, or Personal Taste
Message-ID: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com>

I wrote: The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are
weighing duties, not desires ... The subjective component of decision, desire,
falls out of the equation. 

Dirk Bruere writes: ?Not really, because you have not examined why one feels
'duty bound'.?

I admit I am baffled by this response. What does it matter what a man feels
about his duty, so long as he does it? A man might have any number of accidental
and subjective reasons for doing a duty, but the essential and formal reason is,
he does his duty because he recognizes it as a ?duty?. 

Reasonable men can disagree as to what duties exist and what is their scope; but
if duties do exist, the one property all duties share, is that they are claims
on our behavior independent of our personal satisfactions. 

Now, if a philosopher should say that no duties at all exist, he must logically
say that nothing is or should be done save what serves one?s own pleasure,
either immediately or in the long-term. The question immediately comes to mind
whether that philosopher would be indignant if someone stole his seat on a bus,
or cut ahead of him in queue. 

Myself, I observe that men have consciences, which they go to elaborate
precautions to ignore. We were machines designed by evolution to act in a
self-interested fashion, or to propagate the generations, and nothing more, a
conscience would be an excrescence, and we should all do ourselves a service by
shedding them as quickly as is safe.   

Jeff Albright writes: ?It seems that the difference between the two categories
here is that those in the first category based their moral decision-making on
subjective evaluation within their individual context, while those in the second
category based their decision-making on subjective evaluation with the group
context.?

Actually, I gave three cases: the subjective see his morals as an expression of
his tastes; the relativist sees his morals as an expression of the consensus of
his local social mores; the objectivist sees his morals as an expression of
universal law, independent of taste and mores.  

I grant you that there may be a superficial similarity between the last two
cases. But notice the difference between a man who says, for example, ?I will be
faithful to my wife because my neighbors hold it to be our fashion and our law;
but if they change their consensus, and change the laws, I have no objection to
adultery.? and someone who says, ?I will be faithful to my wife because that is
the universal duty of any husband; and that duty applies in this case.? 

Jef Allbright writes: ?In either case, the evaluation was subjective; as you
pointed out, the Stoics and the Spartans each had their own codes of moral duty,
and neither fit the definition of "objective" as meaning "apparent to all", or
"based on factual measurement rather than interpretation."?

With all due respect, I would not accept this definition of objective for any
science but an empirical one. I am bold enough to say the strange fetish of
modern thinkers to try to reduce the rational sciences to empirical ones is the
source of the intellectual mischief of the modern age: you must end up believing
in nothing, not even in metaphysical axioms of empiricism, if you believe in
only what can be reduced to measurement. 

Only empirical sciences are concerned with measurement, but they are not the
only objective science. The laws of logic are the same to all observers, and so
I call them ?objective?; and yet no one can measure the law of non-contradiction
nor measure the fallacy of the excluded middle. Your terminology would call all
these things not objective, which is a misleading way to talk. 

If you define the word objective to mean that which does not change when the
observer changes, I am confident you can see the difference between someone who
believes morals are a matter of duty, which is the same for anyone in that role,
and someone who believes morals are a matter of taste, which exists nowhere but
in the eye of the beholder. 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue May 10 05:31:21 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:31:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050509223238.026d98a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <066b01c55521$80163d30$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Natasha wrote:

> I do think that democracy and capitalism do hit many of the
> same spaces. Or perhaps I reading too many business journals
> and marketing plans.

Within a democratic country capitalism and democracy might indeed
cover the same geographic space, in the US for instance, people who
provide capital and people who provide labour domestically are both
protected as people by the same Bill of Rights.  

But you'd mentioned globalisation and capitalism when it seeks the
best opportunities for profit in the world can seek them in places
where labour is not covered by the US Bill of Rights. 

> For example, a 401(k) plan is in the shared domain of democracy
> and capitalism. 
>
> capitalism is profit making.  Our retirement plans are privately 
> owned (IRA, Roth IRA, etc.).  That is our money for our retirement.
> We select what we want to invest in --  stock, index funds, mutual 
> funds, etc., thus it is a democratic process.

How is that democratic? Sure I can see that you have choices, but those
are choices about how you allocate your capital, that has nothing to do
with democracy that I can see. 

The human rights exposure is on the labour side not the capital side. If
capital is free to source labour anywhere in the world including in places
where human rights are at a lesser level than where the capital operates
from it has incentives for doing just that in order to maximize profits. 

Brett Paatsch




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed May 11 21:41:51 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050511214151.74153.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

The main link I see between these two concepts is no more complex than
that they're mutually reinforcing - at least in the long term.  (Short
sightedness can and has caused many exceptions, but excessive short
sightedness can, in general, cause problems in non-democratic and/or
non-capitalistic societies just as easily.)

E.g.: democracy allows for regulations to be set by those closer to a
certain issue (with any higher-ups not needing to even be educated
about it in most cases), thus regulations are likely to be more
efficient, with obvious benefits for companies dealing with that issue
and without anyone losing anything in the deal.  Meanwhile, if people
are free to vote with their dollars, it becomes possible to use
economics as a form of protest over powerful non-government
organizations, so someone exploiting cheap labor and not at least
sharing the savings with the public (through lower prices) may see
that practice become uneconomical.  (The public can be bought off by
any organization controlling enough resources to do so, of course, but
that seems to be a problem under any form of government...and the
buying off itself at least puts a limit on relative power, by
transferring some to the public being bought off.)


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 11 21:52:00 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:52:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice
In-Reply-To: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05051114527ecc269e@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/11/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral
> Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on this list, has
> been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and freedoms. As
> if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the days to
> return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again.
> 

Well, it sounds as though you personally are not seeking the end times
and the destruction of the unbelievers, but many evangelicals are.

Take your Sudan example. Do you realise what happened when the rich
western organisations arrived in Sudan and started buying slaves so
that they could free them?
Firstly, the price of slaves shot up, making the slave traders rich men.
Secondly, there was a huge upsurge in slave hunting throughout
sub-Saharan Africa to provide slaves to sell to the rich westerners.
See:
<http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=569&cid=10&sid=0>

There are many non-Xian charitable organisations. Red Cross for one,
Red Crescent for another. Or Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans
Frontieres, or Amnesty, and so on.

Remember the US has a born-again president who is fighting a glorious
crusade which is killing thousands.

The John Jay study of priest sex abuse of minors in the United States
documented that there were more than 10,000 credible allegations
against more than 4,000 priests between 1950 and 2002.

Do some Google searching and you will find lots more misbehaving
Xians. Quoting good acts versus all the bad acts of Xians is a losing
battle.

BillK


From benboc at lineone.net  Wed May 11 21:56:33 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:56:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 20, Issue 19
In-Reply-To: <200505111800.j4BI0FR28214@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505111800.j4BI0FR28214@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42827F91.1090308@lineone.net>

Damien wrote:

"A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual 
intercourse, even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is 
pregnant, she's been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by 
evil IVF scientists or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants."

Hey, stop splitting hairs! :-)

Legally, in some western countries, what you say is true (although not 
in Holland, as i understand. I think the age of consent there is 12). 
Conventionally, though, 'rape' means forcing someone. So what i meant 
was, she was not forced. The reason i thought it worth making the point, 
was that if someone is raped (forcibly, rather than legally), that is an 
additional consideration when deciding whether to abort or not.

And for the record, the pregnancy was not the result of evil scientists, 
aliens, or ming the merciless and his diabolical designs. It was cos she 
liked a boy, and, um, was inadequately educated. Because the teachers at 
her school weren't allowed to give sex education classes. Maybe.

ben


From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu May 12 00:27:40 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:27:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?Researchers_Needed_=97_Transhumani?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?sm_and_?=  Futurists
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


I am looking for one or more assistants to work with me on a project 
focusing on the past, present and future of transhumanism.  The outcome 
will be a formal report, a CD, and a university course.

Skills needed at least one of these two areas: (1) Ability to perform 
Internet data mining; produce models of behavior over time; compile data in 
either Excel, Visio and/or Vensim. (2) Technical writing skills, web 
design, survey models; (3) Creative thinking, transdisciplinary knowledge.

Please contact my office at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at natasha at natasha.cc

Thanks,
Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/4497f415/attachment.html>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu May 12 01:09:04 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:09:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Calling all EvoPsych Jedi...
Message-ID: <4282ACB0.1000203@mindspring.com>

"Terry W. Colvin" fnarded:
> 
> I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as
> a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but
> fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy.
> 
> A review of a new book arguing against EP is here:
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf

Sympathize with Jeff's dilemma - trouble with "science" is that
most disciplines are based on much less than 1% of data (in
universe). That makes them all prone to swerves of fashion and
hype - as you can best see in those with the very least data (and
worst logic?: sociology and psychology / psychiatry etc).

Seems to me that at least the more simple E.P. sits. - say the
"step-parent v. natural parent" thing, are still subject to at
least two variables (which may be unique in each case):-

E.g.
1) "natural" parent may not have been around very much: so little
or no parental bonding or recognition of responsibility

2) "step" parent may have spent more family-time (always with
other "natural" parent) and so made up the deficit of "bonding"
and "responsibility".

Even so think the historical assault and murder stats re "step"
relationships would tend, on purely statistical basis, to support
the E.P. case. (Don't all you exceptions all get offended now).

cheers
Ray D

"... but few scientists nowadays seriously believe that their
laws are true."

- Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart - "Collapse of Chaos"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



-- 
"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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu May 12 01:19:45 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:19:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers Needed =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Tra?=
	=?windows-1252?Q?nshumanism_and___Futurists?=
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4282AF31.5060301@humanenhancement.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/e30a1c9d/attachment.html>

From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu May 12 01:22:39 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:22:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers Needed =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Tra?=
	=?windows-1252?Q?nshumanism_and___Futurists?=
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/0cc8b0df/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu May 12 01:27:23 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Duty, Fashion, or Personal Taste
In-Reply-To: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4282B0FB.5050007@jefallbright.net>

John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

>
>  I am bold enough to say the strange fetish of modern thinkers to try
>  to reduce the rational sciences to empirical ones is the source of
>  the intellectual mischief of the modern age: you must end up
>  believing in nothing, not even in metaphysical axioms of empiricism,
>  if you believe in only what can be reduced to measurement.
>

I am indeed arguing for empirically grounded rationality, and for 
degrees of confidence rather than absolute belief.

Thank you for clarifying the fundamental disconnect between us.

- Jef


From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu May 12 01:44:07 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:44:07 -0500
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[extropy-chat]_Researchers_Needed_=97_Tra?= 
	nshumanism and   Futurists
In-Reply-To: <4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511204026.02cf7d40@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Never be embarrassed about these types of things in front of me.  I am a 
wee bit dyslexic and transpose words, only to find out after someone nudges 
me or I have the time to reread what I wrote.  Anyway, I'm in final exams 
right now, so if you look back over my posts you will notice some typos 
that I admit to with no shame whatsoever.

Natasha


At 08:22 PM 5/11/2005, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>Of course I did not mention my #1 skill...
>
>Screwing up a personal email and sending it to a list.
>
>Profound embarassment ensues, and I scuttle off to a hole somewhere.
>
>Joseph
>
>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>>
>>I am looking for one or more assistants to work with me on a project 
>>focusing on the past, present and future of transhumanism.  The outcome 
>>will be a formal report, a CD, and a university course.
>>
>>Skills needed at least one of these two areas: (1) Ability to perform 
>>Internet data mining; produce models of behavior over time; compile data 
>>in either Excel, Visio and/or Vensim. (2) Technical writing skills, web 
>>design, survey models; (3) Creative thinking, transdisciplinary knowledge.
>>
>>Please contact my office at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at 
>><mailto:natasha at natasha.cc>natasha at natasha.cc
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Natasha
>>
>>Natasha Vita-More
>>http://www.natasha.cc
>>[_______________________________________________
>>President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
>>[_____________________________________________________
>>Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz
>>
>>Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
>>If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>extropy-chat mailing list
>><mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>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

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Toffler
If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050511/95f45889/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu May 12 02:00:04 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:00:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice
In-Reply-To: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <1710ED21-C975-44D0-97CB-777444757B00@mac.com>


On May 11, 2005, at 12:49 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

> Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral
> Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on  
> this list, has
> been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and  
> freedoms. As
> if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the  
> days to
> return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again.

Certainly not "all" but those who would happily do the equivalent  
seem on the ascendant in the US and gaining political power.

>
> I do not mind swallowing insults. God knows, back when I was an  
> atheist, I
> insulted my fair share of Christians, and so I have no grounds to  
> complain. But
>  I cannot tell when an intellectual (by which I mean someone more  
> concerned with
> theory than with practice) knows he is uttering slander, and when  
> he does not
> know, but is sincerely worried that I and mine are conspiring to  
> enslave and
> kill the innocent.

Careful who and what you claim as your own.  Do you claim Pat  
Robertson as your own?   If so I don't think it is in my nature to be  
insulting enough.

- samantha



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu May 12 02:39:02 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:39:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Life in these here Unitey States
Message-ID: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com>

Naked people versus nanotech pants!  Comments well worth reading, too

http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-wrinkle-for-eddie-bauer.html



-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 03:02:51 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:02:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Life in these here Unitey States
In-Reply-To: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <200505120303.j4C334R05125@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin
> 
> Naked people versus nanotech pants!  Comments well worth reading, too
> 
> http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-wrinkle-for-eddie-bauer.html
> 


THONG is actually trying to promote nanotech.  Corporations
would be encouraged to work in these technologies in the hope
of attracting naked protesters.  We engineers are suckers for
that trick.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 03:09:15 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:09:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com>


Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:

I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem.  I
test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that
all are good.  From that information only, what is the
probability that all 131 droobs are good?

I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem
but they are giving me puzzling results.  A closed-form
solution to this would be impressive, winning my
undying respect.

spike




 



From sentience at pobox.com  Thu May 12 03:57:18 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:57:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4282D41E.8070308@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:
> 
> I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem.  I
> test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that
> all are good.  From that information only, what is the
> probability that all 131 droobs are good?
> 
> I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem
> but they are giving me puzzling results.  A closed-form
> solution to this would be impressive, winning my
> undying respect.

Depends on your prior.

If your prior belief is that any number of good droobs between 0 and 150 is 
equiprobable, then this is the *classic* Bayesian problem, the one that Bayes 
himself considered.  If I recall correctly, the closed form solution *for this 
prior* is that if you observe X good cases and Y bad cases, the posterior 
expected probability of goodness is:

X + 1
-----
X+Y+2

Thus if you started out believing that any failure rate between 0 and 150 was 
equally plausible, you would expect that the probability is 20/21 that any 
given remaining droob is good.

You actually asked a more difficult question, the probability that all 
remaining droogs are good.  Intuitively I would expect the answer to be 20/21 
* 21/22 * 22/23 ... = 20/152 but I haven't checked my work.

Other priors give different answers.  I don't think the equiprobable prior is 
a reasonable one for this case; we don't think it equally likely that a 
manufacturing facility turns out 150 straight successes vs. 150 straight 
rejects.  In real life, Spike, your problem is pretty much undefined, unless 
you can give me some kind of base rate statistics on how often your 
manufacturing technique works.

How on Earth did you set up a Monte Carlo sim on this?

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


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May 12 04:24:23 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:24:23 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
Message-ID: <20050512042423.45591.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:
>
>I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. 
>I test the remaining 19 spares destructively and
>find that all are good.  From that information only,
>what is the probability that all 131 droobs are good?


The probability that all remaining 131 droobs are good
is around:

1/118 (0.0085)  Pretty small.


My hackers intuition beats Eli's super genius again!
;)

Seriously, far too many people here have a Bayesian
fetish.  Believe me, Bayes is not the be all and end
all.  Some of you Bayesians are in for a tremendous
shock when you finally learn that deductive reasoning
cannot possibly be incorporated into Bayesian
induction.


---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 04:42:00 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <4282D41E.8070308@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:57 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
> 
> spike wrote:
> > Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:
> >
> > I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem.  I
> > test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that
> > all are good.  From that information only, what is the
> > probability that all 131 droobs are good?
> >
> > I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem
> > but they are giving me puzzling results.  A closed-form
> > solution to this would be impressive, winning my
> > undying respect.
> 
> Depends on your prior...

Wooo hooo!  This is what I hoped you would say.  I was puzzled
by the fact that any line of reasoning about this problem seems
to double back on itself.

Today at the office I argued that this problem has not enough
information to solve by itself.


>...In real life, Spike, your problem is pretty much undefined,
> unless you can give me some kind of base rate statistics on how often your
> manufacturing technique works...

Eeeeexcellent.  I argued today that we need the theoretical
reliability from the math model in order to calculate the
probability that the remaining 131 droobs are good.   


> 
> How on Earth did you set up a Monte Carlo sim on this?
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky 

I set the MC to show that if one assumes one of every ten droobs
is bad, then one can calculate the probability of choosing
19 good droobs vs the probability of 131 good droobs.  Then
set the probability to one in eleven droobs are bad, repeat.
Keep going up thru one in 400 droobs is bad.  In each case,
you supply a prior, the MC hands you back probability that
all 131 remaining droobs are good.  You can do that in
closed form, so I wanted to demonstrate that the sim
agrees with theory.

This technique derives a probability distribution function
that can then be compared to the theoretical reliability
model, from which I can give back an answer.

Nowthen, here is the interesting part.  A freem only requires 
130 droobs, not 131.  A failed droob was discovered in the 130, 
so it was replaced by one of the 20 spares.  So that leaves 19 
spares and possibly some information regarding the reliability
of a droob.  If I assume the theoretical reliability of
the droobs at one bad in 130, then the MC sim gives an answer
for the probability that the remaining 130 are all good (~37%).
Testing 19 and finding all good tells me almost nothing, because
that is the expected outcome (~86%).  But without further info,
I don't know that droobian reliability is one in 130 bad.  I
fall into a kind of circular reasoning.

Does this conclusion agree with a Bayesian approach?







From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 04:45:01 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:45:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <20050512042423.45591.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505120445.j4C4j9R17832@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes
... 
> The probability that all remaining 131 droobs are good
> is around:
> 
> 1/118 (0.0085)  Pretty small.
> 
> 
> My hackers intuition beats Eli's super genius again!
> ;)
> 
> Seriously, far too many people here have a Bayesian
> fetish.  Believe me, Bayes is not the be all and end
> all.  Some of you Bayesians are in for a tremendous
> shock when you finally learn that deductive reasoning
> cannot possibly be incorporated into Bayesian
> induction.
> 

Oh boy, here we go.  {8^D

Marc, I cannot reproduce your answer.  Please elaborate.

spike







From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May 12 04:52:55 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:52:55 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
Message-ID: <20050512045255.31017.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Just briefly summarizing my quick 'n dirty hackers
reasoning chain:

The information given said that you manufactured 150
droobs (so presumably the probability of a droob
failure would be the same for each droob from this 150
droob batch).

The information given then said that you tested 19
droobs from this batch and all of them were good. 
What can we infer from this about the probability that
a droob from the batch is good?

Well, since we are given no other information, we can
only assume a 50% chance that all 19 tested would be
found to be good and a 50% chance that they wouldn't.

Which probability raised to the 19th power equals 50%?

Answer:  .9642 (approx)

.9642^19 = .5 (approx)

We have to take .9642 as the probability that a given
droob from the batch will be good.

