[extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out

Sun Nov 27 01:07:28 UTC 2005

>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>

>Check your "To:" headers in the material you quoted.  You sent your
>email to the list.  I sent my reply to the list.  None of the emails
>that I have seen from you so far have been private, including the ones
>I am replying to here.  If you want official evidence, the list
>archives - available via
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat - will show
>that, indeed, every email you have sent to me on this thread went via
>the list.  Or if you want to lodge an official complaint, perhaps this
>list's moderators can look at the archives and confirm what I am
>saying: I have, in this thread, so far only responded to emails that
>you sent to the list.

Let's get one thing straight. I e-mailed Edward Yudkowdsky from the 
Singularity Institute.
He forwarded my message to you...I didn't agree to to be posted or heard. I 
just wanted an opinion.

>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out
>Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:22:47 -0800 (PST)
>
> > So here's the problem: Since August 05, I have not been able to stop
> > researching specific fields.
>
> > My question:  In June I did something I have never done before, a
> > drug.  It
> > was a very
> > overwhelming fantastic experience for I thought of things never in my
> > wildest dreams could
> > I have imagined.
> > Could this drug have caused this effect?
>
>If by "this effect" you mean your researching - it's possible, but
>unlikely.  Being fascinated by a certain subject is an entirely natural
>phenomenom, even to the point of becoming literally addicted to finding
>out everything you can about it.  As addictions go, it's one of the
>more harmless ones (aside from the effects of spending a lot of time on
>any one thing, if it leads to neglecting your normal social duties,
>like your job).  Depending on the subject, it can even be a socially
>beneficial addiction (for instance, there are some jobs which consist
>mostly of researching various topics).
>
> > I was very unaware that by sending a private e-mail that I was giving
> > you
> > permission to make my
> > e-mails public.
>
>Check your "To:" headers in the material you quoted.  You sent your
>email to the list.  I sent my reply to the list.  None of the emails
>that I have seen from you so far have been private, including the ones
>I am replying to here.  If you want official evidence, the list
>archives - available via
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat - will show
>that, indeed, every email you have sent to me on this thread went via
>the list.  Or if you want to lodge an official complaint, perhaps this
>list's moderators can look at the archives and confirm what I am
>saying: I have, in this thread, so far only responded to emails that
>you sent to the list.
>
>--- Anna Tylor <femmechakra at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Tymes
> > I was very unaware that by sending a private e-mail that I was giving
> > you
> > permission to make my
> > e-mails public.  So therefore if you would be so kind to
> > refrain from e-mailing anybody else what I write I would ever be
> > grateful.
> > Thanking you for the last time
> > Anna
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> > >Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out
> > >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:21:53 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >--- Anna Tylor <femmechakra at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >you are absotuly right, I should have written that this is the
> > first
> > > > time I
> > > > >have ever posted anything.  My apologies to everyone.
> > >
> > >No worries.  Everyone's a newbie to these things at some time.
> > >
> > > > >Again you are right, inexperience is the problem or better yet
> > the
> > > > way I
> > > > >communicate
> > > > >may be the bigger problem but I still thought I understood it.
> > >
> > >Ah, and there lies one of the biggest problems in communicating
> > >complex ideas: the whole point of communication is to get other
> > people
> > >to understand something.  It does not matter how well you understand
> > >it, save that this helps you to find ways to express your ideas to
> > >others.  Indeed, while learning hard topics, I have often found it a
> > >useful tactic to try to explain the concepts to an imaginary child -
> > >mostly to force myself to restate the concept in clear and simple
> > terms
> > >(literally, in terms that an average child would understand).
> > >
> > > > Anyhow
> > > > >thank you for
> > > > >taking the time to respond.  If you do have a few more minutes
> > could
> > > > you at
> > > > >least look
> > > > >at what I thought I was reading and tell me if at least some of
> > it
> > > > makes
> > > > >sense, it would be much appreciated.
> > >
> > >I already commented on your earlier work, but I see you have added
> > more
> > >comments.  I shall respond to those.
> > >
> > > > >A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of
> > > > >computational leverage
> > > > >>I am proposing that a computer can enhance the mind to such an
> > > > extent that
> > > > >>it becomes a new mind-body experience
> > >
> > >Your restatement is clearer.  You should use that instead.
> > >
> > >I also suspect you would find a lot of agreement, at least among
> > those
> > >who make extensive use of the Internet, that computers can enhance
> > the
> > >mind such that it would not be totally inaccurate to call it "a new
> > >mind-body experience".  This is an extension of the old concept by
> > >vehicle operators, of being so in tune with their machine that they
> > are
> > >said to become one with it, or that the machine reacts so quickly
> > and
> > >precisely under their control that it is, at least in practical
> > terms,
> > >essentially a (removable, and thus temporary) extension of their
> > body.
> > >
> > > > >Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties of the
> > universe
> > > > (such
> > > > >as space, time, and number of dimensions) derived from modern
> > > > physics
> > > > >consistency arguments.
> > > > >>With the use of primitive tools, simple observation, and
> > graphing,
> > > > a human
> > > > >>with no knowledge of existing theories could probably come up
> > with
> > > > simple,
> > > > >>uncomplicated ideas that may benefit humans that have
> > > > >>huge knowledge and expertise.
> > >
> > >Again your restatement is clearer.  I believe that you are on the
> > path
> > >to a much clearer document.  Perhaps it would work if you collected
> > >your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or
> > >two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it)