Now we simply raise this probability to the 131st
power to find the probability that 131 droobs in a row
will be found to be good

.9642^131 = 0.0084 (approx)

Is this the result you're getting?
 

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 05:10:49 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:10:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <20050512045255.31017.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505120510.j4C5AqR20951@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes
> 
> .9642^131 = 0.0084 (approx)
> 
> Is this the result you're getting?


Actually no.  But your comment:

> Well, since we are given no other information, we can
> only assume a 50% chance that all 19 tested would be
> found to be good and a 50% chance that they wouldn't...

...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not enough
information in the problem as stated to calculate an
answer.  I turned it around: by assuming a droob reliability,
what is the probability that the destructive testing of
the 19 spare units would result in all-good?  That
method demonstrates the circular reasoning inherent
in the problem.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu May 12 05:20:25 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:20:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <200505120510.j4C5AqR20951@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200505120520.j4C5KXR22212@tick.javien.com>


> ...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not enough
> information in the problem as stated to calculate an
> answer.  I turned it around: by assuming a droob reliability,
> what is the probability that the destructive testing of
> the 19 spare units would result in all-good?  That
> method demonstrates the circular reasoning inherent
> in the problem.
> 
> spike
> 

This is not to say there is *no* value in destructively testing
the 19 spares.  If two or three bads show up in the 19, then
I know there is some serious problem with my initial reliability
assumption.  If it show no bads, (as I expect it will) then that 
test tells me very little.

spike







From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu May 12 05:38:25 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:38:25 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
Message-ID: <20050512053825.65893.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not
>enough
>information in the problem as stated to calculate an
>answer.

But you asked what is the probability *given only that
information*.  That question does have an answer when
re-phrased in terms of the language of the multiverse.

You are really asking:  Out of all the possible
universes which could exist where this situation
presents itself (150 droobs manufactured, 19 from the
batch tested, found to be good), in what proportion of
these universes are all remaining 131 droobs found to
be good?

There's a definite number, and I think it's 1/118 for
the reasons I gave. 

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu May 12 05:42:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:
> 
> I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem.  I
> test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that
> all are good.  From that information only, what is the
> probability that all 131 droobs are good?
> 
> I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem
> but they are giving me puzzling results.  A closed-form
> solution to this would be impressive, winning my
> undying respect.

Depends what the MTBF was for each of the 19 spares, as well as the
standard deviation in the distribution of MTBF for them. You must
compare this against how much operation time under similar conditions
is considered "good". Do you mean just good out of the box? You also
have problems of the various components that the droobs are made of,
their MTBF. What sort of performance is considered 'good'? For example,
there are at least three standards of performance for resistors in
terms of resistance variation from the labelled value.

Without knowing any of this, the only metric I have to go by is
population statistics in which the opinion of 200 people supposedly can
quite accurately predict the opinion of 20,000 within less than 1%
(according to FSP statisticians). Based on this, the behavior of 19
components could thus predict the behavior of 1900. Since you only have
131, you should be able to say they are all good out of the box if you
test only 2 spares and find them good. 19 is overkill, so you can
pretty conclusively say that all 131 should be good out of the box, but
nothing more about MTBF.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From dirk at neopax.com  Wed May 11 10:27:32 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:27:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal
	Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.
In-Reply-To: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>
References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4281DE14.7070302@neopax.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:
>
>  
>
>>According to current knowledge, we know next to
>>nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. 
>>    
>>
>
>We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified.
>  
>
We do not know that.
All we can deduce is that either the Omega theory is false *or* we are 
living in an Omega Point simulation. And since there can be an infinite 
number of them what does that suggest?

-- 
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: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005



From sentience at pobox.com  Thu May 12 18:55:52 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:55:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4283A6B8.6050006@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> 
> Nowthen, here is the interesting part.  A freem only requires 
> 130 droobs, not 131.  A failed droob was discovered in the 130, 
> so it was replaced by one of the 20 spares.  So that leaves 19 
> spares and possibly some information regarding the reliability
> of a droob.  If I assume the theoretical reliability of
> the droobs at one bad in 130, then the MC sim gives an answer
> for the probability that the remaining 130 are all good (~37%).

Um, that number is just 1/e, I think.

> Testing 19 and finding all good tells me almost nothing, because
> that is the expected outcome (~86%).  But without further info,
> I don't know that droobian reliability is one in 130 bad.  I
> fall into a kind of circular reasoning.
> 
> Does this conclusion agree with a Bayesian approach?

That bad droob was extremely relevant information, Spike, you should have told 
me that at the outset; it means you know that the failure rate isn't on the 
order of zero.  Also it sounds like what you want is a mean-time-to-failure 
estimate, unless the badness is a fixed property of the droob.

Having discovered one failed droob in 130, whether testing the other 19 is 
interesting evidence about the other 129 depends on how much stress the other 
129 have been subjected to.  If the other 129 have been placed in situations 
that would cause them to definitely fail if they were bad, then testing 19 
tells you nothing, of course.  If the very first time you stressed any droob 
sufficiently to make it fail, that droob failed, and none of the other droobs 
have been tested, then you potentially have a very serious problem and you 
should try testing some of the 19.

What Bayesian reasoning will do, in a case like this, is tell you how much a 
given test result or observation favors hypothesis A over hypothesis B.  You 
have to provide hypothesis A, hypothesis B, and the prior likelihoods, I'm 
afraid.  So if you say, for example, that you think a failure rate of 1 in 130 
is reasonable, and someone else says that a failure rate of 1 in 10 is also 
reasonable, Bayes can tell you how much the success or failure of 19 droobs 
would favor one hypothesis over the other.  It doesn't say what prior 
likelihood to assign to these hypotheses, although depending on other 
specifications about mechanisms, it may tell you that the observed data 
already significantly favors one hypothesis over the other.

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


From sentience at pobox.com  Thu May 12 18:57:55 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:57:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4283A733.1070207@pobox.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> Without knowing any of this, the only metric I have to go by is
> population statistics in which the opinion of 200 people supposedly can
> quite accurately predict the opinion of 20,000 within less than 1%
> (according to FSP statisticians). Based on this, the behavior of 19
> components could thus predict the behavior of 1900. Since you only have
> 131, you should be able to say they are all good out of the box if you
> test only 2 spares and find them good. 19 is overkill, so you can
> pretty conclusively say that all 131 should be good out of the box, but
> nothing more about MTBF.

Mike, I'm afraid this is a total non-sequitur.  Counterintuitively, 200 people 
can predict the opinion of 200,000 or 20,000,000 about as well as they can 
predict 20,000.  But 20 people cannot give you anywhere near as good a 
prediction for the behavior of 200 people as 200 people can for 20,000 people.

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


From dgc at cox.net  Thu May 12 22:51:52 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:51:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4283DE08.2060203@cox.net>

spike wrote:

>Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem:
>
>I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem.  I
>test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that
>all are good.  From that information only, what is the
>probability that all 131 droobs are good?
>
>I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem
>but they are giving me puzzling results.  A closed-form
>solution to this would be impressive, winning my
>undying respect.
>
>spike
>
>
>
>  
>
As stated, a droob must only be used once and will either work or not,
like a hand grenade, not like a hard disk.

We start by computing a probability of failure and a confidence interval
for the test of the 19 droobs.
   Probability of success =p.
Example: if p =.5, then the chance of 19 of 19 successes is one in 
2^^19, or one in about 500,000.
better stated,  chance of 19 successes is .5^^19.

If p=.99  (i.e. 99% reliable) the chance of 19 successes is .99^^19.

Let's use 99% reliability as our guess. Then the chance that one of the 
130 will fail is:
  .99^^130, Which is .27

All of the above is elementary probability theory. not statistics, and I 
no longer remember
the statistical theory to combine the confidence interval back with this 
last number, so let's
try this: let's assume that the best estimator for p is the one with a 
50% confidence:
     p^^19=.5
   p= 19th root of .5, or about .965. That is about half the time we 
test a set of 19 droobs, all of them
will pass if there is a 3.5% failure rate.

Now, .965^^130=.0097 or thereabouts.



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Fri May 13 05:55:20 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:55:20 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
Message-ID: <20050513055520.78668.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

dgc:

>let's assume that the best estimator for p is the one
>with a 
>50% confidence:
>     p^^19=.5
>   p= 19th root of .5, or about .965. That is about
>half the time we 
>test a set of 19 droobs, all of them
>will pass if there is a 3.5% failure rate.
>
>Now, .965^^130=.0097 or thereabouts.


That's how I reasoned Dan!  It may not actually be a
bad rough estimate, but after thinking about it
over-night I realized that Eliezer is right again
dammit.  There's not enough information given in the
original problem for a proper mathematical analysis. 
You need empirical data on the reliability of
manufacturing techniques.

Now if the original problem is rephrased so that it's
a question about the set of all possible such
situations it does have a definite answer.  (i.e.
given the space of all possible such situations, in
how many with 19 droobs tested good did the other 131
test good?).  So I suggest that spike run simulations
testing all possible failure rates and pretend that
all of the simulations as a whole are the
'multiverse'.  Then find the total number of
simulations in which there were 131 good droobs and
ask what proportion of these had 19 spares all testing
good (but be sure to add up the results from all
possible failure rate simulations to get a SINGLE
number - i.e spike must not treat the different
simulated failure rates as being seperate domains - he
needs to treat the whole set as a single entity to
simulate the 'multiverse').   

Of course the figure obtained that way would be
assuming equal probabilities for failure rates and we
don't know whether that's a good assumption in the
case of manufacturing.  So as I said, it's really an
empirical question.

But if we look at the context of the problem i.e
(manufacturing, testing) , it suggests that a new
manufacturing technique is being tested.  For any new 
manufacturing technique , you'd have to think that
there's far more ways for things to go wrong than to
go right, so it would be reasonable to choose the
lowest prior probabilities of success consistent with
the experimental results.  So for instance, testing 19
droobs in a row and finding them all good one could
only logically conclude that the probability a given
droob is good is likely anywhere between 95% - 100%,
but given the empirical context (manufacturing,
testing) it would seem sensible to opt with for the
lowest sensible figure (95%).

As to Mike, sorry but the context was not 'sampling
things out of the box' (in that case we *expect* the
goods to work and should assign high prior
probabilities - once goods are packaged and sold we
expect them to work).  The context was 'manufacturing
and testing'.  In that context we would expect that
there's far more ways for new manufucturing techniques
to fail than succeed, so we should assign low prior
probabilities.

I give up.  How in the hell are we ever going to build
an FAI if we're stumped by silly things like droobs
and grues?  Why are we so stupid dammit?

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri May 13 06:25:31 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:25:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians
In-Reply-To: <20050513055520.78668.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200505130625.j4D6PbR19756@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes


> ...  So I suggest that spike run simulations
> testing all possible failure rates and pretend that
> all of the simulations as a whole are the
> 'multiverse'.  Then find the total number of
> simulations in which there were 131 good droobs and
> ask what proportion of these had 19 spares all testing
> good (but be sure to add up the results from all
> possible failure rate simulations to get a SINGLE
> number - i.e spike must not treat the different
> simulated failure rates as being seperate domains - he
> needs to treat the whole set as a single entity to
> simulate the 'multiverse')...

Thats the conclusion I came to.

Today I learned that there have been 4386 droobs
manufactured and a total of 9 have failed.  With that info,
I was able to use the monte carlo to find an estimate, which
agreed with the closed form solution.  Now you have enough
info to solve the problem.

This is a fascinating discussion, which I would like to
continue.  This evening has been taken up by my scrambling
to get an ancient motorcycle ready to roll for a trip to
Oregon, so that I might play amateur cowboy this weekend.  

Surely I will elicit gales of derisive laughter from
cow-savvy observers, but this is OK, for I know that
derisive laughter is the purest expression of disdainful
mirth.  Think of the last time you had true uncontrolled
diaper-wetting hilarity.  It was not at some clever joke or
sophisticated comedic drama, but rather from some silly goof 
clumsily attempting something stunt far beyond his expertise.

Furthermore, I know that should any of these snarky cowboys
show up at my office and attempt to perform rocket science,
they would surely make a bigger mess of it than I am likely
to make of the cowboy business.  In any case, the motorcycle
ride should be fun.

spike






From amara at amara.com  Fri May 13 13:43:36 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:43:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe
Message-ID: <p06210200beaa5f2ae16e@[150.146.134.133]>

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170

(stranger than fiction)
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/
********************************************************************
"The universe is big: it doesn't fit in one viewgraph."
-- Carlos Frenk [showing the VIRGO Consortium Hubble volume simulation]


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri May 13 14:26:31 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:26:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ut oh!
Message-ID: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com>

http://www.crystalinks.com/friday13th2.html





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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri May 13 14:39:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050513143942.85448.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170
> 
> (stranger than fiction)
> Amara

At $102.50 (its current bid) it is overpriced. Given that the average
cubic meter of space contains a few hydrogen atoms, which is
essentially worthless, and given that the universe is expanding
indefinitely, and thus is for all practical purposes infinite, when you
divide zero by infinity, you get zero as the proper value of the
universe. The certificate itself may have artistic or collectible
value, though.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri May 13 15:11:49 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:11:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe
In-Reply-To: <p06210200beaa5f2ae16e@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210200beaa5f2ae16e@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com>



I call prior ownership!

In a solipsistic fit back in an undergrad philosophy class I got this  
down in essay format!


/runs off to find notebook



]3

On May 13, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Amara Graps wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? 
> ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170
>
> (stranger than fiction)
> 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/
> ********************************************************************
> "The universe is big: it doesn't fit in one viewgraph."
> -- Carlos Frenk [showing the VIRGO Consortium Hubble volume simulation]
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri May 13 15:33:41 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:33:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and
	Human Dignity
Message-ID: <184670-220055513153341793@M2W051.mail2web.com>


This will certainly provide content to fuel to the "Transhumanist
Manifesto" for transhumanity, and a resource content to validate the use of
the "Proactionary Principle" as a balanced measure for which to determine
the pros and cons of the use of biotechnology.

Natasha


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:36:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity


A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity
The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network
http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto.php

      If you agree with this statement, [15]click here to join with Chuck
      Colson, James Dobson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Richard Land, and
      the other signatories listed above in signing on to the Biotech
      Manifesto.

    "Our children are creations, not commodities."President George W. Bush

    "If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education,
    the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live
    after are the patients of that power," slaves to the "dead hand of the
    great planners and conditioners." C. S. Lewis
     1. The Issue
        The debates over human cloning have focused our attention on the
        significance for the human race of what has been called "the
        biotech century." Biotechnology raises great hopes for
        technological progress; but it also raises profound moral
        questions, since it gives us new power over our own nature. It
        poses in the sharpest form the question: What does it mean to be
        human?
     2. Biotechnology and Moral Questions
        We are thankful for the hope that biotechnology offers of new
        treatments for some of the most dreaded diseases. But the same
        technology can be used for good or ill. Scientists are already
        working in many countries to clone human beings, either for embryo
        experiments or for live birth.
        In December 2002, the Raelians, a religious cult that believes the
        human race was cloned by space aliens, announced that a baby they
        called "Eve" was the first cloned human. But it is not just the
        fringe cults that are involved in cloning; that same month,
        Stanford University announced a project to create cloned embryos
        for medical experimentation.
        Before long, scientists will also be able to intervene in human
        nature by making inheritable genetic changes. Biotechnology
        companies are already staking claims to parts of the human body
        through patents on human genes, cells, and other tissues for
        commercial use. Genetic information about the individual may make
        possible advances in diagnosis and treatment of disease, but it
        may also make those with "weaker" genes subject to discrimination
        along eugenic lines.
     3. The Uniqueness of Humanity and Its Dignity
        These questions have led many to believe that in biotechnology we
        meet the moral challenge of the twenty-first century. For the
        uniqueness of human nature is at stake. Human dignity is
        indivisible: the aged, the sick, the very young, those with
        genetic diseases--every human being is possessed of an equal
        dignity; any threat to the dignity of one is a threat to us all.
        This challenge is not simply for Christians. Jews, Muslims, and
        members of other faiths have voiced the same concerns. So, too,
        have millions of others who understand that humans are distinct
        from all other species; at every stage of life and in every
        condition of dependency they are intrinsically valuable and
        deserving of full moral respect. To argue otherwise will lead to
        the ultimate tyranny in which someone determines who are deemed
        worthy of protection and those who are not.
     4. Why This Must Be Addressed
        As C. S. Lewis warned a half-century ago in his remarkable essay
        The Abolition of Man, the new capacities of biotechnology give us
        power over ourselves and our own nature. But such power will
        always tend to turn us into commodities that have been
        manufactured. As we develop powers to make inheritable changes in
        human nature, we become controllers of every future generation.
        It is therefore vital that we undertake a serious national
        conversation to ensure a thorough understanding of these
        questions, and their answers, so that our democratic institutions
        will be able to make prudent choices as public policy is shaped
        for the future.
     5. What We Propose
        We strongly favor work in biotechnology that will lead to cures
        for diseases and disabilities, and are excited by the promise of
        stem cells from adult donors and  other ethical avenues of
        research. We see that around the world other jurisdictions have
        begun to develop ethical standards within which biotech can
        flourish. We note that Germany, which because of its Nazi past has
        a unique sensitivity to unethical science and medicine, has
        enacted laws that prohibit all cloning and other unethical biotech
        options. We note that the one international bioethics treaty, the
        European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, outlaws all
        inheritable genetic changes and has been amended to prohibit all
        cloning.
          _____________________________________________________________

        We therefore seek as an urgent first step a comprehensive ban on
        all human cloning and inheritable genetic modification. This is
        imperative to prevent the birth of a generation of malformed
        humans (animal cloning has led to grotesque failures), and the
        establishment of vast experimental embryo farms with millions of
        cloned humans..
        We emphasize: All human cloning must be banned. There are those
        who argue that cloning can be sanctioned for medical
        experimentation--so-called "therapeutic" purposes. No matter what
        promise this might hold--all of which we note is speculative--it
        is morally offensive since it involves creating, killing, and
        harvesting one human being in the service of others. No civilized
        state could countenance such a practice. Moreover, if cloning for
        experiments is allowed, how could we ensure that a cloned embryo
        would not be implanted in a womb? The Department of Justice has
        testified that such a law would be unenforceable.
        We also seek legislation to prohibit discrimination based on
        genetic information, which is private to the individual. We seek a
        wide-ranging review of the patent law to protect human dignity
        from the commercial use of human genes, cells, and other tissue.
        We believe that such public policy initiatives will help ensure
        the progress of ethical biotechnology while protecting the
        sanctity of human life.
        We welcome all medical and scientific research as long as it is
        firmly tethered to moral truth. History teaches that whenever the
        two have been separated, the consequence is disaster and great
        suffering for humanity.
        (Signed)
        Carl Anderson
        Supreme Knight
        [16]Knights of Columbus
        Gary Bauer
        President
        [17]American Values
        Robert H. Bork
        Senior Fellow
        [18]The American Enterprise Institute
        Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D.
        Dean, [19]Wilberforce Forum
        Director, [20]Council for Biotechnology Policy
        Dr. Ben Carson
        Neurosurgeon
        [21]Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dept. of Neurosurgery
        Samuel B. Casey
        Executive Director & CEO
        [22]Christian Legal Society
        Charles W. Colson
        Chairman
        [23]The Wilberforce Forum, [24]Prison Fellowship Ministries
        Ken Connor
        President
        [25]Family Research Council
        Paige Comstock Cunningham, J.D.
        Board Chair and former President
        [26]Americans United for Life
        Dr. James Dobson
        [27]Focus on the Family
        Dr. Maxie D. Dunnam
        [28]Asbury Theological Seminary
        C. Christopher Hook, M.D.
        [29]Mayo Clinic
        Deal W. Hudson
        Editor and Publisher
        [30]CRISIS magazine
        Dr. Henk Jochemsen
        Director
        [31]Lindeboom Institute
        Dr. D. James Kennedy
        Senior Pastor
        [32]Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
        Dr. John Kilner
        President
        [33]Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
        C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.
        [34]C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth
        Former U.S. Surgeon General
        Bill Kristol
        Chairman, [35]Project for The New American Century
        Editor, [36]The Weekly Standard
        Jennifer Lahl
        Executive Director
        [37]The Center for Bioethics and Culture
        Dr. Richard D. Land
        President
        [38]The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
        of the Southern Baptist Convention
        Dr. C. Ben Mitchell
        [39]Trinity International University
        Editor, [40]Ethics & Medicine
        R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
        President
        [41]The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
        Fr. Richard Neuhaus
        [42]Institute for Religion and Public Life
        David Prentice, Ph.D.
        Professor, Life Sciences
        [43]Indiana State University
        Sandy Rios
        President
        [44]Concerned Women for America
        Dr. Adrian Rogers
        Senior Pastor
        [45]Bellevue Baptist Church
        Dr. William Saunders
        Senior Fellow & Director, Center for Human Life & Bioethics
        [46]Family Research Council
        Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
        Chairman
        [47]Traditional Values Coalition
        David Stevens, M.D.
        Executive Director
        [48]Christian Medical Association
        Joni Eareckson Tada
        President
        [49]Joni and Friends
        Paul Weyrich
        Chairman and CEO
        [50]The Free Congress Foundation
        Ravi Zacharias
        President
        [51]Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

    Biotech Manifesto Signature Form

    If you agree with this statement, [52]click here to join with Chuck
    Colson, James Dobson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Richard Land, and the
    other signatories listed above in signing on to the Biotech Manifesto.

References

   15. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto_signer.php
   16. http://www.kofc.org/
   17. http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/
   18. http://www.aei.org/
   19. http://www.wilberforce.org/
   20. http://www.biotechpolicy.org/
   21. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hopkinshospital
   22. http://www.clsnet.org/
   23. http://www.wilberforce.org/
   24. http://www.pfm.org/
   25. http://www.frc.org/
   26. http://www.unitedforlife.org/
   27. http://www.family.org/
   28. http://www.ats.wilmore.ky.us/
   29. http://www.mayo.edu/
   30. http://www.crisismagazine.com/
   31. http://www.lindeboominstituut.nl/
   32. http://www.crpc.org/
   33. http://www.chbd.org/
   34. http://www.dartmouth.edu/dms/koop/index.shtml
   35. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
   36. http://www.weeklystandard.com/
   37. http://www.thecbc.org/
   38. http://www.erlc.com/
   39. http://www.tiu.edu/
   40. http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/
   41. http://www.sbts.edu/
   42. http://www.firstthings.com/
   43. http://www.indstate.edu/
   44. http://www.cwfa.org/
   45. http://www.bellevue.org/
   46. http://www.frc.org/
   47. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/
   48. http://www.cmdahome.org/
   49. http://www.joniandfriends.org/
   50. http://www.freecongress.org/
   51. http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim
   52. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto_signer.php
_______________________________________________
wta-talk mailing list
wta-talk at transhumanism.org
http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk

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




From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Fri May 13 19:28:38 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:28:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty
Message-ID: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com>

So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay the child"
in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being sought by a
fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest. 

I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional. Any emotion
involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the language used to
depict it.  

When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the parent of the
second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary meaning of
the word, is properly called a "child." I did not call it an ?embryo? or a
?fetus? for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not, originally, specify
a stage of development for the child. It could have been the morning after or
nine months after. The word ?child? is broad enough to cover all those cases. 

The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of dead tissues,
but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that is to say,
dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non-living is
perfectly clear and unambiguous. 

>From the reaction, one would think I had blasphemed in a church: two of my
esteemed correspondents are now in despair that the human race is not
intelligent enough to survive, merely because I did not adopt the currently
fashionable language of euphemism.  

Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to halt the
analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut questions out of
consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration, then there is
no point in raising the hypothetical. 

The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a meaningless mass of
cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question was whether
she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands to her in the
relation of reproductive cause and effect (child). 

If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has a particular
duty and obligation, such as a mother?s obligation to love and care for her
child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her to make
severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a tender age, and
foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral question involved
in the hypothetical.  

If there is no conflict of duties, there is no moral question. 

I also did not think weighing the pros and cons of abortion was the point of the
question. The point of the question was to ask what is the mental process by
which the pros and cons are weighed. 

In that regard, I actually thought he question was useful. Some answers
addresses the duties of the various parties involved, without taking into
account their desires; and some addresses the desires of the mother, without
taking into account either her duties, or the desires of any other person. 

The question was also useful in that it brought out the intellectual poverty of
the ?moral relativist? camp: note how the ?relative? morals always happen to be
the ones that excuse difficult duties, never ones that impose new and more
rigorous duties. 

Indeed, the idea of duty is alien to Epicureanism or Eudaemonism, or any other
moral philosophy which takes pleasure or self-interest to be the foundation of
morality. 

In the happy world of the epicurean, he need only select between what shall
please him more and what shall please him less, like a gourmand choosing from a
wine list. Shall I raise the child, abort it, or give it up for adoption? Shall
I have white wine or red? 

No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere emotion is
sovereign. 

Were "Sue" to come in tears to any of our Epicurean friends for advice and
guidance, they would have nothing to say: telling her to do as she will is not
advice, any more than telling her to walk in any direction she pleases is
guidance.  

JCW




From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 14 02:06:31 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:06:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty
In-Reply-To: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc6050513190639f80792@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/13/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
> So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay the child"
> in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being sought by a
> fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest.
> 
> I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional. Any emotion
> involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the language used to
> depict it.
> 
> When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the parent of the
> second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary meaning of
> the word, is properly called a "child." I did not call it an "embryo" or a
> "fetus" for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not, originally, specify
> a stage of development for the child. It could have been the morning after or
> nine months after. The word "child" is broad enough to cover all those cases.
> 
### But, John, you know very well that the words "child of" may only
be applied to a very small subset of organisms produced by other
organisms. We do not call a bacterium a child, we do not call a cell
line established from a tumor its child, or the child of the tumor's
owner, and the unemotional and rational among us will not call an
embryo a child, until it acquires the characteristics of a child,
which always include a certain, dependent on circumstances, higher or
lesser degree of similarity to its (multicellular) parent. That is,
whenever you are not talking about computer programs which spawn child
processes all the time.

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

> The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of dead tissues,
> but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that is to say,
> dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non-living is
> perfectly clear and unambiguous.

### And again here there is nothing precise and unemotional about your
wording - "to slay" doesn't mean "render non-living", but only a small
subset of such renderings, most frequently the ones the speaker is
outraged at. Otherwise other terms are used, such as "terminate",
"fry" (esp. potatoes), "excise" (esp. warts) or "abort" (esp. growing
masses of cells in the womb).

In both cases you are taking relatively precise terms and using them
very broadly in ways absolutely incompatible with their common
meanings.

-------------------------------------------
> 
> Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to halt the
> analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut questions out of
> consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration, then there is
> no point in raising the hypothetical.

### Changing the language to strident advocacy where blase is in order
is a rhetorical manipulation intended to halt analysis. After all,
what honest person would analyze the merits of infanticide?

-----------------------------------------------------
> 
> The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a meaningless mass of
> cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question was whether
> she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands to her in the
> relation of reproductive cause and effect (child).

### No, the question in the abortion debate is about aborting a fetus.
Not slaying, and not a child.

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

> 
> If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has a particular
> duty and obligation, such as a mother's obligation to love and care for her
> child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her to make
> severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a tender age, and
> foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral question involved
> in the hypothetical.

### Obviously, no person has any prima facie duty towards any
non-sentient clumps of cells, no matter what the genetic relationship.
-----------------------------
> 
> No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere emotion is
> sovereign.

### Indeed. Only emotion can bring a human to give serious thought to
a clump of brainless cells.

Rafal


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat May 14 03:30:57 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology
	and Human Dignity
In-Reply-To: <184670-220055513153341793@M2W051.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050514033058.43507.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" 

CBC: A Manifesto on
> Biotechnology and Human Dignity
> 
> 
> 
>     "Our children are creations, not
> commodities."President George W. Bush
> 

Except insofar as Bush can squander our children's
financial futures with deficit spending and
educational cut backs in order to finance a military
campaign to seize the few paltry oil reserves
remaining in the world. Oil reserves that are bound to
run dry before our children get driver's licenses. 

>     "If any one age really attains, by eugenics and
> scientific education,
>     the power to make its descendants what it
> pleases, all men who live
>     after are the patients of that power," slaves to
> the "dead hand of the
>     great planners and conditioners." C. S. Lewis

In a certain sense we are all slaves to the situations
left by our forebears, whether they practiced eugenics
or not. It is the harsh reality of the world that
children have no choice but to inherit their legacy,
but it is the responsibility of adults to leave them a
legacy worth inheriting. 

>      1. The Issue
>         The debates over human cloning have focused
> our attention on the
>         significance for the human race of what has
> been called "the
>         biotech century." Biotechnology raises great
> hopes for
>         technological progress; but it also raises
> profound moral
>         questions, since it gives us new power over
> our own nature. It
>         poses in the sharpest form the question:
> What does it mean to be
>         human?

That depends. Since we have had the ability to discern
our own nature, we have always differed from the beast
in spirit. Now that we have the power to change our
nature, we have the potential to differ from the beast
not just spiritually but in all ways. The question is
do we want to remain forever in limbo caught between
the worm and the divine or are we willing to let go of
the worm and embrace the divine. What does it mean to
be human? Whatever we want it to and whatever we allow
it to.  


>      2. Biotechnology and Moral Questions
>         Before long, scientists will also be able to
> intervene in human
>         nature by making inheritable genetic
> changes. Biotechnology
>         companies are already staking claims to
> parts of the human body
>         through patents on human genes, cells, and
> other tissues for
>         commercial use.

      In recent years, through some perverse logic,
biology has become the whipping-boy of the religious
right. Don't blame biotechnology for the
"commodification" of humanity. That has been happening
for thousands of years. Slaves, serfs, or labor, it
has been our own lust for wealth and power that has
commodified mankind. This condition is brought about
by consumerism and unregulated capitalism. Biology is
simply what its name means, "the words of life" from
Greek. It is a description of the processes which
govern the physiological processes of life. Capitalism
on the other hand, is the wholesale worship of money
and consumerism is the glorification of waste.
Biotechnology is no more responsible for the
commodification of humanity than fire is responsible
for war.    

 Genetic information about
> the individual may make
>         possible advances in diagnosis and treatment
> of disease, but it
>         may also make those with "weaker" genes
> subject to discrimination
>         along eugenic lines.

     Genetic information is just another realm of
perception. One of the lesser natures of man is his
tendency to discriminate against any differences he
can perceive between himself and others. Given sight
and skin color, he will discriminate on the basis of
that. Given religion and language, he will
discriminate on the basis of that. Again genetic
differences and the information that call these
differences to our attention are no more responsible
for prejudice than is skin color or any of the
thousand heritable traits that we can enumerate. To
deny ourselves the fruits of biology on this basis is
nearly as inexcusable as to infect all of mankind with
a virus that turns us all purple so that we can no
longer discriminate on the basis of skin color. 

>      3. The Uniqueness of Humanity and Its Dignity
>         These questions have led many to believe
> that in biotechnology we
>         meet the moral challenge of the twenty-first
> century. For the
>         uniqueness of human nature is at stake.
> Human dignity is
>         indivisible: the aged, the sick, the very
> young, those with
>         genetic diseases--every human being is
> possessed of an equal
>         dignity; any threat to the dignity of one is
> a threat to us all.
>         This challenge is not simply for Christians.
> Jews, Muslims, and
>         members of other faiths have voiced the same
> concerns. So, too,
>         have millions of others who understand that
> humans are distinct
>         from all other species; at every stage of
> life and in every
>         condition of dependency they are
> intrinsically valuable and
>         deserving of full moral respect. To argue
> otherwise will lead to
>         the ultimate tyranny in which someone
> determines who are deemed
>         worthy of protection and those who are not.

I agree fully with this. I do believe that every human
being is deserving of dignity and respect no matter
what their state of dependency. Yet being deserving of
dignity and actually possessing it are two different
things. An 86 year old man in a nursing home is most
certainly deserving of dignity and respect. But when
he is senile and calling for his mother while a nurse
changes his diaper only because she is paid to do it,
does he really have any? I and other biotechnologists
want to give that man BACK his dignity. How is this
wrong? 

>      4. Why This Must Be Addressed
>         As C. S. Lewis warned a half-century ago in
> his remarkable essay
>         The Abolition of Man, the new capacities of
> biotechnology give us
>         power over ourselves and our own nature. But
> such power will
>         always tend to turn us into commodities that
> have been
>         manufactured. As we develop powers to make
> inheritable changes in
>         human nature, we become controllers of every
> future generation.
>         It is therefore vital that we undertake a
> serious national
>         conversation to ensure a thorough
> understanding of these
>         questions, and their answers, so that our
> democratic institutions
>         will be able to make prudent choices as
> public policy is shaped
>         for the future.

Where is the conversation? These guys gather together
some big names with fancy degrees and pedigrees that
all believe the same argument. An argument that they
have not subjected to the purifying flames of reason.
Then they draft some blanket manifesto replete with
references to a guy who writes children's books about
a magic closet and they call this a national
conversation? Where is MY voice in this conversation?

>      5. What We Propose
>         We strongly favor work in biotechnology that
> will lead to cures
>         for diseases and disabilities, and are
> excited by the promise of
>         stem cells from adult donors and  other
> ethical avenues of
>         research. We see that around the world other
> jurisdictions have
>         begun to develop ethical standards within
> which biotech can
>         flourish. We note that Germany, which
> because of its Nazi past has
>         a unique sensitivity to unethical science
> and medicine, has
>         enacted laws that prohibit all cloning and
> other unethical biotech
>         options. We note that the one international
> bioethics treaty, the
>         European Convention on Human Rights and
> Biomedicine, outlaws all
>         inheritable genetic changes and has been
> amended to prohibit all
>         cloning.

I do not believe that the ethics of cloning has been
settled to my own satisfaction.



>         We therefore seek as an urgent first step a
> comprehensive ban on
>         all human cloning and inheritable genetic
> modification.

Banning all cloning is not going to help the condition
of the world one bit. The second part of the ban
against all heritable genetic modification is even
more ridiculous. After all it doesn't specify
artificial modification. Thus these guys want to pass
a man-made law to prohibit something that occurs by
natural means all the time. Thus it will be illegal to
evolve and adapt to changing enviroments or for that
matter to have inter-racial sexual relations for the
purpose of procreation.  

> This is imperative to prevent the birth of a
> generation of malformed
>         humans (animal cloning has led to grotesque
> failures).

I am thouroughly against the creation of quasi-human
abominations. I am reasonably certain that almost all
biotechnologists feel the same as I do on this point.
This is why we are perfecting our techniques in
animals so that this does not occur. In regards to
malformed humans, this occurs in nature from time to
time without any help from well-meaning scientists.
Also, if thalidomide is any indication, traditional
medicine and drug development can cause these problems
as well. I see no reason to single out cloning as
being responsible for this phenomenon, since to my
knowledge it has never occured in humans. . .  unless
the Raelians are hiding them in their basement or
something. 


> and the establishment of vast experimental embryo
> farms with millions of
>         cloned humans..

     Ok so these guys have read the bible (maybe),
C.S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley. What about the
establishment of vast consumer farms, where the giant
corporations graze on us like herds of cattle? These
are called cities. Is this any more "human" or
dignified?

>         We emphasize: All human cloning must be
> banned. There are those
>         who argue that cloning can be sanctioned for
> medical
>         experimentation--so-called "therapeutic"
> purposes. No matter what
>         promise this might hold--all of which we
> note is speculative--it
>         is morally offensive since it involves
> creating, killing, and
>         harvesting one human being in the service of
> others.

     No, it can be done ethically by not "creating"
one human being but "copying" one human being. I agree
with these jokers that intellectual property laws
SHOULD be reformed but not in the fashion that they
intend. Instead I would posit that every human being
should own a "de facto" copyright on their own genetic
code. If one takes this to be true, that a person owns
their own genetic blueprint, then therapeutic cloning
seems much less scary. If I were to conceive and grow
an embryo that was completely unrelated to me then
kill it to harvest its embryonic stem cells, then I
could see that that would be unethical. It would
indeed be growing one human being only to harvest it
so as to serve another.
     But on the other hand, if I were take a nucleus
from one of my own skin cells, implant it into an
unfertilized egg, wait for an embryo to form but not
waiting long enough for it to develop a nervous
system, and harvest the embryonic stem cells from it,
I don't see anything morally objectionable to that.
The cells are human yes, but the only specific human
that they can be traced to is me. And I willingly
agreed to the procedure in the first place. They are
built to the specifications of my genome and therefore
they are for all intent and purposes my cells. Yes
they are alive, but so are the thousands of skin cells
that you slough off me in the shower on a daily basis.
It is a sign of ignorance to decide that one clump of
cells deserves human rights while another clump does
not when in fact the cells have the identical genetic
information. They should be and are, in my opinion,
the same thing. Sure, one can say that given elaborate
conditions (such as implantation into some woman's
womb) that the ES cells might become become a fully
formed human but this argument is flawed because with
another set of elaborate conditions (the cells undergo
nuclear transfer into an egg cell) the skin cells can
become a fully formed human. Thus, I think that a
person's genome is their property. If they choose to
create a genetic copy of themselves in case the
original gets damaged, I don't see how the LAW can
justify preventing this. Of course by this argument it
is assumed that the cloned embryo must be harvested
before it develops a nervous system. Once this
happens, I could not swear that harvesting them would
NOT be taking a human life, but every technique for
therapeutic cloning now devised involves harvesting
these cells LONG before they develop a nervous system.
So until a nervous system is formed, the clump of
cells is not a human being. It is a potential human
being but so is every flake of dandruff you brush off
your collar every day. 

> No civilized
>         state could countenance such a practice.
> Moreover, if cloning for
>         experiments is allowed, how could we ensure
> that a cloned embryo
>         would not be implanted in a womb? The
> Department of Justice has
>         testified that such a law would be
> unenforceable.

Yeah, its funny how the civilized state won't
countenance cloning or other reproductive sciences but
the science of developing weapons of mass destruction
is countenanced, encouraged, and well funded.

>We also seek legislation to prohibit discrimination
>based on genetic information, which is private to
>the individual. We seek a wide-ranging review of the
>patent law to protect human dignity from the
>commercial use of human genes, cells, and other
>tissue. We believe that such public policy
>initiatives will help ensure the progress of ethical
>biotechnology while protecting the sanctity of human
>life. 