> > >then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more
> > clearly.
> > >(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term
> > >memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you
> > >identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still
> > >understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.)  This only
> > works
> > >for a few cycles, though, before the understanding filters into your
> > >medium and long term memory - and that is when you truly need other
> > >people (who, themselves, do not already understand what you are
> > trying
> > >to say from having read and reread your words) to review your work.
> > >
> > >That said - I would disagree with the point you are making here.
> > Yes,
> > >it is not statistically impossible for an untrained human being to
> > >come up with ideas that are of use to humans with lots of training
> > and
> > >experience.  In practice, while it does happen from time to time, it
> > is
> > >very unlikely, and most of the time when untrained humans think they
> > >have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of
> > any
> > >significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen
> > to
> > >and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained
> > >individual.  (Trained individuals rarely have lots of time to spare,
> > >as their training makes their time valuable.  It is not too
> > inaccurate
> > >to view their time as a resource, in the same sense as money - at
> > least
> > >to the point of making cost-benefit decisions as to where they want
> > to
> > >spend their limited time.)
> > >
> > >Of course, this only applies when the idea is within the field of
> > the
> > >trained individual's training.  A typical CFO is usually not very
> > well
> > >trained in engineering, while a typical CTO is usually not very well
> > >trained in finance; the better CFOs and CTOs know to defer to each
> > >other when the topic of conversation drifts to the other's
> > specialty.
> > >Then again, "trained" is a relative term: CFOs and CTOs both tend to
> > >understand both engineering and finance better than a typical 10
> > year
> > >old child (and thus are "trained" in both fields as compared to said
> > >child), for example.
> > >
> > > > >The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would require a
> > > > sparse, high
> > > > >dimensional spacetime (unrestricted locality) and a formalized
> > > > observer
> > > > >mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a superset of
> > inertial
> > > > frame
> > > > >properties).
> > > > >>Therefore the ideal solution is that
> > > > >>the human with ideas needs to contact people that can
> > > > >>help to explain some "Kook" ideas that someone may have
> > > > >>(high dimensional spacetime-being the internet) and use
> > > > >>some form of communication such as the extropy chat (observer
> > > > framework).
> > >
> > >Again, your restatement is clearer - but again, I disagree.
> > >
> > >One of the basic findings of those who have extensively used the
> > >Internet to aid their mind, is that the Internet - specifically, its
> > >automated resources - are often the *first* resource one should turn
> > to
> > >when trying to validate new ideas.  If you've thought of it, it
> > often
> > >turns out that other people have thought of it before - and since
> > many
> > >pre-Internet sources of wisdom have been uploaded to the Internet
> > >already, that's 4000+ years of wisdom that are online today even
> > though
> > >the Internet has been around for barely 1% of that (and been heavily
> > >used for even less time).  There are a certain few exceptions, such
> > as
> > >thoughts on extremely new technology the likes of which were never
> > >conceived of before - but for example, the concept of "one with the
> > >machine" probably dates back to as far as there have been fast,
> > >reliable machines for people to be one with (and the basic concept
> > >actually predates what we would today call "machines": "one with his
> > >sword" is something that might have been said of certain mideval
> > >knights, or at least certain samurai from the same years, and the
> > >concept may be older than that), and many documents about this can
> > be
> > >found online.
> > >
> > >An example of this in action: going to http://www.google.com/ and
> > >searching on "one with his car" brings up over a thousand results
> > >(which is actually surprisingly low), the first of which -
> > >http://www.kriyayoga.com/love_blog/post.php/269 - is a good poetic
> > >description of the concept.
> > >
> > >And so forth.  Quite a lot of people on this list would take the
> > >existence and use of such things as obvious and granted: almost
> > >everyone who is reading this knows of and uses such things.  My
> > >favorite statement of how basic and fundamental this has become - as
> > >has the concept of checking the automated resources (which really do
> > >have all the time in the world to give you information, or
> > effectively
> > >so given how little strain one person's manual searching puts on
> > these
> > >things, as opposed to the significant time a person would spend
> > >listening to and answering a query) - is a certain alias someone
> > >created for Google: http://www.stopbeingsuchalazyfuck.com/
> > >
> > >Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking
> > >things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible.  This is
> > >almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this
> > >alternate path, but *you* did not.  However, you know it now - and
> > you
> > >might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's
> > like
> > >to use it a lot.  There are enough people who really do use it a
> > lot,
> > >who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what
> > it's
> > >like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet).
> > >
> > >A more detailed version of this advice, as applying specifically to
> > >technical topics (rather than the metaphoric topic you're writing
> > >about, but close enough to be relevant) is at
> > >http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > >
> > >A quick skim of the rest of your essay seems to follow similar
> > lines.
> > >I think I've said enough to set you on the right path - and I've got
> > >other things I need to do tonight.
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >extropy-chat mailing list
> > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the
> > Internet has
> > to offer.
> >
>http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
> >
> >   Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get
> > the
> > first two months FREE*.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special 
stationery, fonts and colors. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.