I strongly support that all biological and medical
research be conducted in an ethical manner. I believe
most strongly that genetic information is private to
the individual. I would go one step farther and say
that all genetic information is the intellectual
property of the individual. I would not mind a FAIR
AND WELL THOUGHT OUT review of patent law. I have no
problem with legally protecting the rights and dignity
of human beings. If it were possible, I would advocate
developing cures for disease and human suffering free
of cost so that EVERYONE would benefit.
Unfortuanately, I don't make those decisions, the
politicans do. The same politicians that are making
all these intellectually lazy arguments against
cloning and stem cells because of some vague passages
in the bible and some science fiction story they read
in 4th grade.

>We welcome all medical and scientific research as
>long as it is firmly tethered to moral truth.
>History teaches that whenever the two have been
>separated, the consequence is disaster and great
>suffering for humanity.

There is NO gradation or prioritizing of truth. Truth
is truth. Falsehood is falsehood. No one truth is more
important than another truth. One cannot take a
scientific truth like the earth goes around the sun
and then make it conditional on some moral truth like
humans have rights. This is ridiculous. Are we to
believe that if there were no human beings than the
earth would stop revolving around the sun? I am so
sick and tired of these people! Its hard enough trying
to figure out how biology and ageing work without
having these armchair ethicists try to tell me what's
right or wrong when the majority have not even cracked
a basic textbook on biology since 6th grade let alone
prayed, meditated, and communed with the holy spirit
upon the technologies they have so summarily rejected.
    Natasha, I don't know if I know enough about
transhumanism to write a general manifesto about it.
But I do know enough about both biology and religion
to write a Biotechnologist's Manifesto that will blow
these turkeys away. I was hoping somebody else would
do this, but every article, editorial, and manifesto I
have come across seems to condemn what I have devoted
my life to on the basis of the same flabby moral
arguments. I am ready to fight back.
  



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"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 megao at sasktel.net  Sat May 14 04:59:14 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:59:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe
In-Reply-To: <52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <p06210200beaa5f2ae16e@[150.146.134.133]>
	<52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <428585A2.7080800@sasktel.net>

Perhaps there should be a time coordinate of some sort set out and 
therefore  a large number of certificates could be issued
, each dated to document a specific time slice for a rolling possession 
of the "universe".

There could be a numbering system and  "transfer to and from"
The creator of the certificates then must keep a registry of such......

but seriously.... pet rocks, cabbage patch dolls,  now this......







From scerir at libero.it  Sat May 14 06:31:09 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 08:31:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze 
References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj>

Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman,
about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat May 14 09:30:54 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:30:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty
In-Reply-To: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8BAE1841-7220-4D2F-A74E-0A9233CD0003@mac.com>


On May 13, 2005, at 12:28 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

> So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay  
> the child"
> in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being  
> sought by a
> fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest.
>
> I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional.  
> Any emotion
> involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the  
> language used to
> depict it.

I don't see much sign of humility.  It looks to me largely like a  
self-defensive failure to understand what was objected to.


>
> When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the  
> parent of the
> second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary  
> meaning of
> the word, is properly called a "child."

Reproduction takes place when there are now two (or more) separate  
organisms.  Conception by itself is not a full cycle of  
reproduction.  Before birth and especially in early pregnancy the  
"child" is not present in the sense you alluded to.   You are too  
fine a wordsmith for me to believe there was anything innocent in  
your choice of words.


> I did not call it an ?embryo? or a
> ?fetus? for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not,  
> originally, specify
> a stage of development for the child. It could have been the  
> morning after or
> nine months after. The word ?child? is broad enough to cover all  
> those cases.
>

Hardly.  Did you get that straw you reached for so hard?

> The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of  
> dead tissues,
> but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that  
> is to say,
> dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non- 
> living is
> perfectly clear and unambiguous.

In short, by the definitions relevant, an embryo or fetus, not child.

>
>
>> From the reaction, one would think I had blasphemed in a church:  
>> two of my
>>
> esteemed correspondents are now in despair that the human race is not
> intelligent enough to survive, merely because I did not adopt the  
> currently
> fashionable language of euphemism.
>

No.  My reaction was over more than your incendiary prose.  It was  
despair that morality seems to be so poorly understood  and our  
communication skills so limited that its discussion devolves in these  
unfortunately characteristic ways even here.


> Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to  
> halt the
> analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut  
> questions out of
> consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration,  
> then there is
> no point in raising the hypothetical.
>

The point of incendiary language is to halt the analysis.  You did so  
admirably.

> The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a  
> meaningless mass of
> cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question  
> was whether
> she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands  
> to her in the
> relation of reproductive cause and effect (child).

Everyone knows that given time enough and general health there will  
eventually be a child unless the pregnancy is terminated by accident  
or on purpose.  But it is hardly a universally accepted as murder to  
terminate a pregnancy.   Why is it moral to accidentally or on  
purpose destroy sperm or egg but an act of murder to remove a  
fertilized egg immediately or some ways into a pregnancy  if a child  
is not desired?   Are you also against birth control generally?  If  
birth control is ok but accidents happen does the right of people to  
decide when to bear children end once an unwanted conception occurs?

Again this specialized subarea of ethics isn't even the point we were  
attempting to discuss!

>
> If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has  
> a particular
> duty and obligation, such as a mother?s obligation to love and care  
> for her
> child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her  
> to make
> severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a  
> tender age, and
> foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral  
> question involved
> in the hypothetical.

That she may (or may not) fel a "duty" in no small part driven by  
hormones and conditioning des not justify comparing the situation of  
being pregnant to the situation after the pregnancy comes to term and  
an actual child is born into this world.   AGAIN, this was not even  
the point.  Again, you simply derailed the conversation.   Your  
choice of words prejudged this specific area and the shape of the  
problem.

>
> If there is no conflict of duties, there is no moral question.

Duties are a poor way to define morality.

>
>
> I also did not think weighing the pros and cons of abortion was the  
> point of the
> question. The point of the question was to ask what is the mental  
> process by
> which the pros and cons are weighed.
>
> In that regard, I actually thought he question was useful. Some  
> answers
> addresses the duties of the various parties involved, without  
> taking into
> account their desires; and some addresses the desires of the  
> mother, without
> taking into account either her duties, or the desires of any other  
> person.
>

It is not fruitful to discuss morality as a tradeoff of supposed duties.

> The question was also useful in that it brought out the  
> intellectual poverty of
> the ?moral relativist? camp: note how the ?relative? morals always  
> happen to be
> the ones that excuse difficult duties, never ones that impose new  
> and more
> rigorous duties.
>

It is not my problem you are hung up on "duty" when you attempt to  
talk about morality.  I am personally not a moral relativist.  I am  
also not a moral absolutist.  My morality does not hang on something  
as flimsy as "duty".

> Indeed, the idea of duty is alien to Epicureanism or Eudaemonism,  
> or any other
> moral philosophy which takes pleasure or self-interest to be the  
> foundation of
> morality.
>

Self interest including interest in social interactions with others  
is the heart of morality in my view.  You seem to take the view,  
which I would expect from certain types of religious belief although  
not only there, that morality is imposed from without by God or  
Nature as unchosen duties.

> In the happy world of the epicurean, he need only select between  
> what shall
> please him more and what shall please him less, like a gourmand  
> choosing from a
> wine list. Shall I raise the child, abort it, or give it up for  
> adoption? Shall
> I have white wine or red?
>
> No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere  
> emotion is
> sovereign.

Do you think self-interest is about mere whim?  Really?
>

- samantha


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat May 14 09:36:15 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
Message-ID: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>

    In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's
anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought.
What if all this opposition from the religious right
fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against
transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the
rich are just biding their time knowing that the
technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it
SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the
proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will
always be someplace in the world where it could be
allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any
trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus
medical costs right out of their pocket. Since
insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is
illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon?
        


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From riel at surriel.com  Sat May 14 14:52:01 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505141050480.15153@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:

> What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the technology 
> is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can get 
> access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars.

I'd say that is very unlikely.  After all, the rich like
keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they
have no interest in these new technologies not becoming
commodities that are safe and easily available to them.

-- 
"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 eugen at leitl.org  Sun May 15 16:50:02 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:50:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze
In-Reply-To: <001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj>
References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com>
	<001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org>

On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 08:31:09AM +0200, scerir wrote:
> Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman,
> about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html

The artificial mineral created in the blast is called trinitite:

http://www.google.com/search?q=trinitite&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050515/88f2058e/attachment.bin>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sat May 14 15:16:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:16:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4286164C.6090701@sasktel.net>

I am dealing with an area where this sort of thing might also play a part.

The pharmaceuticalization of the old generic cannabis to a high cost 
drug for pharma
seeks to keep illegal an old low cost pharma item while similtaneously 
commercializing
it at a cost that most middle class persons will not be care  to access 
it, in spite of its
vastly understated medical values.

The sort of thing you mention can and does happen but not quite in the way
you present.

The Avantguardian wrote:

>    In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's
>anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought.
>What if all this opposition from the religious right
>fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against
>transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the
>rich are just biding their time knowing that the
>technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it
>SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the
>proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will
>always be someplace in the world where it could be
>allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any
>trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus
>medical costs right out of their pocket. Since
>insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is
>illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon?
>        
>
>
>The Avantguardian 
>is 
>Stuart LaForge
>alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
>"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
>-Bill Watterson
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat May 14 16:42:38 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 11:42:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The spiritual life clarified
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050514114117.01ced3c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

from THE ONION:

LOS ANGELES?According to a report released Monday by the American
Institute of Religions, the Church of Scientology, once one of the
fastest-growing religious organizations in the U.S., is steadily losing
members to the much newer religion Fictionology.

"Unlike Scientology, which is based on empirically verifiable
scientific tenets, Fictionology's central principles are essentially
fairy tales with no connection to reality," the AIR report read. "In
short, Fictionology offers its followers a mythical belief system free
from the cumbersome scientific method to which Scientology is
hidebound."

Created in 2003 by self-proclaimed messiah Bud Don Ellroy,
Fictionology's principles were first outlined in the self-help
paperback Imaginetics: The New Pipe-Dream Of Modern Mental
Make-Believe.

   Fictionology's central belief, that any imaginary construct can be
incorporated into the church's ever-growing set of official doctrines,
continues to gain popularity. Believers in Santa Claus, his elves, or
the Tooth Fairy are permitted?even encouraged?to view them as deities.
Even corporate mascots like the Kool-Aid Man are valid objects of
Fictionological worship.

   "My personal savior is Batman," said Beverly Hills plastic surgeon
Greg Jurgenson. "My wife chooses to follow the teachings of the Gilmore
Girls. Of course, we are still beginners. Some advanced-level
Fictionologists have total knowledge of every lifetime they have ever
lived for the last 80 trillion years."

"Sure, it's total bullshit," Jurgenson added. "But that's Fictionology.
Praise Batman!"

While the Church of Fictionology acknowledges that its purported
worldwide membership of 450 billion is an invented number, the AIR
report estimates that as many as 70 percent of the church's followers
are former Scientologists.

Church of Scientology public-relations spokesman Al Kurz said he was
"shocked" when he learned that Fictionology is approaching the
popularity of his religion.

"Scientology is rooted in strict scientific principles, such as the
measurement of engrams in the brain by the E-Meter," Kurz said.
"Scientology uses strictly scientific methodologies to undo the damage
done 75 million years ago by the Galactic Confederation's evil warlord
Xenu?we offer our preclear followers procedures to erase overts in the
reactive mind. Conversely, Fictionology is essentially just a bunch of
make-believe nonsense."

Hollywood actor David McSavage, who converted to Fictionology last
year, attempted to explain.

"Scientology can only offer data, such as how an Operating Thetan can
control matter, energy, space, and time with pure thought alone,"
McSavage said. "But truly spiritual people don't care about data,
especially those seeking an escape from very real physical, mental, or
emotional problems."

   McSavage added, "As a Fictionologist, I live in a world of pretend.
It's liberating."

A tax-exempt organization, the Church of Fictionology stands poised to
become a great moneymaking power if it continues to grow at its current
rate?a situation Kurz called "outrageous."

"In recruiting new members, Fictionology preys on the gullible with
fanciful stories and simple-minded solutions," Kurz said. "Fictionology
is depriving legitimate churches of the revenue they need to carry out
charitable works worldwide?important charitable works like clearing the
planet of body-thetan implants."




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat May 14 20:16:10 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 13:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
> > What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the
> technology 
> > is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can
> get 
> > access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars.
> 
> I'd say that is very unlikely.  After all, the rich like
> keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they
> have no interest in these new technologies not becoming
> commodities that are safe and easily available to them.

Unless they want the techs to become *only* available to them.  Which
is a common misunderstanding of technological development possessed
by many elites, who think it is possible to restrict certain techs
only to the rich and powerful forever.  Just look at how well the
security restrictions on nuclear weapons have worked...er, well, maybe
the restrictions on biotech...no, maybe the restrictions on
cryptography?

Still, while there may be some element of this, it's not the main
driving force behind neoluddism.  Many people honestly don't grok the
core concetps of science, and really don't understand* any other way to
greet significant changes than fear and panic.

* I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of such things as
investigation and research to dig up the truth.  But to them, these are
remote abstractions that other people do, not an activity they
themselves should undertake.  (Many even think they *can* not read up
on things, after practicing for so long the mindset of letting their
eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the slightest hint of
complexity.  Reacting to complexity with mental strategies to break it
down into understandable parts is a learned art - one that some may
have more of a genetic predisposition towards than others, but
ultimately learned nonetheless.)


From riel at surriel.com  Sat May 14 22:45:50 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 18:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505141844350.15153@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> I note that all of the structures it proposes keep all the faces
> parallel, and do not attempt to bias the Casimir effect one way or
> another.  So of course those systems remain conservative.

For the people in search of an analogy, think about how
the laws of electricity get applied differently depending
on whether we're talking about DC, AC or extremely high
frequency radiation.

-- 
"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 benboc at lineone.net  Sat May 14 23:25:56 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 00:25:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The spiritual life clarified
In-Reply-To: <200505141800.j4EI08R29355@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505141800.j4EI08R29355@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42868904.7010604@lineone.net>

Thanks, Damien. That really gave me the giggles.

ben


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 00:38:34 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515003834.95224.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>     In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's
> anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought.
> What if all this opposition from the religious right
> fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against
> transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the
> rich are just biding their time knowing that the
> technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it
> SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the
> proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. 

Of  course that is the reason. Furthermore, it is a good conspiracy
theory because it will take so long to prove, that technology will
quickly catch up and whatever longevity the rich and powerful gain can
be attributed to clean living and nutritional supplements.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 00:42:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> > What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the
> technology 
> > is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can
> get 
> > access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars.
> 
> I'd say that is very unlikely.  After all, the rich like
> keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they
> have no interest in these new technologies not becoming
> commodities that are safe and easily available to them.

You aren't seeing the point: just because technology isn't available to
US doesn't mean it won't be available to THEM. Much like machine guns,
most people think they are banned, while in reality production/supply
is limited, prices have escalated out of reach of most people, and
those who gain the special permission of govt can enjoy the privilege.

Given the propensity of Chinese, for example, to kill off daughters, or
selectively abort based on gender of the fetus (to describe it more
euphemistically for the politically correct here), the PTB clearly feel
that most of the human race cannot responsibly handle advanced
reproductive and longevity technologies.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun May 15 02:29:53 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:29:53 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <086501c558f5$fa218620$6e2a2dcb@homepc>


The Avantguardian wrote:

>    In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's
> anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought.
> What if all this opposition from the religious right
> fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against
> transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the
> rich are just biding their time knowing that the
> technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it
> SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the
> proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will
> always be someplace in the world where it could be
> allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any
> trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus
> medical costs right out of their pocket. Since
> insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is
> illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon?

Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage you to run with it and 
see how you can develop the scenario.

Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a class?

Brett Paatsch




From megao at sasktel.net  Sun May 15 02:40:22 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:40:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net>

You might call that the old "dog in the manger syndrome".

Those who cannot or wish not to avail themselves try to feel better 
about their condition by
pulling any bystanders into their "party in the cesspool".

There may also be the inverse;  those who have succeeded to  crawl out 
of the cesspool
may feel that those remaining are unworthy of anything better than the 
slop they are wallowing in
so may try to squeeze all they can out of the unfortunate ones all the 
while blocking the path out
for the same ,  so that their personal self worth , ego and power might 
be increased.

Humans can be a real embarrassment at times.
Or maybe it is all part of the process of natural selection.


Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the
>>>      
>>>
>>technology 
>>    
>>
>>>is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can
>>>      
>>>
>>get 
>>    
>>
>>>access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'd say that is very unlikely.  After all, the rich like
>>keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they
>>have no interest in these new technologies not becoming
>>commodities that are safe and easily available to them.
>>    
>>
>
>Unless they want the techs to become *only* available to them.  Which
>is a common misunderstanding of technological development possessed
>by many elites, who think it is possible to restrict certain techs
>only to the rich and powerful forever.  Just look at how well the
>security restrictions on nuclear weapons have worked...er, well, maybe
>the restrictions on biotech...no, maybe the restrictions on
>cryptography?
>
>Still, while there may be some element of this, it's not the main
>driving force behind neoluddism.  Many people honestly don't grok the
>core concetps of science, and really don't understand* any other way to
>greet significant changes than fear and panic.
>
>* I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of such things as
>investigation and research to dig up the truth.  But to them, these are
>remote abstractions that other people do, not an activity they
>themselves should undertake.  (Many even think they *can* not read up
>on things, after practicing for so long the mindset of letting their
>eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the slightest hint of
>complexity.  Reacting to complexity with mental strategies to break it
>down into understandable parts is a learned art - one that some may
>have more of a genetic predisposition towards than others, but
>ultimately learned nonetheless.)
>_______________________________________________
>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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050514/52ad19d2/attachment.html>

From aiguy at comcast.net  Sun May 15 03:41:33 2005
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 23:41:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze
In-Reply-To: <20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com>

 
How can people be collecting this stuff?

Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by atomic
weapons is so long that it would leave the areas uninhabitable for thousands
if not tens of thousands of years?

Which leads me to another question I've had for ages.

What is left after an underground nuclear blast?

Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern created
by all the heat and pressure.

If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones.

Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so
radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless because
of the radioactivity.

Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created new
crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be created?

I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic pretty
interesting.   

Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject?

Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by government
restriction to these sites?
 
-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze

On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 08:31:09AM +0200, scerir wrote:
> Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman,
> about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html

The artificial mineral created in the blast is called trinitite:

http://www.google.com/search?q=trinitite&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&sta
rt=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official




From megao at sasktel.net  Sun May 15 02:49:08 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:49:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4286B8A4.60101@sasktel.net>

You know, that fits very well into the medical marijuna situation.
The pharmaceutialized version @ 15-30,000/year is clearly available to 
the most able to pay
and the knowledge of the longevity potential of the substances within is 
reasonably accessible
but the continuence of prohibition laws creates a good highly 
restricted  market system and cash flow to those
capable of manipulating the key positions in that economy.

As an aside I include in my definition of medical marijuna the hemp 
chemistry which lacks the
psychogenic factors but reatins the entire remainder of the underlying 
chemistry.




Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the
>>>      
>>>
>>technology 
>>    
>>
>>>is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can
>>>      
>>>
>>get 
>>    
>>
>>>access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'd say that is very unlikely.  After all, the rich like
>>keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they
>>have no interest in these new technologies not becoming
>>commodities that are safe and easily available to them.
>>    
>>
>
>You aren't seeing the point: just because technology isn't available to
>US doesn't mean it won't be available to THEM. Much like machine guns,
>most people think they are banned, while in reality production/supply
>is limited, prices have escalated out of reach of most people, and
>those who gain the special permission of govt can enjoy the privilege.
>
>Given the propensity of Chinese, for example, to kill off daughters, or
>selectively abort based on gender of the fetus (to describe it more
>euphemistically for the politically correct here), the PTB clearly feel
>that most of the human race cannot responsibly handle advanced
>reproductive and longevity technologies.
>
>Mike Lorrey
>Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
>"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
>Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
>http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050514/46c3697c/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 04:14:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515041430.80439.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Gary Miller <aiguy at comcast.net> wrote:
>  
> How can people be collecting this stuff?
> 
> Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by
> atomic weapons is so long that it would leave the areas
> uninhabitable for thousands if not tens of thousands of years?

Obviously someone suffering from being programmed by years of
Superman/Kryptonite disinformation. Gotta watch out for that Marvel
Comics, they are just one more commie front.... Firstly, not all
radiation is the same. Long half lives typically indicate that the
isotopes involved are very stable and emit a very low level of
radiation. Secondly, having a small piece of low radiation material
(like, say, a piece of uranium ore, depleted uranium, or irradiated
glass) is markedly different from handling enriched fissile materials,
or even from living in a location where all the landscape has a low
level of residual radioactivity. Living at Trinity is bad for you, but
visiting there, or taking home a small piece of trinitite, is not
unsafe. 

Glass is also much more stable than, say, a piece of radioactive dust.
You inhale far more radioactive isotopes each day from coal plant and
diesel fueled vehicle emissions into the urban atmosphere. Coal plants
sell their fly ash for filler to cement manufacturers for filler,
despite being so laden with radioactive heavy metal isotopes that it
would be high level nuclear was if it was produced by a nuclear plant.
This is the true source of most residential radon contamintion, not
natural emissions from granite rock formations.

> 
> Which leads me to another question I've had for ages.
> 
> What is left after an underground nuclear blast?

A crater, a lump of radioactive rock and soil, and if near a water
table, leaching death....

> 
> Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern
> created by all the heat and pressure.

Supposedly.

> 
> If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones.

Could be. I don't think you'd want a loved one wearing it around her
neck. She might need a thyroid transplant a few decades hence, at least
for those from a recent blast.

> 
> Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so
> radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless
> because of the radioactivity.
> 
> Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created
> new crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be
> created?
> 
> I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic
> pretty interesting.   
> 
> Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject?
> 
> Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by
> government restriction to these sites?

That is a pretty good guess. I doubt, though, that a blast would
produce very large gems. Large carat gemstones require a significant
amount of constant pressure for a long term to grow without massive
flaws and detectable spectral differences. A blast produces a very
short period of pressure. Even then, most of the crystals that it
produces would be glass/quartz of little value.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 scerir at libero.it  Sun May 15 05:09:43 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:09:43 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze
References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com><001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj>
	<20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <001901c5590c$4e3f2d50$54c61b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Gary Miller"
> I realize this is a lot of questions but I find
> the whole topic pretty interesting.
> Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted
> to this subject?

No, but there are stories about *what* was happening
at Oak Ridge, at that time :-). Oppenheimer sent there
Emilio Segr? http://www.aip.org/history/esva/
and then R.Feynman. Both wrote few pages about
their missions. (Segr? told me that, during that
mission, few items were stolen, at Oak Ridge,
from his luggage, which was locked. The Army
thought he was keeping some 'equations' secret
or, more probably, he was taking secrets
to Oak Ridge, from Los Alamos, and that was
forbidden.)

Feynman reports ....

Well, I want to tell about some of the special problems
I had at Los Alamos that were rather interesting.
One thing had to do with the safety of the plant at
Oak Ridge. Los Alamos was going to make the bomb,
but at Oak Ridge they were trying to separate
the isotopes of uranium - uranium 238 and uranium 235,
the explosive one. They were just beginning to get
infinitesimal amounts from an experimental thing of 235,
and at the same time they were practicing the chemistry.
There was going to be a big plant, they were going to have
vats of the stuff, and then they were going to take
the purified stuff and repurify and get it ready for
the next stage. (You have to purify it in several stages.)
So they were practising on the one hand, and they were just
getting a little bit of U235 from one of the pieces
of apparatus experimentally on the other hand.
And they were trying to learn how to assay it, to determine
how much uranium 235 there is in it - and though we would
send them instructions, they never got it right.
So finally Segre [Emilio Segr?] said that the only
possible way to get it right was for him to go down there
and see what they were doing. The Army people said,
'No, it is our policy to keep all the information
of Los Alamos at one place.'
The people in Oak Ridge didn't know anything about
what it was to be used for; they just knew what
they were trying to do. I mean the higher people knew
they were separating uranium, but they didn't know how
powerful the bomb was, or exactly how it worked or anything.
The people underneath didn't know at all what they were doing.
And the Army wanted to keep it that way. There was no
information going back and forth. But Segre insisted they'd
never get the assays right, and the whole thing would go up
in smoke. So he finally went down to see what they were doing,
and as he was walking through he saw them wheeling a tank
carboy of water, green water - which is uranium nitrate solution.
He says, 'Uh, you're going to handle it like that
when it's purified too? Is that what you're going to do?'
They said, 'Sure - why not?'
'Won't it explode?' he says.
'Huh! Explode?'
And so the Army said, 'You see! We shouldn't have let any
information get to them! Now they are all upset.'
Well, it turned out that the Army had realized how much
stuff we needed to make a bomb - 20 kilograms or whatever
it was - and they realized that this much material,
purified, would never be in the plant, so there was
no danger. But they did not know that the neutrons
were enormously more effective when they are slowed down
in water. And so in water it takes less than a tenth
- no, a hundredth - as much material to make a reaction
that makes radioactivity. It kills people around and so on.
So, it was very dangerous, and they had not paid any attention
to the safety at all.
So a telegram goes from Oppenheimer to Segre:
'Go through the entire plant. Notice where all the
concentrations are supposed to be, with the process
as they designed it. We will calculate in the meantime
how much material can come together before there's an explosion.'
Two groups started working on it. Christie's group worked
on water solutions and my group worked on dry powder in boxes.
We calculated about how much material they could accumulate
safely. And Christie was going to go down and tell them all
at Oak Ridge what the situation was, because this whole thing
is broken down and we have to go down and tell them now.
So I happily gave all my numbers to Christie, and said, you have
all the stuff, so go. Christie got pneumonia; I had to go.
I never traveled on an airplane before. I traveled on
an airplane. They strapped the secrets in a little thing
on my back! The airplane in those days was like a bus,
except the stations were further apart. You stopped off
every once in a while to wait.
There was a guy standing there next to me swinging a chain,
saying something like, 'It must be terribly difficult to fly
without a priority on airplanes these days.'
I couldn't resist. I said, 'Well, I don't know. I have a priority.'
A little bit later he tried again. 'It looks like this.
There are some generals coming. They are going to put off
some of us number 3's.'
'It's all right,' I said, 'I'm a number 2.'
He probably wrote to his congressman - if he wasn't
a congressman himself - saying, 'What are they doing
sending these little kids around with number 2 priorities
in the middle of the war?'
At any rate, I arrived at Oak Ridge. The first thing I did
was have them take me to the plant, and I said nothing,
I just looked at everything. I found out that the situation
was even worse than Segre reported because he noticed
certain boxes in big lots in a room, but he didn't notice
a lot of boxes in another room on the other side
of the same wall - and things like that. Now, if you have
too much stuff together, it goes up, you see.




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 08:19:43 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 01:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515081943.4559.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage
> you to run with it and 
> see how you can develop the scenario.

Huh? I am guessing you didn't read my rebuttal. It is
posted simply as a reply to Natasha's post about the
CBC's Manifesto. I may write an "Immortalist's
Manifesto" later but for the time being, I think I got
irritation at the CBC out of my system.


> Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a
> class?

Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather
flock together." When's the last time some ordinary
guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They
would bind together because they have more in common
with one another than they do with us. The way they do
it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business
deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name
a few off the top of my head. Did I understand your
question correctly?

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 08:25:38 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 01:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515082538.45735.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> * I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of
> such things as
> investigation and research to dig up the truth.  But
> to them, these are
> remote abstractions that other people do, not an
> activity they
> themselves should undertake.  (Many even think they
> *can* not read up
> on things, after practicing for so long the mindset
> of letting their
> eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the
> slightest hint of
> complexity.  Reacting to complexity with mental
> strategies to break it
> down into understandable parts is a learned art -
> one that some may
> have more of a genetic predisposition towards than
> others, but
> ultimately learned nonetheless.)

Do you really think that the rich are this stupid? How
did they get rich if this is the case? I suppose they
could have inherited it all but how would they keep
it, if they don't have the simple ability to process
information and think for themselves? Or are your
refering specifically to the "poor" religious right?





The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun May 15 15:34:16 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:34:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
Message-ID: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net>

The Avantguardian wrote:
> Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather
> flock together." When's the last time some ordinary
> guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They
> would bind together because they have more in common
> with one another than they do with us. The way they do
> it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business
> deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name
> a few off the top of my head.


I take it from this that you do not actually know many
rich people, as this is a very strange and not very
realistic characterization.  Most are indistinguishable
from everyone else, hang out with the same people
they always did, and generally do what they've
always done.  There is a tiny blue blood set, but
the vast majority aren't in it.


j. andrew rogers
  


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun May 15 16:27:39 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:27:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net>
References: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0505151222590.-125771@pentium.mb.willtown.net>





On Sun, 15 May 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
> > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather
> > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary
> > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They
> > would bind together because they have more in common
> > with one another than they do with us. The way they do
> > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business
> > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name
> > a few off the top of my head.
>
>
> I take it from this that you do not actually know many
> rich people, as this is a very strange and not very
> realistic characterization.  Most are indistinguishable
> from everyone else, hang out with the same people
> they always did, and generally do what they've
> always done.  There is a tiny blue blood set, but
> the vast majority aren't in it.
>


Yes, I agree with this assessment. Check out "The Millionaire Next
Door" - which, IIRC, was discussed here at some length a few years
ago (2000?).

The Millionaire Next Door
by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D. and William D. Danko, Ph.D.


Regards,
MB




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun May 15 16:41:18 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515164118.10557.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
> The Avantguardian wrote:
> > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather
> > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary
> > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They
> > would bind together because they have more in common
> > with one another than they do with us. The way they do
> > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business
> > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name
> > a few off the top of my head.
> 
> I take it from this that you do not actually know many
> rich people, as this is a very strange and not very
> realistic characterization.  Most are indistinguishable
> from everyone else, hang out with the same people
> they always did, and generally do what they've
> always done.  There is a tiny blue blood set, but
> the vast majority aren't in it.

Technically, meeting at social gatherings and doing business deals with
one another are accurate - but misleading.  Most of these social
gatherings are open to anyone willing to at least act like and have the
(non-expensive) trappings of a businessperson.  Acting like one
requires some research into what all is expected, but it's doable.
Trappings, at least in the Silicon Valley scene (and, I'm told,
increasingly elsewhere) mainly consists of business-casual dress
(something you'd wear to an office; 3-piece suits and the like are only
expected at the extreme upper end), business cards, and an office (can
be a home office) and something to sell (product or service) that the
cards point one to.  Anyone can show up, but most of the time the rich
tend to do more business with those who have done a lot of business
before - a fair number of whom have become rich as a result.

Most of the rich do seem to be regular people only wealthier - and some
caution in matters financial (very few people get rich by recklessly
spending money).  Not that this caution is all that is needed to become
rich, just a common trait.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun May 15 16:49:43 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515164943.25786.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you really think that the rich are this stupid?

> Or are your
> refering specifically to the "poor" religious right?

I was referring to neoluddites, most of whom do indeed appear to be
poor and/or religious and/or with the set of politics commonly
described as "right".  Those with significantly more wealth than
average appear, mostly, to be on our side if they've considered the
issue at all.  There are a few rich who fear science, and while these
few may give the appearance of wealthy allies, this is not the case in
truth.  Fear-motivated unpaid labor can do a lot of things that paid
labor can also do, and the former often cares about its work.  (The
problem, of course, lying in the type of work that fear can motivate
one to do...)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 19:51:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515195108.5672.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Do you really think that the rich are this stupid?
> 
> > Or are your
> > refering specifically to the "poor" religious right?
> 
> I was referring to neoluddites, most of whom do indeed appear to be
> poor and/or religious and/or with the set of politics commonly
> described as "right".  Those with significantly more wealth than
> average appear, mostly, to be on our side if they've considered the
> issue at all.  There are a few rich who fear science, and while these
> few may give the appearance of wealthy allies, this is not the case
> in
> truth.  Fear-motivated unpaid labor can do a lot of things that paid
> labor can also do, and the former often cares about its work.  (The
> problem, of course, lying in the type of work that fear can motivate
> one to do...)

I have rarely seen religious right wingers protesting, or sabotaging,
technology and development. They are almost unanimously radical left
wingers, many of which are trust fund babies with too much time on
their hands and all the wrong professors at college.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br  Sun May 15 20:23:21 2005
From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:23:21 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] just a though I had.... 
Message-ID: <200505151723.21250.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>

The Fate of Mankind

 It is now the year 2005, the ocidental civilization has taken three thousand 
years to do this, but it has now concentrated almost all the power there is 
to achieve in the world. Wherever capitalism arrives, it vanishes the 
previous culture. To avoid wars, the world has seemed always to be forced to 
make the two powers to be more likely to each other, and this brought 
padronization of thoughts. Individualism as an ideological doctrine has been 
settled never to be challenged again, as it fills human needs better than 
predecessors. The internal powers of civilization are being concentrated, 
more and more, just like properties, weapons, and media power. At this 
moment, some possible futures arrive, and this text has the pretension of 
analyzing whatsoever comes for us. 
 The process of concentrating power, as controlled itself by nobody is very 
likely to keep itself rolling, in this meanwhile, the world will be much like 
the same, famine and suffering everywhere, and some millions of rich happy 
people, that are not so happy as we want to beleive they are. No 
concentration of power will make people more or less happy, since people were 
designed by evolution not to be happy always at all. Being unhappy with the 
growing concentration, the people who held the power, during history, have 
had two main options, make their own subordinates to suffer, or make their 
own subordinates to make others to suffer in their place. When one becomes a 
murderer dictador, he has made the first choice, when he declares war for any 
cause, he chose the second one. It is a part of our own nature to use our 
power to inflict suffering on others, since only this way we can make them 
remember that we are the ones with the power. 
 The fact that we are still alive today can probably be attributed to the fact 
that when the technology to make overwhelming bombs has been achieved, we 
were living in representative (democratic or not) countries. The 
representative power, like US government for example, usually holds enormous 
amounts of destructive possibilities, and a huge number of people to stop 
this destruction being made. Governments are constituted by thousands if not 
millions of people, and this makes them very likely not to take some very 
impulsive actions against their own or other peoples. The UN and NATO have 
been created to be an extra force of power moralization, for cases where mass 
histeria allows a country to do what its governers want, like the nazi 
Germany once did. Its own government people, the UN, NATO, and the US are 
today the most powerfull organizations there are against government coercion 
and destruction. 
	Most people today would agree that the biggest threat for our world is  The 
United States of America government and their politics. I would argue in the 
opposite direction, US is today the only organization with power enough to 
fight against the desires of other powerfull non representative 
organizations. The monetary capitalism is concentrating in the hand of few 
make some people to be ultra-powerful, and this people usually do not have 
any group of thousands of people to make them to think twice before killing 
inumerous people. If one of this mighty people wanted to cause big 
destruction, he would be considered a terrorist and his power would diminish 
in the hands of US government. 
	But with alliances and technology, the power of terrorists, or any other non 
representative group only rises, and the more powerful they become,  the 
bigger threat they are. If we were to extrapolate this thought, the obvious 
conclusion would be that if no international power, like UN were given power 
enough, sooner or later the terrorist organizations would be able to achieve 
enough power to thread the US, and start a world war that is very likely to 
give a terminate end to our species. But extrapolating is a very incomplete 
technique, if we do not extrapolate a sistem as a whole. 
	The extrapolation I have proposed in the last paragraph is an extrapolation 
of human condition, it is, for all purposes, valid if, and only if, the human 
condition remains the same. But, just like technology has been giving birth 
to inumerous amounts of different weapons and ways of killing each other, it 
also brings a hope for our future. If technology could make us change the 
human condition before the individual powers become a threat to the power of 
nations, than the powerful individuals would not anymore need to use their 
power in coercion instances. 
	  The thing that I have been hitherto considering as human condition is the 
sum of all structures our brain developed in our evolutionary past. This 
complex set of evolutionary based commands control the way we live, think and 
proceed, including the way that we administer our power, inflict damage, and 
love our close related. 
	With the development of technologies we are now in a very crucial moment for 
our destiny, this happens because we have already ultrapassed the moment when 
humanity has enough power to destroy us all, and we still have not 
ultrapassed the moment when we can get rid of the evolutionary constraints 
that make us think like we think. We still think in terms of achieving power, 
and we have bombs to do so if no powerful organization stops us from doing 
it. 
	If the sum of international organization plus the US manage to maintain  the 
power of few under control for enough time, we still have a chance of 
surviving as a species. 
	This way is through artificial inteligence and/or biological manipulation.  
Supose that our brains could, genuinely, feel very happy about helping 
others, and had no desire for obtaining absolute power in our own community, 
in this case, the world would probably become a paradise within few years or 
decades. We would still be persecuting happiness, but happiness would have 
two main differences, the first one is that it would be something real, 
rather than just poetry, the second one is that its consequences would be the 
end of suferring, not its maintance at a stabel level, as it happens today. 
 If we understand the working of brains in a way much ahead of what we know 
today, we will be able to achieve the goal of both creating real happiness 
and making this happiness to serve other purpose rather than the genes will 
to replicate. Our knowledge about the world, and about brains, has been 
constantly increasing, and, further than that, the speed rate about which it 
increases also increses within time. Like an object will fall at a constantly 
higher speed if thrown out of a building, our knowledge seems to be speeding 
up its learning general ability. Having this on mind, we should consider that 
we are very likely to be able to change the human condition within no more 
than one century. Take for instance the number of pharmaceutical 
mood-changing remedies we already have. Millions of people have taken 
anti-depression drugs and challenged one of the human weaknesses, and with 
the current speed of technological progress, we will soon be able to 
challenge all of them. 
 Once we have the power to design our own evolution, and therefore the way we 
think, the world will probably change in unpredictable ways. We have been, 
until recend time, restricted by the mechanical restictions in achieving 
power. The whole of our species has already surpassed this point, and 
therefore we are now able to kill ourselves if we make a coordenated effort 
for it. The time has come were the effort to achieve autodestruction is every 
day smaller, since fewer people achieve constantly more and more power. We 
have also been restricted by the ways our brains make us think, this time is 
also near to its end, and I could say that our past sixty, and probably the 
next sixty or so years are, by far, the most important years for our species 
as a whole. Through representative governments and international powerful 
forces we have achieved to survive this age for sixty years, but the 
concentration of power is only growing, and its growth must or be traced by 
the powers of the large groups, or it must be surpassed by technological 
power over brain and genetic manipulation. 
 If the UN, NATO and the US manage to keep us alive until these new forms of 
technology arrises, than our fate is going, at least for a while, be somehow 
near to the so wished paradises of the prophets and leaders during history. 
In the other case, we will have lost the battle against ourselves, against 
what it means to be human, ultimately, we would have lost the battle to our 
genes, if this happens to be the case, we may, during our last breath still 
be able to have a consolation to fill our needs of defeating oponents, the 
genes that killed us will die with us. 
 


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun May 15 22:20:46 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:20:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] The Long Emergency: ...
Message-ID: <4287CB3E.808@mindspring.com>

[See also:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1113439994015&has-player=true]


"The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and 
Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century"

James Howard Kunstler

Atlantic Monthly Press
320 pages
Nonfiction


After the oil is gone
Say goodbye to your suburban house, yoke up that horse, and stand by to 
repel pirates! Author James Howard Kunstler talks about the dire world of 
his new book, "The Long Emergency."

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Katharine Mieszkowski


May 14, 2005 | Suburbs will collapse into slums. Farmhand will be a more 
viable career choice than public relations executive. And avoiding 
starvation will replace avoiding boredom as the national pastime.

Those are just a few of the predictions that James Howard Kunstler makes in 
his new book. "The Long Emergency" paints a dystopic view of the United 
States in the wake of what Kunstler dubs the "cheap oil fiesta." It's a 
future the author insists is not apocalyptic. Calling it the end of the 
world be too easy.

No, Kunstler believes the human race will survive as we slip down the other 
side of Hubbert's Oil Peak. But the high standard of living we've built by 
gorging on cheap oil will not. America, as a political entity, will be 
history too.


When will the doom begin? It already has. "There have been no significant 
discoveries of new oil since 2002," Kunstler says. And the Saudis have 
screwed up their super-giant Ghawar oil field, long a fossil-fuel font for 
the U.S. "They have damaged it by pumping enormous amounts of salt water 
into it; in fact, the field itself may be entering depletion," he says.

A former journalist turned novelist turned social critic, Kunstler is best 
known for his book excoriating the suburbs, "Geography of Nowhere." Now he 
foresees the end of the entire artifice of American life, from the suburbs 
to the interstate highway to Wal-Mart and the global supply chain that 
supports it.

In Kunstler's world, a teenager will be better off learning how to yoke up a 
horse-drawn buggy than how to change the oil in a car. Woodshop will be more 
important than computer literacy. Among Kunstler's predictions: The South 
will devolve into agricultural feudalism and the Pacific Northwest will be 
beset by a plague of pirates from Asia. Forget about sleek hydrogen-powered 
cars coming to the rescue. For that matter, quit tilting your hopes toward 
wind power.

Kunstler displays a kind of macabre wit about the unpleasantness and strife 
that await us all. Talking to him is like trying to argue with a prophet. 
His assertions have a neat way of doubling back to anticipate your 
critiques. If you express doubt about his views, then you may well be among 
the deluded masses too addicted to your McSUV and McSuburb to accept the 
reality that lies ahead.

Salon spoke to Kunstler at his home in upstate New York, mindful that in the 
future such an hour-long, cross-country telephone call, undertaken so 
casually, could be a remote luxury, a quaint remnant of a bygone era rich in 
the splendors of oil.

Plenty of analysts are confident that in coming decades we'll switch from 
oil to another form of energy, like Europeans switching from burning wood to 
burning coal when forests became scarce. Why aren't you?

That's been a pattern in the last several hundred years, but it has followed 
a supply of mineral resources that we've exploited to their logical end. 
When a society is stressed, when it comes up against things that are hard to 
understand, you get a lot of delusional thinking.

There are at least two major mental disturbances in the collective American 
mind these days that can be described with some precision. One is the Jiminy 
Cricket syndrome -- the idea that when you wish upon a star your dreams come 
true. This is largely a product of the technological achievements of the 
last century, which were themselves a product of cheap energy: namely, 
things like our trip to the moon, combined with the effects of advertising, 
Hollywood and pop culture.

We have now become a people who believe that wishing for things makes them 
happen. Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way. The truth is 
that no combination of alternative fuels or so-called renewables will allow 
us to run the U.S.A. -- or even a substantial fraction of it -- the way that 
we're running it now.

There's another mental disturbance that Americans are suffering from. It's 
the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing -- unearned riches, 
free energy, perpetual motion -- and it's exemplified by Las Vegas. Combine 
the Jiminy Cricket syndrome and the idea that it's possible to get something 
for nothing and you end up with a population that's thoroughly deluded and 
unable to deal with reality. That's precisely where we're at.

You point out that there are all sorts of ways that we're dependent on oil 
that we don't think about.

We have evolved a cheese-doodle agriculture system run by large corporations 
like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, which grow immense amounts of corn 
by using fossil fuels to produce immense amounts of corn-based junk food. 
The prospects are poor that we will continue living this way. The 
implications are enormous. We will have to grow much more of our food closer 
to home.

Also, our national retail chain system -- otherwise known as Wal-Mart and 
Co., Wal-Mart and wannabes, Wal-Mart and imitators -- is unlikely to survive 
both the rising costs of oil and far more volatile price fluctuations. Their 
economic equation requires them to predict the cost of transport because 
their margins are so razor thin. And they won't be able to anymore.

Remember: These immensely hypertrophic organisms like Wal-Mart are products 
of the special economic growth of the late 20th century, namely an unusually 
long period of relative world peace and extraordinarily cheap energy. If you 
remove those two elements, all large-scale enterprises --corporate farming, 
big-box shopping, big government, professional sports -- are going to be in 
trouble.

So, the collapse of the cheap oil fiesta is going to...

I wouldn't call it "collapse." That's the cause of a lot of 
misunderstanding. What we're talking about is the process of heading down 
the arch of depletion, not the catastrophic cutoff of oil. Heading down the 
arch implies that we will not have the normal growth of industrial economies 
anymore. And that has tremendous implications for capital-finance 
instruments to produce wealth, namely securities and bonds. All the 
financial paper in the world is essentially based on the increasing 
accumulation of wealth.

You argue that we won't know we've hit the global oil peak until a few years 
after it's happened. There will be hangover.

The rearview-mirror effect.

What will be the first signs of the long emergency?

We're already seeing them. The two clearest signs are serious geopolitical 
friction and the volatility in the oil markets. A third one, which hasn't 
quite gotten traction, will be disruptions in the financial markets. But 
that could happen at any moment.

And the real estate bubble?

Absolutely. The housing bubble is a perverse form of financial behavior. 
It's a consequence of capital desperately seeking a way to increase in an 
industrial economy that has ceased to grow. America is no longer producing 
wealth in the conventional sense. And so the housing bubble is a way for 
residual capital to produce wealth. But like all bubbles, it's a delusional 
thing that will probably end in tears.

You write that even the educated minority in the U.S. is clueless about its 
role in geopolitical problems, like the family in your neighborhood that had 
a sign in their yard that said, "War Is Not the Answer," and two SUVs in the 
garage.

Or all my politically progressive friends who drove their SUVs to the peace 
rallies of 2003.

Why do you think that there's such a disconnect?

Because we haven't been challenged for such a long time. The last challenge 
we experienced was the OPEC oil disturbances of the 1970s, which thundered 
through our economy and caused a lot of problems. But they were short-lived 
and the cheap oil fiesta was able to continue because the final great 
discoveries of the oil age came online in the 1980s, namely the North Sea 
and the Alaska North Slope. And that allowed us to go back to sleep for 
another two decades.

Does the Iraq war presage the kind of resource wars that you see in the 
future?

The Iraq war is not hard to understand. It wasn't an attempt to steal Iraq's 
oil. If that was the case, it would have been a stupid venture because we've 
spent hundreds of billions of dollars occupying the place, not to mention 
the lives lost. It was not a matter of stealing the oil; it was a matter of 
retaining access to it. It was an attempt to stabilize the region of the 
world that holds two-thirds of the remaining oil, namely, the Middle East.

We opened a police station in the Middle East, and Iraq just happened to be 
the best candidate for it. They had a troublesome dictator. They were 
geographically located between Iran and Saudi Arabia. So we went to Iraq to 
moderate and influence the behavior of the two countries --Iran and Saudi 
Arabia -- that are so important to us. We desperately wanted the oil 
supplies to continue coming out of them in a reliable way. So the Iraq 
venture was all about stabilizing the Middle East. It raises the obvious 
question: How long can the U.S. hope to occupy unfriendly nations? The 
answer is, not forever.

Why do you skewer Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who promotes 
the idea of a futuristic hypercar, which would get 100 miles per gallon?

I regard Lovins hypercar venture as a stupid distraction, if for no other 
reason that it tends to promote the idea that we can continue being a 
car-dependent society. Clearly we can't, no matter how good the gas mileage 
is. I wrote three other books about the fiasco of suburbia before I even got 
a bug up my ass about the energy issues.

What's wrong with trying to make a more efficient car?

I'm not against efficient cars. I'm against the idea that somebody in 
Amory's position would focus on cars at the expense of something else like 
promoting walkable communities. The New Urbanist movement, for example, was 
campaigning for a much more intelligent response to suburbia at around the 
same time. And the solutions that they were promoting made a lot more sense 
than underwriting the continuation of the suburban fiasco. I think that this 
was perhaps an unintended consequence of Lovins' venture. It shows the 
limits of our imagination.

Is your basic critique of renewable energy that wind, solar and biomass all 
depend, to some extent, on fossil fuels?

That's one critique. I'm not trying to militate against them. We are going 
to use them. But we're not going to run the interstate highways and Disney 
World on them. Suburbia is not going to run on biodiesel. The easy-motoring 
tourist industry is not going to run on biodiesel, wind power and solar 
fuel. The point I would repeat is this: We don't know whether we can 
fabricate the components for these things absent a fossil-fuel economy.

My beef with the alt-fuel people is not the renewable or alt-fuel ideas 
themselves. Sooner or later, there's no question we're going to have to rely 
on them. For me, it's an issue of scale. As far as I can tell, we're much 
more likely to use these things on a very small neighborhood or town basis.

We're going to have to make tremendous readjustments in every aspect of how 
we live. Let me give you an example. One of the main characteristics of the 
suburbs is that everyone can lead an urban life in a rural setting. But land 
is simply not going to be available for suburban development anymore. So 
what we're going to see in the years ahead is the return of a much firmer 
distinction between what is urban and what is rural, between what's the town 
and what's the country. Because we're going to have to grow so much more of 
our food close to home, we're going to have to value rural land differently 
than we have for the past half century.

How will this affect our livelihoods?

We will no longer be a nation of public relations executives living 38 miles 
away from town. The future that I see tells me that the larger cities will 
be in big trouble and the action will be in the smaller cities and smaller 
towns. They will have resilience. It will be very important to live close to 
places that have viable agriculture, and the places where this is not 
possible are going to be in trouble.

The huge suburban metroplexes like New York and Chicago are not going to 
function very well. They're products of the oil age. They are oversupplied 
with skyscrapers and mega-structures that have poor prospects in a society 
with scarce energy. We will see a painful contraction in these places.

The Southwest is going to be real trouble. And the problem of contracting 
big cities will be real. I would also hasten to point out that many of them 
have already entered an advanced state of contraction: Detroit, St. Louis, 
Kansas City, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Louisville and Cincinnati. The list is 
very long of cities that have been in contraction for quite a bit of time. 
The difference, of course, is that they have been enjoying hyper-mega-growth 
in their suburbs, and that's going to stop.

What kind of reaction have you been getting when you say we're better off 
learning how to operate a horse-drawn plow than becoming a P.R. executive?

To put it mildly, a lot of people have trouble processing these ideas.

What if you put it not so mildly?

It tends to conflict with their picture of reality.

Do they take you seriously?

There is a good term for this and I hasten to point out that I did not 
invent it, although I couldn't tell you who did. It's really what's called 
"an outside context problem." It's so far from our normal realm of 
experience that we are collectively having a hard time processing it. In 
fact, we can't process it. Talking about these things tends to induce waves 
of denial, fear, ridicule.

But a great philosopher said new ideas are often greeted in three stages. 
First, they're ridiculed. Second, they're violently opposed. And finally 
they're accepted as self-evident.

What stage do you think that you're in?

I think we're in the ridicule stage, for sure. One thing that I'm predicting 
is that there will be a vigorous and futile defense of suburbia and all its 
entitlements, no matter what reality is telling us to do. And this will 
translate into a lot of political mischief. You can quote me: Americans will 
vote for cornpone Nazis before they will give up their entitlements to a 
McHouse and a McCar.

If there is such a massive threat to the American way of life, why are our 
government and civic institutions unable to foresee it and make any changes 
to address it?

You will now be enlightened: The dirty secret of the American economy for 
more than a decade now is that it is largely based on the continued creation 
of suburban sprawl and all its accessories and furnishings. And if you 
remove that from our economy there isn't a whole lot left besides hair 
cutting, Colonel Sanders' chicken, and open-heart surgery.

So it would take down the American economy?

If we had to actually reform the way that we live, or let go of some of it, 
the losses would be politically untenable. No politician, whether it is the 
gallant John Kerry or George W. Bush, will go near the issue. They know that 
if the suburban-sprawl economy is challenged there isn't a whole lot left 
behind it.

But we're going to have to let those things go, whether we like it or not. 
Just don't expect to be led through this in an orderly way. The key to 
understanding what we face is turbulence. We're going through big changes 
attended by a lot of turbulence, disorder and hardship.

The reason that I called this book "The Long Emergency" is precisely because 
it describes an interval of trouble. I'm not saying that the world is coming 
to an end. I'm saying we're going to pass through a period of history that's 
going to be very difficult. There's a distinction between calling something 
the apocalypse and calling something an epochal discontinuity.

But won't the political landscape change in reaction? If the lights aren't 
coming on because natural gas is scarce, don't you think that a lot of the 
barriers to, say, nuclear power, will drop pretty quickly?

They will shift the political landscape, and the shift will include a great 
deal of turbulence and mischief. That's precisely why the quixotic attempt 
to defend suburbia will probably produce a lot of political trouble. 
Politically, we will try to save it. We will try to take measures, whether 
that means engaging in more overseas adventures.

What I don't understand is why you're so confident that any political change 
will be futile.

I think that we've overshot our window of opportunity to have an orderly 
transition.

It's too late to invest heavily in nuclear energy?

No, we may do that. If we want to keep the lights on after 2020, we may have 
to seriously consider building more nuclear power plants. But even under the 
best circumstances, it would take five or 10 years to get them built.

Here is my talk show question: What do you think people should do?

People have to ask themselves about where they're living, whether that place 
has a viable future. If I was living in the Atlanta suburbs, I would give 
serious consideration to relocating, ditto Las Vegas or Tucson. If I was a 
young person, I would rethink my expectations to make public relations my 
career, or indeed have a corporate future at all. If I was a local 
politician, I would think very seriously about stopping the sprawl-approval 
system in my town. And I would turn my attention to local self-sufficiency. 
The bottom line is this: All these things point to the fact that we're going 
to have to live a lot more locally and profoundly in the years ahead.

The end of the cheap oil fiesta is going to destroy the suburbs and create a 
simpler, community-based future?

Let me draw a parallel for you. A lot of people point out that the kind of 
predictions I've made about the post-oil world seem to resemble the 
Pentecostal Christian scenario about apocalypse. It happens that I'm not a 
born-again Christian. My view of the future is no more a matter of 
anti-suburban religion than it is a matter of being a Christian. It was 
simply self-evident that the American way of life was moving into a kind of 
terminal stage, whether you liked it or not. And I think that there will be 
a lot of benefits for us.

What are the benefits?

I think that we will return to many social relations and social enactments 
that we lost and that were of great value to us, such as working closely 
with other people on things that really matter to us.

Like farming, so we can eat?

I'm not saying everybody is going to be a farmer. In the book, I think that 
I went to great pains to say that we were going to have to reconstruct whole 
networks of local economic relations and interdependences.

As opposed to the globalized situation we have now?

Yeah. People are working for large entities that they don't care about and 
that don't care about them. I think that people will be working on things 
that will tend to be more meaningful, that will tend to have meaning for 
their neighbors and the places that they live.

One of the great tragedies of the Wal-Mart fiasco has been the destruction 
of the social and economic roles of businesses in communities. Those roles 
were pretty complex and created deep webs of culture that we've allowed to 
be systematically dismantled and destroyed. We're going to get some of them 
back.

I also think we will cease to be a nation of TV zombies who are merely 
entertaining ourselves to avoid being bored.

So, much as we may resist, there will be upsides?

Yes. It's possible to boil them down to the idea that we will not be living 
in the kind of narcissistic isolation that was so pervasive in recent 
decades. Geopolitically, the world is going to be a larger place. But our 
individual worlds may become smaller places. American life will be much more 
about staying where you are than about ceaseless and endless and pointless 
mobility.

And that will resonate. We're afflicted by so many places that are simply 
not worth caring about anymore. This is having a tremendous effect on us. 
It's corroding our spirits. And, if pressed, I would have to say that it's 
led directly to the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing and 
if you wish upon a star your dreams come true.

Americans are suffering so much from being in unrewarding environments that 
it has made us very cynical. I think that American suburbia has become a 
powerful generator of anxiety and depression. If we happen to let it go, we 
won't miss it that much. Very few people are going to feel nostalgic about 
the parking lot between the Chuck E. Cheeses and the Kmart.

Why do you think we resist this transition?

I think the notion behind your question is that we've become so accustomed 
to leisure and comfort that we're afraid to let them go and enter a world of 
less comfort and greater toil. I myself am a fairly cheerful person. I made 
certain choices years ago that have led me to lead a rewarding and 
purposeful life. At 56 years old, I've already outlived Babe Ruth and 
Mozart. I've enjoyed the cheap oil fiesta. I barely made a living until I 
was over 40 years old as a professional writer. I've experienced a moderate 
amount of hardship myself. And I'm not afraid of it. But I also feel 
fortunate.

Fortunate for what?

I feel fortunate that I enjoyed the blandishments of modernity. I had hip 
replacement and root canal. I was able to travel on airplanes. I was able to 
take cheap food for granted. I went to the movies. I enjoyed rock 'n' roll. 
And now I'm ready to move on.



-- 
"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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 22:37:29 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515223729.99679.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
Most are
> indistinguishable
> from everyone else, hang out with the same people
> they always did, and generally do what they've
> always done.  There is a tiny blue blood set, but
> the vast majority aren't in it.

I am refering specifically to the ultra-rich
arch-conservatives that get legislation passed by a
simple expenditure of money and effort. Not the
well-to-do neighborhood guy who made well. I am not
certain that I would even include Bill Gates in this
definition because HE doesn't have a tremendous amount
of sway over legislation or the government as is
evinced by his problems with the Dept. of justice a
few years back. 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun May 15 23:09:34 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:09:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
Message-ID: <1116198574.2947@whirlwind.he.net>

> I am refering specifically to the ultra-rich
> arch-conservatives that get legislation passed by a
> simple expenditure of money and effort. Not the
> well-to-do neighborhood guy who made well. I am not
> certain that I would even include Bill Gates in this
> definition because HE doesn't have a tremendous amount
> of sway over legislation or the government as is
> evinced by his problems with the Dept. of justice a
> few years back.


With all due respect, you are crossing over into Conspiracy
Nutter land here.  How do you think *any* legislation gets
passed?  It is by "the expenditure of money and effort".
Last I checked, a lot of legislation has passed that is
very unpopular with "arch-conservatives", so it isn't as
though they were ramrodding their agenda through.

Get a grip already.  Very little has changed in Washington.
Did the world end when the watermelons had at least as much
influence in the Clinton administration?  I think not, and they
are at least as evil as your "arch-conservative", whatever that
means.

Geez, what a bunch of pathetic weenies.  They can dish it out
but they can't take it when the tables are turned.  Nobody 
gets to change basic rules to suit their desired outcome when
things don't go their way.  It does not matter who currently
holds the ball.

j. andrew rogers






From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 23:52:36 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:

> With all due respect, you are crossing over into
> Conspiracy
> Nutter land here.  How do you think *any*
> legislation gets
> passed?  It is by "the expenditure of money and
> effort".

Heh. :) Ok but rememeber that this was just a passing
thought and not some researched theory into the inner
workings what the Bilderbergers are doing in Area 51.

> Last I checked, a lot of legislation has passed that
> is
> very unpopular with "arch-conservatives", so it
> isn't as
> though they were ramrodding their agenda through.

Well goodie. These guys ought to be thinking about
baking ten more pies rather than scheming on how to
get the largest piece for themselves.

> Get a grip already.  Very little has changed in
> Washington.
> Did the world end when the watermelons had at least
> as much
> influence in the Clinton administration?  I think
> not, and they
> are at least as evil as your "arch-conservative",
> whatever that
> means.

What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of
racial term? If you say that watermelons are as evil
as arch-conservatives, I don't know what the hell we
are talking about any more. I din't even mention the
word evil and I don't think that "arch-conservatives"
are evil. I just think they oppose what we as
transhumanists want to accomplish.   

> Geez, what a bunch of pathetic weenies.  They can
> dish it out
> but they can't take it when the tables are turned. 
> Nobody 
> gets to change basic rules to suit their desired
> outcome when
> things don't go their way.  It does not matter who
> currently
> holds the ball.

No, it matters a great deal who is holding the ball.
Transhumanity hasn't ever held the ball. The only rule
I want changed is the one that says, we can't play the
game. Because if we don't play, if we can't get the
ball, and if we can't score, then quite frankly I
think the "children of the corn" nazis will doom us to
the bibically prophesied Armageddon when really we
could rebuild Eden if we CHOOSE to.  

BTW I am curious why this, which was merely a
half-formed vague idea started such a long thread,
while the stuff I actually think about before I write,
I can't tell if anyone is even reading?  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon May 16 06:35:55 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:35:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05051523354850315e@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/15/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of
> racial term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_(politics)

"The term watermelon is sometimes applied to professed Greens who seem
to put social goals higher than ecological ones: it implies someone
who is "green on the outside, but red on the inside." Some Red Greens
consider this a compliment, others an insult (like most other terms
applied to a faction by outsiders). A Red Green is not usually
considered or called a "fundi" - more often a "commie"."


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon May 16 07:10:47 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:10:47 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
References: <20050515081943.4559.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <08e701c559e6$62aca940$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage
>> you to run with it and 
>> see how you can develop the scenario.
> 
> Huh? I am guessing you didn't read my rebuttal. It is
> posted simply as a reply to Natasha's post about the
> CBC's Manifesto.

I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be honest. If you 
were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as opposed
to preaching to the converted (posting to this list) - I think
you'd need to sharpen it up. 

I'll read it again. 

>> Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a
>> class?
> 
> Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather
> flock together." When's the last time some ordinary
> guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? 

I don't know. 

>They
> would bind together because they have more in common
> with one another than they do with us. The way they do
> it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business
> deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name
> a few off the top of my head. Did I understand your
> question correctly?
 
Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. 

I don't think you've entered into your own scenario very
strongly, despite describing it as a chilling thought.

Brett Paatsch




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon May 16 15:44:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050516154404.91030.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of
> > racial term?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_(politics)
> 
> "The term watermelon is sometimes applied to professed Greens who
> seem
> to put social goals higher than ecological ones: it implies someone
> who is "green on the outside, but red on the inside." Some Red Greens
> consider this a compliment, others an insult (like most other terms
> applied to a faction by outsiders). A Red Green is not usually
> considered or called a "fundi" - more often a "commie"."

"racial term"!!! Ha. However, the term "Red Green" is reserved for
curmudgeonly redneck characters on Canadian exported PBS programs.

Another laugh a minute:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/05/in_new_york_scr.html

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon May 16 17:17:18 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:17:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy?
References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin>

An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050516/cbf7089d/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May 16 17:44:35 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy?
In-Reply-To: <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050516174435.69706.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html

Problem: the article supposes AI breakthrough in creativity - not just
seeing what has come before, but doing new things - yet supposes that
AIs will not be able to learn from the example of human emotions.
(For example: the article says that doctors are being replaced by
robots for high-precision surgery...yet does not note that those robots
are guided and programmed by the doctors they supposedly replace.)


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon May 16 20:09:58 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be
> honest. If you 
> were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as
> opposed
> to preaching to the converted (posting to this list)
> - I think
> you'd need to sharpen it up. 

      Yes. It is a bit ranty. I rant when I get angry.
The prospect that the very things I have been spending
nearly a decade going to school to learn how to do
being made completely illegal before I even get out of
school really ticks me off. Especially when they are
fallaciously based on some vague xtian notion that
"death and suffering are part of God's plan". 
     The same bunch of guys that want to unleash the
"armies of compassion" to "free" the world, have
simultaneously insulted my spiritual sensibilities
with their hypocrisy AND threatened my livlihood with
their proposed legislation. I feel inclined to gird
myself for memetic war. You are right, however, in
that posting to the list IS preaching to the converted
and sounding too ranty IS liable to turn away the
non-converted. 
    So how does this sound? WE write a
counter-manifesto, using language that will not
alienate or offend simple xtian folk, we get as many
signatures from list members on it as possible, and
post it to some websites. What do you say? 


> Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. 
> 
> I don't think you've entered into your own scenario
> very
> strongly, despite describing it as a chilling
> thought.

     No I have not. In fact the more I think about,
the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a
more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are
just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All
just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract
Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged
in a crusade of military world conquest.
     I don't actually have a clue what the rationale
of the well-heeled supporters of anti-cloning
legislation actually is. All I know is that if the
history of politics in America is any indicator, then
it is at least 90 degrees off from their stated
agenda.



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon May 16 20:24:00 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:24:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) What Bush got wrong about Yalta
Message-ID: <42890160.1030208@mindspring.com>

history lesson
Know Thy Allies
What Bush got wrong about Yalta.
By David Greenberg
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 10:23 AM PT

After World War I, the political right in Germany developed a myth 
called the "stab in the back" theory 
<http://www.history-of-the-holocaust.org/LIBARC/LEXICON/LexEntry/Dolchsto.html> 
to explain its people's defeat. Though military leaders had helped 
negotiate the war's end, they fixed blame on civilian leaders?especially 
Jews, socialists, and liberals?for "betraying" the brave German fighting 
men. This nasty piece of propaganda was later picked up by Hitler and 
the Nazis to stoke the populist resentment that fueled their rise to power.

America has had its own "stab in the back" myths. Last year, George W. 
Bush endorsed <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/> a revanchist view 
of the Vietnam War: that our political leaders undermined our military 
and denied us victory. Now, on his Baltic tour, he has endorsed a 
similar view of the Yalta accords, that great bugaboo of the old right.

Bush stopped short of accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston 
Churchill of outright perfidy, but his words 
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050507-8.html> 
recalled those of hardcore FDR- and Truman-haters circa 1945. "The 
agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the 
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Once again, when powerful governments 
negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet 
this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a 
continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and 
Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history."

Bush's cavalier invocations of history for political purposes are not 
surprising. But for an American president to dredge up ugly old canards 
about Yalta stretches the boundaries of decency and should draw 
reprimands (and not only from Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/yalta-delusions.html>.). 


As every schoolchild should know, Roosevelt and Churchill had formed an 
alliance of necessity with Josef Stalin during World War II. Hardly 
blind to Stalin's evil, they nonetheless knew that Soviet forces were 
indispensable in defeating the Axis powers. "It is permitted in time of 
grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge," 
FDR said, quoting an old Bulgarian proverb. He and Churchill understood 
that Stalin would be helping to set war aims and to plan for its 
aftermath. Victory, after all, carried a price.

In February 1945, the "Big Three" met at a czarist resort near Yalta, in 
the Soviet Crimea, to continue the work begun at other summits, notably 
in Tehran in 1943. (Many of the alleged "betrayals" of Yalta, at least 
in rough form, were actually first sketched out in Tehran.) By this 
time, Soviet troops had conquered much of Eastern Europe from the 
Germans, including Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, East Prussia, and 
Eastern Germany. The Western allies, meanwhile, remained on the far side 
of the Rhine River. Having made terrible military sacrifices to gain 
these positions, Stalin resolved to convert them into political payoffs.

Many of the agreements the Big Three reached at Yalta were relatively 
uncontroversial: The Allies decided to demand unconditional surrender 
from Germany, to carve up the country into four zones for its postwar 
occupation, and to proceed with plans to set up the United Nations.

But other issues were contentious. Asia was one. FDR wanted Stalin to 
enter the war against Japan, so as to obviate any need for an American 
invasion. In return, Stalin demanded that Russia regain dominion over 
various lands, notably Sakhalin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin> 
and the Kurile Islands <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurile_Islands>, 
then under Japanese control. He forswore any designs on Manchuria, which 
would be returned to China.

By far the knottiest problem?and the source of lingering rage among the 
far right afterwards?was the fate of Poland and other liberated Eastern 
European countries. Over several months, the Allies had been divvying up 
Europe according to on-the-ground military realities and their own 
individual national interests. The United States and Britain had denied 
Stalin any role in postwar Italy. Churchill and Stalin had agreed 
(without Roosevelt's participation) that Britain would essentially 
control Greece, and Russia would essentially control Romania, Bulgaria, 
and Hungary.

Poland was another matter. In Lublin, Poland, the Soviets had set up a 
government of pro-Communist Poles. Back in London, however, a 
pro-Western group claimed to be the true government-in-exile. Throughout 
the war, Stalin had acted with customary barbarity in seeking an 
advantage. In 1940 he ordered the slaughter of thousands of Polish army 
officers in the Katyn Forest, fearing their potential allegiance to the 
London Poles. In 1944, he stalled his own army's march into Poland to 
let the Germans put down the Warsaw Uprising, again to strengthen the 
Communists' hand.

At Yalta, Stalin wanted FDR and Churchill to recognize the Lublin 
government. They refused. Instead, all agreed to accept a provisional 
government, with a pledge to hold "free and unfettered elections" soon. 
For other liberated European countries, the Big Three also pledged to 
establish "interim governmental authorities broadly representative of 
all democratic elements in the population" and committed to free elections.

Roosevelt knew that Stalin might renege, and it was perhaps cynical for 
him to trumpet elections that might never take place. But as the 
historian David M. Kennedy has written, he had little choice, "unless 
Roosevelt was prepared to order Eisenhower to fight his way across the 
breadth of Germany, take on the Red Army, and drive it out of Poland at 
gunpoint."

Stalin, of course, never allowed elections in Poland or anywhere else. 
"Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified," Churchill wrote. 
"Still, they were the only ones possible at the time." Short of starting 
a hot war, the West was powerless to intervene, just as it was in 
Hungary in 1956 or Prague in 1968.

Because FDR kept many details of the Yalta agreements under wraps, 
people in Washington began whispering conspiratorially about "secret 
agreements." Soon, critics, especially on the far right, were charging 
that FDR and Churchill had sold out the people of Eastern Europe?charges 
that Bush's recent comments echo. They asserted that the ailing 
Roosevelt?he would die only weeks later?had come under the malign 
influence of pro-Communist advisers who gave Stalin the store.

But Yalta did not give Stalin control of the Eastern European countries. 
He was already there. Moreover, as Lloyd C. Gardner has argued, it's 
possible that postwar Europe could have turned out worse than it did. 
For all its evident failings, Yalta did lead to a revived Western 
Europe, a lessening of open warfare on the continent, and, 
notwithstanding Bush's remarks, relative stability. Without Yalta, 
Gardner notes, "the uneasy equilibrium of the Cold War might have 
deteriorated into something much worse?a series of civil wars or 
possibly an even darker Orwellian condition of localized wars along an 
uncertain border." Such "what if" games are generally pointless, but 
they can remind us that the harmonious Europe that Yalta's critics tout 
as a counter-scenario wasn't the only alternative to the superpower 
standoff.

Along with the myth of FDR's treachery in leading America into war, the 
"stab in the back" interpretation of Yalta became a cudgel with which 
the old right and their McCarthyite heirs tried to discredit a president 
they had long despised. Renouncing Yalta even became a plank in the 1952 
Republican platform, although Eisenhower did not support it. In time, 
however, these hoary myths receded into the shadows, dimly remembered 
except as a historical curiosity, where, alas, they should have remained 
undisturbed.

David Greenberg writes the "History Lesson" column and teaches at 
Rutgers University. He is the author of Nixon's Shadow: The History of 
an Image 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393048969/qid=1057920453/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-0532558-6976658?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details>.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2118394/


-- 
"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.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050516/3d8199a1/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon May 16 21:21:08 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050516212108.48830.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>     So how does this sound? WE write a
> counter-manifesto, using language that will not
> alienate or offend simple xtian folk, we get as many
> signatures from list members on it as possible, and
> post it to some websites. What do you say? 

Like many others that have already been written for our cause?

Manifestos don't accomplish much but make people feel good.  One of our
advantages is that we can consciously, deliberately focus on real
change
(or rather, stuff that works) as one of our core values.  Like, say, in
this case concentrate on the "not alienate or offend simple xtian
folk",
and find a way for politicians to incorporate our values into winning
political campaigns.

Why kill, and waste their resources, when you can co-opt?

>      No I have not. In fact the more I think about,
> the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a
> more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are
> just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All
> just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract
> Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged
> in a crusade of military world conquest.

There could be some of this...but if so, they're finding out they
simply don't have the budget for conquest - or a clue of how, exactly,
a
nominally free society can "conquer" anyone, since they are forbidden
from implementing overt fear and repression, and the covert methods
they
have slowly slipped in at home can not be implemented on the rapid
timescale that "conquest" implies.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue May 17 02:13:21 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:13:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
References: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be
>> honest. If you 
>> were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as
>> opposed
>> to preaching to the converted (posting to this list)
>> - I think
>> you'd need to sharpen it up. 
> 
>      Yes. It is a bit ranty. I rant when I get angry.
> The prospect that the very things I have been spending
> nearly a decade going to school to learn how to do
> being made completely illegal before I even get out of
> school really ticks me off. 

I *can* relate to the frustration.  Progress in biotechnology
(genetics, stem cells) does seem to have slowed considerably
in the last few years. 

>    So how does this sound? WE write a counter-manifesto,
> using language that will not alienate or offend simple xtian
> folk, we get as many signatures from list members on it as
> possible, and post it to some websites. What do you say? 

Personally, I am reluctant to get into advocating or politiking
under transhuman banners at present because I have real
problems with transhumanism as I perceive it. I think I'd be
less rather than more effective for the association. (I associate
transhumanism with technologies like cryonics, Drexlerian
nanotech and impressions about impending singularities - and 
these things are just not real to me). 

I am currently more comfortable thinking of myself as a
humanist than a transhumanist. Humanism rather than
transhumanism looks more defensible to me. What I think of
loosely as the gains of humanism seem to me to be in some
danger of being rolled backward. 

>> Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. 
>> 
>> I don't think you've entered into your own scenario
>> very
>> strongly, despite describing it as a chilling
>> thought.
> 
>     No I have not. In fact the more I think about,
> the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a
> more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are
> just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All
> just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract
> Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged
> in a crusade of military world conquest.

It seems to me that G. W. B's confidence that he is right
comes from a pretty old fashioned place - religious faith.

G.W.B has succeeded in making *his* issues *the* issues
of this period of human history.  He would not have been
able to do that in a country like the US were it not the case
that a lot of his countrymen are operating at a similar level
of "development". 

>     I don't actually have a clue what the rationale
> of the well-heeled supporters of anti-cloning
> legislation actually is. All I know is that if the
> history of politics in America is any indicator, then
> it is at least 90 degrees off from their stated
> agenda.

The reasons people are opposed to therapeutic cloning are
ultimately different for each individual but for the most part,
in my opinion they can be generalised into classes.  

1) A lot of people are still operating within traditional religious
worldviews and as rates of change in the modern world make
them personally uneasy they are more not less inclined to look
to their traditional means of support. 

2) The benefits of therapeutic cloning to most voters are not
obvious enough. They don't see what is in it for them. They 
don't understand the technologies involved. 

3) Most people are not able to be generalists in this age. They 
specialise to earn a living. 

4) Futurists compete against each other and so don't do a 
particularly good job of explaining benefits of technologies
to the public. 

5) People like transhumanists that are interested in technology
are not demanding enough of scientists and science journalists
to explain mechanisms. They cheer technological headlines without
understanding the basis of whether those things really are 
advancements. Without understanding they can't do a good job
or persading others that there is a real basis for optimism. I would
suspect that most people on this list would not be able to explain
in much detail why therapeutic cloning would be a good thing. To
often hype from futurists is passed on uncritically.  

These above are just some off the top of my head thoughts.
I'm probably getting into danger of ranting too. 

I suggest that if something bugs you personally, then act personally,
don't try to rally a movement. Say something sensible and people 
will see it as something sensible. Don't treat transhumanists as the
group of people you want to pursuade treat people that vote, your
friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you meet and talk
with as the people you want to pursuade.

Brett Paatsch



From dirk at neopax.com  Tue May 17 02:44:46 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 03:44:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze
In-Reply-To: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com>
References: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42895A9E.4020107@neopax.com>

Gary Miller wrote:

> 
>How can people be collecting this stuff?
>
>Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by atomic
>weapons is so long that it would leave the areas uninhabitable for thousands
>if not tens of thousands of years?
>
>Which leads me to another question I've had for ages.
>
>What is left after an underground nuclear blast?
>
>Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern created
>by all the heat and pressure.
>
>If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones.
>
>Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so
>radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless because
>of the radioactivity.
>
>Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created new
>crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be created?
>
>I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic pretty
>interesting.   
>
>Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject?
>
>Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by government
>restriction to these sites?
> 
>  
>
Explode a nuke in a coal mine and harvest the diamonds!

-- 
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: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 13/05/2005



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue May 17 05:20:32 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:20:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Curiouser and curiouser
Message-ID: <42897F20.7010406@mindspring.com>

  < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3960469 >

Unconventional wisdom

Curiouser and curiouser
May 12th 2005
 >From The Economist print edition






Many economists don't care whether sumo wrestling is fixed, or whether 
drug dealers prefer to live with their mothers. It is their loss



WHAT a shame about that title. "Freakonomics" is bound to dampen the 
spirits of any intelligent reader, suggesting an airport-ready, 
dumbed-down romp--the back cover would inevitably call it a 
romp--through the bogus theories of some semi-literate phoney economist. 
But that is not this book at all. Steven Levitt is no "rogue economist", 
still less a phoney one; and his book, praise be, does not try to 
explore "the hidden side of everything". Far more intelligent, modest 
and orthodox than it pretends, the book is a delight; it educates, 
surprises and amuses. It shows, in fact, what plain old-fashioned 
economics can do in the hands of a boundlessly curious and superbly 
skilled practitioner.

Mr Levitt is a professor at the University of Chicago, and a winner of 
the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded by the American Economic Association 
every two years to the best economist under 40. Not many rogue 
economists achieve either distinction. Stephen Dubner, Mr Levitt's 
co-author, is a contributor to the New York Times magazine, and 
presumably responsible for the book's frequently tiresome 
breathlessness. And it might be Mr Dubner's fault that the book often 
veers without due process between being about Mr Levitt and being by 
him, which is jarring. But the material triumphs over these flaws of 
style. Indeed, the material is quite fascinating.




 



Mr Levitt's speciality is to spot interesting questions that arise in 
apparently unrelated fields--questions that it may not even have 
occurred to anyone else to ask--and then answer them with dazzling 
ingenuity. The man's curiosity is unbounded in two complementary senses. 
He finds intriguing anomalies in extraordinarily arcane places--for 
instance, in sumo wrestling and in alternative spellings of the name 
Jasmine, to name just two topics examined in this book. And then he digs 
for explanations with total disregard for the demands of political 
correctness. You might say that he rejoices in being politically 
incorrect, except that he seems not to care much one way or the other.

One of his best-known, and in some quarters notorious, findings concerns 
America's falling crime-rate during the 1990s. Towards the end of that 
decade, confounding the expectations of most analysts, the teenage 
murder rate fell by more than 50% in the space of five years; by 2000, 
the book notes, the overall murder rate was at its lowest for 35 years. 
Other kinds of crime fell too. Why? Some gave the credit to economic 
growth; others to gun control; still others to new methods of policing, 
or to greater reliance on imprisonment, or to increasing use of the 
death penalty, or to the ageing of the population.

Mr Levitt goes carefully through these various explanations, checking 
them against the evidence. He finds that some of them do offer a partial 
explanation (more jail time, for instance), whereas others do not 
(greater use of the death penalty, new policing methods). But the most 
intriguing finding was that one of the most powerful explanations had 
not even been broached. That explanation was abortion.

The reasoning is simple enough. In January 1973, the Supreme Court made 
abortion legal throughout the United States, where previously it had 
been available in only five states. In 1974, roughly 750,000 women had 
abortions in America; by 1980, the number was 1.6m (one abortion for 
every 2.3 live births). "What sort of woman was most likely to take 
advantage of Roe v Wade?" the book asks. "Very often she was unmarried 
or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three...In other words, the 
very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion 
also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would 
have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives...In the early 1990s, just 
as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its 
late teen years--the years during which young men enter their criminal 
prime--the rate of crime began to fall."

The theory is the easy part, once you dare to articulate it. Testing it 
is quite another matter. But the book moves methodically and 
persuasively through the statistical evidence. It turns out, for 
instance, that crime started falling earlier in the states that 
legalised abortion before Roe v Wade; that the states with the highest 
abortion rates saw the biggest drops in crime (even controlling for 
other factors); that there was no link between abortion rates and crime 
before the late 1980s (when unborn criminals, as it were, first began to 
affect the figures); and that a similar association of crime and 
abortion has been found in other countries.

The book ranges over cheating teachers, corrupt sumo wrestlers and lying 
on-line daters. It asks, among other things, whether Trent Lott is more 
racist than the typical contestant on "The Weakest Link". It examines 
parallels between estate agents and the Ku Klux Klan. It asks why drug 
dealers tend to live with their mothers. Always it finds questions that 
are mischievously intriguing in themselves but that also shed light on 
broader matters as well--and then it finds ingenious ways of answering them.

"Freakonomics" looks in particular detail at racial aspects of 
parenting, which is where those variant spellings of Jasmine (or 
Jazmyne, or Jazzmin, and so on) come in. Examining the data, Mr Levitt 
tabulates the "blackest" names (Imani tops the list for girls, DeShawn 
for boys) and the "whitest" (Molly and Jake). Using all his ingenuity in 
finding and exploring data, he then examines whether being given a 
distinctively black or white name affects one's prospects in life. Does 
it? Surprisingly, perhaps, no. A boy named Jake will tend to do better 
than one called DeShawn, but that is because he is less likely to have 
been raised in a low-income, low-education, single-parent household, and 
not because the name itself confers any advantage.

So much for boys' names; what about book titles? Does a stupid title 
herald a worse-than-average book? Probably--if only because books with 
bad titles tend to be written by intellectually disadvantaged authors. 
But if a really clever author were to write a book and give it a really 
stupid title, it might turn out as well as this one.



-- 
"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.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050516/36e7f700/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 49 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050516/36e7f700/attachment.gif>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue May 17 08:02:22 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 01:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050517080222.49595.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Say something
> sensible and people 
> will see it as something sensible. Don't treat
> transhumanists as the
> group of people you want to pursuade treat people
> that vote, your
> friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you
> meet and talk
> with as the people you want to pursuade.

I do Brett. My friends and family all understand me
and are all very supportive. Plus California (the
state in which I live) pretty handily passed
Proposition 71 that raised billions of dollars for
stem cell research. My university is setting up a
whole new facility specifically for their study. So
essentially everybody within earshot is already
converted. What I need to do is be able reach the
hearts and minds of those that live in the red states.

     I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to
change their politics. They can have their guns, their
death penalties, even their wars if they want them.
All I want them to know is that they can use
therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years
without sacrificing their moral values. They can add
many many fruitful years to their lives without
harming another human being or offending God (assuming
that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered
this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it? 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue May 17 10:18:12 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:18:12 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
References: <20050517080222.49595.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0a1101c55ac9$bb3cfdb0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:


> What I need to do is be able reach the
> hearts and minds of those that live in the red states.
> 
> All I want them to know is that they can use
> therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years
> without sacrificing their moral values. They can add
> many many fruitful years to their lives without
> harming another human being ...

So tell me, talking like someone who understands
biotechnology as a result of studying it, how will 
therapeutic cloning do that? What good consequences
would flow from doing therapeutic cloning?

Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue May 17 13:36:03 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:36:03 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy?
References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net>
	<01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Kevin Freels wrote:


> An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html

The article starts :

   "Between 2015 and 2020 we will have machines that will be
    comparable to humans in terms of intelligence -- or maybe even
    significantly more intelligent."


So in 10 to 15 years from now.  But based on projections not
specified.  


If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected
by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that
would have economically and geo-politically?

Suddenly there is a workforce that works for nothing but is owned 
by one person or group of persons (like a corporation) and can be
produced at cost of materials. 

This scenario doesn't look politically credible to me even if it was 
technologically possible. To many variables besides technology have
to be assumed to have no impact on the technological realisation time.

Amongst those variables that seem to be assumed away are that there
would be no effective political resistance to such a technological
development that would revolutionise the way human societies organise
themselves economically and politically now.  

How realistic is it to assume that there would be no effective political
resistance in that sort of time frame? Surely we know enough about
how fast ordinary people that vote in elections that can control laws
that effect intellectual property can learn when we only have to project
forward another three or four US Presidential electoral periods. 

10 - 15 years can seem either like a long time or a short time
depending on how you view it. 

10 years from now, human level AI?  I'm sceptical, I don't think the
AI folk know enough today technically to climb that sort of curve in
that sort of timeframe. But even if they did, or do, the politics will 
almost certainly effect the timeframe of any roll out that would have
such revolutionary consequences.


Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050517/986ab19d/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Tue May 17 16:01:38 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:01:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The diamond age is upon us
References: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
	<09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <002f01c55af9$c4e3ff00$d7ee4d0c@MyComputer>

http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0505_16.html



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue May 17 16:03:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050517160351.48216.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > Say something
> > sensible and people 
> > will see it as something sensible. Don't treat
> > transhumanists as the
> > group of people you want to pursuade treat people
> > that vote, your
> > friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you
> > meet and talk
> > with as the people you want to pursuade.
> 
> I do Brett. My friends and family all understand me
> and are all very supportive. Plus California (the
> state in which I live) pretty handily passed
> Proposition 71 that raised billions of dollars for
> stem cell research. My university is setting up a
> whole new facility specifically for their study. So
> essentially everybody within earshot is already
> converted. What I need to do is be able reach the
> hearts and minds of those that live in the red states.

How is it that a state that was billions in the red from immigration,
ballooning health care, and defaulted on billions in socialized energy
bills not too long ago, has the temerity to blow billions on socialized
research?

> 
>      I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to
> change their politics. They can have their guns, their
> death penalties, even their wars if they want them.
> All I want them to know is that they can use
> therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years
> without sacrificing their moral values. They can add
> many many fruitful years to their lives without
> harming another human being or offending God (assuming
> that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered
> this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it? 

I think there are a lot of red staters who are with you on that. What
they don't want is their tax dollars spent on particular types of
research that involve acts that they consider murder. There is plenty
of private research money available. This is morally no different from
the right of anti-war or pacifist types to oppose their taxes paying
for bombs and wars which they derive no benefit from. Until we get
taxpayer directed budget funding, we're stuck with everybody's money
being comingled, and this leaves everyone with an equal right to see
that government spending programs they disapprove of being killed outright.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement 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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue May 17 16:51:03 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The diamond age is upon us
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050517165103.86138.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0505_16.html

Next challenge: shaping the diamonds so as to make interesting things
from them.

I wonder if it would be possible to, for example, set up a bunch of
disposable CVD chambers, linked like chain mail, where each link is
only a few millimeters around.  Even at .1 millimeters per hour growth,
that would still only take a day or two to grow, if all of the chambers
were growing diamond at once.  Then crack and throw away the chambers.
(The chambers would, of course, have to be made of something cheap -
maybe simple hollow steel rings, if that would not interact with the
CVD.  The CVD equipment itself would have to be removable and reusable,
of course, probably with one central source linked via many injector
tubes to each of the chambers.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue May 17 20:37:28 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Military-run public anonymizer service
Message-ID: <20050517203728.59695.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67542,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

Between this, GPS, and a few other technological developments I've
been seeing...random, idle thought - tongue partly in cheek here.

It has been noted, in ages past, that among the biggest threats to any
representative government was its own military, mainly because of the
danger of a coup.  In modern America, the military has been one of the
main developers of technologies that have given power to the people -
which one could see as going directly against the interests of the
corporate and political Powers That Be.

It would be humorously ironic if the government of what many still call
the most free nation on Earth, were to succumb to a military-sponsored
"coup"...which consisted of even more free people simply rendering the
government as it stands largely irrelevant.  (Let the roads fix
themselves, let volunteers take on crime while assisted/directed by AIs
programmed to determine and serve the needs of the people above any
other goal, and so forth.)


From iph1954 at msn.com  Tue May 17 23:37:51 2005
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:37:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving Closer to a Manufacturing Revolution
Message-ID: <BAY104-F30AF6E6B6F0CF927DBB49CBD160@phx.gbl>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 17, 2005

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
Mike Treder, Executive Director (1-718-398-7272) mtreder at CRNano.org
Chris Phoenix, Director of Research (1-305-387-5583) cphoenix at CRNano.org


Nanotech: Moving Closer to a Manufacturing Revolution

Nanotechnology's long-expected transformation of manufacturing has just 
moved closer to reality. A new analysis of existing technological 
capabilities, including proposed steps from today's nanotech to advanced 
molecular machine systems, was released today by the Center for Responsible 
Nanotechnology.

The study, "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How," performed by Chris 
Phoenix, CRN Director of Research, is available online at Wise-Nano.org. It 
shows how existing technologies can be coordinated toward a reachable goal 
of general-purpose molecular manufacturing.

"Molecular manufacturing offers a fundamentally new approach to build things 
'from the bottom up'," said Phoenix. "The idea is to use nanoscale machines 
to create structures with atomic precision. Ultimately, that can result in 
the ability to make complex products, both small and large, with 
unprecedented performance and value."

Theories and concepts for molecular manufacturing, first proposed in the 
1980's by nanotechnology pioneer K. Eric Drexler, have improved steadily 
since then. But recent progress is occurring at a faster pace. Less than two 
years ago, Phoenix published the first detailed architecture for a 
"nanofactory," a remarkably powerful general-purpose manufacturing appliance 
that could sit on a desktop. Since then, Drexler, working with John Burch, 
has developed an improved design that should be significantly more 
efficient.

Recent developments in DNA synthesis and polymer construction, plus advances 
in miniaturization and precision of scanning probe microscopes, are rapidly 
adding pieces to the nanotech jigsaw puzzle.

This new study puts the pieces in place. Presenting research performed by 
CRN under a grant from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, while also 
updating and combining existing work in related fields, it describes a newly 
simplified way to develop molecular manufacturing starting with today's 
technology.

Phoenix describes two approaches for building the initial basic tools with 
current technology. Other sections outline incremental improvement from 
those early tools toward the first integrated nanofactory, and analyze a 
scalable architecture for a more advanced nanofactory. Product performance 
and likely applications are discussed, as well as incentives for corporate 
or government investment in the technology. Finally, considerations and 
recommendations for a targeted development program are presented.

"We've done an end-to-end analysis of molecular manufacturing's goals as 
well as some ways to get there," said Phoenix. "More important, this study 
shows that development of the technology will be both highly desirable and 
relatively straightforward. It's probably not as far away as many people 
think, which means it's time to begin discussing the ramifications, both 
positive and negative."

"Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How" does not directly address the 
societal, environmental, medical, economic, military, security, and 
geopolitical implications of the technology's introduction. However, those 
topics are explored in other papers and articles on CRN?s website.

This release is posted online at http://CRNano.org/PR-Analysis.htm
The full study is available at http://wise-nano.org/w/Doing_MM

Other resources:
"Design of a Primitive Nanofactory" (Phoenix) ?
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm
"Productive Nanosystems: From Molecules to Superproducts" (Drexler/Burch)
http://www.nanotech-now.com/Art_Gallery/John-Burch.htm
"What is Nanotechnology?" - http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm
"What is Molecular Manufacturing?" - 
http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb
"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 and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology. We 
promote public awareness and education, and the crafting and implementation 
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  Wed May 18 01:51:26 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:51:26 +1000
Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling
	Thought.
References: <20050517160351.48216.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0ae101c55b4c$1ab7c360$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> How is it that a state that was billions in the red from
> immigration, ballooning health care, and defaulted on
> billions in socialized energy bills not too long ago, has
> the temerity to blow billions on socialized research?

How?  Ultimately, it was fairly straightforward. 59% voted for a
particular proposition that was formulated within a political context
and then put to them.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6384390/

[The Avantguardian wrote]
>>      I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to
>> change their politics. They can have their guns, their
>> death penalties, even their wars if they want them.
>> All I want them to know is that they can use
>> therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years
>> without sacrificing their moral values. They can add
>> many many fruitful years to their lives without
>> harming another human being or offending God (assuming
>> that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered
>> this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it?
>
> I think there are a lot of red staters who are with you on that.
>
> What they don't want is their tax dollars spent on particular
> types of research that involve acts that they consider murder.
>

I think that this particular concern is coming from you rather
than them Mike. (Which is fair enough you are entitled to have
concerns of your own).

Those that consider embryonic stem cell research that is destructive
to the embryo (which they consider to be a human being) murder,
are not, as a class likely to feel that it is enough to stop their tax
dollars being directed to that end, they would, logically, as a class,
want to stop all tax dollars being put to that end including tax dollars
derived from the supporters of the research. Murder is a pretty large
scale wrong, people who characterise things like early stage abortion
and the derivation  of embryonic stem cell lines as "murder" are not
merely expressing a personal preference on discretionary spending.

In my opinion, they are in error, (probably an error based on ignorance)
to see early stage abortion and the derivation of embryonic stem cells
as equivalent to the unlawful killing of a citizen or some other person.

> There is plenty of private research money available.

You say that there is plenty of private research money available Mike
but how do you decide how much is enough? Do you know for instance
what the costs of particular research projects in the stem cell areas are
and can you do a social cost benefit analysis of different avenues of
research in the stem cell field? Are you *that* knowledgeable of the
underlying science in this area that you can say with confidence that
there is plenty or private research money available to optimise the
delivery time of any benefits?

> ...This is morally
> no different from the right of anti-war or pacifist types to oppose
> their taxes paying for bombs and wars which they derive no benefit
> from.

> Until we get taxpayer directed budget funding, we're stuck
> with everybody's money being commingled, and this leaves everyone
> with an equal right to see that government spending programs they
> disapprove of being killed outright.

Do you think that taxpayer directed budget funding is practical? I agree
that everyone's money is commingled, but I don't see that it would be
practical to allow everyone that pays taxes to be able to pick and
choose where their taxes are spent on a personal basis. Do you,
or do you have something else in mind?

If your point is that, given everyone's tax money is commingled so tax 
payers
do, and ought have a right to voice their concerns and preferences about
how those taxes are spent, and to enter into discussions and to try to
persuade each other and policy makers about priorities, then I agree with
you.

If people, perhaps people such as yourself, expressed your scepticism
as to whether embryonic stem cell research, or therapeutic cloning was
cost justified then perhaps a discussion could be had that might persuade
them, or you might end up succeeding in making your case.

Brett Paatsch 




From riel at surriel.com  Wed May 18 02:05:53 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:05:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy?
In-Reply-To: <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net>
	<01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin>
	<0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505172205250.18127@imladris.surriel.com>

On Tue, 17 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected
> by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that
> would have economically and geo-politically?

Then there'd be an even better reason to get rid of
software patents ;)

-- 
"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  Wed May 18 03:41:15 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:41:15 +1000
Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy?
References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net><01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin><0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0505172205250.18127@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Tue, 17 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>> If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected
>> by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that
>> would have economically and geo-politically?
>
> Then there'd be an even better reason to get rid of
> software patents ;)

I'm curious, do you really think that it would be a good thing to get rid of
software patents or to change the software patenting laws where you
work?

I worked in the IT industry in Australia for something like 10 years but
I was a business manager rather than a programmer.

I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to strike
the right balance between creating incentives for people to be practical
and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side effects that
produce a net or suboptimal social benefit.

Its is of course always going to be possible to balance conflicting goods
suboptimally in particular laws, and technology and other things can
shift the optimal balance point over time.

I know that Microsoft is often kicked about and has faced anti-trust
actions but I don't really know whether those that complain about
software patents generally are complaining because they see that the
balance in patent law is wrong in some area or whether it is just because
they personally want a different set of laws that in the short term would be
in their personal interest.

I would like to hear from someone that knows what they are talking about
with respect to software patents and can make a reasoned case that the
existing law in their area is suboptimal and has got the balance wrong.

It is possible that the software ip laws are suboptimal in some respects
but it is also possible that those that are complaining about it are not
looking at both sides of the quid pro quo that patents are supposed to
balance.

A very good programmer that has other skills as well might want to have
some software patent laws so that they can create a path to wealth based
on their personal efforts and their merit.

Brett Paatsch 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed May 18 04:08:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A
	Chilling Thought.
In-Reply-To: <0ae101c55b4c$1ab7c360$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050518040833.36115.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paats